This Articles is a repost from an Article posted by our Content Partner Nomentia
We recently interviewed treasury expert Patrick Kunz, who’s been working in treasury all his life. As he mentioned himself during the webinar, “Treasury is basically all I know.”
Patrick has worked independently for the past 11 years. He founded his own company, Pecunia Treasury and Finance, and works with various companies, from scale-ups to large enterprises and anything in-between.
Patrick provided interesting insights into what treasurers should prioritize during the first 180 days of a new job because of his longstanding experience and the many temporary assignments he’s had.
In this article, we’ll discuss some of the main things we also covered during a recent webinar. These are the main topics that Patrick deems crucial during the first 180 days of starting a new job in Treasury:
Let’s dive deeper into each one of these topics.
How planning and prioritizing are done in your first 180 days is highly dependent on each company. Suppose it’s a longstanding company with hardly any volatility. In that case, your priorities are different compared to an organization without a treasury department, where it has to be built from scratch, for example. Of course, these are both extremes, and many organizations have characteristics somewhere in between.
In an established treasury department, every treasurer has their own style, working methods, and priorities. If you start a new job in such a team, it doesn’t automatically mean you can simply continue what the former treasurer did. It’s most important to recognize where the company’s priorities are. If the company focuses more on forecasting, it will likely receive more attention and become a priority.
Patrick suggests that it’s really up to the treasurer together with the CFO and the company to prioritize where to start. He also stresses that this should preferably be clear before starting a new job and become even more apparent during the first month or two.
Treasury can never work on its own. If you’re a stand-alone treasury, you’re doing something wrong. Treasury is at the company’s heart and should closely collaborate with other stakeholders. On the one hand, it gets cash in from the business and allocates cash out to other businesses. On the other hand, it also ensures that working capital runs smoothly by guaranteeing that there is sufficient risk-free cash available.
Regarding internal stakeholders, Patrick mentioned that a crucial team to work with is procurement because they know how and when you will spend your money. In addition, sales are important because they generate your cash inflows, and any hick-ups in revenue will hurt your cash flows for the coming weeks. You should also always be in close contact with the CFO, who’s probably your boss (or FP&A depending on the organization). With these main internal stakeholders, you need to align at least every week.
Patrick also mentioned that other departments have the tendency to forget to invite treasury to a meeting or start involving them in a project at a later stage, which often brings in last-minute stress and dealing with tight deadlines. So, putting yourself on the map and explaining to stakeholders what treasury is all about is crucial to overcome such challenges.
Another main reason to keep other departments close is that there might be overlapping tasks or systems that other departments also benefit from. Therefore, aligning processes and systems to work most efficiently is critical.
External stakeholders often consist of banks, liquidity providers, and hedging counterparties. But this also depends on the company and how advanced its treasury operations are.
In the end, treasury sits on top of a lot of tasks but also needs to get away from the comfortable treasury chest and be out there as a business advisor. The business, in turn, should know what treasury does, where to find them, and for what purposes.
There are two questions that a treasurer should be able to answer:
The latter is often a lot harder to answer. Interestingly, on the other hand, companies often don’t have any issues knowing how much profit they will make for the year. They know exact P&L figures and current cash at hand yet forecasting remains a challenge.
If you cannot answer both questions perfectly, you should be able to use some tools or techniques to get the response within at least an hour to half a day. In more straightforward treasury organizations, question one can be answered by accessing one, two, or three online banking portals. However, most multinationals have hundreds of banks because no bank can offer bank accounts anywhere in the world.
When treasury is more complex, answering how much cash you have or will have in the future becomes increasingly challenging. With today’s technologies, however, 90 or 95 percent of cash visibility should be available with the push of a button. There are many tools where you can login to view at least end-of-day balances, but you should preferably be able to see intraday balances and real-time balances too.
Moreover, as a treasurer, you should always be forward-looking. There’s always a cash starting position available from which you can calculate how much cash you need next week, for example, and whether the cash position goes up or down. Then you can take it one step further and do the same for a month. By analyzing shifts in cash positions over time, you can also determine whether there’s a financing need.
If you are in need of financing, you may need to talk to your bank. But can they provide financing quick enough? Or do you already have a credit facility that you can use? Depending on the economic circumstances, it can be hard to get a loan if you don’t have a facility, especially when interest rates are higher and there is less cash in the market.
On the contrary, if you notice that there will be cash surpluses, they are just sitting idle. And when interest rates are high, it means losing money on cash sitting in the account. Beyond doubt, it’s wise to have buffers, but if you have more cash than required as a buffer, you need to start examining other possibilities, such as investing it.
Most companies view the treasury department as a cost center, not a profit center. This means that treasury should minimize costs, not focus on maximizing profits while investing. Most companies that embrace this mindset avoid aggressive investments that are high-risk.
Ultimately, of course, depending on the type of business, Patrick Kunz recommends having at least cash visibility for a few months ahead. Typically, it’s 13 weeks because it involves a quarter-end, which is when you need to report and publish polished figures.
Patrick also mentioned that he’s seen a major shift; ten years ago, it was still pioneering to have cash or treasury management solution in place, whereas nowadays, many tools are available at competitive prices, and they are much easier to implement. So, it’s considered quite ancient when treasury reaches a certain size and still uses spreadsheets or logs into different banking platforms.
Patrick mentioned that he still runs into surprising many companies that work manually in each banking portal but notes that they are primarily non-established companies. Especially companies that have seen a lot of growth over a few years can suddenly have 200 to 500 million balance sheets and struggle with their treasury because they have five banks, are active in different parts of the world, and have exploding Excel sheets.
There was one case in particular that Patrick remembered well where a CFO had a little travel pocket bag with all his bank tokens because he needed to access all banks from anywhere. Without them, the CFO wasn’t able to make any payments. These limitations were then quickly tackled by implementing a payment hub and a TMS.
Cash flow forecasting is a challenge because it always depends on different stakeholders’ input to some extent. The trick is to try and automate as much as possible because there’s already a surprising amount of data available in your ERP system that can be used. For example, if you have payment terms of 30 days, your cash outflows should be fixed accordingly. The first month or so forecast can easily be based on receivables and payables as long as all stakeholders are expected to pay on time.
Taxes and salaries are also predictable. It’s easy to estimate how much salaries cost monthly and whether bonuses or seasonality exist. Some companies also need to pay hefty sums of taxes. Then it’s crucial to communicate with the tax department to see when they pay taxes so there is enough cash available according to such forecasts.
More challenging is creating long-term forecasts. They usually include some healthy guesstimate work. For forecasts of two to six months, it’s good to talk to the FP&A department, and examine the ongoing projects, when billing goes out, or when invoices come in. Then it’s also good practice to talk to local managers, controllers, and finance managers, who must manually fill out their estimates. Tools can still help streamline this process. But since the information comes from people, their input must be accurate. Garbage in means garbage out. If the input isn’t precise, neither will your forecast be. So, it’s always recommended to have a critical eye on the data provided. Ask questions, be in touch with vendors, contact the big cash flow drivers, perhaps ignore smaller entities, and be aware of more significant entity cash flow changes.
Sometimes it’s also challenging to have people report on time before specific deadlines. In such situations, it can be good to include a decision-maker and make cash flow forecasting a company-wide priority (if relevant) so that all stakeholders feel the need to comply.
Regarding hedging approaches, it’s essential to ask the CFO what the risk appetite is related to the different risks, such as FX and interest rates. Some companies don’t hedge a 100%, while others do aim to achieve that. A good example of why you don’t always fully hedge: take a company that operates in 50 different currencies but only has 15 that truly impact the business. They will likely only hedge against risk of 15 currencies rather than all 50.
If you’re starting a new job in treasury, you can easily track how successful the company has been in hedging by checking realized or unrealized FX gains or losses in P&L reports. If there are repeating volatile numbers, it means that the company is not hedging properly. As a result, you probably need to drill down further to find out what the underlying reasons are.
The ultimate goal is to determine the company’s exposure. If the exposure cause is known, you can choose the appropriate instruments to hedge against it. For example, you can use a committed derivative for committed exposure, future expected cash flows, AP & AR, and company loans.
Also, if you plan and know there will be exposure in 3 months, you can use a three-month forward to tackle it. Doing one-month forwards wouldn’t create a perfect hedge in such cases. The key is identifying what to hedge against and selecting the most logical hedging instrument.
On the other hand, there are also more unexpected exposures like future M&A deals, expected profits, and expected balance sheet positions. Hedging against these exposures using derivatives would be uncommon, but you might use FX options or internal ways to offset them instead.
Treasury policies are there to love and hate. They can limit how treasury operates and become an obstacle if done wrong. On the other hand, they’re an easy way to show what to do in different situations, for example, financing needs, exposures, and who to contact regarding specific topics. Treasury policies should be written in such a way that they are more of a tool that different stakeholders can easily use.
Your policies should be changed and reviewed at least every year. According to Patrick, if the policy consists of more than twenty pages, you’re doing it wrong, and if it’s shorter than two pages, it’s also wrong. Patrick mentions that you shouldn’t be too detailed in your policies and write them in such a manner that they are easy to understand for non-treasurers—that way, they can easily be distributed to anyone and actually be helpful.
Counterparty risk is always a relevant topic, especially now that some banks are failing again. Treasury needs to see how much cash they have at certain banks and how much risk can be taken, and the exposure per bank should also be defined in the treasury policies. The acceptable amount of acceptable risk differs and comes down to the risk appetite of each company. For example, having a total of 5 billion in cash and only 50 million at a particular bank can feel like low counterparty risk. On the other hand, for another corporate, 50 million at a specific bank can be a substantial amount of money and would be perceived as high risk.
When starting a job, you should determine the risk you’re willing to take with other internal stakeholders. You can, for example, also consider counterparty ratings. Even if there are examples like Lehman brothers collapsing with A ratings and Credit Suisse with a triple B rating, they still provide a better picture of the counterparty’s risk. That said, it’s also vital to be cautious and analyze market dynamics. Small things like rumors in the market can easily affect your risk; if the market decides they don’t trust a bank, it can go down in no time.
Your treasury policies should tackle limits with certain banks and banking groups. It’s wise to minimize counterparty risk to at least three to five core banks to be safe and not overexposed.
Monitoring risk doesn’t need to be done daily but rather monthly or quarterly. Some cash-rich companies can do it every week if they have 12 core banks, for example. In the end, you need to determine the risk appetite, and if you have too much cash at a bank, you should wonder why that’s the case and why you are not investing it instead. You could be investing it in bonds or money market funds that are very low-risk.
Whether you build a more central or regional treasury highly depends on the company, company size, type of company, and type of cash flows. Usually, there’s no 100% central or regional treasury, but something in-between. The good thing about regional treasury is that you’re always in control of your cash in the time zone and specific moment of that region.
With central treasury, the challenge can be that you work in different time zones. When the Asian market is closing, the US market is just waking up. In such cases, you must balance and see that there’s money at HQ and enough from region to region.
A hybrid model can often be the solution where the HQ treasury in Europe receives support from regional treasury centers in Asia, Latin America, and North America. Local presence can be the key to success because of different regional details, products, or other region-specific nuances. For example, it can be especially difficult having treasury operations in countries like China, where there are many regulations. It often requires regional managers with local language skills, knowledge, and connections to the different stakeholders.
Many companies also tackle multiple regions with an ‘around the world’ approach in which Asia sends money to Europe, Europe to the US, and then it’s sent back to Asia again. As a result, the company uses the same money all the time, anytime, in different regions.
There’s no one silver bullet to what you should be doing during your first 180 days in a new treasury job to make a success out of it. It all depends on the context of the company you start working for. Still, this is the advice of an expert that has worked for a significant number of companies, and it can often be applied in various contexts. Feel free to share your thoughts and comments with us as well!
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 [HERE] or fill out the form below to get more information.
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.
This article is written by Cobase
For an industry built on numbers, banking has always struggled with something more basic: speaking the same language.
Ask any treasury team trying to connect to banks globally and you’ll hear a familiar frustration. The expectation is simple – money is digital, banks are global, so connectivity should be straightforward. In reality, it rarely is. What looks like a plumbing issue is something deeper: a system that was never designed to be unified in the first place.
Modern banking didn’t emerge as a coordinated network. It grew in fragments. National systems were built to serve domestic economies, shaped by local regulation, infrastructure, and political priorities. Payment schemes evolved independently. Messaging formats were defined in isolation. Even basic concepts like how to confirm a payment or report a balance took different forms depending on where you looked.
The result is not just variation, but incompatibility.
SWIFT is often held up as the closest thing to a global standard. And in one sense, it is. It created a common messaging layer that banks across the world could use. But it never standardised what happens after the message is sent. Two banks can receive the same SWIFT instruction and process it in entirely different ways – different cut-off times, different validations, different interpretations.
This is where the idea of “bank connectivity” begins to unravel. The challenge is not just reaching a bank, but dealing with how each bank behaves once you do.
Over the years, the industry has made repeated attempts to smooth this out. None have fully succeeded. Not because the technology wasn’t good enough, but because the incentives never aligned. Banks compete. Regulators don’t coordinate globally. And legacy systems – often decades old – continue to run critical infrastructure that no one is willing to replace lightly.
The expectation of a unified system persists. But it’s built on a false premise.
Banking isn’t fragmented because something went wrong. It’s fragmented because that’s how it was built.
Few ideas in banking have generated as much optimism in recent years as APIs.
They arrived with the promise of simplicity. Clean, modern interfaces. Real-time data. Standardised access. Compared to the heavy, file-based integrations of the past, APIs looked like a reset moment, a chance to finally make bank connectivity behave like the rest of the digital world.
And in some ways, they delivered.
Large banks began exposing endpoints for payments and reporting. Developers could interact with bank systems without navigating layers of legacy protocols. In controlled environments, things worked exactly as advertised.
But step outside those environments, and the picture changes.
APIs in banking are not a single standard. They are dozens, sometimes hundreds, of individual implementations. Each bank defines its own structure, its own authentication methods, its own limits. Even when two banks claim to follow the same framework, the differences show up quickly – in edge cases, in error handling, in performance under load.
The regulatory push behind open banking added momentum, but also confusion. PSD2 created a baseline, but it was never designed for corporate treasury. It focused on retail use cases, with limited scope for bulk payments, complex approval flows, or multi-entity structures. For large organisations, it solved a small part of a much bigger problem.
Meanwhile, neo-banks and aggregators entered the picture, offering simplified access and faster onboarding. They improved the experience at the edges, particularly for account opening and basic transactions. But they didn’t remove the need to engage with traditional banks. In many cases, they simply added another layer to manage.
The result is a familiar pattern in financial infrastructure. New technology doesn’t replace the old – it accumulates around it.
APIs didn’t eliminate fragmentation. They made it more dynamic.
From the outside, bank connectivity looks deceptively simple. Payments go out, balances come in, and everything appears to move through a single system.
What’s less visible is the machinery underneath.
For companies operating across multiple countries, connectivity is not one connection, it’s dozens. Each bank brings its own requirements. File formats differ. Security models vary. Some require certificates, others tokens. One bank processes payments in batches, another in real time. Cut-off times shift by region, sometimes by product.
Even within the same bank, behaviour can change depending on the channel used. An API might support one set of payment types, while host-to-host supports another. Documentation doesn’t always reflect reality. Test environments behave differently from production. Exceptions are handled inconsistently.
None of this is unusual. It’s the normal state of the system.
This is why, despite all the talk of innovation, older methods remain firmly in place. Host-to-host connectivity – direct, file-based integration – continues to handle a large share of corporate payments. It’s not elegant, but it’s predictable. It does what it’s supposed to do, at scale, without surprises.
In certain markets, local standards dominate. EBICS, for example, is deeply embedded in parts of Europe. It works not because it’s globally relevant, but because it reflects the specific needs of those markets. In those contexts, it often outperforms more “modern” approaches simply by being consistent.
And then there’s SWIFT, still acting as the global fallback. When no direct connection is available, SWIFT is usually there. Not perfect, not always efficient, but broadly accepted.
Put all of this together, and a pattern emerges. There is no single best way to connect to banks. There is only a set of trade-offs.
The real work is not choosing one method, but managing all of them at once, and making them behave as if they were one.
That work increasingly sits in a layer most corporates never set out to build, but inevitably do: an orchestration layer that absorbs differences between banks, channels, and formats, and presents something coherent on top.
This is where platforms like Cobase operate.
Rather than trying to standardise banks themselves, Cobase standardises the interaction with them. It connects across SWIFT, EBICS, APIs, and host-to-host channels, translating between formats, normalising data, and embedding bank-specific behaviour into a central system. A payment instruction created once can be converted automatically into whatever each bank requires. Data coming back – balances, statuses, confirmations – is aligned into a consistent structure.
The complexity doesn’t disappear. It is relocated.
Instead of sitting in day-to-day treasury operations spread across teams, spreadsheets, and manual fixes, it is contained within a controlled layer designed to handle it.
Because in the end, the hardest part of bank connectivity is not building connections.
It’s making them invisible.
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.
