New Articles

B2B Virtual Cards with a CAGR of 12.1% Drives the Virtual Cards Market Expansion

virtual

B2B Virtual Cards with a CAGR of 12.1% Drives the Virtual Cards Market Expansion

The Virtual Cards Market revenues were estimated at US$ 338 Bn in 2021 and is anticipated to grow at a CAGR of 12.2% from 2022-2032, according to a recently published Future Market Insights report. By the end of 2032, the market is expected to reach a valuation of US$ 1.3 Tn.  

The need for virtual cards is increasing as more people use digital platforms and online payment methods. Furthermore, virtual cards are critical for facilitating B2B payments. Business resources can be accessed from anywhere and at any time due to their greater flexibility and simplicity. They also provide a dependable and scalable dealer payment system, mainly for international transactions. 

Retailers are adopting payment processing technologies to offer customers flawless checkout experiences as their preference for online shopping grows throughout the world. Payment gateway systems are in high demand among retailers since they make payments more convenient. Payment gateways are also utilized for in-store purchases, allowing customers to pay with their cellphones or over the internet. One of the most inherent benefits of virtual cards is their ability to provide additional security. Virtual cards, unlike actual cards, cannot be reported stolen. Individuals and corporations have found virtual cards to be an appropriate payment instrument for completing safe transactions while also improving expenditure visibility and transparency. 

Large retail shops are increasingly requesting digital payment solutions to allow their consumers to perform transactions while preserving social distance. Retailers employ digital payment methods including smart banking cards, point-of-sale systems, and e-wallets to shorten checkout times. At the same time, businesses are working on offering customers novel payment options. 

Competitive Landscape 

The leading players in the global Virtual Cards market are BTRS Holdings, Inc.; Fraedom Holdings Limited; JPMorgan Chase & Co.; Marqeta, Inc.; Mastercard; and Skrill USA, Inc. 

·       In October 2020, Aliant Payments announced the expansion of XRP, an open-source alternative digital asset, to its CryptoBucks crypto payment phone app enabled by Aliant Payments. XPR would be accessible as a mobile app including both Android and iOS. 

·       In July 2020, ParkMobile, a parking solutions company, announced an agreement with EasyPark, a facilities services company. The previous firm facilitated contactless payments across Vancouver as a result of this collaboration. 

More Insights Available 

Future Market Insights, in its new offering, presents an unbiased analysis of the Virtual Cards Market, presenting historical market data (2015-2021) and forecast statistics for the period of 2022-2032. 

The study reveals extensive growth in the Virtual Cards Market in terms of Product Type (B2B Virtual Cards, B2C Remote Payment Virtual Cards, B2C POS Virtual Cards), and Deployment Type (Consumer Use, Business Use, Others), across five regions (North America, Latin America, Europe, Asia Pacific, and the Middle East & Africa). 

About ICT at Future Market Insights 

Future Market Insights’ highly educated Information Technology and Communication team provides insightful research, real-time insights, and effective suggestions to customers all over the world with their relevant business intelligence requirements. For over a decade, the team successfully examined the Information Technology business throughout 50+ nations, with a repertory of over a thousand studies and 1 million-plus data points. The group offers unrivaled end-to-end research and advisory expertise. Please contact us to see how we can assist you. 

payments

Why the Players That Focus on Both Sides Will Win the B2B Payments Market

Remote work initiatives have created a strong tailwind for digitizing business payments, with companies rushing to move away from checks and onto card and ACH payments. This huge market–roughly 10 times the size of the consumer payment market–is ripe for change. Over the past decade, a decent amount of investment has gone into this area. Everyone is getting into the game: banks, card providers, and fintech providers, for example. It’s very early days, with paper checks still the predominant form of payment in the US. Who will win the market? Ultimately, it will be the players that can best address the needs of both buyers and suppliers.

I’ve spent time on both sides. Before coming to Nvoicepay, which helps automate the payment process on the accounts payable side, I was with Billtrust, which automates accounts receivable. Their founder and CEO, Flint Lane, was a big believer in the need to solve for both sides of the equation. That was my first introduction to the concept. Now, having sold into both accounts receivable and accounts payable, I’m a firm believer as well.

Two Sides of the Coin

There are two sides to every payment—creation and receipt. When it comes to consumer payments, both sides are straightforward, especially with today’s technology. But in the world of business payments, process complexity adds friction between them. Accounts payable’s goal is to manage cash flow by hanging on to money as long as possible. That puts them at odds with accounts receivable, who wants to get paid as quickly as possible. Digitizing transactions doesn’t efficiently address the complexity or friction between the sender’s and receiver’s processes. And the lack of consideration can worsen the issue.

For example, funds sent by accounts payable may hit their vendor’s bank faster with card or ACH payments, but a complicated payment application process can lose the receivable department precious time anyway. Without a way to streamline the process from beginning to end, simply switching to electronic means in a few places may not offer the time savings that businesses hope to achieve.

What’s the Solution?

Portals work well for larger companies that can dictate the terms of doing business to their smaller customers. But their customers may not be happy having their own interests dictated to them. And if you don’t have that kind of authority, chances are your portal will go unused because you’ve created a one-off process for your customers, making life harder for their accounts receivable people.

Electronic means can help accounts payable make payments at the last minute, and they’d prefer paying by card over ACH because they can make money on card rebates. But convincing suppliers to accept card is often a challenge because the accompanying fees can get expensive very quickly. Meanwhile, enabling suppliers for ACH translates to AP managing large amounts of sensitive bank account data.

Many organizations end up “dabbling” in electronic payments because of these enablement challenges. That leaves them managing four different payment workflows–card, ACH, wire, and a whole lot of checks. This is the problem that payment automation providers solve by taking on the supplier enablement process, maximizing card rebates, and simplifying AP workflows.

As much as both sides might agree that digital payments are the future, they’re stuck between a rock and a hard place without automation.

Paving the Way

Fintech businesses like Nvoicepay and Billtrust are bringing automation to payables and receivables separately, and that’s a big step forward. I believe the next generation of solutions will bring both worlds together on a flexible, dynamic platform where both parties to a transaction can choose from a range of options that best meet their needs at any given time.

From an accounts receivable perspective, funds need to be accompanied by enhanced digital remittance information. They could offer buyers incentives in dynamic discounts in exchange for speedy payment and a streamlined cash application process through the platform.

On the buying side, easy access to supply chain financing could allow them to take advantage of such discounts while at the same time extending payment terms. The buying organization takes its two percent discount and gives half a percent to the financing organization, paying the invoice within the discount window. Then the buying organization pays the financing organization in 30 days. Payables manages cash, gets part of the discount and a rebate if they pay by card.

Bringing it All Together

The key to creating these win-win outcomes is including the presence of a technology platform that uses data to offer convenience and choice, allowing organizations to meet whatever their needs happen to be at any given time. For example, if your cash position is good, you may not offer discounts or offer them more selectively. If you work with many small suppliers with tight margins, consider taking the card option off the table.

These are not new ideas, but they haven’t yet been addressed effectively with technology. Historically we’ve tried to do this through EDI (Electronic Data Interchange), a computer-to-computer communication standard developed in the 1960s. It’s always been very clunky, and it is unwieldy for the volume and velocity of data in the supply chain today. However, a majority of organizations still use it for lack of anything better.

Nacha and the Real-Time Payments Network add remittance data to ACH payments, but that’s not a complete answer. There still needs to be some technology put in place to incorporate the data into payment workflows.

Suppose you look at fintech innovation in the consumer payments market as a leading indicator. In that case, it’s been less about new payment products and more about using technology to send and receive money seamlessly, regardless of which electronic network is used.

In B2B payments, fintechs changed the game by thinking about payments as a business process rather than a collection of products, and built software solutions to automate those workflows. With remote work providing an additional incentive, many more organizations are adoping electronic forms of payment. That, in turn, makes data more available to continue developing digital platforms. Whoever gets there first has a good chance of becoming the leading player, but you won’t get there at all if you don’t build for both sides of the equation.

_________________________________________________________________

Derek Halpern is Senior Vice President of Sales for Nvoicepay, a FLEETCOR Company. He has over 20 years of technology sales and leadership experience, including 16 years in the fintech and payments space. 

technology

The Surprisingly Long Life of Wire Technology

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.