TMS Survey 2014

Survey on Treasury Management

System satisfaction

Contents

Executive summary

Treasury Management System (TMS) landscape

Trends within the TMS market

Research methodology and demographics

Systems used by the respondents

and their time with current TMS

10

Satisfaction with the TMS and current

functionality 11

TMS Survey 2014

Satisfaction over time

14

Selecting and implementing a TMS

15

Looking ahead

16

EY support

18

EY contacts

20

Executive summary

More than 90 companies based in EMEIA from various

industries have participated in our latest survey on
TMS usage and satisfaction. The survey was initiated to
investigate what seemed to be a large dissatisfaction with
TMS systems in general, and the result was not what we
expected.
Overall, treasurers are satisfied with their TMS (76%
satisfaction level) but there is still room for improvement.
We see that Back Office and Cash Management are the
areas with the best performing functionalities according to
the respondents, while the Reporting functionality obtained
the highest level of dissatisfaction. The confirmation
and settlements function obtained the highest level of
satisfaction across all TMS:s.
Functionalities are not the only system aspect that matters,
as clients are also showing sensitivity towards the level
of STP (23% satisfaction level) and vendor support (22%
satisfaction level).
Recognizing clear strengths and value-adding aspects about
their solutions, treasurers are still expecting functional
and technical development that will make their system
better performing. Reporting is one of the key areas where
treasurers are setting higher expectations on system
providers, but its not the only area. There is an expectation
that built-in risk management functionalities should be
improved, or opened for a best fit configuration, in order to
increase end-user satisfaction.

Purpose
The survey gives an insight into how our clients
use and perceive their treasury management
systems in terms of functionality, hosting and
implementation as well as system support.
This report aims at highlighting the main
strengths and weaknesses of TMS:s perceived
by our clients.

Scope
The analysis exclusively covers the results
gathered from the Treasury Management
Survey 2014. It includes data gathered
about treasury management systems and
data regarding companies and their treasury
departments.
More than 90 companies from across the EMEIA
region have taken part in EYs latest survey on
treasury management systems (TMS).
Companies vary in turnover size between less
than 1 billion to greater than 15 billion and
the data gathered is not limited to a specific
industry or company type.

Innovative technology has partially helped reducing the

integration challenge faced by many treasuries, however
this area can be further developed.
Companies are still showing a reliance on external support
when it comes to enhancing and fine-tuning system
functionality in order to meet end-user requirements.
Treasurers overall have high expectations on their vendors
to adapt their solutions to the fast changing environment.
For example, as a consequence of a heavy regulatory
agenda, treasurers are also expecting vendors to rapidly
develop solutions that allow treasuries to easily manage
compliance with ever-changing regulatory requirements.
For vendors, the future looks bright but competitive, since a
higher level of dissatisfaction exists within companies which

have been using their TMS for over 3 years. This indicates
that requirements are changing rapidly within the TMS
space and that vendors are challenged to keep up with the
continuously changing landscape.
An interesting observation, which may have some impact on
future TMS usage, is that SaaS will be largely considered at
renewal time by many treasuries. Satisfaction rate among
treasuries using SaaS-based solutions is even higher than
among treasuries using TMS:s hosted by their own IT
department (81% vs. 77%).

TMS Survey 2014

Treasury Management System

(TMS) landscape
The demands on treasury departments
are undergoing constant change, driven
by shareholders, regulators and organizations
themselves. Requirements for increased
transparency, better control of financial risks,
liquidity and debt management, as well as
enhanced performance mean that treasury
leaders need to continuously update their
technical knowledge, reduce costs, minimize
volatility, deliver value and ensure clear
lines of communication. They need a
dedicated information system to support
these challenges.

Treasury applications are generally provided by two types

of vendors: specialist treasury system vendors and ERP
vendors. In general, there are three different types of TMS
available on the market:

The market for TMS consists of global specialist vendors,

such as SunGard and Wall Street Systems, regional or
niche focused vendors (e.g. Hanse Orga who offer a
range of treasury applications that could be integrated
with SAP applications) and ERP vendors. ERP vendors

have traditionally been minor players in the TMS market.

However, increased focus on treasury management,
combined with the globalization and standardization of the
treasury operations, has resulted in an upswing for vendors
such as SAP and Oracle in the TMS arena.

1. Midmarket solutions Typically solutions for

straightforward treasury operations with limited
requirements for sophisticated functionalities in areas
such as FX management and hedging.
2. Comprehensive corporate solutions Solutions targeted
for more complex requirements than the midmarket
solutions. Spread of functionalities across all treasury
areas.
3. High-end solutions Solutions for large companies with
very complex treasury operations. Typically includes
in-depth functionalities, especially for debt, investment
and risk/portfolio management.

TMS Survey 2014

Trends within the TMS market

Market consolidation
The TMS market has been consolidating for the past five
years. We have seen Private Equity firms acquiring TMS
vendors as well as larger TMS players acquiring smaller
market players, often niched companies. One example
of this is IT2 Treasury Solutions being sold to Wall Street
Systems by CapMan Technology in 2013.

Global vendors
In line with the market consolidation, TMS players are
becoming more and more global with broad product
offerings and strong support networks. Smaller players
face a challenge in keeping up with competition from larger
financially strong vendors. The stronger position of global
vendors is further driven by the requirements imposed by
the regulatory environment (e.g. EMIR, SEPA, IFRS 9 and
13), which requires additional effort for vendors with more
limited financial strength and international expertise.

ERP suppliers focus on TMS

Treasury departments are requesting more functionalities
and better system integration capabilities from their TMS
solution, which will further increase the benefits of a
broader product offering, including additional business

support systems. Traditional ERP suppliers, such as SAP and

Oracle, have placed more focus on their TMS solutions, and
are now able to offer full business support systems.

Niche players are expanding capabilities

We also see indications that some known niched TMS
vendors are expanding their capabilities (typically through
acquisitions). A notable example of such an acquisition is
Reval, with a strong background within hedge accounting
functionalities, acquiring EcoFinance in 2011.

Software as a Service (SaaS)

There is a clear market trend whereby treasuries are moving
from traditional in-house hosted systems into Software as a
Service (SaaS). Some of the youngest vendors on the TMS
market are focusing on only offer SaaS-based solutions.
Several external factors influence treasury operations, and
increasingly so, for the past five to six years. Consequently,
the requirements that the treasuries have on their TMS
solutions have changed and the vendors will most probably
continue to see increasing demands in the coming years as
well.

Changing
accounting
landscape
Increasing
importance of risk
analytics

Need for better

information on
exposure

New regulations

Requirements
on TMS are
evolving

In-house bank and

payment factory

Increased
connectivity
New tax regimes

TMS Survey 2014

Increased
pressure to save
costs

Research methodology and demographics

The survey, which was conducted through interviews and

e-surveys, includes 90 respondents across the EMEIA region
representing 21 different industries from 12 countries.
The majority of the respondents operate within Industrial
Products, Power and Utilities, Retail and Consumer
Products, as well as the Technology, Telecommunication
and Media sector. They show a variety of characteristics

with regards to their organization and size. Small treasuries

with less than 10 employees and/or less than 1 billion
in turnover as well as large treasuries with more than 41
employees and/or more than 15 billion in turnover are
included in the survey. We also, see a varying degree of
centralization of the treasury processes in our sample.

80%

59%

60%
80%
80%
40%
60%
60%
20%
40%
40%
0%
20%
20%

59%
59%

19%
19%
19%

s
yee
plo

em
0%
10
<0%

9%

20

es
ye
plo

em

9%
es
ye9%
plo

m
0e

7%

0
4

es
ye7%
plo 7%

em

1
21
es
s11
es3
es
ye s
ye s
yeees
ye s
o
l
pllooyee
e
pllooyee
pllooyee
m
mpploy
m
e
p
m
e
e p
0 m
0 em
0 emp
0 em
< 110 e
40
30 e
20
<
211 3
311 4
111 2
2
3
1
50%

50%
40%
50%

7%
es
7%
ye
plo 7%

m
1e

>4

The majority of respondents, 59%, have a

treasury department of 10 employees or less.

es
ye s
pllooyee
m
1 emp
> 441 e
>

39%
34%
39%
39%

40%
30%
40%

34%
34%

30%
20%
30%

19%
19%
19%

20%
10%
20%

4%
10%
0%
10%

4%

3%

3%
4%
l
d
er
al
ing
na
ze )
w
3%
lob )
rm s
ali
ns
gio s)
rfo BU
ntr BUs
d G GTC
R e RTC
oa
e
e
e
h
y
N
p
c
z
t
r
y
(
i
(
i
0%
e
b
w
al t e r
s
ry
r/
nt
tr0%
e d ed
su ou
he
t e r enter
cen y C e n
ea f c
Ot
om rm
en
lly
letdr alf o
er
asl erfo
ngg
ayl C ury C
h
i
a
t
n
r
z
b
i
r
i
Fu a s u r
l
o
t
l
u
d
sw r
l s
wi as s(p)
rm n s
na ebesh)
allsoobTaC
annswe
reyggiotniTeC
cnetrralinzBU
re))a
rfoormiBUs
Tre
reG
d
R
)
)
o
u
;
e
e
s
e
T
s
i
s
G
h
o
a
t
y
d
G
N
e
p
U
c
f
t sti(vRTC
laizl d r ( TC
r/ o
izdeecteeivnditybyy BU sury peur nttrry B
reiiath R
rtw
arc (R
ltorablize te (G
he / N
rael daem
b
a ry co n
nrtael w rnyters
ceGntra ennter
ntm
Otther
edfor c ed
treeasluf off cou
Ceeennt treyraCsueente
e
cesoom
lly ceunry C
l
r
m
e
h
y
u
e
O
C
t
a
r
t
C
r
e
r
i
e
a
i
r
Fully a s r y
wD th lsim
(p rfo
su y Casutrry C
nt al t eh lf o
F Treasu
r e a u r re su
ury wi ies (pe d; ceentorn bbeha
l T a s T ea
as ry ivit s
e c
Tre
b a l T r e Tr
treeasuacttivitie ralizedt;ivityy on
o
l
l
a
a
y
Glob
nt liz c vit
ntr l trsur ac
G
centirtaed aacti
Ceenttrraeasury
Deecelim
d
C trea
D limite

Respondents treasuries have a high degree of

centralization and very few, 4%, have decentralized
treasury organizational setups.

3%
14 %
14 %
14 %

3%
3%

18 %

< 1 billion

18 %
18 %

1 - 5 billion
< 1 billion
< 1 billion

8%

5 - 10 billion
1 - 5 billion
1 - 5 billion

The surveys respondents represent both large and small

companies. 14% of the surveyed organizations have a
turnover greater than 15 billion, while more than 50%
have a turnover below 5 billion.

10 - 15 billion
5 - 10 billion
5 - 10 billion

8%
8%
21 %

36 %

21 %
21 %

36 %
36 %

> 15 billion
10 - 15 billion
10 - 15 billion
No answer
> 15 billion
> 15 billion
No answer
No answer

TMS Survey 2014

Sectors included, by number of respondents

Industrial Products
Power and Utilities
Retail and Consumer Products
Technology, Telecommunication and Media
Automotive
Logistics and Transportation
Engineering and Construction
Financial Services
Agriculture
Airline
Government and Public Sector
8

TMS Survey 2014

Healthcare
Oil and Gas
Airline Catering
Life Sciences
Pulp and Paper
Professional Services
Real Estate
Service
Tobacco
Tourism

Systems used by the respondents

There are a large number of vendors in the Treasury

Management Systems market. In our sample of 90
treasuries, 24 different systems from 18 different vendors
were used. SAP Treasury Applications is the most used
system, covering 23% of the sample, followed by Wall
Street Systems IT2, used by 11% and SunGard AvantGard
Quantum, used by 8% of the surveyed treasuries.

Current TMS among respondents

12% Current

TMS among respondents

SAP Treasury
23%

12%
4%

6%

When looking at the choice of system and company

turnover, we can see a correlation between these two
factors. Wall Street Systems Suite is almost exclusively used
by large companies among our respondents while smaller
companies appear to be favoring Reval and Bellin. SAP
Treasury applications and AvantGard Quantum however,
seem to be used by companies of all sizes. IT2 tends to be
used by middle sized and smaller companies.

23%

4%

Applications

WSS
- IT2
SAP
Treasury
Applications
Sungard AvantG
WSS - IT2
Quantum
CRM
Finance
Sungard
AvantG
Quantum
Reval TRM
CRM Finance

6%
6%
6%

11%
6%
8%

11%

6%

WSS - Suite
Reval TRM
Bellin - TM5
WSS - Suite
Other
Bellin - TM5
Other

8%

System choice with regards to company turnover

35%

System choice with regards to company turnover

Vendor

System

30%

Bellin

Tm5

30%
20%

CGI

TWIN

CRM Treasury Systems

CRM Finance

Exalog

Allmybanks

MCC

Diapason

Murex

MX

< 5 BSAP

Palm, Trescow & Partners

ITS

< 5 B

Piteco

Piteco

Reval

TRM

Sage

XRT

SAP

SAP Treasury Applications

SAP with Hanse Orga

SAP & Hanse Orga

SunGard

XRT/Globe$

SunGard

AvantGard Integrity

SunGard

AvantGard Quantum

SunGard

AvantGard GTM

Aloc

Superport Treasury Systems

Technosis

ATAQ

Thomson Reuters

KPT

Trinity

Trinity Treasury Systems

Wall Street Systems

City Financials

Wall Street Systems

IT2

Wall Street Systems

Suite

Wall Street Systems

Treasury

35%
25%
25%
15%
20%
10%
15%
5%
10%
0%
5%
0%

SAP

Sungard
WSS IT2 WSS Suite Reval TRM Bellin TM5
AvantGard
Quantum
Sungard
WSS IT2 WSS Suite Reval TRM Bellin TM5
5 - 10 B
> 10 B
AvantGard
Quantum
5 - 10 B

> 10 B

TMS Survey 2014

and their time with current TMS

In line with the fact that treasuries are generally content

with their TMS, we see that they also tend to stay with the
same system for an extended period of time. 74 % of the
surveyed treasuries have been using their current TMS for
more than 3 years. When looking into this sub-group, we see
that 30% are considering changing their system in the next
2-3 years.

Timeusing
usingcurrent
currentTMS
TMScategorized
categorizedby
byturnover
turnover
Time
Time using current TMS categorized by turnover
100%
100%
100%
75%
75%

63%
63%
63%

75%
50%
50%

50%
25%
25%
25%
0%
0%
0%
B
< <5 5B
< 5 B

When categorizing by turnover, we see that larger

companies have not changed TMS as recently as their
smaller counterparts. One reason behind this result might
be the fact that TMS vendors have been successful in
penetrating the smaller treasuries market in the last years.
Smaller treasuries, who in the past have survived without a
TMS, recently implemented their first TMS. Although larger
companies have been using their TMS longer, they are more
open to change TMS in next 2-3 years compared to smaller
companies that have also been using their system for more
than 3 years.

TMS delivered as Software as a Service (SaaS) is

an increasingly popular alternative to an internally
hosted TMS. Nevertheless, only 18% of the treasuries have selected this alternative to date. As many
as 75% of the treasuries using a SaaS-based TMS are
smaller companies with a turnover under 5 billion.
The main driver behind this pattern is likely to be the
fact that smaller treasuries have implemented their
TMS:s in a later point in time and thus were more
prone to select a SaaS-based solution compared
to treasuries that implemented their TMS:s before
the SaaS solution trend emerged. Another aspect
could be that smaller treasuries might be more cost
sensitive.

10

TMS Survey 2014

90%
90%
90%

Morethan
than3 3years
years
More
More than 3 years
- 10B
B
B
5 5- 10
> >1010B
5 - 10 B
> 10 B

Companiesconsidering
consideringchanging
changingTMS
TMSininthe
thenear
nearfuture
future
Companies
Companies
considering
changing
TMS
in
the
near
future
(based
on
treasuries
that
have
been
using
their
TMS
for
(based on treasuries that have been using their TMS
for
(based
on 3treasuries
morethan
than
3years)
years) that have been using their TMS for
more
more than 3 years)
100%
100%
100%
75%
75%
75%
50%
50%

30%
30%
30%

50%
25%
25%
25%
0%
0%
0%
respondents
AllAllrespondents
All respondents

Software as a Service

79%
79%
79%

B
> >1010B
> 10 B

Distributionofof
Distribution
Distribution
of
system
hosting
system
hosting
system hosting

82%
82%
Hosted
Hosted
byby
82%
own
own ITITby
Hosted
department
department
own IT
department

18%
18%
SaaS
SaaS
18%
SaaS

56%
56%
56%

Yes
Yes
Yes

Turnoversize
sizeofof
Turnover
Turnover
sizeSaaS
of
companies
using
SaaS
companies
using
companies using SaaS

75%
75%
5B
B
< <575%
< 5 B

SaaSusage
usageamong
amongrespondents
respondents
SaaS
SaaS usage among respondents

25%
25%
5B
B
> >525%
> 5 B

Satisfaction with the TMS and current

functionality
Treasurers are overall satisfied with their TMS. 23% of
the surveyed treasurers are very satisfied and 53% are
rather satisfied, i.e. 76% of the respondents are satisfied
with their current TMS. This figure represents an increase
in satisfaction when compared to the 2012 global EY
treasury survey (Reflecting on the future - A study of
global corporate treasuries) in which 60% of the
respondents were satisfied with their TMS.

What we value the most is that our

system is easy to get up and running
and that it is easy to make changes.
Treasurer within the
Industrial Products sector

Only 6% of the respondents are very dissatisfied with their

systems while 18% are rather dissatisfied. This indicates
that there are still areas and specific functions that TMS
vendors can improve in order raise the overall level of
satisfaction.
76% are satisfied
Looking into the perceived strengths of the TMS:s, we
76% are satisfied
can conclude that the most
are user
53%
60% highlighted strengths
friendliness and integration capabilities with other systems,
53%
60%
mentioned both by 15% of the respondents as one of their
23%
30%
TMS:s main strengths. Traditionally, the demand on a18%
TMS
6%
23%
30%
to be able to integrate with other systems has been rather
18%
0%
high since most treasuries
are using
a
highly
complex
6%
Very
Rather
Rather
Very
Satisfied
system portfolio. Therefore, it Satisfied
is interesting
to seeDissatisfied
that the Dissatisfied
0%
Very
Rather
Rather
Very
TMS:s seem to have evolved to support this functionality.
Satisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied Dissatisfied
An effective fulfillment 76%
of functional
and
business
of the respondents are satisfied with their current TMS.
requirements comes next on the list, together with the
76% of the respondents are satisfied with their current TMS.
flexibility of the system. Almost 40% of the respondents
have highlighted strengths that could not be segmented
further, and were therefore grouped into an other
category. This reflects the varying requirements and
expectations that different organizations have on their
TMS:s.
Perceived strengths among respondents when asked to describe the strengths of their TMS

Perceived strengths among respondents when asked to describe the strengths of their TMS
15 %

User friendliness is one of the most common strengths

among respondents
Smaller companies form the
majority of respondents
15 %
mentioning their TMS as user friendly. However, smaller
companies also experience poor reporting functionality and
are finding some of their functional requirements are not met.

System is user friendly

Integrated with other
system

System is user friendly

39 %

Integrated with other

system

Effectively meets
functional requirements

Effectively meets
functional requirements

Effectively meets
business requirements

Effectively meets
12 %
business requirements

System is flexible
Other

15 %

8%

System
11is%flexible
Other

Other responses include

Other strengths respondents have mentioned include the
availability and stability of their TMS as well as the degree of
automation and centralization.

39 %
15 %
Integration capabilities is a commonly mentioned strength
Respondents mentioning integration as a strength also feel
that their TMS is lacking in flexibility. Respondents stating
this strength are mainly larger companies with in-house
hosting.
12 %
8%
11 %
Effectively meets functional requirements
Larger companies again make up the majority of
respondents who think their TMS effectively meets functional
requirements.

TMS Survey 2014

11

Looking further into the different functionality areas within

the TMS, we see that Back Office and Cash Management are
the areas with the best performing functionalities according
to the respondents. Within Back Office, the Confirmation
and Settlements function obtained the highest level of
satisfaction across all TMS:s. This functionality was also
used by 88% of the respondents, which makes it one of the
most highly utilized functions across the TMS functionalities
in our survey sample. Within Cash Management, Netting and
Payment Factory functionalities are not used within the TMS
by the majority of the respondents. This can be explained
by the fact that these functions are often managed within
separate niche systems and that not all treasuries are
engaged in these processes. However, the TMS:s that offer
these functionalities are delivering a function that has high
perceived satisfaction among the end users.
Furthermore, Front Office functions are also rated with
high levels of satisfaction across TMS:s. The Front Office
functions such as Corporate Finance, Dealing Processes,
and FX trading are all highly rated. These functionalities
where not only assigned the highest level of satisfaction in
our comparison, they were also the most utilized functions.
Approximately 90% of all the respondents are using these
functionalities within their TMS.

Function

Satisfied

Dissatisfied

Back Office (BO)

86 %

14 %

Confirmation and
settlements

89 %

11 %

12 %

Matching and
reconciliation

83 %

17 %

26 %

Cash Management (CM)

84 %

16 %

Cash forecasting

70 %

30 %

37 %

Netting

91 %

9%

62 %

In-house bank

88 %

12 %

53 %

Payment factory

91 %

9%

74 %

Front Office (FO)

79 %

21 %

Corporate finance

85 %

15 %

9%

Dealing processes

91 %

9%

11 %

FX Trading

90 %

10 %

9%

Interest Rate

84 %

16 %

30 %

Commodity trading

61 %

39 %

77 %

Energy trading
50 %
50 %
Satisfaction
functionality
Subsidary
dealing in different93
%
7 areas
%
100%
Accounting

65 %

86%
Accouting
valuation
90%
84%

Hedge
accouting
80%

93 %
39 %

35 %

77 %

23 %

22 %

79%
54 %

45 %

55 %

Reporting

65 %

Reporting

65 %

Risk

63 %

70%

When asking the treasurers about their level of satisfaction

in some key areas, the results show that the level of security
(external security aspects) and segregation of duties
(e.g. ability to assign different user rights and four-eyes
principles) are areas that outperform the level of control
(e.g. audit trail) of the TMS.

Function
not used/
available
in TMS

60%
50%

65%

35 %
35 %

65%

63%

9%

37 %

Risk measurement

63 %

37 %

54 %

40% analysis
Risk

64 %

36 %

46 %

Counterparty
risk
30%

64 %

36 %

55 %

20%
10%
0%

Bo

CM

FO

Accounting

Reporting

Satisfaction in different functionality areas

100%
90%

86%

84%
79%

80%
70%

65%

65%

Level of satisfaction for non-functional key areas

63%

60%
100%

50%
40%

75%

30%

50%

20%
10%
0%

89%

88%

80%

Level of Security

Segregation of Duties

Level of Control

25%

Bo

CM

FO

Accounting

Reporting

Risk

0%

Level of satisfaction

12

TMS Survey 2014

Risk

We can conclude that the majority of the treasurers are

overall satisfied with their TMS. However, when asking them
which parts, if any, do not fulfill their needs, some clear
patterns are revealed. Poor reporting functionality and a
lack of flexibility to cope with change are the most common
weaknesses mentioned across all systems. The Other
category represents a wide variety of answers including
reliability and performance issues.

Reporting, valuation and risk functionalities are not provided or insufficiently

covered in our current system
Treasurer within the Industrial Products sector

Looking into the details of the different functionalities

supplied by the TMS:s, we observe a higher level of
dissatisfaction with the Risk, Reporting and Accounting
functions. One critical function used by 91% of the
respondents, presents a dissatisfaction level of 35% - the
reporting functionality. The main problem mentioned is
the difficulty in editing and configuring reports to meet
changing
requirements.
Perceived
weaknesses with TMS

Perceived weaknesses with TMS

24 %

21 %
Poor reporting function

Perceived weaknesses with TMS

System lacks flexibility

Commodity and Energy trading are also functions with high

24 %
21 %
24dissatisfaction
%
21 % are however not commonly
levels. They
Poor reporting function

Poor reporting
function
supported and are mentioned as desired
future
functions.
System lacks flexibility
System lacks flexibility

5%
5%
7%
7%

Furthermore, treasuries are more dissatisfied

with the
System lacks support
System lacks support
level of Straight Through Processing
(STP)
and
support
Does not meet some
16 %
Does
meet
some
functional
requirements
from the vendor, than with16
the
of not
control.
The most
% level
functional requirements
System
notis
user
friendly
desired areas for improvement where
STP
concerned
System not user friendly
are Payments, Settlements and FX Expensive
trading, all being areas
Expensive
that
have been covered in
12 %are used by many
15 % treasuries and
Other
12 %
15long
%
Other
TMS:s for a rather
period of time.

Dissatisfaction in different functionality areas

Dissatisfaction in different functionality areas
40%
40%

37%
37%

35%
35%

35%
35%

35%
35%

30%
30%
25%
25%

21%
21%

20%
20%

16%
16%

15%
15%

14%
14%

10%
10%
5%
5%
0%
0%

Risk
Risk

Reporting
Reporting

Accounting
Accounting

FO
FO

CM
CM

BO
BO

Level of dissatisfaction for non-functional key areas

Level of dissatisfaction for non-functional key areas
25%
25%
20%
20%
15%
15%
10%
10%
5%
5%
0%
0%

System lacks support

5%
16 %
7%

System not user friendly

Expensive

12 %

Level of STP
Level of STP

Level of dissatisfaction
Level of dissatisfaction

22%
22%

Level of Support
Level of Support

16%
16%
Level of Control
Level of Control

15 %

Other

Dissatisfaction in different functionality areas

Function
40%
37%
Disnot used/
Function
Satisfied
35%
35%
satisfied
available
35%
in TMS
Back Office
(BO)
86 %
14 %
30%
Confirmation and
89 %
11 %
12 %
25%
settlements
21%
Matching
83 %
17 %
26 %
20% and
16%
reconciliation
14%
15%
Cash Management
(CM)
84 %
16 %
Cash forecasting
70 %
30 %
37 %
10%
Netting
91 %
9%
62 %
5%
In-house
bank
88 %
12 %
53 %
Payment
91 %
9%
74 %
0% factory
Risk
Reporting Accounting
FO
CM
BO
Front Office (FO)
79 %
21
%
Corporate finance
85 %
15 %
9%
Dealing processes
91 %
9%
11 %
key
FX TradingLevel of dissatisfaction
90 % for non-functional
10 %
9 %areas
Interest Rate

84 %

16 %

30 %

Commodity trading

61 %

39 %

77 %

Energy trading

50 %

50 %

93 %

Subsidary dealing

93 %

7%

39 %

15%
Accounting

65 %

25%
20%

10%
Accouting

23%
23%

Does not meet some

functional requirements

23%

valuation

77 %

22%

35 %
23 %

5%
Hedge accouting

54 %

45 %

Reporting
0%

65 %

35 %

Reporting
Risk

Level of STP

Level of dissatisfaction

22 %

16%

55 %

Level of Support
65
%
35 % Level of Control
9%

63 %

37 %

Risk measurement

63 %

37 %

54 %

Risk analysis

64 %

36 %

46 %

Counterparty risk

64 %

36 %

55 %

TMS Survey 2014

13

Satisfaction over time

When we look at TMS usage, we see that the level of system

satisfaction decreases over time. A key driver of this
decrease is that functional requirements evolve over time.
40% of the respondents who have been using their TMS for
more than three years stated that their requirements have
changed since the system was implemented. An opportunity
for vendors to potentially increase a customer loyalty and
mitigate decline in client satisfaction could be to deliver
more frequent system and functionality updates. In order
to improve, TMS vendors would need support from the endusers to incorporate the new updates as well as updating
the vendors on new requirements and demands.
A significant portion of the respondents are not satisfied
with their current TMS setup, however there are barriers
that might affect the treasuries ability to change. Nearly a
fifth of the respondents with a system that has been in use
for more than three years (and were not satisfied with their
TMS) stated that other projects might be prioritized over
the transition to a new TMS. The second and third biggest
potential barriers for a TMS change are budget limitation
and time constraints.

Overall
Overallsatisfaction
satisfactioncategorized
categorizedby
bytime
time
spent
spentwith
withcurrent
currentTMS
TMS

100%
100%

96%
96%
71%
71%

80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%

29%
29%

20%
20%

4%
4%

0%
0%

Satisfied
Satisfied
33years
yearsororless
less

Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
More
Morethan
than33years
years

Potential
Potentialbarriers
barriersto
tochange
changeininthe
thenext
next2233years
years
among
amongtreasuries
treasurieswith
withaasystem
systemolder
olderthan
than33years
years
25%
25%

18%
18%

15%
15%

13%
13%

4%
4%
0%
0%

14

TMS Survey 2014

Other
Otherproject
project Budget
Budgetlimitation
limitation Lack
Lackofoftime
time No
Nomanagement
management
taking
support
takingpriority
priority
support

Selecting and implementing a TMS

30% of the respondents with a TMS in use for more than

3 years are currently considering changing their system, it is
important to dig deeper into the main drivers for a potential
system replacement.
When describing why they had chosen their current
TMS, 27% of the respondents stated that one of the most
important criteria was to ensure a system that could satisfy
their functional requirements. This decision criterion was
closely followed by the importance for a system to support
treasury processes, selected by 20%. Then, nearly a fifth
of the respondents stated that price was one of the most
important factors as to why they chose their current TMS.
7% of the respondents based their decision on previous
experiences with the TMS (either the same supplier as
former TMS or the same TMS they were using in their
previous job).
A well-structured evaluation process (including a pre-study)
Resort to external help (i.e. non-vendor related
is
very important
when
choosing
a TMS.
external
consultants)
when
selecting
or It provides a clear
understanding
of
the
system
functionalities,
technical
implementing TMS
requirements as well as quality of support provided by
the vendor. An important learning from this survey is that
80%
treasuries70%
have a responsibility to create an organizational
60% set-up that will facilitate continuous system improvements.
rapidly in the treasury
40% Indeed, requirements change30%
community
and
configurations
need to be continuously
20%
adapted.
0%

Yes

Take the time to perform a dedicated

evaluation process.
Treasurer within the Life Science sector

The pre-study is very important.

One must be clear on the set-up
before starting. Transaction migration
took time.
- Treasurer within the Transportation sector

Scope carefully can the system

deliver what is promised? Hire a
competent/skilled consultant in the
implementation phase, it is more
important thanchoosing the best
system.
- Treasurer within the Technology,
Telecommunications and Media sector

No

Among
the surveyed
treasuries who have changed their
Yes
No
TMS within the last three years, 70% have used external
help during the selection or implementation phase of their
TMS. Interestingly, 60% of the respondents switching TMS
without external help have chosen to implement a SaaSbased solution.

Resort to external help (i.e. non-vendor related

external consultants) when selecting or
implementing TMS

Reasons for treasuries to choose their TMS

(among treasuries that have changed their
TMS within the recent 3 years)

5%

5%

2%
27%

11%

Functionalities more aligned

with needs

80%

Better alignment with treasury

processes

60%

Better price
Supplier offers better support/service
IT decision related to ERP vision

11%

Supplier has better credentialsSame

supplier as former TMS

20%
18%

70%

30%

40%
20%
0%

Yes
Yes

No
No

Same supplier as former TMS

Same TMS as in previous job

TMS Survey 2014

Reasons for treasuries to choose their TMS

(among treasuries that have changed their

15

Looking ahead

Treasurers have high expectations on their vendors to adapt

their solutions to fast changing requirements. At present,
risk functionality and reporting are the areas in which
respondents feel their TMS is underperforming the most.
Nearly 50% of respondents express a desire for enhanced
risk management and accounting function.
When looking at the future, treasuries would like to see
more innovative, updated processes that help align system
processes with treasury best practices and facilitate
compliance with ever changing legislation. 15% of the
respondents reply that they need their system to offer more
functionality and 14% request that their system allows for
regulatory compliance (e.g. EMIR or IFRS). Increased system
flexibility is also sought after by treasurers.

Among the functionalities that are not

available in your TMS, which ones would
you like to have?
Cash forecasting, Netting, Accounting
valuation, and Counterparty risk functionalities
Treasurer within the
HR-solution sector

Valuation, Risk management and Hedge

accounting are desired functionalities
Treasurer within the
Industrial Products sector

Desired functionalities of a TMS

In which ways do you think that your TMS

should evolve over time?
Our TMS will become more and more important
after the roll-out to our operational units. Next
to the operational functionalities, treasuries also
expect the system to be supportive within the
regulations-jungle, which will not become less
complex in the future. I could also imagine that
some more tax-related functions might become
relevant as the topics treasury and tax are
moving closer.

Desired functionalities of a TMS

18%

Risk Management and

Accounting

18%
8%
49%

8%

49%

10%

Risk Management
Cash
Managementand
Accounting
Front
Office
Cash Management
Back
Front Office
Office
Other
Back Office
Other

10%
15%

Treasurer within the

Industrial / Retail / Consumer

15%

Products sector
We would like to see a modular system to
respond to different requirements that is both
simple to use and advanced. SaaS-based
solutions need high quality and competence.
Vendors should provide more information on
how to use the system in the most optimal
manner, and put forward system usage optimization instead of conformity.

Treasurer within the

Automotive sector

Integration with ERP to allow a more holistic

approach to e.g. risk management.
Treasurer within the
Agriculture sector

Desired ways your TMS should evolve over time

Desired ways your TMS should evolve over time
12%
5%

12%

15%

6%5%

Compliance with
Additional
regulatory functionality
reqs.

14%

6%

14%

9%
9%
9%
9%

Additional functionality

15%

10%

10%

10%

10%

Compliance
with
Better
reporting
regulatory reqs.
Increased flexibility
Better reporting
Usability
interface
Increasedand
flexibility

10%

Alignment with
Usability and interface
business processes

10%

Alignment with
More STP
business processes
Better integration
More
STP
capabilities
Better
integration
Better support
capabilities
Other
Better support
Other

16

TMS Survey 2014

Considering SaaS when changing TMS

Among the treasuries considering changing their TMS in the

near future, 40% are considering SaaS. This is consistent
with the IT cloud based trend that we are witnessing in
many other markets.

Companies considering
TMS change in the future

It is interesting to see that the satisfaction rate among

treasuries using SaaS-based solutions is even higher than
among treasuries using TMS:s hosted by their own IT
department (81% vs. 77%).

No

70%

Companies considering
SaaS when chaing TMS

No
60%

Yes
30%

Yes to
SaaS
40%

One of the top reasons mentioned behind not considering

SaaS is safety and security concerns, especially if servers
storing sensitive data are located abroad. The information
and data managed by the treasurers is considered very
crucial and sensitive and therefore security must be
one of the key focus areas when implementing the TMS.
Nevertheless, respondents with SaaS appear to be at least
just as satisfied, if not more, with the level of security
offered by their systems compared to respondents with
traditional TMS installations (94% satisfied vs. 91%).
Furthermore, SaaS users appear more satisfied with the
level of support provided by their vendor (88% vs. 66%),
which is one area of dissatisfaction among the respondents
in general.

The future of TMS is to become a

Cloud/SaaS solution instead of solution
installed locally.
Treasurer within the Industrial Products sector

Satisfaction with SaaS installation compared to TMS

hosted by own IT department

100%
75%

94% 90%

81% 77%

88%
66%

50%
25%

Cost appears to be a significant driver when choosing

a SaaS-based solution. Regardless of their companys
turnover, treasurers seem positive towards changing to a
SaaS-based solution in the future.

0%

Overall Satisfaction
SaaS

Level of security

Level of support

Own IT Department

Conclusively, we will surely observe an increased usage

of SaaS-based solution in the future given the already
increased usage and the fact that respondents seem
overall positive towards changing to a SaaS TMS setup.
This, combined with a higher degree of TMS satisfaction in
SaaS users, especially in the areas of security and vendor
support, will surely change the way we look at how TMS are
delivered in the future.

Considering SaaS when changing

TMSTMS
Survey 2014
Companies considering
TMS change in the future

Companies considering
SaaS when chaing TMS

17

EY support

Awarded Best Treasury and

Cash Management Consultancy
Service 2013 by the Global
Finance Magazine.

EY can ensure a beneficial Treasury Management System

selection
1. Proven system evaluation and selection methodology
The methodology has been developed by our
experienced consultants, and proven its value in
numerous treasury system and ERP selections.
2. Existing, re-usable tools and templates
Our experienced consultants have developed many
re-usable tools and templates, which allow you to
spend time on qualitative analysis rather than creating
evaluation tools.
3. Deep understanding of the clients requirements
Our consultants have worked in numerous business
development and system projects with world-class
treasuries and have gained a deep understanding of
leading practices.
4. Extensive experience of available treasury systems
EY has comprehensive knowledge of the treasury
system vendor market and has vast experience in
selecting and managing the implementation of such
systems.
5. Internal network of Treasury and Treasury
systems specialists
EYs international network of treasury consultants
collaborate on projects and support each other with
knowledge gained in similar engagements.

Functional overview of a TMS

18

TMS Survey 2014

We can assist with:

Alignment of treasury technology functionality with
your requirements
Fast and efficient integration of systems into your
processes
Extensive TMS knowledge and proven methodologies
for system selections, and the business aspects of
implementation
Independence when recommending system provider
Sustainable knowledge transfer

TMS Survey 2014

19

EY contacts

Our Treasury team includes more than 150 professionals serving leaders and
high-performing companies across Europe. We have the specific skills and experience
needed to provide you with treasury solutions that are both sophisticated and practical.
More widely, our highly integrated global network, based in every time zone, works with large
companies worldwide delivering services and sharing market insights and best practices.

20

Karin Sancho
Partner
Sweden
+46 8 520 59767
karin.sancho@se.ey.com

Jean-Francois Hubin
Partner
Belgium
+32 2 774 92 66
jean-francois.hubin@be.ey.com

Arjan Peters
Senior Manager
Netherlands
+31 88 407 17 80
arjan.peters@nl.ey.com

Muhammed Qaiser
Executive Director
Qatar
+974 4457 4121
muhammad.qaiser@qa.ey.com

Kristina Mller
Senior Manager
Sweden
+46 8 52059351
kristina.moller@se.ey.com

Pawel Preuss
Partner
Poland
+48 22 557 7530
pawel.preuss@pl.ey.com

Henrik Axelsen
Partner
Denmark
+45 70 10 80 50
henrik.axelsen@dk.ey.com

Alexander Barinov
Partner
Russia
+7 495 705 9731
alexander.barinov@ru.ey.com

TMS Survey 2014

Roger Disch
Executive director
Switzerland
+41 58 286 41 59
jroger.disch@ch.ey.com

Franois Holzman
Partner
France
+33 1 46 93 64 03
francois.holzman@fr.ey.com

Morten Abrahamsen
Manager
Norway
+47 24 00 24 00
morten.abrahamsen@no.ey.com

Olivier Drion
Partner
France
+33 1 46 93 79 14
olivier.drion@fr.ey.com

Craig Kennedy
Partner
United Kingdom
+44 (0) 20 7951 9026
ckennedy1@uk.ey.com

Tanguy Coatmellec
Partner
France
+33 1 46 93 79 14
tanguy.coatmellec@fr.ey.com

Dr. Steffen Kuhn

Partner
Germany
+49 711 9881 14063
steffen.kuhn@de.ey.com

Francisco De Asis Velilla Velasco

Partner
Italy
+33 1 46 93 79 14
franciscodeasis.velillavelasco@es.ey.com

TMS Survey 2014

21

EY | Assurance | Tax | Transactions | Advisory

About EY

EY is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services. The insights
and quality services we deliver help build trust and confidence in the capital markets and
in economies the world over. We develop outstanding leaders who team to deliver on our
promises to all of our stakeholders. In so doing, we play a critical role in building a better
working world for our people, for our clients and for our communities.
EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of
Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global
Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. For more
information about our organization, please visit ey.com.

2014 EYGM Limited

All rights reserved
EYG no.
ED None
This material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not
intended to be relied upon as accounting, tax, or other professional advice. Please
refer to your advisors for specific advice.

ey.com