Trending Now

GT Podcast – Episode 129 – The Port Authority of NY…

New Articles

This is How Rooted Checks are in our History

checks
Archives, Banking, Global Trade Daily

This is How Rooted Checks are in our History

Leave a comment

If your company makes payments, I’m willing to bet you’ve at least Googled cost-effective ways to simplify the process. Perhaps you’re an enterprise making hundreds of payments a day. Or maybe you’re a small- to mid-sized business looking to ease the manual burden on your small-but-plucky AP team.

One of the biggest arguments against checks is that they’re just plain old, invented to support even older banking processes. Of course, the term “old” is relative, so what does it mean when we’re talking about check history? You might be surprised.

Checks used to make a lot of sense

Checks developed alongside banks, with the concept for payment withdrawals based on recorded instruction appearing in history as early as 300 B.C. in India or Rome, depending on who you ask. Paper-based checks made their debut in the Netherlands in the 1500s, and took root in North America about a century before the Declaration of Independence was signed. The oldest surviving checkbook in the U.S. dates back to the late 1700s—and the register even has a notation for a check made out to Alexander Hamilton for legal services.

So, yes, checks are old.

What started as a safe and strategic way to transfer money—one that protected merchants’ safety and livelihoods—ingrained itself in business dealings for hundreds of years. It’s challenging to phase out something like that entirely, even if checks are difficult to adapt to today’s electronic processes.

Hanging onto the past

Each business that holds onto its check process has a reason. Perhaps their AP team’s veteran employees are more comfortable with the familiarity of checks. They may wish to preserve business relationships with suppliers that prefer checks. Some businesses are very likely interested in switching to electronic processes because check payments are expensive—but they hold back due to the perceived process upheaval.

These concerns aren’t unfounded. They’re built upon years—and generations—of business experience. So while plenty of news outlets claim that checks will phase out “soon,” we should more realistically expect that they’ll be incorporated into—not eradicated from—modern business practices. At least for now.

Time for a change

While banks have made efforts to simplify the payee’s ability to cash checks electronically, only a few have attempted to tackle the time-consuming issues that their customers face. They also lack ways to incorporate outdated check processes with the newer ACH and credit card processes their customers are also expected to support.

If checks are here to stay, do companies need to resign themselves to endless signature hunts, letter-stuffing parties, and post office visits? No. Checks have the spectacular ability to evolve as modern needs arise. After all, the first printed checks in the U.S. didn’t have the standardized MICR format that we use today.

Change happens slowly and in easily digestible segments. So although checks aren’t going away any time soon, they’re overdue for another evolution.

A middle ground exists, where business owners can upgrade their processes without causing major supplier or employee upset. Payment automation solutions have been growing in recognition for over a decade. The most successful providers have acknowledged the gray area with checks and incorporated them into their simplified electronic payment workflows. These alternatives reduce AP workloads without forcing suppliers to accept payment types that don’t work for them.

Checks have come a long way since their conceptual days, and their flexibility means we probably won’t see the last of them anytime soon. We are, however, in the midst of their shift into the electronic world, and AP teams are all the happier for it.

Are you interested in the history of wire payments? Check out this article.

______________________________________________________________

Alyssa Callahan is the Content Strategist at Nvoicepay, a FLEETCOR company. She has five years of experience in the B2B payment industry, specializing in cross-border B2B payment processes.

AR
Archives, Banking, Global Trade Daily

How to Create an Enduring Workflow for AR

Leave a comment

Please note: Vocabulary in the payment automation world varies. While customers (i.e., clients, buyers) and their suppliers (i.e., vendors, beneficiaries, sellers) are both considered customers to payment automation companies like Nvoicepay, this article will use the terms “customer” and “supplier” to distinguish between them.

Imagine having to switch out old railroad tracks while a rusted steam engine thunders across. Adopting modern electronic payments runs about as smoothly for banks.

When you think about how old banks are in the U.S., it’s an understandable plight. They’ve been running on the same tracks since the first bank’s founding. Additional features, like wire payments and credit cards, were added over time as a complement to the old system. But the rise of nimbler financial technology (fintech) companies has lit a fire under them. Now they face the challenge of converting their processes to electronic means without disturbing their clients’ day-to-day business.

In a way, fintechs have it easy. Their very nature makes competing against banks a breeze, primarily because banks were built to last, and fintechs were built to adapt. They can easily shift gears to meet demand and immediate needs. Meanwhile, banks are frequently caught up in bureaucratic processes that make it virtually impossible to react quickly to problems.

Financial and fintech industries feel the contrast most often when tackling payment security—specifically when it comes to cards. Even though check payments incur 25% more fraud instances than card payments, according to the 2019 AFP Payment Fraud and Control Survey, many companies hesitate to make the switch to more electronic means.

Kim Lockett—the Director of Supplier Services at Nvoicepay, a FLEETCOR company—offers a glimpse into why companies are hesitating to shift gears: “Fraud is not a new issue to companies,” she states. “But what we’ve learned is that fear of change overrides the fear of potential fraud loss, even among companies who have already incurred those losses.”

With almost 30 years of experience in payments and financial services, Lockett possesses a holistic perspective on supplier expectations for seamlessly receiving payments, with payment fraud protection listed as one of the highest priorities. She’s heard all the horror stories, from a small business whose checks were stolen out of their mailbox and cashed, to a company whose employee tried to use business deposit information to clear her personal checks.

That’s not to say that errors and fraud don’t occur for card payments as well. But they occur significantly less and are much easier and faster to resolve than check, ACH, and wire payment issues.

What’s the Holdup?

In the last decade, fintech companies have improved the tracks on which many accounts receivable (AR) teams function. From providing lower processing costs for card payments to offering user-friendly portals for reliable payment retrieval, fintechs transform painful AR workflows into a functional process.

Meanwhile, banks have just begun to offer pseudo-solutions that appear to be tech-friendly but still run on old tracks. An excellent example of this is lockbox technology, where banks mitigate the processing of check payments and their data for their larger customers by taking on the work themselves. This sort of offering likely extended the life of check payments. Still, it didn’t eradicate the underlying problem: that even though work has been lifted directly from their customer’s shoulders, someone at the bank still has to process checks and submit data for manual reconciliation. The process is hardly automated, and the advent of payment processing technology has all but made the entire process impractical.

Embracing the Future

Of course, the best way to avoid check issues is to avoid checks. These days, electronic payment methods offer higher levels of security. But if electronic options like virtual card numbers are such a fantastic option, why are so many companies avoiding them?

Lockett states: “In general, I think companies are afraid of handling credit card numbers because they feel there is risk involved.”

It’s not the dangers of check payments, but misconceptions about electronic payments that cause companies to refrain from accepting them. Many AR teams rationalize that they’d rather respond to the inevitable check fraud cases they understand than walk unprepared into the relatively unknown territory of card fraud.

When checks are stolen and cashed, there’s very little that can be done. At the end of the day, someone will be out that money. Other electronic payment types like ACH and wire are significantly safer, but can still experience fraud, especially internal instances, such as when a company’s employee submits their personal bank account information to receive company payments. Whether these issues are reversible is dependent on each unique scenario.

Card payments, particularly the virtual card numbers provided by fintech companies, are typically protected by two-factor authentication. Whether this means that AR is supplied with a login to access secure details or a portion of a card number, the information is much more difficult for bad actors to access, securing the payment process and reducing the risk of fraud.

In the end, not every company will have the capacity to accept card payments, so leaving alternate options open like check and ACH truly boils down to how much individual payment providers value customer service.

Taking Suppliers Along for the Automation Journey

In many cases, banks have rushed to cater to customer’s needs, leaving suppliers in the dust when it comes to follow-through on electronic payments. Despite these efforts to change, most larger banks still follow their old tracks, and their customers and suppliers experience the same lack of customer service they always did.

With over 10 years of support development behind them, fintechs have expanded their offerings to suppliers, catering to their specific needs, whether they require something as simple as customizable file formats or a more significant request like payment aggregation. Fintechs that follow through with supplier support are truly delivering on their promise of offering an end-to-end solution. They are building tracks that support the advanced bullet trains that companies have become.

“Ten years ago, companies were reluctant to add virtual card payments to their list of accepted payment types,” says Lockett. “Education, experience, and word-of-mouth have established virtual card payments as a mainstream and relevant way to conduct business.”

______________________________________________________

Alyssa Callahan is the Content Strategist at Nvoicepay, a FLEETCOR company. She has five years of experience in the B2B payment industry, specializing in cross-border B2B payment processes.

technology
Archives, Banking, Global Trade Daily

The Surprisingly Long Life of Wire Technology

Leave a comment

Those of us in dynamic, fast-paced industries have gotten used to keeping our eyes trained forward. We’re always exploring innovations—ways to evolve our processes and make them as efficient as possible. Technology grows at such break-neck speed that adults of any age can look back and marvel at the changes they’ve witnessed in their lifetimes. But surprisingly, many of these technologies aren’t actually new. In fact, most of our modern financial workflows have evolved from processes that are older than living memory. Cool, right?

As we ring in the new year, let’s take a step back and reflect on the origins of a very familiar process to many of us: wire payments, and the subsequent introduction of electronic funds transfers.

Humble Beginnings

Wires, direct deposits, and electronic funds transfers (EFT) have roots in the invention of the telegraph; a tool used in the United States from 1844 until 2013 (some areas of the world still communicate by telegram today).

The telegraph is the catalyst for all modern means of communication. It’s arguably one of the most pivotal inventions of Anno Domini, and it forever changed the speed at which critical information could circulate in and among developed countries. Instead of waiting weeks for mail to arrive by ship, train, and pony express, messages would take only hours to arrive. It was as pivotal to its contemporaries as the Internet is to us.

The invention of the telegraph came just after the first Industrial Revolution, in 1844, when Samuel Morse sent the first telegram from Washington, D.C. to his partner, Alfred Vail, in Baltimore, Maryland. The message: “What hath God wrought?”

Just over a decade later, preparations began to lay the Transatlantic Telegraph Cable across the seafloor—but the project took several years to complete. The first two attempts failed after the cable—made of copper wire wrapped in tar, hemp, and steel—snapped and was lost irretrievably lost at sea. The third attempt, completed in 1858, finally connected the two continents from Newfoundland, Canada, to Valentia Island in Ireland.

After a test message (“Glory to God in the highest; on earth peace, good-will towards men!”) successfully transmitted between the engineers, Queen Victoria and President Buchanan exchanged lengthy congratulations. The Queen’s message—the less flowery of the two, comprised of 99 words with 509 letters—took an exhausting 17 hours and 40 minutes to transmit by Morse code. This may seem lengthy by today’s standards, but at the time, the fastest means of overseas communication was by ship. Eighteen hours was staggeringly fast.

Success was short-lived. The power used to send the first messages was too much for the cable to withstand, and it corroded and fell silent within the first three months. Intercontinental silence ensued until 1866—two years after the American Civil War ended—when efforts to replace the cable began.

Despite the many initial setbacks, the telegraph became a beacon for human invention. It transformed not only the means but also how we spoke to each other. Telegrams were very expensive and usually reserved for affluent patrons and emergencies. Because of the high cost, telegraph companies encouraged senders to ditch the elaborate salutations of the day for succinct (cheap) messages.

For example:

-Sending a ten-word message in 1860 from New York to New Orleans cost $2.70—about $76 in 2018.

-Sending a ten-word message to England around the opening of the Transatlantic Telegraphic Cable would have cost around $100—just over $2,930 in 2018.

Because the prices were out of reach for most middle- and lower-class families of the day, physical mail remained the primary means of communication. This resonates with today’s concerns about the potential expense of newer technologies. The inventions of the telephone and the radio also likely contributed to the telegraph never becoming a common household item. Even so, it still had more to give to society—businesses found another use for this groundbreaking technology.

Incorporating the Telegraph into Bank Processes

The first funds moved via wire in 1872 when the Western Union opened a system to transfer up to $100 (about $2,120 in 2018) at a time. According to Tom Standage in his book The Victorian Internet: “The system worked by dividing the company’s network into twenty districts […]. A telegram from the sender’s office […] confirmed that the money had been deposited; the superintendent would then send another telegram to the recipient’s office authorizing the payment.”

This was a rudimentary, time-consuming process, but still similar to modern operations. It took a while for the concept of non-physical fund exchanges to catch on. Standage writes: “One [person] went into a telegraph office to wire the sum of $11.76 to someone and then changed the amount to $12 because [they] said [they were] afraid that the loose change ‘might get lost traveling over the wire.’”

Stepping into the Modern Age

The transition from telegraphic methods to EFT is somewhat obscured. The first mentions of direct deposit appeared in 1974, just over 100 years after the first wire payments transmitted via telegraph. Newspaper ads like this one in Florida’s Ocala Star-Banner promoted services for “Direct Deposit for Social Security,” which deposited Social Security checks from the government to individuals.

Even EFT payments initially met with some trepidation. In a 1976 article in the Ocala Star-Banner entitled “Computer Money System… Would You Bank On It?”, Louise Cook writes that the banks favored electronic means in order to limit the expensive manual paperwork they had to maintain.

Sound familiar?

When reading through old articles about initial EFT processes, I was struck by how many of the same arguments exist today against switching entirely to electronic procedures.

In Cook’s article, she broke down the cost for banks to maintain physical processes at the time. Banks were processing around 27 billion checks annually for 32 cents a check ($1.45 in 2019). They stressed that EFT was crucial to sustaining their businesses.

A separate 1977 article by Sylvia Porter in The Southeast Missourian entitled “Checkless society,” discussed her concerns about EFT payments. Some of the concerns are very dated. For example, Porter argued that disputes over electronic transactions at restaurants would require lawsuits to resolve. These days, banks frequently handle disputes on behalf of their clients and refund them up front. Other arguments, such as the value of float for companies, remain valid today and are resolved by fintechs.

Same Song, Different Decade

It’s the 21st century, and electronic payment options are already aging—wire transfers are almost 150 years old! Yet companies still struggle to get fully automated processes off the ground. Where is the disconnect?

There are several possible contributors, which include:

Perceived cost. Sending funds electronically is cheaper than ever, but checks now cost around $3.00 each. This equates to roughly 65 cents in 1976—a 106% increase from the original 32 cents (without even accounting for inflation). Despite the reduced cost of electronic payments, the transition, training, and scaling concerns are enough to make most companies too nervous to act. Payment solution providers ease this concern by offering fast implementation, logical user interfaces, andskilled support teams.

Smaller vendors still ask for checks. Checks won’t become obsolete until companies stop requesting them, which is unlikely—at least for now. Many smaller companies typically run their businesses on familiar, outdated processes. Vendors know everyone at their bank, and frequently pay their employees through paper processes. Even so, their business choices don’t need to affect the way your company handles AP. Fintechs like Nvoicepay offer pay file submissions, which enable AP teams to issue payments electronically. Then Nvoicepay disburses the funds in the vendor’s preferred format (credit card, ACH, or print check) without you having to chase down a single check-signer.

Security concerns. Payment fraud instances are more common than ever. Handing some control to a payment partner can be intimidating, especially if you’re not sure that partner is taking fully protective measures for your company. During the research process, be sure to ask prospective payment solution providers whether they will cover you for any issues that occur.

Looking Forward

What can we learn by looking back? Aside from gaining a healthy appreciation for our roots, reflection offers a great perspective on the future of modern AP processes. It highlights the fact that we haven’t changed all that much. Rather than introduce new concepts these past 150 years, we have refined and modernized existing operations.

If you’re researching ways to economize your back-office processes, but all the new-fangled technology sets you on edge, take heart! You may be surprised at how familiar this new technology feels because it isn’t really new at all—it’s evolved.

 ______________________________________________________________

 Alyssa Callahan is a Technical Marketing Writer at Nvoicepay. She has four years of experience in the B2B payment industry, specializing in cross-border B2B payment processes.

intermediary banks laundering
Archives, Banking, Global Trade Daily

Connecting the World: The Importance of Intermediary Banks

Leave a comment

Whether you are initiating electronic international payments through a fintech solution or buying physical currency, the chances are high that a bank will be involved. The relationship between banks, as well as the role of intermediary banks, often eludes the general public, who are content with the process as long as it works.

However, understanding how the sausage is made can provide valuable insight into the way you conduct your business. Let’s take a closer look at intermediary banks and their subsequent relationship with currency exchange.

What is an Intermediary Bank?

In layman’s terms, an intermediary bank is where funds are transferred prior to reaching their destination, the payment bank. 

To transfer money, banks must hold accounts with each other in the same way that a typical client would. However, there are too many banks for one to hold accounts with all the others, so instead, they strategically choose where to open accounts. The result is a fragmented network of financial institutions. 

When a bank needs to send money to a location where their bank does not hold an account, the bank instructs an intermediary bank to act as a “middle man” to pass on the funds on their behalf. Funds can transfer between multiple intermediaries, especially if one of the banks is not networked with many larger banks. If the payment bank is across an international border, the intermediary bank may also act as the currency exchange provider.

The Role of Currency Exchange

Currency exchange refers to the use of one currency to purchase the same value in another currency. It’s required any time one entity wishes to pay another in a currency different from their default option.

Each country has either a “fixed” or “floating” exchange rate. A “fixed” exchange rate—also known as the “gold standard”—means that all the country’s money has a physical equivalent in gold or another precious material. “Floating” exchange rates may not have a physical worth, but are influenced by the market and politics, as is currently the case with the Great British pound’s relationship with Brexit.

Breaking Down the Cost

For businesses, currency exchange is vital to a true international payment process. Some vendors may wish to be paid in their customer’s default currency, which would not warrant an exchange. U.S. businesses may experience this when working with vendors in countries like China or Japan, who often prefer payments in USD. This happens when a vendor finds it cheaper to open accounts specific to currencies other than their own in order to avoid exchange fees.

Some vendors have opened multi-currency accounts, which enable vendors to accept and store more than one currency in a single account. Because this method is still gaining traction, it’s good practice to ask if vendors have multi-currency accounts before sending them money. If they don’t, and their account cannot support your currency, the payment bank will likely reject the funds.

Other hidden costs to consider when working with international payments are:

The exchange. If your origin currency is weaker than the payment currency, your money may lose some value in the trade. However, the market is continuously shifting, so the exchange will also gain value at times. The more international payments you make, the likelier that this cost will even out over time.

Intermediary bank fees. Some intermediary banks shave off a fee for their services, which is usually taken from the sum – the net amount is deposited into the vendor’s account. Not all intermediary banks will charge this fee, and it’s not immediately obvious which banks will do so.

Payment bank fees. Similar to the intermediary banks, certain payment banks also charge a fee for processing international payments. Again, not every bank charges this fee, but those that do will deduct it from the payment sum before depositing the net amount into the vendor’s account. Vendors can discuss this charge with their bank if it occurs.

Disrupting the Status Quo

With all these nuances to keep in mind, it can feel like involving a fintech will only add another cog to an already-overwhelming process. However, a fintech can determine the most efficient route through an intermediary bank, and assist in locating missing payments. If funds are returned for any reason, fintechs also act as a holding account while you decide if you want to exchange the funds back or resend them. Following a process like this ultimately saves time, money, and hassle.

If you’re on the fence about using a fintech for international payments, keep in mind that you aren’t losing out by mitigating an overly complicated bank processes. You’re merely side-stepping the complications in favor of usability.

___________________________________________________________________

Alyssa Callahan is a Technical Marketing Writer at Nvoicepay. She has four years of experience in the B2B payment industry, specializing in cross-border B2B payment processes.

Archives, Banking, Global Trade Daily

How to Find Your Way in the World of International Payments

Leave a comment

Credit card, direct deposit, check, cash, e-pay… making domestic payments is a breeze these days, with enough flexibility to offer optimization based on your vendor’s payment preferences. International payments, on the other hand, are much more complex, and bring to mind painful images of cumbersome wire submissions.

Alternate options, such as fintech solutions, enable companies to submit all their domestic and international payments in one file. If the fintech also includes vendor maintenance as part of their services, then the payment file draws banking details from the fintech’s vendor network, eliminating the responsibility of maintaining that data from AP teams’ plates.

But before we delve too deeply into the process, let’s take a step back and explore nomenclature. Over time, companies have imposed their own internal vocabulary over common terms. Terms like ‘wire’, ‘direct deposit’, and ‘ACH’ are often used interchangeably, even though they operate differently. Let’s synchronize our understanding of these words.

What’s in a name?

International vs. cross-border vs. FX

“Cross-border payments” is a self-explanatory term—the definition is right in the name. These funds cross international borders to reach their destination.

“International payments” also describes cross-border payment activity, but carries other specific interpretations as well. For example, it may also refer to funds transferred within a single country through a bank or fintech located outside of that country (e.g. Canada to Canada, but through a U.S. fintech).

The term “FX” (Foreign Exchange) is occasionally thrown around to describe international payments, though it typically refers to currency exchange instead of the transmission of funds.

At the end of the day, as long as your company recognizes the nuances, the use of any term is fine. For simplicity’s sake, the rest of this article will refer to “international payments.”

Stepping out of history and into the future

Wire vs. EFT

Wire is the most popular and recognizable form of international payment processing. From a simplistic, yet technical standpoint, wire payments transmit account data from one bank to another. It’s sometimes the only method for sending money from one country to another, especially when working with specific currency exchanges or infrequently paid countries.

The term “EFT” (Electronic Funds Transfer) is quite a bit broader. It is a catch-all phrase used to describe any electronic payment process. Wire, ACH, direct deposit, and other methods fall under this umbrella.

Standardized codes

Codes are commonly used to determine various international payment factors. Use of the wrong codes can cause downstream payment issues, so it’s worth identifying each type, since they often appear to be very similar to one another.

Country Codes

ISO (International Organization for Standardization) country codes are country-specific abbreviations with varied uses.  Although three ISO country code variations exist—ISO Alpha-2, ISO Alpha-3, and ISO Alpha numeric—the ISO Alpha-2 code is used most in the international payment scope, in IBANs and SWIFT codes. 

As the name suggests, ISO Alpha-2 codes are 2-character codes assigned to each country for identification purposes.  For example, the United States is “US”, the United Kingdom is “GB”, and China is “CN.”

Currency Codes

Currency codes are 3-digit codes that identify currencies. Their resemblance to ISO Alpha-3 country codes may cause confusion, so it’s always worthwhile to make sure you’ve got the right code before adding it to payment instructions.

For example, the ISO Alpha-3 country code for the United States is “USA” while the currency code for U.S. dollars is “USD”. Similarly, “CHE” is the ISO Alpha-3 country code for Switzerland, while the currency code for Swiss francs is “CHF.”

Payment specifications

Information requirements for international payments are far less cut-and-dried than those for domestic processes. The details often vary depending on the payment type, currencies, and the countries involved.

SWIFT/BIC Codes

Veteran AP personnel are likely very familiar with the SWIFT system (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications), which is known as the BIC system (Bank Identifier Code) in some countries.

SWIFT codes were introduced in the ‘70s as a way to streamline the global money-transferring process and reduce the possibility of human error. SWIFT codes are a series of characters that identify the bank, country, and branch location to which a payment should be sent. Decades later, they still play a significant role.

Routing Numbers

While SWIFT codes are still essential to send international payments, the growing financial industry has highlighted the need for additional details.

Routing numbers are the collective answer, and play a fairly large role in the modern payment structure.

The caveat is that they may not always be called “routing numbers”, which is a U.S. term. For example, Australia has the “BSB Code”, China the “CNAPS”, and India the “ISFC Code”.

While it may seem redundant to provide both the SWIFT and routing details, it is an excellent way to clarify the payment destination.

IBANs and Account Numbers

IBANs (International Bank Account Number) arrived in the ‘90s as a way to further standardize banking information, and have been adopted primarily by countries in the European Union, the Middle East, and several countries in Africa. While IBANs vary in length depending on the country, they contain these common factors:

–ISO alpha-2 country code

–Check digits

–Bank identifier

–Branch identifier

–Account number

Because IBANs often include the bank identifier (which shares digits with the SWIFT code), further account information isn’t typically necessary, which massively simplifies the payment process.

Countries that have not adopted the IBAN must still provide the SWIFT code, routing details, and the account number, as well as any country-specific requirements with their invoices.

Country-specific details

Additional details can include purpose of payment, tax documentation, and company phone numbers, amongst other things. Since each country requires specific information, it can be tricky to know exactly what to supply.

When in doubt, ask your payment solution provider—they can outline each country’s requirements, as needed.

Putting it all together

While international payment processes have evolved over time, the task is still nothing to sneeze at. Fortunately, fintechs like Nvoicepay have simplified the process, and store and maintain banking details on your behalf. That way, when you’re ready to pay your international vendors, you’re good to go in just a few clicks of your mouse—no more painful single-payment submissions through the bank.

Alyssa Callahan is a Technical Marketing Writer at Nvoicepay. She has four years of experience in the B2B payment industry, specializing in cross-border B2B payment processes.

 

Fintechs
Archives, Commentary, Global Trade Daily

Excellent Service is the Hero of the Fintech World

Leave a comment

Customer service isn’t what it used to be—in a good way. The financial world has witnessed rapid technological advancements over the last century, but customer service remains a steadfast priority through it all.

Ensuring a good experience for buyers not only gives companies an edge over their competition, but it has practically become a requirement for company growth. With the increasing popularity of information-sharing websites and apps like Facebook or Yelp, reputations can expand or shatter within moments.

Fintechs are in a unique position as the liaison between customers and their suppliers. However, they tend to limit services offered to suppliers in favor of a more customer-oriented focus. As such, supplier support remains a well of untapped potential. How is this important, and why should fintechs care about suppliers?

Redefining “end-to-end”

“End-to-end,” from a B2B payment perspective, defines the customer’s processes from the time they receive an invoice to final reconciliation. Fintechs that prioritize customer-focused solutions risk their reputations by not providing decent supplier support. In reality, suppliers are customers too. Though they may not be required to pay for the back-end services that fintechs offer, they are just as capable of leaving reviews of their poor experiences on social media.

Nvoicepay recognized this long ago and redefined what “support” meant in the B2B payments space by dedicating teams for both customer and supplier assistance. Our daily interactions with suppliers act as a valuable means for us to determine the most beneficial improvements to our solution. It has paid off so far: The services we provide to suppliers who seek payment assistance have earned our support teams a consistent satisfaction rating of 98%. Clearly, the need for AR services within AP solutions is out there.

Suppliers: The new customers

Fintechs often completely disregard supplier support. In some ways, this approach makes sense: customers pay for the service. This often means that suppliers are reduced to a “commodity” status. Tales of suppliers being strong-armed into accepting certain payment types are rampant. To no one’s surprise, this method for supporting customers does not encourage stable, long-term business relationships.

To improve our own services, Nvoicepay has explored ways to make suppliers feel like more than just a cog in their customer’s AP process.

Nvoicepay’s vendor enablement services offer a medley of benefits that ease the burden from both AP and AR teams. When a supplier joins our robust network, they become immediately payable by all current and future customers. When the supplier needs to update their information, a single call or email to Nvoicepay covers all bases, thus limiting touchpoints and mispayment risks. Customers aren’t required to maintain extensive payment details for their suppliers—it’s all done in-house by Nvoicepay’s supplier support team.

Making payments is also a breeze. Suppliers who are used to being pressured into specific payment types are pleasantly surprised to be offered alternatives. Credit card—commonly preferred by customers looking to limit their payment file count—can be a hardship for some suppliers. Nvoicepay’s holistic approach enables customers to submit a single payment file for all payment types, letting suppliers choose from credit card, ACH, or check options without extra work on the AP side. This symbiotic process maintains healthy business relationships and improves workflows for all parties involved.

A new industry standard

By choosing a SaaS that treats your suppliers well, you’re getting the whole AP support package. Without supplier services, any payment follow-ups wind up in the laps of your AP team—not exactly the groundbreaking automation you were promised.

While it’s likely not the first thing on your mind when you browse for AP solutions, choosing one that also benefits your suppliers gives you an overlooked advantage, and will leave you with both a happier AP team and satisfied suppliers. Ultimately, a solution without a holistic approach to the “end-to-end” process is no solution at all.

Alyssa Callahan is a Technical Marketing Writer at Nvoicepay. She has four years of experience in the B2B payment industry, specializing in cross-border B2B payment processes.

Archives, Global Trade Daily, Special Reports

Uncertainty Over Brexit Leaves the B2B World in Suspense

Leave a comment

When talk turns to Brexit, much of the discussion revolves around what will happen once the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland leaves the European Union. While the United Kingdom Parliament hashes out a withdrawal agreement, with Prime Minister Theresa May at the helm, the economy is already shifting in anticipation of… what? The trouble is, no one is quite sure. Even experts can only make educated guesses since their research hinges on the type of withdrawal the United Kingdom and European Union ultimately consent to.

Where Brexit currently stands – A high-level view

The European Union recently approved a second extension of the Brexit deadline to allow May additional time to forge a deal in Parliament and finalize the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the Union. While the new October 31, 2019 deadline offers some breathing room, it leaves the United Kingdom and European Union in an uncertain economic limbo for most of this year.

The spiderweb of potential events that lay ahead for the United Kingdom stem from two of the most likely outcomes:

-May passes her withdrawal agreement in Parliament by October 31st. If she succeeds, the United Kingdom can hammer out future trade deals with the European Union, to be expanded upon after the separation is finalized.

-May does not pass her withdrawal agreement by October 31st. This would mean the United Kingdom leaves with no trade deals in place, and very little room to negotiate ideal terms in the future. A “no-deal” situation has the potential to create lingering consequences, particularly at the border between Northern Ireland – which is part of the United Kingdom – and the Republic of Ireland, with the European Union.

While those in favor of Brexit are eager for a more economically independent United Kingdom, others hope that the withdrawal agreement will come with lenient tariffs, not just at the Irish border, but for trade across the United Kingdom and European Union. Unfortunately, only time (and an approved withdrawal agreement) will tell how the trade relationship between the United Kingdom and Europe continues.

What Brexit means for businesses in the United Kingdom

Politics aside, the United Kingdom has already seen changes to their market and businesses since the original Brexit vote in late 2016. The pound sterling (GBP), which dropped drastically after the majority of United Kingdom citizens voted to leave the European Union, remains weakened in comparison to the United States Dollar (USD). The approach of each Brexit deadline has triggered a slight drop in the market, followed by a recovery a few days after the granted extensions.

The GBP and Euro (EUR) have become tied to shifts in the political sphere, rather than the market. Companies are making financial decisions in anticipation of a plummeting currency values caused by Brexit.  Many banks have already moved their home offices  from London to various European cities. Healthcare facilities are stockpiling life-saving medicines in the event of a shortage. United Kingdom-based businesses are reducing their investments and employment opportunities. 

How will Brexit affect U.S. business with the United Kingdom?

With a diminished value for pound sterling, currency exchanges between USD, GBP, and EUR won’t be very attractive for a while, especially when considering the added per-payment fees charged by banks to transmit funds across international borders. Global businesses depend on stable markets to keep exchange rates as uniform as possible; someone will always be paying the difference, whether it’s the buyer purchasing more currency, or the supplier receiving a reduced amount.

Companies whose accounts payable teams have adopted payment automation into their processes can use their rebates to mitigate irregular exchange rates. Payment solutions that lower the cost of electronic payments through exchange rate transparency ultimately improve the buyer’s relationships with their suppliers.

Only one thing left to do

The United Kingdom and European Union are in a transitory stage – and that is an enormous understatement. The Brexit experience is genuinely frustrating because it has no precedent, so no one’s sure what will ultimately happen. Economic growth may stagnate for a while, but as with any market, where there are ebbs, there will be flows. The only thing left to do is what the United Kingdom already does best: “Keep calm and carry on.”

Alyssa Callahan is a Technical Marketing Writer at Nvoicepay.  She has four years of experience in the B2B payment industry, specializing in cross-border B2B payment processes.