Why do treasury centers so rarely take a close look at their bank fees?

– Dino Nicolaides: Treasury centres usually play a significant role in the efficiency and effectiveness of the treasury operations of a multinational group. Consequently, they are not exempt from the same challenges faced by any treasury department when it comes to tracking and optimising bank fees. 

In general, the fees associated with bank services are often pushed down the list of priorities by finance departments, overshadowed by other, seemingly more strategic areas of banking relationships. For treasury centers—whose banking relationships are often determined at group level — managing the cost of these services tends to fall even further down their operational focus. 

Furthermore, the inherent complexity of measuring and monitoring the cost of bank services imposes an additional challenge. Account analysis statements are rarely transparent: invoices can be difficult to comprehend as they are filled with technical service codes, which makes it hard to accurately assess service performance and cost. Many treasurers admit that they lack reliable benchmarks and analytical tools to evaluate these fees in detail. In the absence of a comprehensive fee database, discussions around cash management costs often remain superficial. Ultimately, treasury centers end up tolerating fee levels at far higher levels than what they should be. 

There is also a lingering concern that pressing too hard on costs could damage the banking relationship. Yet with the right approach, it is entirely possible to secure far more competitive terms while preserving — and even enhancing — the balance of the relationship. 

– What are the key steps to a successful renegotiation of bank fees? 

– The process begins with collecting and centralising account analysis statements so that data and facts speak for themselves. We start with a detailed review of the invoices to clearly identify which services are being charged, and at what volumes. This analysis helps uncover erroneous charges, eliminate unnecessary services, and refocus spending on those bank services that genuinely add value to the treasury function. Because this is a laborious piece of work for a treasury function, we, at Redbridge, have a specialised Data Team who can seamlessly complete this task as it is indispensable to establish the facts. 

Once this detailed analysis of partner bank pricing is at hand, the next step is to assess the competitiveness of each service. At Redbridge, we draw on a unique global database—built over 25 years of engagements with European and American corporations of a global spectrum. Using our proprietary technology tools, we benchmark every fee line in any part of the globe to quantify the savings potential. 

Armed with this analysis, we then move into structured negotiations with banks — typically through an RFP, or via bilateral negotiations — while maintaining a balanced and constructive dialogue. This three-step method—analyse, benchmark, negotiate—makes all the difference. In the end, what was once seen as an unavoidable fixed cost becomes a source of lasting optimisation. 

Beyond bank fees, what other optimisation opportunities should treasury centres explore to maximise gains?

– Optimisation should not stop at the pricing schedule. There are also other sources of savings available to Treasury Centres. 

Let’s start with FX costs and more specifically FX margins. The spreads banks apply to foreign-exchange transactions (spot/forward/swaps) represent a non-trivial expense for companies with large international flows. We frequently observe significant margin differentials from one bank to another for similar currency pairs and transaction sizes. A detailed analysis of the components of these margins, benchmarked against market pricing, often reveals substantial potential. A structured renegotiation of FX terms can yield much more competitive rates without changing banks, FX platforms or disrupting daily operations. It is a form of painless optimisation of a cost line that is often under the radar. 

Another avenue is the yield on deposit balances. This topic has returned to center stage with the normalisation of interest rates. During the years of negative rates, many treasury centres allowed liquidity to sit idle in non-interest-bearing current accounts, considering the issue of insignificant value — some even paid to maintain excess balances. Today, with positive rates, failing to put excess cash to work entails a real opportunity cost. It is therefore worth revisiting how these balances are remunerated by negotiating better terms with banks for surplus cash at the Treasury Centre or business unit level. 

So, is it essential to take an exhaustive view of banking service optimisation?

– Precisely. The winning approach is end-to-end. Rather than treating each topic in a silo, cash management fees separately from FX or yield on deposit balances , they should all be considered holistically as there can be synergies in a holistic optimisation. 

The results speak for themselves. In a recent project for a large international group, renegotiating cash management pricing alone offered strong savings. However, when the client decided to extend the optimisation to FX costs and yield on deposit balances, total potential savings increased by five times. To put things into context, before our project, the client paid €1.07 million annually in bank fees across five countries. After our optimisation across all parameters highlighted above, the cost line was transformed into a net revenue stream as the negotiated yield ended up being higher than the optimised costs  — all achieved while safeguarding and reenforcing the client’s bank relationships (see graph below). 

Example – Holistic Renegotiation of Bank Fees 

Scenario A: renegotiation of bank fee pricing grid only
Scenario B: integration of FX cost optimisation
Scenario C: holistic renegotiation including yield on deposit balances 

Source: Redbridge – Cash Management Advisory, September 2025 

In conclusion

– Can you summarise Redbridge’s approach to optimising bank fees and services and explain why it is suited to even the most complex environments? 

– At Redbridge, we explore a range of solutions to help clients manage multi-account and country treasury operations more efficiently. What matters is an end-to-end and dynamic perspective: combining the best technology, robust market benchmarks, and human expertise to drive continuous optimisation. In complex environments—with multiple banks, accounts, and currencies—this approach turns complexity into an opportunity. Every account, every bank service, every cent of fees can be reviewed within the framework of existing partnerships. The outcome is a triple benefit: substantial savings, enhanced operating efficiency, and greater transparency for the treasury function. To treasury centers, the message is optimistic: even with structural constraints, meaningful room for improvement exists. With a structured approach, you can regain control of bank fees and unlock value where none seemed to have ever existed. 

The liquidity coverage ratio – an indicator of companies’ capacity to meet their debts due within a year – remains solid, although it has been gradually declining since 2018.

In what has become an environment of tighter credit, with banks becoming increasingly selective in who they lend to, Redbridge is urging treasury departments to fully integrate lenders’ return logic into their funding strategies. The adoption of the finalized Basel III regulatory framework is prompting banks to adjust their lending policies.

Study findings

Redbridge’s 15th annual study on the financing of companies in the SBF 120 – an index of the 120 most actively traded and largests companies listed on Euronext Paris – covered the 2024 financial statements and developments in the first half of 2025 for 84 index constituents.

• Working capital requirements seem better controlled than in 2023, as shown by the improvement in the cash cycle, mainly due to a decrease in trade receivables.

• Net debt levels have risen due to a drop in cash levels. Leverage has fallen to around 2x.
• Liquidity coverage has been falling since 2018. At the end of 2024 it stood at 2.4x, down from 2.8x one year earlier.
• The decline in interest rates in Europe has not yet translated into lower financing costs for SBF 120 companies, as most of their market-issued debt is at fixed rates.
• Banks remain active lenders but more selective in who they provide liquidity to. Meanwhile, private debt investors are eager to deploy their abundant liquidity but the rates they are offering are still high.
• For companies, understanding lenders’ profitability logic (RAROC / RoRWA) is key in negotiating with their banking syndicate. Showcasing the side business (in other words, non-core revenues or services) that companies can bring to their bank has become indispensable.

According to Didier Philouze, Managing Director, head of debt advisory at Redbridge:

“The financial health of most companies remains solid, but we have witnessed a steady erosion of credit indicators over the past four years, and this is now drawing banks’ attention.”

Matthieu Guillot, Managing Director, debt advisory at Redbridge, commented:

“Broader consultations with new lenders, including international banks or regional affiliates of mutual banking groups, make it possible for companies to preserve access to abundant liquidity – provided their requirements in terms of business plans are well integrated.”

Muriel Nahmias, Managing Director, debt advisory at Redbridge, added:

“Even if banks speak little of it, capital requirement regulations are becoming stricter. Borrowers with implicit ‘investment grade’ profiles – whether unrated or crossover – must factor the impact of the finalized Basel III framework into their financing strategies, as it could be less favorable to them.”

The full study is available upon request.

About Redbridge

Founded in 1999, Redbridge Debt & Treasury Advisory provides the world’s leading companies with data-driven advice for more profitable outcomes. With teams in Paris, Geneva, London, New York, Chicago and Houston, Redbridge has conducted more than 750 assignments ranging from strategy design to operational implementation over the past ten years, helping companies optimize their financing and treasury activities.

Account-to-account (A2A) payments offer merchants tangible benefits: real-time settlement, reduced transaction fees, and greater control over cash flow. Yet global adoption remains limited, even with very well-established infrastructures like SEPA Instant in Europe, the more recent FedNow or RTP from The Clearing House in the US, and regulatory initiatives such as PSD2 and Open Banking.

On the other hand, notable exceptions like iDEAL in the Netherlands, UPI in India, and Pix in Brazil demonstrate that success is possible, but not easily replicated. In Europe, Wero and EuroPA are emerging as potential challengers to card dominance, and in the US, Fiserv launched Pay by Bank.

So, why haven’t A2A payments really taken off globally yet?

The consumer perspective: why switch?

While A2A payments are a clear win for most merchants, the value proposition is far less convincing for consumers. Payment methods like cards and digital wallets have built loyalty through added value, including benefits like cashback, rewards, insurance, one-click ease, or buyer protection.

By contrast, most A2A options are perceived as clunky, opaque, and less secure. They lack strong consumer branding, offer little or no protection in dispute scenarios, and often require multiple steps at checkout. Unsurprisingly, without a meaningful incentive or at least equivalent user experience (UX), consumers stick with what they know and may not even recognise A2A as an option at all.

The regulatory gap: PSD2 and beyond

PSD2 laid the foundation for secure API-enabled A2A payments but failed to address critical factors like UX and consumer value. Banks, faced with limited commercial upside compared to the profitability of their established card businesses, have deprioritised investment in front-end payment innovation.

Additionally, the ban on surcharging – intended to protect consumers – removed a key lever for merchants to steer users toward cost-efficient payment methods like A2A. This regulatory misalignment has prevented merchants from actively promoting A2A payments, despite the considerable potential for reducing transaction fees. A powerful yet often overlooked solution still exists in Europe: incentivising A2A payments in a compliant manner, by offering discounts or rewards and delivering clear and meaningful value directly to consumers.

What merchants can do now – with or without regulation

Regulation can guide adoption, but merchants hold the real power to accelerate A2A usage, especially in high-ticket (luxury, electronics, travel) or low-margin (grocery, marketplace) sectors. Global merchants like Ryanair and Walmart show how proactive integration of A2A can yield both cost savings and customer engagement.

Practical strategies for merchants to promote consumer adoption include:

1. Clarifying the benefit: make the value of choosing A2A obvious, with promotions like ‘Save X% when you Pay by Bank’.
2. Building trust: reinforce security, emphasise refund and dispute policies, and use customer endorsements to normalise A2A usage.
3. Streamlining the experience: embed A2A directly into checkout, eliminating redirects and enabling biometric logins and instant confirmations.

Open Finance: closing the gap

PSD3 and the Financial Data Access Regulation (FIDA) promise to standardise and expand financial data access, however, their true transformative potential lies in proposing consumer-facing innovations built on top of payment rails, also known as Open Finance overlay services. Services like real-time balance visibility, account aggregation, dynamic incentives, and instant refunds can bring A2A payments in line with, or even surpass, the convenience of cards with value-added services like offering personalised cashback or enabling secure one-click repeat purchases using account-linked data. For banks and fintechs, Open Finance isn’t just about compliance, it’s a chance to shift from infrastructure providers to experience creators. And for third-party providers, it opens the door to tailored A2A solutions for verticals like subscription services, travel, or even luxury retail. In this context, A2A becomes more than a payment method. It becomes a platform for differentiation and competitive advantage.

Final thoughts

Consumers don’t adopt payment methods based on lower merchant fees or infrastructure efficiency. They switch when the experience is better, the value is clear, or the incentives are stronger.

To fully unlock A2A’s potential, the ecosystem must shift its focus:

• from rails to rewards,
• from APIs to experiences,
• from cost-cutting to consumer value.

This editorial piece was first published in The Paypers’ Account-to-Account Payments Report 2025, which features insights into global trends, key players, partnerships, and the next phase of the A2A evolution. Access the full report to understand where the A2A payments ecosystem stands today and what’s next.

Let’s talk about companies that, by nature, manage dozens or even hundreds of separate bank accounts—insurers, real estate groups, and construction players with multiple worksites. How should these segregated accounts be integrated into a fee-optimization strategy?

— These sectors do indeed face a particular issue: they accumulate bank accounts. In insurance, funds often must be separated by entity or by product to comply with regulatory ring-fencing obligations. In real estate or construction, each project may have its dedicated structure—sometimes a joint venture—with a specific bank account to isolate the project’s flows. The result is a multitude of local accounts, spread across different banks, which makes cash centralization very complicated. The outcome is not only heavy administration (constantly opening and closing accounts, managing signatory powers, etc.) but also a rising overall cost of cash management—since each account generates account maintenance fees, an account activity fee, and transaction-related charges. For the treasurer, fully inventorying and controlling these dispersed costs is a real challenge. The good news is that this is often an under-exploited source of savings. The first step—basic in appearance—is to inventory and consolidate all pricing terms for these segregated accounts: collect contracts for each legal entity, gather the fee schedules applied by each bank, and analyze transaction volumes on each account. It is meticulous work, but indispensable to see where the anomalies and levers are.

Do you have concrete examples?

— Yes. For NGE, a major construction group operating hundreds of worksites, we mapped cash-management costs across 23 banks and nearly 500 active accounts. By analyzing volumes and fees by bank, banking group, and service type, we established the client’s true cash-management cost. This snapshot became the foundation for a simultaneous consultation with all banks.

At the end of the process, NGE reduced its cash-management costs by 65%. A key change was replacing the legacy “commission de mouvement – CMC” – a French proportional fee applied to commercial transactions debited – with clearer, more controllable unit pricing. The group also signed three-year banking agreements to lock in the new terms and secure the gains over time.

We have seen similar results with other construction clients. At Demathieu Bard, for example, more than 400 bank accounts across 21 legal entities were burdened by an outsized CMC fee in the historical pricing. Here again, a well-run renegotiation delivered a 55% reduction in cash-management fees. Concretely, CMC fees were almost eliminated (–80%) and account-maintenance fees fell 20%, while the billing structure was simplified to make day-to-day control easier. Another key lever was reallocating flows across banks: we helped the client redistribute volumes among partners to capture the most favorable terms at each—without compromising security or service quality.

What is the key to success in these renegotiations within a decentralized Treasury environment?

In all these projects, we make sure to incorporate sector specifics from the scoping phase. For Spie Batignolles, for example, we had to take into account joint venture accounts and project accounts (SEP) specific to the construction sector. That means providing pricing terms adapted to these particular accounts, whose usage is often seasonal or one-off. The goal is for even these peripheral accounts—each individually small—to also benefit from optimized terms within the new negotiated schedule. The result is a downward harmonization of fees across the group’s entire banking perimeter. And in the end, results often exceed initial expectations, while strengthening Treasury’s day-to-day control. As one treasurer put it after our intervention, their cash management had become “more economical and more transparent” than before. This is a benefit not to be underestimated: optimizing fees goes hand in hand with better visibility for the Treasury function.

To conclude, can you summarize the approach developed by Redbridge for optimizing bank fees and services, and how it is tailored to the most complex environments?

At Redbridge, we study various solutions that allow our clients’ multi-account Treasury to be managed more effectively. The key is to have a holistic and dynamic view: combine the best of technology, market benchmarks, and human expertise to optimize continuously. This is how, even in complex environments—with multiple banks, accounts, and currencies—we manage to turn complexity into opportunity. Every account, every banking service, and every cent of fees can be discussed, while respecting existing partnerships. The payoff is threefold: substantial savings, increased operational efficiency, and better transparency for the Treasury function. The message to treasurers is an optimistic one: even if your organization is very decentralized or constrained by segregated accounts, there is room to maneuver. With a structured, global approach, you can regain control of your bank fees—and create value where, until yesterday, none seemed to exist.

Why are cash-management fees rarely examined closely by companies?

— Lucie Kunešová: Senior management often treats cash-management fees as a secondary matter within the wider bank–corporate relationship. For treasurers, monitoring and negotiating these fees is a demanding task. Billing is rarely transparent: fee statements are dense, full of opaque terminology, and difficult to interpret, which complicates accurate tracking and analysis. Many treasurers also admit they lack the benchmarks and tools needed to assess these costs in detail. Without reliable, comprehensive external price data, discussions around cash-management fees tend to remain vague. As a result, companies often accept fee levels that are significantly higher than necessary.

Another factor is the underlying fear of damaging banking relationships by pushing too hard on costs. Yet, with the right approach, it is entirely possible to achieve far more favorable terms while maintaining—or even enhancing—the balance of the relationship.

What are the key steps in a successful renegotiation of bank fees?

— The first step is to gather and centralize all bank fee statements so the data can be properly analyzed. At Redbridge, we begin with a detailed review to map services and volumes precisely. This diagnostic work uncovers inconsistencies, eliminates superfluous charges, and refocuses spending on services that the treasury genuinely needs. Painstaking, yes—but essential.

Once you have this clear view of the pricing applied by your cash-management banks, you can assess the competitiveness of each service. Redbridge has built a proprietary global database over more than 25 years of work with European and US corporates. Leveraging this database with our technology, we benchmark every service item to quantify potential savings.

Finally, equipped with these insights, we conduct a structured negotiation with banks—through an RFP process or bilateral discussions—while ensuring the dialogue remains balanced and constructive. This three-step approach—quantify, benchmark, negotiate—turns fees once thought immovable into an opportunity for lasting optimization.

Beyond cash management fees as such, what other options should treasurers explore to maximize gains?

— Do not limit your review to the cash-management fee schedule. Other savings pools are within reach—starting with foreign exchange (FX). In particular, the FX margins applied by banks constitute a material cost for companies with substantial international activity. We frequently observe wide margin differentials from one bank to another. By dissecting the components of these margins and benchmarking them against the market, a significant optimization potential often emerges. A structured renegotiation of FX terms can deliver far more competitive exchange rates—without changing platforms or disrupting day-to-day operations.

Another optimization lever: deposit yields. With interest rates back to normal levels, this topic has returned to center stage. During the years of negative rates, many treasury teams left liquidity idle in non-remunerated current accounts because the stakes seemed minor—some even paid to hold excess cash. Today, with positive rates, leaving surplus balances idle creates a real opportunity cost. There is clear value in enhancing these balances: negotiating deposit yields with your banks, or setting up short-term investments that respect security and liquidity constraints.

The winning approach is holistic. Instead of treating each topic in a silo—transaction fees here, FX there, and excess cash elsewhere—consider them together. These levers reinforce one another. In a recent engagement, renegotiating the cash-management fee schedule alone already delivered strong savings potential. Adding FX costs and deposit yields quintupled the overall upside. For an insurance client, we modeled three scenarios: (A) renegotiate cash-management fees only; (B) add FX cost optimization; and (C) also negotiate deposit yields. Each path produced meaningful gains, but the integrated approach maximized value. Ultimately, this large insurance group—paying EUR 1.07 million annually in cash-management fees across five countries—saw that cost line turn into a net income of EUR 0.56 million, all while respecting its banking-relationship strategy.

Figure — Example of a holistic renegotiation of cash management fees / Sector: Insurance

Scenario A: Cash Management Fees renegotiation

Scenario B: Integration of FX issues

Scenario C: Holistic approach including yields on deposits

Source: Redbridge – Cash Management Advisory, September 2025

Mastercard’s Innovations Are Accelerating Stablecoin Integration in Global Transactions

Stablecoins are digital currencies pegged directly to traditional fiat currencies, typically the US dollar. They have emerged as a viable option for financial institutions and businesses looking to simplify cross-border transactions.

Unlike traditional cryptocurrencies, stablecoins offer predictable value and reliability, crucial attributes for treasury teams managing global payments. Mastercard’s recent efforts highlight a shift toward mainstream stablecoin acceptance.

Here’s what corporate treasury professionals need to understand.

Key Terms to Know:

• Stablecoin: A type of cryptocurrency whose value is directly tied to a stable fiat currency, such as the US dollar, providing price stability compared to traditional cryptocurrencies.
• Blockchain: A secure, decentralized digital ledger technology that records transactions across multiple computers, ensuring transparency and security.
• Crypto Credential: Mastercard’s innovative system that replaces complicated blockchain wallet addresses with easy-to-use usernames, streamlining transactions and reducing errors.
• Merchant Settlement: The process by which funds from customer payments are transferred to the merchant’s account, often involving currency conversion in cross-border transactions.
• Fiat Currency: Traditional government-issued currency (like USD, EUR, or GBP), whose value is backed by the issuing government rather than physical commodities.

Why Stablecoins Are Relevant for Treasury and Payments

Legacy cross-border payments often involve slow processing, high transaction fees, and limited transparency. Stablecoins utilize blockchain technology to deliver significant advantages:

• Reduced volatility: Pegged to stable fiat currencies, stablecoins provide predictable value.
• Instant settlements: Payments clear immediately, improving liquidity management and operational efficiency.
• Cost savings: Lower fees compared to traditional payment methods such as wire transfers and correspondent banking.

It should be noted: stablecoins still face adoption challenges, including complex wallet systems, fragmented access points, and limited merchant acceptance. Mastercard aims to overcome these challenges with targeted solutions.

What’s Significant: Mastercard Takes a Strategic Approach to Stablecoin Integration

Mastercard is implementing several strategic initiatives designed to simplify stablecoin use and accelerate business adoption:

1. Simplified Crypto Credentials
   Mastercard introduced the Crypto Credential solution, replacing complex wallet addresses with user-friendly usernames. This simplifies transactions, minimizes errors, enhances compliance checks, and streamlines stablecoin usage for businesses.
2. Integration into Traditional Payment Networks
   Mastercard collaborates with crypto exchanges to enable stablecoins on traditional payment cards. This initiative lets cardholders spend stablecoins at over 150 million global merchant locations and convert stablecoins back to fiat currency seamlessly.
3. Direct Merchant Settlement
   Through partnerships with stablecoin issuers like Circle (USDC) and Paxos, Mastercard provides merchants with direct settlement options in stablecoins. This capability reduces settlement complexities, offers immediate liquidity, and shortens payment cycles for businesses.

Collectively, these Mastercard initiatives address key obstacles to stablecoin adoption, helping businesses streamline their cross-border payment processes.

Implications for Treasury Teams

Corporate treasury and finance teams should proactively monitor developments in stablecoin technology and consider potential operational benefits. While mass adoption is not yet widespread, awareness and preparation can position treasury teams advantageously as stablecoin usage grows.

Actionable steps treasury professionals can take now include:

• Assess Current Payment Processes: Identify inefficiencies in international payment workflows that stablecoins might resolve.
• Stay Informed on Regulatory Changes: Regularly track regulations affecting digital currencies to maintain compliance and readiness.
• Engage with Financial Providers: Communicate with banking partners and payment providers to remain updated on emerging stablecoin integrations.

Preparing for the Future

Mastercard’s investment in stablecoin solutions indicates a broader industry movement toward digital asset integration within established payment systems. While immediate adoption is limited, treasury teams should recognize the long-term potential of stablecoins. Remaining informed and prepared ensures companies are positioned strategically when stablecoins become a standard part of global payment infrastructure.

If your treasury or payments team has additional questions or would like to begin the process of analyzing, reviewing, and strategically adjusting your systems, please reach out to the Redbridge team.

The proposed legislative package, which forms part of the broader Savings and Investments Union (SIU) initiative, will now be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council for examination and adoption. In parallel, the Commission will launch a consultation on adjustments to the Solvency II framework aimed at fostering insurers’ appetite for Asset Backed Securities (ABS).

Targeted adjustments to the capital treatment of securitisation for financial institutions

The reform proposes a more risk sensitive treatment of securitisation under the banking prudential framework. Under the current rules, banks investing in senior tranches of securitisations are subject to a regulatory capital floor. This floor—currently set at 10% for Simple, Transparent and Standardised (STS) securitisations (a) —would under the new framework reflect the degree of risk inherent in the securitised portfolio. The Commission introduces a new category of transactions, dubbed “resilient”, for which the floor could go as low as 5%. These transactions would need to meet STS criteria and include an additional minimum credit enhancement.

In addition, one of the key parameters in the regulatory capital calculation—the “p-factor”—would be reduced for senior STS tranches. This would be especially relevant when banks apply the standardised approach (SEC-SA).

The proposal also seeks to improve the treatment of securitisations under the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR). The LCR sets the amount of high-quality liquid assets a bank must hold to meet short-term liquidity needs. The Commission is proposing to expand both the range and volume of ABS that are eligible as liquid assets. This part of the reform is open for consultation until mid-July.

Finally, the reform includes simplified reporting obligations for private securitisations (b), along with a reduction in the due diligence requirements investors must fulfil for EU-based transactions.

A long-awaited revival following the 2017 framework

The current EU securitisation regime—established by Regulations (EU) 2017/2401 and 2017/2402—was introduced to restore investor confidence in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. Key features included a 5% risk retention requirement for originators and stricter prudential treatment of ABS (c). The framework also defined eligible assets for securitisation and reinforced the rules governing asset selection by sellers. Investor disclosure requirements were strengthened, and the STS label was introduced to reward qualifying transactions with more favourable capital treatment.

Despite these improvements, the European securitisation market has seen only limited recovery since the framework came into force in 2019—especially when compared to developments in the US. This persistent weakness led Enrico Letta (d) and Mario Draghi (e) to call for a revitalisation of the securitisation market in their respective reports submitted in 2024. The European Council subsequently issued a formal request for the Commission to propose a reform. A public consultation was launched in autumn 2024, generating extensive feedback from industry stakeholders. Most comments called for a clearer definition of securitisation, simplified transparency and due diligence requirements, lower capital costs for financial institutions, and improved prudential treatment for insurers and pension funds.

A reform with primary impact on banks

The proposed reform should make it easier for banks to securitise their own assets. For non-bank originators, however, the expected impact remains limited for now, particularly in terms of cost. Nevertheless, the ongoing legislative process in the European Parliament may lead to broader changes in the regulatory framework, with potentially wider implications over the medium term.

Accola and Redbridge assist corporates on all financial aspects of their securitisation projects:  asset selection, structuring, volume optimisation, cost reduction, etc. In 2024, our teams closed transactions representing a total of €1.7 billion in committed funding. In 2025, we remain committed to help you reap the benefits of securitisation for your business.

—

(a) STS is a label granted to securitisations that meet several criteria, including portfolio diversification, clear amortisation rules, location of originator/sponsor within the EU, and sufficient performance history of the underlying assets.

(b) A private securitisation refers to a transaction that does not involve a prospectus, is not listed or traded on a regulated market, and is negotiated bilaterally between the originator and a small group of investors.

(c) The 2008 crisis revealed that originating banks often failed to properly assess borrowers’ credit risk, since the risk was transferred to third-party investors, limiting the banks’ own exposure to potential losses.

(d) Letta Report – Much more than a market (2024) https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/ny3j24sm/much-more-than-a-market-report-by-enrico-letta.pdf 

(e) Draghi Report – The future of European competitiveness (2024) https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/97e481fd-2dc3-412d-be4c-f152a8232961_en?filename=The%20future%20of%20European%20competitiveness%20_%20A%20competitiveness%20strategy%20for%20Europe.pdf 

It got me thinking:

• Will Agentic Commerce be a monumental paradigm shift in the human experience as many people are purporting it to be, or simply an iteration on what we are already doing?
• Will Agentic Commerce live up to the hype or be consigned to the dustbin of history like other buzz phrases such as Internet of Things, Metaverse and Blockchain?
• Or will it have staying power, driven by real-world application?

What is Agentic Commerce?

‘Agentic’ is an awkward-sounding term. We should get comfortable with it, as the hype engine around AC is just getting started.

AC involves AI programs that help a buyer to complete their purchase. Agentic = AI agents and bots. Commerce = buying and selling things.

In AC, the theory goes that the buyer – an individual or a business – completes a purchase using an AI program or another tool – such as a search engine – that supports such functionality.

In future, common AI platforms such as ChatGPT, Gemini et al may support AC purchase experiences when shopping online, via integrations with our browsers and apps, on computers and mobile devices.

This could include product search, product display, checkout, payment and order confirmation steps. The AI program will dispatch a bot to complete the purchase while the buyer is present in the moment, or while the buyer is absent from the moment after having set-up the process to automate it.

Why is Agentic Commerce getting such attention now?

Broadly, the huge uptick in discussion of this topic has been driven by AI products that have sprung up recently, such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini, Microsoft’s Copilot and Anthropic’s Claude. To name but a few. The pace at which mass adoption of AI tools has occurred is dizzying.

AI is now in our homes, on our desks and on the agenda in boardrooms globally to an extent that was unimaginable just a few years ago.

Through the fog of marketing, gossip and hype, real-world practical applications of these technologies are beginning to crystallize.

Agentic Commerce is an example of a real-world use case with almost universal application: shopping.

What impact is Agentic Commerce having on payments and fintech companies?

Big players

We are already seeing the industry respond by announcing new AC products and adaptations to existing services.

Visa and Mastercard have recently announced their respective services which cater to the AC use case:

• Visa Intelligent Commerce: https://corporate.visa.com/en/products/intelligent-commerce.html
• Mastercard Agent Pay: https://www.mastercard.com/news/press/2025/april/mastercard-unveils-agent-pay-pioneering-agentic-payments-technology-to-power-commerce-in-the-age-of-ai/
• American Express has invested in agentic commerce start-ups, including Nekuda: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250514808097/en/Nekuda-Raises-%245M-Led-by-Madrona-Together-with-Amex-Ventures-and-Visa-Ventures-to-Power-Agentic-Payments

Smaller players

Start-up companies are piling on to this trend. They are coming into the market with AI and AC products that purport to solve for relevant uses cases. This rise of new entrants will soon reach saturation point. Many will fail. Some will merge. Larger players will buy the best and most promising of the smaller players.

Billions of dollars in PE and VC investment will change hands, much of it to never be seen again.

A few names will achieve ‘escape velocity’ and survive long enough to enter the popular consciousness as sub-brands and tools of larger organisations.

What does Agentic Commerce mean for individuals and businesses?

Many businesses and individuals working in the industry will brand themselves as Agentic Commerce experts. However, we are all at the starting line of this technology and learning about it as we go. So, let’s act with proportionate caution and be kind to ourselves as our understanding evolves.

I could not claim to be an expert in Agentic Commerce or AI, but I’ve been in the world of payments and fintech long enough to be able to form instinctive reactions about such topics. Here are some of my hypotheses with regard to AC:

• Human behaviour around shopping is deeply entrenched. Many people enjoy shopping, and for some it is a big part of their lives. This is not going to change because of AI-powered shopping assistants.
• More likely is that we will continue to split our shopping and purchasing behaviour between a variety of channels and tools. Increasingly, AC will form a certain percentage of that activity. But not replace it wholly. The future of e-commerce is more options, fewer concentrations.
• We will continue to browse apps, websites and marketplaces and search for products in the same way we do today – because we want to make more careful decisions about what we buy or want to enjoy the experience of shopping. Sometimes we will choose to use an AC tool to make the process a bit quicker and more efficient. Perhaps we may care a bit less about the outcome and want to speed things-up a bit or wish to have a more curated set of options to review.
• Gradually, people will start to use AI programs and AC tools to help them make everyday purchases. Consumer goods and services such as groceries, electronics, fashion and bill payments are likely to be the first movers. Other sectors will follow.
• Businesses that sell D2C or B2B/2C will still operate as they do today but will need to adapt purchase channels and flows to AC behaviour, including bots. The starting point for a shopper will remain their laptop, computer or device, but AC software will necessitate businesses to iterate on their existing technical protocols, data flows, authentication, risk & security frameworks in order to be made sensitive to and compatible with AC tools.

Is Agentic Commerce a revolution or an iteration?

My theory is that AC is simply an iteration on existing processes and behaviours.

One challenge is bots. We’ve spent the past couple of decades in e-commerce attempting to fight bots, because most bot activity is malicious or fraudulent. The industry will need to adapt to new types of bots acting at the behest of AC programs.

Part of the solution to sorting the wheat from the chaff here already exists in the form of tokens. Credit and debit card tokenisation has been around for a while now and has gained – and continues to gain – widespread adoption by stakeholders across the value chain. A token can replace the full card number when the shopper enrols in a digital wallet or browser widget, and these tokens can act as a strong trust indicator, signalling that an AC bot is acting with the buyer’s authority. Authentication is completed at the ‘front end’ AC tool, embedded in the app/site/search tool – similar to (and likely using) digital wallets such as Apple Pay, Google Pay and PayPal.

Tokens, token meta data and authentication flags will help reduce friction and false declines due to fraud prevention and detection software used across the AC-originated payment lifecycle – in particular on the merchant side.

E-commerce websites and apps, payment gateways and acquirers, fraud detection software and tools, card schemes and card issuers can all utilise existing systems, processes and data flows to enable AC purchases with fairly minor adaptations and nuances.

So, is Agentic Commerce a revolution or an iteration? Right now, it looks like the latter — but history has shown us that small iterations can become major shifts. How will your business prepare?

What is the output floor rule?

The output floor, which is part of the finalized Basel III regulations for the banking sector, limits the extent to which banks can rely on internal models to calculate their risk-weighted assets (RWA).

Its main objective is to reduce what is seen as excessive variability in RWAs between banks with similar portfolios. Several studies by the Basel Committee have highlighted that some banks’ internal models produce overly optimistic outputs, especially with respect to the Loss Given Default parameter – the percentage of an asset’s value that would be lost if a borrower defaults on a loan or other obligation.

The output floor requires that RWA calculated using internal models cannot be below 72.5% of the RWA calculated using the standardized approach. As such, it represents a regulatory minimum for the output of internal models. It’s important to note that the 72.5% figure is the final target – implementation of the output floor began this year at a level of 50%, and it will increase in increments every year until the 72.5% figure is reached in 2030.

Let’s consider an example of how the output floor works. If a bank calculates its RWA are €100 million using its internal models, but the standardized approach results in a figure of €160 million, the output floor in 2030 would be 72.5% × €160 million = €116 million. The bank would therefore be required to increase its capital by €16 million.

The output floor is accompanied by minimum thresholds for Loss Given Default (such as 25% for senior unsecured exposures) and Probability of Default – 0.05%. The finalized Basel III rules also eliminate the advanced internal ratings-based risk measurement approach for large corporates. Now, only one internal method (fundamental) remains.

Can you explain the difference between internal models and the standardized approach in calculating capital requirements for lending?

Internal models rely on banks’ own credit ratings and enable a more granular assessment of credit risk (including the Probability of Default and Loss Given Default measures).
The standardized approach, by contrast, uses a risk-weighting grid based on whether or not a counterparty has an external credit rating, and on the level of that rating if one is available.

What is the expected impact of the new rules on banks’ lending capacity?

Unsurprisingly, the new rules are expected to weigh on the profitability of banks whose internal models are seen to significantly underestimate Loss Given Default values. However, the impact will be gradual given the output floor is being increased incrementally up to 2030.

In Europe, Japanese banks have already begun scaling back their operations in response to their regulator’s decision to rely exclusively on the standardized approach. By contrast, US banks – some of which are expected to face significantly higher capital requirements under the finalized Basel III rules – have not yet received a timeline they must follow to implement them.

It’s worth noting that European banks have known the broad outline of the changes to how they can use internal models since 2017, even though the new EU regulation only took effect in January 2025. Banks whose Loss Given Default estimates were previously seen as inconsistent have had time to adapt their internal models.

What steps can a corporate borrower take to mitigate the impact of finalized Basel III?

It’s always a good idea for companies to demonstrate that they understand the new constraints facing their banking partners as this helps foster better dialogue and enables the parties to co-develop appropriate solutions.

Depending on a company’s credit profile, its finance team might consider obtaining an external credit rating. An investment-grade rating would enable banks to apply more favorable risk weightings under the standardized approach. Conversely, some unrated companies may find that remaining unrated may actually be more advantageous.

Some companies may turn to the private debt, securitization or factoring markets to reduce their reliance on traditional bank loans and diversify their sources of funding. Finally, by providing additional guarantees to lenders, a company can improve its risk profile and access better credit terms – even in a more stringent regulatory environment.

Why are bank fees a top priority for finance departments in 2025?

Gaelle Parquic: Companies are facing increasing uncertainty – volatile interest rates, pressure on financing and unpredictable business forecasts. In this kind of environment, understanding your banking relationships becomes vital if your business is to prove resilient.

In times like these, cash management fees need to be monitored very carefully. This isn’t an optional or secondary task – it’s a core responsibility of any treasury team. Every euro paid to a bank should be justified. And yet in many companies, it is not – not due to a lack of interest, but because finance departments often lack the resources, skills or time to devote to a task still seen as highly onerous.

As a result, bank invoices are underanalyzed, discrepancies between negotiated rates and billed prices go unnoticed, and both central and local treasury teams lack insight into their banking relationships.

What’s your take on the tools currently available for analyzing bank fees?

Many companies believe they’ve “ticked the box” by implementing a Treasury Management System (TMS) with a dedicated bank fee module. Doing so is a logical step – finance departments want to centralize their tools. But by refusing to consider additional or complementary specialist solutions, they may be sacrificing operational efficiency.

In practice, these modules are often difficult to implement, provide limited coverage and, worst of all, don’t provide a consistent view of invoices from different banks. Without a unified fee structure and terminology, meaningful analysis is nearly impossible.

At Redbridge, we believe that monitoring bank fees should be treated as a discipline in its own right. It requires a level of granularity and a dedicated approach that few systems on the market currently provide. It’s not a case of replacing what you already have, but enhancing it with a dedicated tool designed for this specific purpose. Sometimes, taking a small step forward in terms of improving your technology can result in a giant leap in performance.

Was that the logic behind creating HawkeyeBSB?

Exactly. HawkeyeBSB was initially developed to meet a very specific, on-the-ground need: treasurers wanted greater visibility of and control over their bank fees. The tool was co-created with them, in close collaboration with our specialist cash management advisory teams.

These experts needed a robust solution to help them analyze bank invoices, identify discrepancies against negotiated or market rates, and simulate potential savings.

So HawkeyeBSB wasn’t born from a typical spec sheet – it resulted from shared needs among practitioners. Today, it’s used by over 100 international groups and analyzes bank invoices from more than 110 countries and 575 bank-country combinations.

What new features have you added to the tool 2025?

is the integration of PowerBI reporting, a ready-to-use dashboard built by our team to answer the key questions treasurers face.

This dashboard offers a quick, clear and standardized summary of the most important data, such as costs by bank, country and service type. With just one click, users gain a clear view of the banking services they are using. This format makes it easy to share internally with local treasurers and senior management, and externally with banking partners.

It’s both a management tool and a communication aid, delivering consistent and reliable information at every level.

Usability is a key priority. We’ve redesigned the entire interface to ensure it can be used autonomously, without extensive training.

We’ve also built a multi-user framework so that local treasurers can get involved. That’s essential – they have the best insight into what’s going on in their local markets, and they need to be able to track their costs, detect anomalies and engage more effectively with their banks.

You’ve also broadened the range of companies that can benefit from the tool?

Yes, the idea is that our technology shouldn’t be reserved for large, multi-banked corporations operating in dozens of countries and that have multiple subsidiaries. Our solution now delivers a strong return on investment even for companies with only a few banking relationships in a single country.

Are there any more new features planned for the platform?

We’re currently revisiting the way we analyze discrepancies between negotiated terms and the actual fees that are charged. Our goal is to offer dynamic, more fluid and intuitive discrepancy detection for users.

This new feature will provide users with an instant, summarized view of fee discrepancies – by service, by bank and by amount. It should improve transparency, make a bank more responsive in the event of a discrepancy and help between the bank and the treasury department.

This functionality is set to launch in the autumn and marks a major milestone in our mission to help treasurers take back control of the quality and auditing of their banking relationships.

What’s your vision for the future of bank fee monitoring?

Our ambition is to make bank fee tracking as strategic and automated as budgeting or cash forecasting. We need to move away from one-off audits and towards continuous, collaborative, well-documented oversight.

With HawkeyeBSB, we aim to give treasurers the analytical and communication tools they’ve been missing – not just to cut costs, but to take ownership of a domain that’s been overlooked for too long. And this is no longer just for large enterprises: we’re making it accessible to everyone.

Bank payment flows — often called “Pay by Bank”, “Open Banking”, or “account-to-account (A2A) payments” — are gaining traction. It’s not just hype. Governments and regulators are pushing the industry to develop alternative, cheaper, and more secure payment options, and technology is making that possible.

Key terminology explained

Account-to-account (A2A) payments are a process whereby money flows between sender and recipient bank accounts via established bank payment rails such as SEPA transfer, ACH, and Faster Payments.

Open Banking pertains to technical and regulatory frameworks that help non-bank participants move money and access data, often enabled by fintechs through their secure API protocols. A2A payments can be enabled through Open Banking service providers.

Pay by Bank is a method of payment offered by merchants to their customers. For example, a Pay by Bank payment button can be included at an e-commerce checkout page alongside credit cards and other payment methods. The Pay by Bank feature can be implemented by merchants through Open Banking fintechs or PSPs that enable A2A payment flows.

So, why does this matter? And what should businesses be doing about it right now?

The rise of Pay by Bank: Why now?

Across the world, businesses and consumers are demanding cheaper, faster, and more secure payment options. This has led to a growing adoption of open banking and real-time payment rails that bypass traditional card networks.

Here’s why Pay by Bank is at the center of this shift:

• Regulatory-driven innovation
  New regulations, particularly in Europe and the UK, are mandating banks to open their infrastructure to fintechs, allowing for seamless and direct payments between accounts. This removes the need for card networks, reducing fees and improving speed.
• Cost savings for businesses
  Businesses accepting card payments pay processing fees (also known as swipe fees), which include card interchange. These fees may range between 1-4% of the total cost of the sale, depending on the market and card type. In contrast, Pay by Bank transactions often come at a fraction of the cost as there are fewer intermediaries taking their cut of each transaction. For high-volume and high-average order value merchants, this represents a major opportunity to cut costs.
• Reduced fraud and chargebacks
  Unlike card payments, where compromised sensitive data can be more easily exploited, Pay by Bank transactions require biometric authentication and bank-level security, reducing fraud risks. Plus, reducing the false disputes and chargebacks often associated with card payments unlocks improved revenue predictability for merchants.
• Customer service
  If an order is canceled, or returned, a refund of the original payment can be processed faster through account-to-account transactions. In some cases, the refund could be instant once keyed by the merchant. Integrated Pay by Bank solutions processed via API carry richer data, enabling faster more accurate order look-up and reconciliation processes. This can improve customer satisfaction and brand loyalty.
• Faster settlement and liquidity benefits
  Traditional card payments can take days to settle. Open Banking-enabled Pay by Bank flows enable funds to move instantly or within hours, improving cash flow, reducing working capital constraints and improving reconciliation accuracy. ACH in the US can take a little longer to settle and carries increased risk of post-confirmation errors and returns – however the benefits often outweigh the risks when enabled via a comprehensive implementation framework.

Who benefits most from Pay by Bank?

Pay by Bank has universal applicability across industries, but certain sectors stand to gain the most:

Merchants

• E-commerce & Retail – Lower transaction fees mean higher profit margins. Merchants can also incentivize customers with discounts for choosing Pay by Bank.
• B2B Payments – Businesses processing large invoice payments can significantly cut costs compared to wire transfers and corporate cards.
• Subscription Services & Bill Pay – Utility companies, telecom providers, and SaaS businesses can improve cash flow and reduce failed payments.
• Luxury & High-Value Transactions – High-ticket merchants, from automotive sales to fine jewelry, can avoid excessive card fees while ensuring secure, real-time payments.

The customer

• The buyer also stands to benefit from cashflow certainty, with some options baked into the service as standard, including:
  • Bank-grade security
  • Faster refunds
  • Cashflow certainty
• Incentive to purchase via Pay by Bank instead of other payment methods is a challenge that merchants will need to tackle through development of their own custom strategy. There are a variety of methods by which this can be achieved, of which merchants will need to select an approach that suits their business model and buyer profile.

It is important to note that Pay by Bank may not follow every business model and payments environment. To determine whether it may add value requires careful analysis.

Implementation: How hard is it?

One of the most common questions from merchants is: “How difficult is it to implement Pay by Bank?” The answer broadly depends upon the maturity of the business’s technical change management processes and the facilities available from their existing payment providers.

For most businesses, integration falls into one of three categories:

1. Simple: If your company already works with a PSP that offers a range of local and alternative payment methods, Pay by Bank may be a relatively lighter lift to implement.
2. Moderate: If your PSP doesn’t support Pay by Bank, you’ll need to evaluate new providers, integrate APIs, and adjust operational and financial workflows.
3. Complex: If your business sells in multiple markets or is undergoing a full-scale payments transformation — such as replacing acquirers, fraud systems, or tokenization services — Pay by Bank may be a piece of a broader strategy.

Regardless of complexity, the key first steps to take include a thorough business case assessment, including risks and opportunities. Redbridge helps merchants analyze potential savings, operational impact, and customer adoption strategies to determine whether Pay by Bank is a viable addition to their payments ecosystem.

The Redbridge perspective: Why now is the time to act

There’s no doubt that Pay by Bank is one of the most-discussed topics in payments today. But despite the buzz, many businesses remain hesitant to act.

That’s understandable. Payment innovation always comes with uncertainty — especially when it involves regulatory shifts and new industry players. However, those who wait too long risk being left behind.

Companies that implement Pay by Bank today can:

• Gain a competitive edge with lower payment costs
• Improve security and fraud protection
• Enhance customer experience with seamless, real-time payments
• Future-proof their payment strategy as adoption accelerates

The opportunity is here. The question is: Is your business ready to take advantage of it?

Let’s talk. Redbridge is helping businesses navigate this transformation, from assessing feasibility to executing strategy. We have helped enterprise businesses selling B2B and D2C implement Pay by Bank, including ACH in the US, Open Banking-enabled flows in the UK and Europe, and more.

Contact us today to explore how Pay by Bank can fit into your payments roadmap.

Could you briefly describe how Decathlon Group’s treasury department is organized?

Decathlon is primarily a retailer of sports and leisure equipment, operating in 60 countries. The Group generates annual sales of €16 billion through a business model that, in addition to retail, encompasses real estate, logistics and factories. In several of the regions in which we operate, Decathlon has three or four local entities, each of which is subject to distinct business cycles.

Our treasury organization employs 144 people, both full-time and part-time, across the various geographical regions in which the Group operates.
The diversity of treasury practices worldwide, coupled with the challenges posed by different time zones and bank cut-off times, makes it impossible for us to centralize all our treasury functions. Our treasury organization is therefore based on the principle of subsidiarity. However, the evolution of the treasury function has created the need for greater specialization among treasury team members, prompting us to pool our resources at the regional level.

What benefits do you expect to result from pooling treasury resources at the regional level?

There are two main benefits. First, risk reduction – cash centralized in accounts in a politically stable country is less exposed to risk than assets dispersed in more uncertain regions. Second, from the point of view of the treasury team, there is a refocusing of missions and a strengthening of skills.

Three years ago, we examined the benefits of pooling our treasury resources for the APAC region in Singapore. The study highlighted the advantages of centralizing our cash and pooling card-acquiring flows. It also highlighted the limitations of our decentralized organisation, in which our team members are generalists, performing a variety of tasks. Over the last few years, Decathlon had developed an internal cash management tool with advanced functionalities, but which proved to be little used by our operators.

Initially intended as a proof of concept, this analysis paved the way for an internal reflection on our target operating model.

Why did you enlist the services of a consultant to define the target operating model for your treasury department?

Undertaking this kind of project in-house is always challenging as it’s natural to stick with existing structures and underestimate the scale of change that’s required. We therefore felt we needed the views of an external expert who could push us out of our comfort zone by challenging our ideas about our target model, processes, the technical aspects of treasury and the technology and tools we should be using.

We chose Redbridge, a long-standing partner of Decathlon’s finance department. We value their expertise in treasury matters, but above all we knew they had the intellectual rigor and strong views to help us make this change a success.

What was Redbridge’s contribution to the development of the new target operating model?

The Redbridge consultants helped ensure we took structured, long-term decisions that would enable our treasury operators to enhance their skills. The treasury team’s objectives were revised to account for the constraints associated with banking communications – an issue that is often unfamiliar to treasury teams. Together, we decided to abandon our internal treasury tool in favor of a widely-used third party platform. Redbridge helped us distinguish between the sales pitches and the real capabilities of the treasury tool vendors we considered.

Redbridge also helped us to set out a timeline for the transformation project by sequencing and coordinating the various stages. Their consultants played a key role in managing our relationships with all partners and ensuring that everyone honored their commitments regarding delivery.

How will this project transform Decathlon’s treasury organization?

As a result of this project, Decathlon is abandoning its proprietary treasury system, which is currently being used in 10 countries, and replacing it with two more standardized modules: one dedicated to the central treasury and regional treasury centers, and the other for local treasuries.

Initially, the tool for regional treasury centers will be deployed in a lighter version, focusing on payment management. Forex, which is mainly managed by the central treasury, will be handled separately. For local treasuries, the tool will include a dashboard that provides our financial directors and controllers with a real-time view of their cash position, debt and forecasts.

In Europe, Decathlon has decided to locate its regional treasury center in Portugal, where we already have an accounting division and treasury teams. The aim is to establish a fluid organization that promotes effective communication between our accounting and treasury teams so that we can respond quickly to requests from local financial managers.

How far has Decathlon progressed in implementing its new model, and what are the next steps in the project?

We have selected the treasury tool we will be using. We are currently conducting proof of concept tests within our regional cash centers and carry out beta-testing of the initial modules.

By the end of 2025, the goal is to have deployed an initial cash module covering the Group’s holding company and the APAC regional cash center, which will be based in Singapore. At the same time, we will be conducting proofs of concept in local Asian treasuries – notably in China, which is a complex market for cash management, and in a second, easier to operate environment, either Malaysia or Hong Kong. In Europe, we will be carrying out tests in Belgium, and in Switzerland.

We will roll out further modules gradually, beginning with forex and then financing. The aim is to The aim is to complete the project by 2026.

How will the new treasury model transform the Group’s financial management?

We will have more data at our disposal to guide our financial management. Seven members of our IT team are dedicated to treasury, and they report directly to the Group’s finance and treasury department. Previously focused on technology, this team is now shifting towards an approach in which the accessibility and quality of data play a predominant role in their activities.

Through this data-oriented approach, which is at the heart of the project, the objective is to equip the Group with a high-performance treasury tool that will be able to produce accurate forecasts and adapt to changing economic conditions and geopolitical shocks.

In addition to the new technology, the project aims to refocus treasury resources on analysis and strategy. It will also help us optimize operating costs. For example, Decathlon conducts foreign exchange transactions totaling €8 billion every six months. The cost involved are currently not challenged. The project therefore opens the door to the potential for us to make significant savings.

Once our new data-driven treasury organization is in place, it will be up to the teams to identify new sources of savings and propose strategic projects in line with our senior management’s expectations.

BNPL has seen massive adoption, but how has the landscape evolved recently? What are the key trends shaping the sector today?

Many things have changed regarding Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) since we talked about it in 2022. BNPL has evolved from a disruptor to a mainstream payment option. Once driven by ecommerce fintechs, it now faces competition from banks and payment giants. Regulatory scrutiny is increasing, especially in the EU, the UK, and the US, with stricter consumer protections, recently exemplified by Dutch government efforts.

The focus has shifted from rapid growth to profitability. Rising funding costs and defaults are forcing BNPL players to refine risk models and raise prices – some doubling in less than a year. Partnerships are deepening, with BNPL embedded in checkouts, banking apps, and B2B financing (e.g., the partnership between Klarna and Adyen or J.P. Morgan, two of the main global processors). The market is also seeing a divergence between interest-free, short-term BNPL models and longer-term instalment plans with interest, which align more closely with traditional credit.

Rising funding costs and defaults are forcing BNPL players to refine risk models and raise prices – some doubling in less than a year.

BNPL is often associated with retail and ecommerce, but can it be a game-changer in other industries? What factors determine its success for different merchants?

BNPL’s potential extends beyond retail, with strong use cases in travel, hospitality, and healthcare, where instalment payments make high-ticket purchases more accessible. Even B2B transactions are adopting BNPL-like financing to improve cash flow. Success depends on ticket size, payment behaviour, and regulations. High-ticket, infrequent purchases (e.g., travel, medical) benefit more than everyday goods. Industries with predictable repayments and low default risk attract BNPL providers, while stricter lending rules may limit its applicability. Industries or merchants with tight margins often find BNPL solutions too costly and instead choose to pass fees to customers (a compliant approach, as surcharging currently doesn’t apply) or develop in-house alternatives. Some also turn to white-label providers, who offer a balanced solution by managing most of the IT workload and assuming the risk.

With increasing regulatory scrutiny and profitability concerns, what are the biggest hurdles BNPL providers and merchants face today? Can the model be sustainable long-term?

Regulatory scrutiny is the biggest challenge. Governments and financial regulators are addressing concerns around consumer protection, particularly regarding transparency, affordability assessments, and credit reporting. BNPL providers are now being required to conduct stricter credit checks and disclose terms more clearly, which may slow adoption and increase operational costs.

Embedded Finance will expand BNPL’s reach beyond traditional ecommerce checkouts, integrating it into banking apps and digital wallets.

Profitability remains another key issue. The original BNPL model, where providers generate revenue primarily from merchant fees, is under pressure due to rising funding costs. Many providers are exploring alternative revenue streams, including interest-bearing instalment loans, subscription-based models, and late payment fees. However, an overreliance on penalties could damage brand trust and lead to regulatory pushback. When it comes to sustainability, I believe it mostly depends on balancing growth with responsible lending. Providers that can develop robust risk models, diversify revenue streams, and operate within regulatory frameworks will be better positioned for long-term success. Merchants, on the other hand, need to evaluate BNPL partnerships carefully, ensuring they do not create unnecessary financial burdens for consumers while still benefiting from increased sales.

What’s next for BNPL? Will we see consolidation, innovations, or a decline in adoption?

I would say that the BNPL market is likely to undergo significant consolidation. Larger financial institutions and payment players are acquiring or partnering with BNPL providers, and smaller, unprofitable fintechs may struggle to survive independently. Regulatory pressures will also force weaker players out of the market, leaving a handful of dominant providers.
Innovation will continue to shape the space. AI-driven underwriting models will improve risk assessment, reducing default rates. Embedded Finance will expand BNPL’s reach beyond traditional ecommerce checkouts, integrating it into banking apps and digital wallets. BNPL could also evolve into broader financial services, offering credit-building features and savings tools. Adoption may slow in regions with stricter regulations, but demand for flexible payment options will persist. As long as BNPL providers can adapt to changing market conditions and consumer preferences, the model will remain an important component of the payment ecosystem, albeit with a more responsible and sustainable framework.

This is likely to remain the case until the structural barriers to its development are addressed. Removing these obstacles would be beneficial as supply chain finance offers some significant advantages for both large companies and their suppliers.

Implementing a reverse factoring program requires significant effort from the ordering party, including extensive communication, internal training, updates to information systems, considerable support from the management team and careful selection of financial partners. That’s not to mention the considerable challenge of onboarding suppliers.

However, these operational challenges are only one part of the equation – more fundamental issues are hindering the adoption of reverse factoring. France is the second largest-market for factoring in the world after China, but factoring companies show little interest in supply chain finance.

French factoring companies reported net banking income of EUR 1.24 billion and a combined net profit of EUR 379 million in 2023. Paradoxically, it is their exceptional profitability – in excess of 30% – that is hindering the development of reverse factoring.

Factors have little incentive to promote this type of structure unless they are responding to a specific client request. Traditional factoring is a well-established business that involves limited risk and low capital requirements and is used by around 30,000 companies in France. Reverse factoring lacks these advantages, primarily due to the central role played by the ordering party.

French factoring companies have made little effort to promote reverse factoring to large corporates. Over the past decade, their investment in this product has lagged those of their British, Spanish and American counterparts, and also those of many European and US fintechs.

Optimizing working capital isn’t the right objective

In most cases, an ordering party initiating a reverse factoring program is aiming to improve their payment terms somehow. For instance, the ordering party (buyer) may negotiate longer payment terms with suppliers in exchange for access to the reverse factoring program, which offsets the delay by enabling suppliers to receive early payment.

The ordering party may also waive payment terms, but in this case, its debit is deferred – the financial institution absorbs the delay until the deferred debit occurs. This arrangement can be seen as a quid pro quo offered by the funder in exchange for its role in the program, or simply as a form of soft retrocession. While the financial objectives of improving working capital – enhancing cash flow, reducing net debt and optimizing financial leverage – are legitimate, they have also led to the abandonment of many reverse factoring programs.

Asking suppliers to extend payment terms can be difficult. It may be impractical to do so when dealing with thousands of suppliers, risky due to regulations governing payment terms, or simply met with resistance from the suppliers.

If the arrangement only involves deferring the payment to the funder, who has already paid the supplier, it may be problematic for the outstanding amount to continue being presented as supplier debt. Doing so would require proof that the substance and characteristics of the debt have remained unchanged.

Factoring’s ability to add value in a deconsolidation scheme involving receivables tends to be less evident in the case of reverse factoring involving payables. Using a program to improve the buyer’s working capital requires significant resources to secure the support of all parties, especially in a context in which the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the International Accounting Standards Board have tightened accounting regulations in this area.

This means a paradigm shift in which ordering parties are invited to abandon their exclusive focus on optimising cash flow, and that instead they adopt more responsible and sustainable ambitions.

The right objectives to pursue

By leveraging their credit profile, large companies can provide their suppliers with access to more affordable and flexible financing than what is typically available in local markets. This support strengthens the stability of the entire supply chain.

A well-designed program can be seen as a responsible approach, helping to forge closer links between the company and its suppliers. This climate of trust helps foster lasting partnerships.

By offering even more attractive terms to suppliers who commit to ESG initiatives, principals can align their programs with their commitments to corporate social responsibility and at the same time encourage their partners to adopt more responsible practices.

Approval times for supplier invoices can vary significantly depending on the business and organization in question. A reverse factoring program, which relies on payment orders, can help streamline and improve approval processes over time.

A gold mine in the accounting department

Only the accounting department of the principal knows which invoices are due for payment and when. This information is worth its weight in gold if it is shared with a financial third party responsible for paying suppliers in advance as it ensures that the payment will be made with certainty by the client.

Almost all factoring programs operate without the debtor’s prior approval of the invoice purchased, the amount it is for, its currency and its settlement date.

The principle of invoice approval is not a detail: with factoring, the factor has no certainty that the assigned invoices will be paid on the due date, whereas with reverse factoring, any advance payment to a supplier will be made in the knowledge that the buyer will pay on the due date.

Facilitators of success

A reverse factoring project involves change, so it will inevitably face obstacles. However, a few key principles can simplify its implementation.

The objective of improving working capital must be ruled out, even if factoring companies suggest otherwise. Upstream, the client must consider why it is often reluctant to participate in such programs as a supplier. Reasons might include unattractive pricing and a lack of time.

The goal must be to secure the most competitive pricing terms for suppliers. There can be a substantial difference between the terms typically offered by financial partners to suppliers and those provided under the proposed program – often several hundred basis points.

Finally, close attention must be paid to the terms of program membership and participation. In this regard, the paying agent model, which is based not on the assignment of receivables but on the transfer of cash flow rights, merits further investigation and application in areas in which it has already been successfully tested.

Press clipping – First published February 5, 2025 by Frédérique Garrouste –L’Agefi.

According to Pauline Lion, Associate Director at Redbridge, “Optimizing FX fees and gaining full visibility into transaction costs is typically a privilege reserved for companies with high trading volumes and sophisticated FX management systems. “Large corporations that use platforms like FXall and 360T can create competition between banks to secure better rates. However, for smaller companies handling FX operations directly with their banks, fees can be ten times higher or even more.”

The costs spike even further for account-to-account transfers where banks apply automatic exchange rates. “In some cases, fees can reach several percentage points,” Lion explains. She recalls working with a large company that, despite having advanced treasury operations, only monitored its FX transactions periodically. “For certain automated transactions, the bank’s margin was as high as 220 basis points. That didn’t align with our client’s profile at all,” she says. “We renegotiated the terms and cut their FX costs by 75%

Bringing Transparency to FX Pricing

That’s where Redbridge steps in. The firm helps businesses analyze their spot and forward FX transactions to uncover hidden fees. “We can reverse-engineer the bank’s margin using transaction confirmations, something banks are required to send to customers, combined with our deep market intelligence,” explains Lion.

The results speak for themselves. “Our clients have significantly reduced their FX costs after renegotiating their terms with our help,” Lion say. “More importantly, they’ve built stronger relationships with their banks by fostering more transparency and constructive conversations around FX pricing. Bridging the information gap between companies and banks is always a win.”