This article is written by Cobase
Treasury carries a particular kind of responsibility. It sits at the point where financial stability, risk awareness, and future ambition come together. Cash must be available when the business needs it. Risks must be understood before they escalate. Decisions have to support today’s operations while leaving room for tomorrow’s growth. This balance is not theoretical or abstract. It plays out every day, often under time pressure and with consequences that are felt immediately across the organization.
For Vincent Van Poeke, treasury became the place where this balance felt natural. Not because he planned a career in treasury from the start, but because his professional path gradually pulled him toward work that combines liquidity, analysis, and strategic thinking. Over time, treasury brought those elements together in a way that made sense. It did not change what Vincent was responsible for, but it gave those responsibilities clearer direction and purpose.
Before treasury became the core of his work, Vincent built experience across different areas of finance. He started as a financial expert with the Belgian government, then moved into banking as a financial advisor and corporate analyst. These roles were not labelled as treasury, but they consistently touched its edges.
In banking, he worked closely with treasury teams and saw how their decisions influenced funding structures, liquidity buffers, and risk exposure. This proximity gave him perspective. Treasury was not just about execution. It was about positioning the business to withstand pressure and seize opportunity.
What stood out was how central treasury was, even when it operated quietly.
Treasury is rarely visible at the beginning of a finance career. University programs and early roles tend to focus on areas like accounting, audit, corporate finance, or investment analysis. These paths are clearly defined, easy to explain, and well represented in academic settings. Treasury, by contrast, often sits behind the scenes, quietly connecting those functions without drawing much attention to itself.
Vincent’s experience reflects this reality. Treasury did not appear as a clear destination early in his career. Instead, it revealed itself gradually through exposure and relevance. As he moved closer to real business decisions, dealing with cash flows, funding structures, and financial risk, treasury became more visible. It was the point where analysis stopped being theoretical and started to have immediate consequences.
This shift did not happen by accident. It happened because treasury proved to be the place where insight could turn into action. Over time, Vincent realized that this was where his skills and interests aligned most naturally. What began as exposure slowly became clarity, and clarity turned into a deliberate choice.
Today, Vincent works primarily in treasury and financial controlling, with treasury accounting for roughly 80 percent of his daily activity. His work centers on managing cash and liquidity, maintaining bank relationships, making funding decisions, and overseeing financial risk. All of this is approached through a strong analytical lens, with careful attention to how each decision connects to the wider business.
What keeps him engaged is the dynamic nature of the role. Treasury rarely deals with static problems. Conditions change, priorities shift, and decisions need to adapt accordingly. At its core, treasury repeatedly asks the same fundamental question in different forms: how do we protect the company today while keeping it ready for what comes next. That balance between stability and progress is what defines his work and keeps it challenging.
Treasury appealed to Vincent because it operates in the present and the near future. Decisions are rarely abstract or theoretical. They affect liquidity today, funding options tomorrow, and strategic flexibility over time. The impact of a decision is often visible quickly, which adds both responsibility and clarity to the role.
Questions in treasury cannot always wait. Do we have sufficient cash. Where is it located right now. How much risk are we carrying at this moment. What happens if market conditions change. These are not academic exercises that can be debated indefinitely. They demand timely answers and considered action.
By working through these situations, Vincent learned that treasury rewards clear thinking, comfort with uncertainty, and accountability. Perfect information is rarely available, but decisions still need to be made. In treasury, progress comes from making informed choices when timing matters, and taking responsibility for the outcomes that follow.
One of the toughest aspects of treasury, especially early in a career, is its sheer breadth. Liquidity, funding, foreign exchange, systems, regulation, and technology all intersect within a single function. Each area comes with its own language, risks, and priorities. For Vincent, this created a steep learning curve that did not disappear with time. Instead, it became a constant feature of the role.
Rather than trying to master everything at once, Vincent learned to approach treasury with a mindset of continuous growth. Curiosity became a practical tool. Staying open to learning, accepting that not knowing everything is part of the job, and asking questions without hesitation all helped him progress. Learning from more experienced professionals was just as important as formal knowledge, because much of treasury insight comes from context and experience.
He also learned the importance of stepping back and looking at the bigger picture. Treasury decisions rarely exist in isolation. A funding choice can influence operational flexibility. A liquidity decision can affect strategic options. Understanding how these pieces connect made the complexity easier to manage. Over time, the learning curve did not flatten, but it became more navigable, shaped by experience rather than overwhelm.
Vincent views treasury as having two inseparable sides. The operational side keeps the business running. Cash management, payments, and reporting require consistency and precision. These activities build trust.
He deliberately starts with these fundamentals. Once they are in place, he shifts attention to strategic work such as forecasting, risk management, and feasibility analysis. Every decision is tested across short, medium, and long-term horizons.
This structure ensures treasury supports both stability and forward planning.
Visibility is the foundation of good treasury. Without a clear and centralized view of liquidity, even the most detailed forecasts lose their value. When visibility is fragmented or delayed, forecasting becomes assumption based rather than decision driven, and that weakens confidence across the business.
He approaches forecasting across multiple timeframes, each serving a distinct purpose. Weekly forecasts keep operations running smoothly and ensure obligations are met on time. Monthly and quarterly forecasts help manage risk and anticipate changes in cash flows. Yearly forecasts move treasury into strategic territory, supporting decisions around capital allocation and long term investment. When visibility is strong, these forecasts become practical decision tools rather than static reports that explain the past.
Speed matters in treasury, but only when clarity comes first. Acting quickly without a reliable view of liquidity increases risk instead of reducing it. For Vincent, clarity is what allows speed to be used responsibly.
Technology is reshaping treasury, and Vincent sees this shift as an opportunity rather than a disruption. Among the developments he finds most promising is predictive analytics. By combining historical data with real time inputs and market trends, predictive tools can improve forecast accuracy and help treasurers deploy cash more effectively without taking on unnecessary liquidity risk.
At the same time, technology is changing what is expected from treasury professionals. Strong financial knowledge remains essential, but it is no longer sufficient on its own. Treasurers now need to understand the systems behind the data, question how information is generated, and interpret outputs with confidence. Data literacy and technical understanding are becoming just as important as traditional financial skills.
Treasury is increasingly about making sense of complex systems, not just reviewing numbers.
Managing multiple banks, payment flows, and FX exposures adds significant complexity to treasury operations. Left unchecked, that complexity can slow decision making and increase operational risk. Vincent believes this is why multi-bank platforms and Treasury Management Systems are becoming essential tools rather than optional enhancements.
He is also a strong supporter of in-house bank principles. Thanks to technological progress, these models are no longer reserved for large multinationals. Today, organizations of all sizes can adopt the core fundamentals of in-house banking to centralize liquidity, streamline payments, and improve control. For Vincent, simplification is not about reducing ambition. It is about creating structures that allow treasury to operate with clarity and confidence.
Vincent believes treasury will continue moving closer to the boardroom as the function evolves. As operational tasks become increasingly automated, treasurers are no longer tied down by repetitive execution. This shift creates space for deeper involvement in long-term planning, capital allocation, and strategic decision making.
In Vincent’s view, treasury adds its greatest value when it helps leadership understand what is financially possible. He often returns to one core idea: finance is about translating risk. Treasury plays a central role in connecting ambition to financial reality by assessing liquidity availability, the cost of capital, and the impact decisions have on working capital. Before a strategy becomes a plan, treasury helps test whether it is feasible, sustainable, and aligned with the company’s financial position.
This is where treasury’s strategic value becomes visible. Not through authority or titles, but through insight and clarity. By bringing perspective early into discussions, treasury helps shape decisions rather than simply reacting to them.
Curiosity, adaptability, and communication have been critical throughout Vincent’s career. Treasury touches many parts of the business, and understanding how those parts fit together matters just as much as understanding the numbers themselves. The treasurers who stand out are those who can explain implications clearly and connect financial analysis to commercial strategy.
Treasury may not be a career many people plan from the beginning. But for those who grow into it, it becomes a role where responsibility, judgment, and impact come together. For Vincent, that combination is what makes treasury both challenging and deeply rewarding.
Vincent’s journey shows that treasury careers are often shaped through exposure and experience rather than intention alone. What begins as proximity to the function gradually turns into understanding, and understanding into commitment. Over time, treasury reveals its depth and relevance, not through titles or labels, but through the impact of its decisions on the business.
Treasury attracts people who are comfortable balancing risk and opportunity, who are willing to take responsibility, and who continue learning as markets, technology, and organizations evolve. As the function becomes more strategic and more visible, its influence grows in a natural way, built on trust and insight rather than authority.
For Vincent, treasury is where analysis becomes action and responsibility leads to meaningful impact. It is the place where his skills, mindset, and curiosity come together. And it is exactly where he wants to be.
Treasury Masterminds is a community of professionals working in treasury management and those interested in learning more about topics such as cash management, foreign exchange management, and payments. To register and connect with Treasury professionals, click [HERE] or fill out the form below to get more information.
This article is written by our partner, Cobase
For decades, large international banks have positioned themselves as gateways to the global financial system. Their pitch is straightforward: one partner, global reach, consistent service. For multinational corporates, the appeal is obvious – simplify banking by consolidating relationships.
But beneath the branding, the idea of a truly “global” bank starts to unravel.
The limitation is not ambition or scale. It is jurisdiction.
Banks do not operate across borders in the way technology companies or logistics networks do. They expand into countries, but once there, they become subject to local rules – rules that define, often in granular detail, what services they can provide, how they provide them, and to whom.
What emerges is less a single institution and more a network of locally regulated entities, loosely stitched together under a common name.
That distinction matters.
A corporate working with a global bank across Europe, Asia, and the Americas might expect a consistent experience. Instead, they encounter variation at almost every layer. A payment setup that works seamlessly in the Netherlands may require adjustments in the United States. A liquidity structure available in London may not be permitted in Mumbai. Even something as routine as onboarding can turn into a multi-country exercise, with separate documentation, timelines, and approval processes for each jurisdiction.
In some cases, the gaps are subtle. A bank may offer ISO 20022 payment formats globally, but local implementations differ. Files accepted in one country may fail in another, not because the standard changed, but because interpretation did. Error handling, cut-off times, and processing logic follow local conventions, not global ones.
In other cases, the limitations are more explicit.
Take liquidity management. In theory, a multinational corporate should be able to centralise cash across accounts worldwide, optimising funding and reducing idle balances. In practice, that depends heavily on where the cash sits. European markets allow relatively sophisticated pooling structures, including notional pooling across entities. Move into markets like China or India, and those structures quickly encounter restrictions. Capital controls, regulatory approvals, and tax considerations can prevent funds from being moved freely or at all.
The result is a familiar problem for treasury teams: cash that exists, but cannot be used.
Payments tell a similar story. While a global bank may offer local payment capabilities in dozens of countries, it does not always control the full chain. In markets where it lacks direct access to domestic clearing systems, it relies on local correspondent banks. For the corporate client, this dependency is largely invisible until something goes wrong. Delays, additional fees, and reconciliation issues emerge, often without clear transparency into where in the chain the problem occurred.
In certain regions, even data becomes fragmented. Regulatory regimes increasingly require financial data to be stored and processed locally. For global banks, this means that account information, transaction data, and reporting cannot always be fully centralised. A corporate attempting to build a real-time, global view of its cash position may find that some pieces simply cannot be integrated in the same way as others.
And then there are the markets where global banks are only partially present or absent altogether.
In parts of Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America, even the largest international banks rely on partnerships with domestic institutions. In these cases, the “global” relationship effectively stops at the border, and the corporate is pulled back into the very fragmentation it was trying to avoid.
None of this is accidental. It reflects the underlying structure of the financial system.
.svg)
Banking is, at its core, a nationally regulated industry. Governments retain control over their financial systems for reasons that go beyond efficiency: monetary policy, financial stability, capital controls, and oversight. These priorities impose boundaries that even the largest banks cannot cross.
The consequence is a persistent gap between how corporates operate and how banks are structured. Corporates expand internationally and expect their infrastructure to scale with them. Banks expand internationally but remain constrained locally.
This is why even the most sophisticated multinationals rarely rely on a single banking partner. They build networks—combining global banks for reach, regional banks for depth, and local banks for access. Integration becomes their responsibility.
And that is where a different type of solution has started to emerge.
Rather than trying to replace banks or force uniformity where it cannot exist, platforms like Cobase sit above this fragmented landscape and act as an integration layer. They connect to multiple banks—global and local, across channels such as SWIFT, EBICS, APIs, and host-to-host, and standardise how corporates interact with them.
In that model, the complexity of dealing with multiple banking entities does not disappear, but it is absorbed. Payment formats are converted automatically to meet bank-specific requirements. Differences in file structures, validation rules, and communication protocols are handled centrally. Data coming back from banks—balances, transactions, statuses is normalised into a consistent format.
The effect is not that a corporate suddenly has a “global bank.”
It is that it gains a single, controlled interface across many banks.
This distinction is subtle, but important. The fragmentation remains at the infrastructure level where it is dictated by regulation and market structure, but it is no longer fully exposed at the operational level.
In that sense, the role of integration shifts. It moves away from trying to find the one bank that can do everything, toward building a layer that can manage many banks as if they were one.
The “global bank,” then, is less a reality than an abstraction.
What corporates increasingly build instead is their own version of it—on top of the system as it actually exists.
Treasury Masterminds is a community of professionals working in treasury management or those interested in learning more about various topics related to treasury management, including cash management, foreign exchange management, and payments. To register and connect with Treasury professionals, click the button below.
This article is written by our partner, FIS
Receivables finance (RF) has long been a cornerstone of corporate finance, enabling businesses to convert outstanding invoices into immediate liquidity. By selling their receivables to a funder, companies may access cost-effective funding and reduce risk, while investors may gain exposure to short-duration, diversified assets at a competitive return.
However, as recent events surrounding First Brands Group illustrate, this structure remains vulnerable to risks beyond credit, such as fraud. These vulnerabilities highlight the need for greater scrutiny and the adoption of new technologies.
Fraud in RF transactions typically manifests through misrepresentation of receivables quality, double pledging of assets and fabrication of invoices. These risks arise because RF relies heavily on the integrity of the originator’s reporting and servicing processes. If invoices are falsified or pledged to multiple financiers, the asset base becomes compromised, exposing investors and lenders to significant losses.
The First Brands case underscores these vulnerabilities. The U.S. auto parts supplier, which filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in September 2025, allegedly engaged in widespread financial misconduct, including doctoring invoices and double-counting receivables to secure billions of dollars in financing.
Several market features of RF contribute to fraud risk:
These factors can make RF particularly vulnerable when governance fails or liquidity pressures incentivize aggressive accounting.
The First Brands saga has accelerated calls for digital transformation in RF oversight. Advanced technology and reporting platforms can reduce fraud risk through:
The collapse of First Brands is a cautionary tale for all stakeholders in the RF ecosystem. While RF remains a powerful liquidity tool, its resilience depends on effective governance and technological safeguards. Platforms that deliver real-time transparency, automated controls and immutable records are no longer optional: They are essential to maintaining trust and confidence in this asset.
In essence, resilient frameworks are often built on digital efficiency and the irreplaceable insight of experienced practitioners.
As institutional investors continue to seek exposure to trade finance assets and corporates aim to unlock working capital, the combination of advanced technology and human expertise within complex RF structures will help to shape the market’s future.
While digitalization may stand as the frontline defense against fraud, it’s equally vital to maintain effective human oversight by having seasoned professionals conduct independent reviews and engage in regular dialog with originators and funders.
This interplay between technological innovation and expert judgment helps ensure that not only are anomalies flagged automatically, but also the nuances of complex transactions are properly understood and addressed. In essence, resilient frameworks are often built on digital efficiency and the irreplaceable insight of experienced practitioners.
Treasury Masterminds is a community of professionals working in treasury management or those interested in learning more about various topics related to treasury management, including cash management, foreign exchange management, and payments. To register and connect with Treasury professionals, click the button below.
This article is written by Nomentia
Why are manual treasury processes expensive?
Manual treasury processes become expensive because they require recurring effort to collect balances, prepare payment files, update forecasts, check approvals, and reconcile data. Even when each task seems manageable, the combined impact can reduce efficiency, slow down decision-making, and increase operational risk.
Treasury teams are used to making imperfect systems work.
A spreadsheet here. A bank portal there. A local ERP export from one entity, a payment file from another, and a cash forecast that still depends on email updates from the business. None of these workarounds may look dramatic on their own. In many organisations, they are even seen as normal.
The problem is that “normal” can become expensive.
Manual treasury operations rarely create one large, visible cost line. Instead, they create a pattern of hidden costs: time spent collecting data, delays in decision-making, duplicated effort, payment exceptions, outdated forecasts, missed visibility, and control gaps that only become urgent when something goes wrong.
That is why treasury automation ROI should not only be discussed as a technology question. It is also an operating model question. How much time does treasury spend managing the process instead of managing cash, liquidity, payments, and risk?
The cost of manual work is often underestimated because it is distributed across people, entities, systems, and routines.
A treasury analyst may spend hours preparing a daily cash position. A regional finance team may manually upload payment files. Another person may validate bank data, check approvals, update forecasts, or investigate why one bank statement does not match the expected format.
Each task may be manageable. Combined, they create a significant operational burden.
This is also why many teams struggle to build a cash forecasting business case. The value of better forecasting is not limited to “faster reporting”. It is the value of better decisions: knowing earlier where liquidity is needed, reducing dependency on outdated data, improving confidence in funding decisions, and giving leadership a clearer view of what may happen next.
External research points in the same direction. PwC’s 2025 Global Treasury Survey notes that treasury teams are under pressure to improve cash visibility, cost efficiency, and risk management, while leading organisations increasingly adopt real-time liquidity tools, AI-enhanced forecasting, and centralised payment models. HSBC also highlights that cash flow forecasting has remained a key treasury priority, reflecting the need for precise and timely forecasts in a volatile environment.
In other words, manual treasury processes are not only inefficient. They can slow down the organisation’s ability to respond.
Cash visibility is one of the clearest examples of hidden treasury cost.
When balances are collected manually across banks, accounts, currencies, and entities, treasury may technically have the data, but not necessarily in time to act on it. The team may know yesterday’s position, but not today’s. It may have a consolidated view, but only after several people have updated files, checked bank portals, and reconciled different formats.
That delay matters.
Without timely visibility, companies may keep too much cash idle in one place while borrowing elsewhere. They may struggle to identify trapped cash. They may make liquidity decisions based on incomplete information. They may also spend valuable time explaining numbers instead of improving them.
Nomentia positions its Smart Treasury Suite around visibility, control, and predictability across payments, cash, liquidity, and risk, integrating with ERPs, banks, and other systems. For companies operating across multiple banks and entities, that integration layer is not just technical infrastructure. It is the foundation for turning fragmented data into usable treasury insight.
Payments are another area where manual processes can appear cheaper than they really are.
At first glance, uploading files through bank portals or managing payments across local workflows may seem acceptable. The team knows the process. The banks are connected somehow. Payments are executed. Work continues.
But payment operations carry a high cost when they depend on scattered portals, inconsistent approvals, manual file handling, and local exceptions.
The hidden costs include time spent preparing and checking payment files, resolving format issues, validating approvals, tracking payment statuses, and answering questions from subsidiaries, AP teams, banks, and auditors. More importantly, weak payment control can increase exposure to duplicate payments, missed cut-offs, fraud attempts, and compliance issues.
This is where payment automation benefits become easier to explain. Automation is not only about faster payment execution. It is about standardising the process, improving traceability, reducing manual intervention, and making payment control easier to prove.
Forecasting is often where manual treasury processes become most visible to leadership.
The CFO does not necessarily see how many files were collected, how many emails were sent, or how many adjustments treasury made before the forecast was ready. But the CFO does see when the forecast is late, when confidence is low, or when the numbers change without a clear explanation.
A manual cash forecast can still be useful. Many experienced treasury teams are excellent at working around incomplete data. But as the business grows, expands into new markets, adds banks, or inherits systems through acquisitions, the limits become harder to ignore.
Forecasting depends on data quality, timing, ownership, and repeatability. If treasury spends too much time gathering inputs, it has less time to analyse drivers, challenge assumptions, and model scenarios. A forecast that takes days to prepare may already be outdated when it reaches decision-makers.
This is why the business case for treasury automation should include both time savings and decision quality. Faster data collection is valuable. But the larger value often comes from giving treasury more time to interpret what the numbers mean.
Manual controls are often built around expertise. The team knows which approvals are needed, which files need checking, which bank deadlines matter, and which exceptions require escalation.
That works until complexity increases.
As more entities, banks, users, and payment types are added, control becomes harder to manage consistently. Processes may differ across countries. Approval rules sit outside the system. Audit trails may require manual reconstruction. Exceptions depend on individual knowledge rather than embedded workflows.
In a stable environment, this may go unnoticed. During growth, restructuring, audit, staff changes, or periods of financial pressure, it becomes a risk.
The Nomentia Treasury Trends Report 2026 describes treasury teams facing pressure to deliver real-time insights, stronger controls, and more strategic input, often while dealing with fragmented systems and limited IT support. The report is based on 384 treasury and finance leaders across the Nordics, DACH, Benelux, and the UK.
That is the reality many treasury teams recognise: expectations are rising faster than operational capacity.
A strong treasury automation ROI discussion should not begin with software features. It should begin with operational impact.
From there, TMS cost savings become easier to frame. The value may come from fewer manual hours, lower operational risk, more efficient payment execution, improved cash visibility, reduced dependency on spreadsheets, or stronger audit readiness.
The most useful business case is not a generic promise that automation saves money. It is a structured estimate of where the organisation currently loses time and where better treasury processes could create measurable improvement.
Treasury Masterminds is a community of professionals working in treasury management or those interested in learning more about various topics related to treasury management, including cash management, foreign exchange management, and payments. To register and connect with Treasury professionals, click the button below.
