Treasury Tech Leapfrogging in Asia

TREASURY TECHNOLOGY
THEART OF
LEAPFROGGING INASIA
Contents
Treasury Technology
Key Takeaways
Satisfaction with
Treasury Management
Holy Grail:
Cash Forecasting
Spreadsheet Madness
Introduction
Conclusion
SunGard’s Perspective
About This Report
Leapfrogging:
A Practical Approach
Solid Interest in
the Cloud
A Leap Forward
Sponsored by
©2015 Questex Asia Ltd. All rights reserved.
All information in this report is verified
to the best of the publisher’s ability.
However Questex Asia Ltd does not accept
responsibility for any loss arising from
reliance on it.
Neither this publication nor any part of it
may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted in any form or by any
means electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or otherwise, without the prior
permission of Questex Asia Ltd.

CFO INNOVATION INSIGHT SURVEY TREASURY TECHNOLOGY © 2015 QUESTEX ASIA LTD
2
INTRODUCTION
One objective of this research is to find out
whether businesses in Asia are leapfrogging in
terms of treasury technology.Three years ago,CFO
Innovation surveyed 191 CFOs, treasurers and
other senior finance executives and found that
the majority were using spreadsheets (62%) and
an internally developed treasury management
system (51%). 1
In this study, we surveyed 155 finance
professionals in Singapore, Hong Kong,
Philippines, China, Malaysia and other markets in
Asia. The majority – 67% of respondents – still
utilize spreadsheets. But only 32% now use an
internally developed TMS.
Does this mean that the treasury function in
Asia has leapfrogged? Asked this question, four
out of ten respondents say their company is in
the process of doing so (35%), or has already
leapfrogged and adopted state-of-the-art TMS
(5%), which includes on-premise and in-the-cloud
treasury and banking solutions.
The 60% who say their company has no plans to
leapfrog at this time have not done so because
their company believes the scale and complexity
of operations does not yet require an upgrade.
Interestingly, 54% of them say they are satisfied
with overall treasury management in their
company – compared with 75% of the admittedly
small sample that has already leapfrogged.
Only 43% of those in the process of leapfrogging
are satisfied overall with their company’s
current treasury operations, not surprising since
dissatisfaction with their treasury processes is
presumably one reason why they are leapfrogging.
Their main area of discontent is cash forecasting
(44% dissatisfied).
These are some of the findings of CFO Innovation’s
2015 treasury survey, which is sponsored by
SunGard. Entitled Treasury Technology: The Art
of Leapfrogging in Asia, this report detects a
practical streak among Asian companies in their
approach to adopting treasury technology. They
will adopt or upgrade to the latest technology
only when they see the need to do so.
“Our set-up is quiet simple and my plan is to
continue the same structure at the moment,”
explains one respondent. “However, with more
plans for diversification, I foresee a much more
structured treasury operation and introduction of
current technology to address risk, liquidity, and
cash management.”
“There was very little need until now for a robust
electronic TMS solution,” says another CFO,
whose company is among the 35% that is in
the process of adopting state-of-the-art treasury
systems and structures.
This study did find that companies with a vendor-
provided TMS appear to be more satisfied on
overall treasury management (average score of
3.61 on a 1-5 scale), compared with those that
use an internally developed TMS (a lower rating
of 3.5), e-banking portal (3.45), and spreadsheets
(3.39).
Time will tell whether the results the leapfrogging
companies hope to gain – among them improved
cash forecasting (82%) and better handling of
multi-currency accounts (55%) – will indeed
come to pass.
In the meantime, we hope the insights in this
study will help CFOs and treasurers, and their
technology and banking partners, find their way
forward.
In business, ‘leapfrogging’ is often given a positive spin.A
company that has leapfrogged is said to have jumped over
competitors and taken a leading position. It has shed its
stodgy and inefficient ways by implementing state-of-the-art
technologies and processes without going through the traditional
route – like developing countries at the turn of the century that
by-passed fixed-line telephony to go straight to mobile phones.
1
The Effective Treasury: Processes and Structures That Work Best in Asia, January 2012. Fieldwork for
this study was conducted 4-28 August 2011.
Sponsored by

reliance on it.
Contents
Treasury Technology
Key Takeaways
Satisfaction with
Treasury Management
Holy Grail:
Cash Forecasting
Spreadsheet Madness
Introduction
Conclusion
About This Report
Leapfrogging:
Solid Interest in
the Cloud
A Leap Forward

3
A substantial proportion of respondents say they
are in the process of leapfrogging. More than a
third of the executives surveyed say so (35%),with
another 5% indicating that they have completed
the adoption of state-of-the-art treasury solutions
and structures.
The main driver for leapfrogging is the need to
improve cash forecasting (82%). The majority
also cite as reasons the need to handle multi-
currency accounts (55%) and the enterprise’s
rapid geographical expansion (53%).
On the other hand, the majority (60%) who
say their company is not leapfrogging cite as
reason the judgment that the company’s scale
of operations does not yet require an upgrade
in their current treasury structures and processes
(62%).
Regardless of whether they are leapfrogging or
not, a bare majority of respondents (51%) are
satisfied with overall treasury management in
their company. But 9% are dissatisfied, with
another 40% saying they are neutral – indicating a
judgment that treasury management is adequate,
but could be improved.
Drilling down into specific aspects of treasury
management, the level of satisfaction is highest
for cash visibility (60% satisfied).The highest level
of dissatisfaction is for cash forecasting (33%
dissatisfied).
Companies in the process of leapfrogging
tend to be less satisfied with overall treasury
management than those who have no plans to
leapfrog at this time. Of the first group, only 43%
are satisfied, compared with 54% of those with
no plans to leapfrog in the second group.
Specifically, those who are leapfrogging are
dissatisfied with cash forecasting (44% vs. only
26% of those who have no plans), cash visibility
(24% vs. 12%), and treasury risk management
(22% vs. 12%).
At 5% of the total respondents, the sample of
companies that have fully adopted state-of-the-
art technology and structures is too small to
draw firm conclusions. But as a general indication
of trends, 75% of them are satisfied with their
company’s overall treasury management, 88%
with cash visibility, and 75% with cash pooling.
Spreadsheets continue to be a key tool in treasury
management for companies in Asia. When asked
how their company currently manages treasury
processes,67% of the executives surveyed pointed
to spreadsheets. When CFO Innovation asked the
same question in 2011 in its first treasury survey,
62% gave the same answer.
Interestingly, 44% of respondents say their
company also relies on e-banking portals for
treasury management. Online banking was not
included in the survey choices three years ago
because we regarded usage as negligible, given
that few banks were offering the service to
corporates at that time.
Only 32% of respondents now say they use an
internally developed treasury management
system, down from 51% in 2011. And only
17% say their company has an on-premise TMS
provided by a vendor, from 36% in 2011.
It seems that CFOs and treasurers are tending to
rely more on spreadsheets and online banking
for treasury management, rather than on an
internally developed TMS or one provided by a
technology vendor.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
CFO Innovation surveyed 155 CFOs, finance directors, treasurers and
controllers across Asia.The key findings include the following:
Sponsored by

reliance on it.
Contents
Treasury Technology
Key Takeaways
Satisfaction with
Treasury Management
Holy Grail:
Cash Forecasting
Spreadsheet Madness
Introduction
Conclusion
About This Report
Leapfrogging:
Solid Interest in
the Cloud
A Leap Forward

4
However, vendor-provided TMS is actually
associated with the highest level of satisfaction
than all other systems. On a scale of 1 to 5,
with 5 denoting “very satisfied,” respondents
whose company has a vendor-provided TMS give
an average rating of 3.61 on overall treasury
management.
Those who use an internally developed TMS give
a lower average rating of 3.5. Those that use an
e-banking portal give a grade of 3.45, while those
that use spreadsheets give a rating of 3.39.
Satisfaction with treasury management emanates
from many factors, of course, not just the
system used. Also, companies typically utilize
spreadsheets together with online banking, TMS
and other tools, so the source of satisfaction or
dissatisfaction may be difficult to narrow down to
just one element.
Still, there seems to be a correlation between
level of satisfaction and the use ofTMS, e-banking
portals and spreadsheets. CFOs and treasurers
should perhaps take a second look at vendor-
provided treasury management solutions, rather
than relying more and more on spreadsheets and
online banking portals.
That said, respondents say their company is
looking at cloud and on-premise solutions going
forward. Four out of ten (40%) consider cloud
computing as the most important technology
platform to consider when next they review their
TMS. Another 20% point to client/server (on
premise) as the preferred platform.
In 2011, 45% of respondents said they would
consider the cloud as technology platform for
TMS. That intention has yet to be translated to
reality.Today, only 3% of the companies surveyed
have their TMS on the cloud, while 17% have an
on-premise solution. It seems intentions, so far,
are not translating into adoption.
Sponsored by

reliance on it.
Contents
Treasury Technology
Key Takeaways
Satisfaction with
Treasury Management
Holy Grail:
Cash Forecasting
Spreadsheet Madness
Introduction
Conclusion
About This Report
Leapfrogging:
Solid Interest in
the Cloud
A Leap Forward

5
Has your company leapfrogged to
the latest treasury systems and structures?
N = 155 respondents
A Leap Forward
More than a third (35%) of the CFOs, treasurers and other senior executives surveyed say their com-
pany is in the process of leapfrogging. Another 5% say their company has completed the journey in
implementing the latest treasury management systems and structures.
There are suggestions that companies in Asia are able to adopt state-of-the-art treasury systems
and structures faster than their counterparts in the West, which are hampered by legacy systems.
Respondents were therefore asked whether such leapfrogging is indeed happening in their company.
Contents
Treasury Technology
Key Takeaways
Satisfaction with
Treasury Management
Holy Grail:
Cash Forecasting
Spreadsheet Madness
Introduction
Conclusion
About This Report
Leapfrogging:
Solid Interest in
the Cloud
A Leap Forward
Sponsored by

reliance on it.

6
N = 91 respondents whose company is not adopting state-of-the-art treasury management systems
and structures.Totals do not add up to 100% because multiple responses are allowed.
Why is your company not leapfrogging?
However, the majority (65%) say their company
has no plans to leapfrog at this time. The main
reason cited is the judgment that the scale of
company operations does not yet require leap-
frogging (62%).
Much fewer are those concerned with the asso-
ciated expense, lack of change management ex-
pertise, and concerns about integrating the new
solution with existing systems.
Contents
Treasury Technology
Key Takeaways
Satisfaction with
Treasury Management
Holy Grail:
Cash Forecasting
Spreadsheet Madness
Introduction
Conclusion
About This Report
Leapfrogging:
Solid Interest in
the Cloud
A Leap Forward
Sponsored by

reliance on it.

7
N = 62 respondents.Totals do not add up to 100% because multiple responses are allowed.
Why is your company leapfrogging?
For their part, respondents who say their company
is in the process of leapfrogging or has already
leapfrogged cite the need to improve cash fore-
casting as the main reason for the shift (82%).
Other reasons include the desire to improve han-
dling of multi-currency accounts (55%) and to
keep up with the company’s rapid geographical
expansion (53%).
Contents
Treasury Technology
Key Takeaways
Satisfaction with
Treasury Management
Holy Grail:
Cash Forecasting
Spreadsheet Madness
Introduction
Conclusion
About This Report
Leapfrogging:
Solid Interest in
the Cloud
A Leap Forward
Sponsored by

reliance on it.

8
Which companies are leapfrogging?
N = 50 respondents (Asian MNCs); 54 respondents (non-Asian MNCs); 51 respondents
(local enterprises).Totals may not add up to 100% because of rounding
Contents
Treasury Technology
Key Takeaways
Satisfaction with
Treasury Management
Holy Grail:
Cash Forecasting
Spreadsheet Madness
Introduction
Conclusion
About This Report
Leapfrogging:
Solid Interest in
the Cloud
A Leap Forward
Who are these companies that are adopting
state-of-the-art treasury systems? Four out of ten
of those in the process of leapfrogging (42%) are
Asian multinationals, meaning Asia-headquar-
tered companies with operations and subsidiaries
in more than one country. A third (35%) are local
enterprises that operate in only one market.
In contrast, only 28% of non-Asian MNCs –
meaning those headquartered outside the region
– are in the process of leapfrogging. Most of them
(69%) say they have no plans to leapfrog at this
time.
This trend ofAsian MNCs and local companies be-
ing more open to leapfrogging than the regional
units of Western and other non-Asian multina-
tionals may be due to legacy systems. Non-Asian
MNCs may have invested heavily in older treasury
management systems, something that now holds
them back from adopting newer solutions such as
those based in the cloud or TMS integrated with
risk management.
Sponsored by

reliance on it.

9
How satisfied are you with the various aspects of
your company’s treasury management?
A bare majority of the executives surveyed (51%)
are happy enough with their company’s overall
treasury management. Only 9% express outright
dissatisfaction. But 40% are neutral – a less than
ringing endorsement.
While they see treasury management in their
company as adequate and fit enough for the pur-
pose, a significant proportion of respondents still
think there is room for improvement.
This is clearly the case with cash forecasting. A
third of respondents (33%) are dissatisfied with
this particular aspect of treasury management,
while 22% are neutral. Two other areas that can
stand improvement are foreign exchange (18%
dissatisfied, 20% neutral) and treasury risk man-
agement (16% dissatisfied, 32% neutral).
Respondents express satisfaction with cash vis-
ibility (60%). This may be associated with bank
partnerships – 74% of companies that use an
end-to-end banking platform and 68% of those
that utilize an e-banking portal and are satis-
fied on cash visibility. In contrast, a lower 54%
of spreadsheet users are satisfied, with 20% dis-
satisfied.
It is also interesting to note that 18% of the
companies surveyed do not have a cash pooling
arrangement. They are mainly local enterprises,
which account for 30% of the total respondents.
The 13% each of companies that do not under-
take treasury risk management and cross-border
funds transfers are also predominantly local or-
ganizations.
Does leapfrogging result in satisfaction with
treasury management? It is difficult to tell since
only 5% of the total respondents say they have
completed implementation of state-of-the-art
treasury systems and structures.
N = 152 respondents. Ratings on a 1-5 scale, with 1 as very dissatisfied and 5 as very satisfied.
Totals may not add up 100% because of rounding.
Satisfaction with Treasury Management
Respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with overall treasury management at their
company and in the specific areas of cash forecasting, foreign exchange, cash pooling, cash visibility,
treasury risk management and cross-border transfers.
The ratings were on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 denoting very dissatisfied and 5 denoting very satisfied.
Contents
Treasury Technology
Key Takeaways
Satisfaction with
Treasury Management
Holy Grail:
Cash Forecasting
Spreadsheet Madness
Introduction
Conclusion
About This Report
Leapfrogging:
Solid Interest in
the Cloud
A Leap Forward
Sponsored by

reliance on it.

10
How satisfied are you with your company’s overall
treasury management?
Still, as an indication of a potential trend, 75%
of those that said their company has leapfrogged
are satisfied with overall treasury management.
This compares with 54% for those with no plans
to follow suit, and 43% for those in the process
of leapfrogging.
The relatively low level of satisfaction expressed
by those still leapfrogging should not be a
surprise. These companies evidently hope to see
improvements, the reason why they embarked on
the journey in the first place, but they have yet to
see the results.
N = 54 respondents (in the process of leapfrogging); 8 respondents (already leapfrogged);
90 respondents (no plan to leapfrog).Totals may not add up to 100% because of rounding
Contents
Treasury Technology
Key Takeaways
Satisfaction with
Treasury Management
Holy Grail:
Cash Forecasting
Spreadsheet Madness
Introduction
Conclusion
About This Report
Leapfrogging:
Solid Interest in
the Cloud
A Leap Forward
Sponsored by

reliance on it.

11
How satisfied are you with your company’s overall
N = 50 respondents (internally developed TMS), 30 respondents (vendor-provided TMS),
68 respondents (e-banking portal), 103 respondents (spreadsheets). Ratings ranged from 1
(very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied)
The tools and systems used for treasury management appear to be correlated with the respondents’
level of satisfaction.
On overall treasury management, vendor-provided TMS garners the highest level of satisfaction, at
3.61 points on average – that is closer to 4, which equates to a rating of “satisfied.” The second
highest rating goes to internally developed TMS, at 3.5 points, followed by e-banking portal at 3.45.
Spreadsheets score the lowest level of satisfaction at 3.39.
Contents
Treasury Technology
Key Takeaways
Satisfaction with
Treasury Management
Holy Grail:
Cash Forecasting
Spreadsheet Madness
Introduction
Conclusion
About This Report
Leapfrogging:
Solid Interest in
the Cloud
A Leap Forward
Sponsored by

reliance on it.

12
Factors associated with cash forecasting satisfaction
There appears to be a correlation between dis-
satisfaction with cash forecasting and the size of
the treasury team.A third of respondents (33%) in
companies where the treasury team is staffed by
fewer than ten people are dissatisfied with cash
forecasting, compared with just 25% of respon-
dents in companies where the treasury team has
ten or more members.
That said, a bare majority in each group (51%) are
satisfied with cash forecasting in their company.
The type of treasury process and platform also
seems to be linked to cash forecasting satisfac-
tion. Some 56% of companies that use an end-to-
end solution from a banking partner are satisfied
with the treasury team’s cash forecasting.
Half of those with a specialist treasury manage-
ment system are also satisfied, although 39% are
not. Satisfaction may be a function of the quality
of the TMS, which can be internally developed or
an on-premise or cloud-based solution provided
by a technology vendor.
The same dichotomy is apparent in the use of
online banking. Forty-five percent of those that
use an e-banking portal are satisfied, but 34%
are not. Satisfaction may depend on the quality,
timeliness and cash forecasting functionalities of
the particular bank the company is working with.
Satisfaction (38%) and dissatisfaction (37%) with
cash forecasting are almost equal among those
that use spreadsheets in treasury management.
This may be due not to the tool itself, but to the
varying levels of expertise of treasury teams in us-
ing spreadsheets for cash forecasting.
Finally, the structure of the treasury function may
be linked to success in cash forecasting. The ma-
jority of respondents in companies with a global
treasury center (51%) and country-level treasury
unit (54%) express satisfaction with cash fore-
casting.
However, 58% of respondents in companies
where each subsidiary has a treasury unit express
dissatisfaction. When it comes to cash forecast-
ing, it seems that a country-level approach is the
most effective.At 22%, the level of dissatisfaction
with this structure is the lowest among the four
types.
N = 38-112 respondents (treasury team); 43-100 respondents (treasury process);
31-67 respondents (treasury structure)
Holy Grail: Cash Forecasting
Because cash forecasting is the one aspect of treasury management that garners higher levels of
dissatisfaction, the responses were cross-tabbed to find the factors associated with cash forecasting
success (and failure).
Sponsored by

reliance on it.
Contents
Treasury Technology
Key Takeaways
Satisfaction with
Treasury Management
Holy Grail:
Cash Forecasting
Spreadsheet Madness
Introduction
Conclusion
About This Report
Leapfrogging:
Solid Interest in
the Cloud
A Leap Forward

13
How do you manage your treasury processes?
Spreadsheet usage continues to spread. Nearly
seven out of ten (67%) of the executives surveyed
say their company uses spreadsheets for treasury
management. This is a slightly larger proportion
than in the 2011 survey (62%).
In contrast, there is a diminution across the board
for all other treasury management tools and sys-
tems. Only 32% of the executives surveyed say
their company uses an internally developed TMS,
for example, compared with 51% three years ago.
Usage of vendor-provided on-premise TMS has
also fallen, to 17% from 36% in the 2011 survey.
What’s been happening? It seems that more
companies are opting to use spreadsheets and
an e-banking portal (44%) for treasury and cash
management, rather than a treasury management
system developed in-house or provided by a tech-
nology vendor. The spreadsheet/banking portal
combo also appears to be replacing the use of
end-to-end solutions provided by a banking part-
ner (38% from 47% in 2011).
The use of e-banking portals was not even asked
in the 2011 survey, because it was seen as an
emerging platform that few companies were uti-
lizing, along with cloud-based TMS solutions. It
seems companies have now overcome concerns
about security and other issues with corporate
online banking (but not with cloud-based TMS).
N = 155 respondents (2015 survey); 191 respondents (2011 survey). e-Banking portal and
vendor-provided cloud solution were not among the choices in 2011.Totals do not add up to
100% because multiple responses are allowed.
Spreadsheet Madness
CFO Innovation conducted its first treasury survey in 2011. The question on the use of spreadsheets
and other processes and platforms was repeated in this survey to track changes, if any, over three
years.
Sponsored by

reliance on it.
Contents
Treasury Technology
Key Takeaways
Satisfaction with
Treasury Management
Holy Grail:
Cash Forecasting
Spreadsheet Madness
Introduction
Conclusion
About This Report
Leapfrogging:
Solid Interest in
the Cloud
A Leap Forward

14
How treasury processes are managed, by type of company
N = 50 respondents (Asian MNC); 54 respondents (Non-Asian MNC); 51 respondents
(local enterprise).Totals do not add up to 100% because multiple responses are allowed.
At 59%, the use of spreadsheets in treasury man-
agement is relatively lower in local companies
(that is, enterprises that operate only in one mar-
ket) compared with Asian MNCs (Asia-headquar-
tered companies with operations and subsidiaries
in more than one market) and non-Asian MNCs
(US- and other non-Asia headquartered compa-
nies with operations and subsidiaries in more
than one market).
Compared to MNCs, local enterprises are more
likely to utilize an internally developed TMS and
less likely to use an end-to-end solution provided
by a banking partner. They are also less likely to
subscribe to a Bloomberg or Reuters terminal.
The irony is that, as the average ratings on sat-
isfaction with overall treasury management indi-
cate, the use of spreadsheets is actually associat-
ed with the lowest level of satisfaction compared
with vendor-provided and internally developed
TMS and e-banking portal.
Similar trend lines are evident on cash forecast-
ing, cash visibility, cross-border transfers, treasury
risk management and foreign exchange – the use
of spreadsheets is consistently associated with
lower levels of satisfaction compared with the use
of vendor-provided TMS.
Sponsored by

reliance on it.
Contents
Treasury Technology
Key Takeaways
Satisfaction with
Treasury Management
Holy Grail:
Cash Forecasting
Spreadsheet Madness
Introduction
Conclusion
About This Report
Leapfrogging:
Solid Interest in
the Cloud
A Leap Forward

15
How satisfied are you with the various aspects of
N = 50 respondents who use internally developed TMS, 30 respondents who use vendor-provided TMS,
68 respondents who use an e-banking portal, 103 respondents who use spreadsheets. Ratings ranged
from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied)
Those who use spreadsheets rate satisfaction
with cash visibility and risk management lower
than users of vendor-provided and internally de-
veloped TMS and e-banking. On the other hand,
cash visibility and risk management are the areas
where vendor-provided TMS excels.
The use of e-banking portals is also associated
with low satisfaction levels on risk management
and on foreign exchange, an area that users of
vendor-providedTMS give the highest satisfaction
rating.
Sponsored by

reliance on it.
Contents
Treasury Technology
Key Takeaways
Satisfaction with
Treasury Management
Holy Grail:
Cash Forecasting
Spreadsheet Madness
Introduction
Conclusion
About This Report
Leapfrogging:
Solid Interest in
the Cloud
A Leap Forward

16
Solid Interest in the Cloud
When you next review yourTMS, which would be
the most important technology platform?
N = 60 respondents. N/A and No Comment answers were stripped out.Total does not add up to
The same question was asked in the 2011 survey,
when a higher proportion, 45%, said the cloud
would be the most important technology plat-
form. In the current survey, more respondents also
ticked off ‘no preference’ (31% vs. 24%).
Note that cloud-based TMS usage is negligible in
this survey – despite the 45% who expressed in-
terest in this technology platform three years ago.
It seems that ‘being interested’ cannot really be
equated with ‘going to implement’ as far as TMS
platforms are concerned.
At 3%, the sample of cloud-based TMS users is too small to allow observations to be drawn.That may
change going forward. Asked which would be the most important technology platform when their
company reviews the way it conducts treasury management, 40% of the executives surveyed pointed
to cloud computing.
Sponsored by

reliance on it.
Contents
Treasury Technology
Key Takeaways
Satisfaction with
Treasury Management
Holy Grail:
Cash Forecasting
Spreadsheet Madness
Introduction
Conclusion
About This Report
Leapfrogging:
Solid Interest in
the Cloud
A Leap Forward

17
What major technology investments are you looking to make
in the next two years?
N = 151 respondents (2015 survey); 178 respondents (2011 survey).Totals may not add up to
100% because of rounding
Indeed, when asked what major technology investments their company is planning to make in the next
two years, only 30% pointed to TMS implementation or upgrade. More companies will focus on ERP
installation/upgrade and improving risk management tools and processes.
The priorities today remain basically unchanged from three years ago.
Sponsored by

reliance on it.
Contents
Treasury Technology
Key Takeaways
Satisfaction with
Treasury Management
Holy Grail:
Cash Forecasting
Spreadsheet Madness
Introduction
Conclusion
About This Report
Leapfrogging:
Solid Interest in
the Cloud
A Leap Forward

18
What changes are you planning to improve treasury management?
N = 150 respondents.Total does not add up to 100% because multiple answers are allowed.
The status of technology as lower down the list
of priorities is confirmed when respondents were
asked what changes they plan to make to improve
treasury management in their company.
Only a third of the executives surveyed (34%) say
they will acquire new technology.The overwhelm-
ing plan of attack will focus on improvement of
internal processes (83%), followed by training for
staff (55%).
Interestingly, beefing up the number of treasury
staff is way down the list at 13%. It seems the
preferred approach is to maximize the capabilities
of what the company already has, both in terms of
processes and people.
Sponsored by

reliance on it.
Contents
Treasury Technology
Key Takeaways
Satisfaction with
Treasury Management
Holy Grail:
Cash Forecasting
Spreadsheet Madness
Introduction
Conclusion
About This Report
Leapfrogging:
Solid Interest in
the Cloud
A Leap Forward

19
Leapfrogging:A practical approach
What will you change if you can do over treasury
management implementation?
N = 137 respondents. N/A and No Comment answers were stripped out.Total does not add up to
An open-ended question was posed to the re-
spondents, asking them to imagine that they had
the chance to implement structures, processes
and systems all over again. What would they
do differently? The individual free-form answers
were grouped under general categories.
The most frequent response is that they will not
change anything (16%), with another 10% saying
the issue does not arise because the decision was
made elsewhere (this would be mostly respon-
dents in non-Asian multinationals).
As one respondent puts it: “It was fit for the pur-
pose at the time it was put in place.” While the
company has grown dramatically over the last
few years, adds a treasurer, “it was not of a size
and complexity that required a robust electronic
TMS solution.There was very little need until now
for such a system.”
It’s a practical and prudent approach.Why acquire
an elephant gun when all you’re interested in is
duck-hunting? “Our set-up is quite simple and my
plan is to continue the same structure at the mo-
ment,” explains another respondent.
However, her company is planning to expand in
terms of products and markets. “With more plans
for diversification, I foresee a much more struc-
tured treasury operation and introduction of cur-
rent technology to address risk, liquidity, and cash
management,” says this treasurer.
But many other respondents do feel they could
have done things differently. The focus of that
do-over is mastering what exactly the TMS can
and cannot do (12%), making sure the system
will help with cash forecasting (11%), and taking
steps to involve the company’s banking partners
(9%).
Sponsored by

reliance on it.
Contents
Treasury Technology
Key Takeaways
Satisfaction with
Treasury Management
Holy Grail:
Cash Forecasting
Spreadsheet Madness
Introduction
Conclusion
About This Report
Leapfrogging:
Solid Interest in
the Cloud
A Leap Forward

20
“The TMS was [highly] customized and a lot of
good features may have been compromised,”
says one respondent. Another CFO has the op-
posite observation: “We should have tailored the
systems and structures to fit with the business
model and the needs of the company, at the same
time made it dynamic enough to adapt to chang-
ing internal and external scenarios.”
Other comments include choosing “plug-and-
play” TMS that integrates smoothly with the ERP,
banking and other systems, a “more user-friendly’
solution and a TMS that can “reduce overall costs
for payments,” “allows scenario-testing,” “drives
cash planning,” and capable of “cross-border”
transactions.
Forecasting is the one aspect of treasury man-
agement that generates a substantial amount of
should-have-done-this mentions. We should have
made sure the implementation “improved the
cash forecasting process, particularly on purchas-
es and inventory,” says one respondent.
Forecasting was also mentioned in the context
of cash flow, cash collection and disbursement,
and integration with existing systems. The TMS
“should have been integrated with the ERP and
banking systems to help my forecasting become
more accurate,” says one CFO.
Sponsored by

reliance on it.
Contents
Treasury Technology
Key Takeaways
Satisfaction with
Treasury Management
Holy Grail:
Cash Forecasting
Spreadsheet Madness
Introduction
Conclusion
About This Report
Leapfrogging:
Solid Interest in
the Cloud
A Leap Forward

21
Conclusion
The continued prevalence of spreadsheets in trea-
sury management is a bit of a puzzle, in light of
the low satisfaction rating that its users give it
on overall treasury management and the specific
aspects of cash forecasting, visibility and risk
management.
Then again, the spreadsheet, for all its faults, is
a familiar tool for most finance professionals,
something that they have used from their school
days. It is flexible and the basic software comes
bundled with Microsoft Office, which makes it, in
a sense, free. Companies buy the entire productiv-
ity suite as a set, so they might as well make full
use of the spreadsheet component.
But spreadsheets can be cumbersome when large
volumes of data are involved, in addition to be-
ing vulnerable to manual errors and deliberate
attempts to massage the numbers. Spreadsheet
files can also be difficult to share in real-time with
a large number of users across the organization.
As it happens, these are the shortcomings that
technology providers say their TMS solutions ad-
dress. The touted advantages also includes user-
friendly features such as pre-defined categories
and formulas, anytime, anywhere accessibility,
and in the case of cloud solutions, automatic soft-
ware upgrades, real-time updates in response to
new regulations, and pay-as-you-use capabilities.
And as we know from the findings of this report,
users of vendor-provided TMS tend to be more
satisfied with overall treasury management than
users of spreadsheets, internally developed TMS
(meaning a solution by the company’s own IT de-
partment) and e-banking portals.
One intriguing notion is the idea that the rise in
usage of online banking is somehow linked to the
decrease in utilization of TMS solutions, both in-
ternally developed and vendor-provided. Is it pos-
sible that companies are trying out online bank-
ing in place of a full-blown TMS?
Perhaps. Satisfaction levels of e-banking users
are on par with those of vendor-provided TMS on
cash forecasting, visibility and cross-border trans-
fers. However, they diverge on risk management
and foreign exchange, two areas where online-
banking users express lower levels of satisfaction
compared with TMS users.
At the end of the day, of course, the decision of
how to structure and run the treasury function
should be a pragmatic one. It should be a practi-
cal response to the unique circumstances of every
company. As one respondent puts it: “Our com-
pany is too small for fancy technology; we just use
Excel.” Or as another CFO says: “The size of our
treasury means we could merge it with the nor-
mal finance functions.”
But as company operations increase in size, geo-
graphical reach and complexity, the level of sat-
isfaction with spreadsheets and online banking
may deteriorate. That may be the time to “focus
more on risk management of the treasury func-
tion, supported by sound treasury management
practices,” says one respondent.
The third of respondents in this study who say
their company is in the process of leapfrogging
presumably have reached this point.
For others, it is a good idea to learn about what
is out there in terms of treasury technology, man-
agement structures and best practice procedures.
In that way, they will be prepared for the time
their organizations will have become large and
complicated enough to require them.
Sponsored by

reliance on it.
Conclusion
Contents
Treasury Technology
Key Takeaways
Satisfaction with
Treasury Management
Holy Grail:
Cash Forecasting
Spreadsheet Madness
Introduction
About This Report
Leapfrogging:
Solid Interest in
the Cloud
A Leap Forward

22
With increasing pressure on treasuries
everywhere to optimize strategic efficiency,
the scale and complexity perceived to
justify the adoption of automated processes
becomes ever more important to dispel.
Evidence from this study taken from the
many corporations across Asia Pacific who
are apparently experiencing a low level
of treasury management satisfaction,
suggests that now is the time to overcome
these misconceptions and master the art of
leapfrogging.
Vendors are also feeling the pressure to
adapt; we too must become more strategic
and deliver higher customer value through
an all-encompassing managed service that
facilitates decision-making and allows
treasurers and CFOs to focus on the business
objectives at hand.
No longer simply a processing engine, we
must deliver a completely integrated service.
This should range from streamlining the
bank connectivity for group cash positions
to automating the capture of liquidity,
to suggesting deal positions from a cash
forecasting perspective and all subsequent
variance analysis based on historical data -
all of which must have the option of being
generated without manual intervention,
all of which must have the option of being
vendor-managed to reduce total cost of
ownership.
So what does it mean to leapfrog?
The operational risks and inefficiencies of
using spreadsheets are clear and reflected
here in the low level of satisfaction they
yield in this report. The limitations and time
lag associated with having to manually
consolidate error-prone data to varying
parties for a centralized view, coupled
with the lack of transparency, auditability
and control in order to substantiate data
integrity, can no longer be adequate for
those organizations striving for growth and
increased shareholder value.
Similarly issues with the use and hidden cost
of supporting e-banking portals, which often
result in the duplication of effort,do not make
sense where a bank-agnostic, automated,
secure alternative can consolidate data into
a single repository.
An interesting observation from this study is
the apparent high level of satisfaction with
cash visibility compared with the low level
in cash forecasting. How can a strategic,
results-driven treasury have one without the
other?
High visibility of cash is somewhat negated
if there is a lack of accurate cash forecasting
and the efficient allocation of cash based on
a short, medium and long term view.
In turn, accurate cash forecasting cannot
take place without a holistic view of risk.
Automated integration of risk requires
a full historic and future view of cash
positions available for custom-built risk
analysis. Without this, regardless of size or
sophistication, companies are missing half
the story.
We know that adapting and embracing
change facilitates growth. A recent treasury
technology study we conducted in Australia
& New Zealand revealed that 54% of
respondents with an installed TMS cite a
lack of internal IT support as their greatest
challenge.
Of those, 78% would value the security
and time to focus on strategic business
objectives enabled by managed upgrades
and outsourced exception handling.
So keep in mind that you don’t have to go it
alone. Leapfrogging can be more than just
the [processing] engine, it can be having a
chauffeur and mechanic too…
Mike Kresse, EVP Growth Markets,
SunGard’s AvantGard
Sponsored by

reliance on it.
Conclusion
Contents
Treasury Technology
Key Takeaways
Satisfaction with
Treasury Management
Holy Grail:
Cash Forecasting
Spreadsheet Madness
Introduction
About This Report
Leapfrogging:
Solid Interest in
the Cloud
A Leap Forward

23
About this Report
Fieldwork for this online survey was conducted from 29 May to 31 July 2014. Cesar Bacani, Editor-in-
Chief of CFO Innovation, devised the questionnaire, analyzed the results, and wrote the report. Dick
Wong,Art Director at Questex Media Group, designed the report.
A total of 155 respondents from Singapore, Hong Kong, Philippines, China, Malaysia and other jurisdic-
tions in Asia participated in this survey.They are CFOs, finance directors, treasurers, vice presidents of
finance and other senior executives.
Respondents are personally based in the following markets . . .
. . . hold positions with the following titles . . .
Sponsored by

reliance on it.
About This Report
Contents
Treasury Technology
Key Takeaways
Satisfaction with
Treasury Management
Holy Grail:
Cash Forecasting
Spreadsheet Madness
Introduction
Leapfrogging:
Solid Interest in
the Cloud
A Leap Forward
Conclusion

24
. . . employed by a company that is a . . .
. . . and work with a treasury office staffed by:
Sponsored by

reliance on it.
About This Report
Contents
Treasury Technology
Key Takeaways
Satisfaction with
Treasury Management
Holy Grail:
Cash Forecasting
Spreadsheet Madness
Introduction
Leapfrogging:
Solid Interest in
the Cloud
A Leap Forward
Conclusion

Treasury Tech Leapfrogging in Asia

Treasury Tech Leapfrogging in Asia

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Treasury Tech Leapfrogging in Asia

Similar to Treasury Tech Leapfrogging in Asia (20)

Treasury Tech Leapfrogging in Asia