Liquidity, Currencies, Cross-Border Payments and Operational Resilience
By Gustavo Scriffignano
International Corporate & Banking Consultant
Studio Legale Internazionale Bertaggia
International Corporate & Banking · Sources checked on 7 October 2026
For an international company, having a bank account is not the same thing as having a banking strategy.
The difference becomes visible only when something changes: a major customer starts paying in another currency; a bank asks for refreshed KYC information; a payment is delayed by an intermediary institution; a new subsidiary needs working capital; a payment provider changes its risk appetite; a director moves country; a correspondent bank blocks a corridor; or a company discovers that its supposed “backup account” cannot actually perform the same functions as the primary relationship.
The traditional model — one company, one bank, one main account — can still be perfectly adequate for many businesses. The problem begins when an international group assumes that the same model will continue to work after customers, suppliers, currencies, jurisdictions and compliance obligations have multiplied.
The Financial Stability Board has spent years coordinating the G20 Roadmap for faster, cheaper, more transparent and more accessible cross-border payments. Its 2025 progress report concluded that substantial policy work had been completed, but improvements for end-users remained modest and the 2027 targets were unlikely to be fully achieved on time. The Bank for International Settlements reached a similar conclusion: cross-border payments are improving, but the frictions have not disappeared.
TOP LEGAL — THE CORE IDEA
Banking resilience is not measured by the number of IBANs a company owns. It is measured by how many genuinely usable ways the company has to collect, hold, convert and deploy money when conditions change.
1. The single-bank model is not wrong — it is simply a concentration choice
There is nothing inherently imprudent about using one strong banking relationship.
For a small or domestically focused company, one bank may reduce fees, simplify reconciliation, centralise credit relationships and make treasury easier to manage. A business should not create multiple accounts simply because “diversification sounds safer”.
The issue is concentration.
When one institution provides almost every critical function — collections, supplier payments, payroll, cards, working capital, foreign exchange, cash reserves and access to a payment gateway — that institution becomes part of the company’s operating infrastructure.
The relevant question is therefore not how many bank accounts do we have? It is what would stop if this institution, account, currency or payment route became temporarily unavailable?
That question turns banking from an administrative topic into an operational-resilience topic.
2. What a banking architecture actually means
A banking architecture is the deliberate allocation of financial functions across institutions, accounts and payment channels.
It does not necessarily mean using many banks. It means understanding which functions exist and where they sit.
| Function | Typical question | Potential concentration risk |
|---|---|---|
| Customer collections | Where do customers pay? | Revenue may depend on one account, currency or acquiring channel |
| Supplier payments | From where are suppliers paid? | One payment route may affect inventory or production |
| Payroll | Which account funds payroll? | An account restriction can become an employment issue |
| Tax and statutory payments | Which account makes regulated payments? | Deadlines may continue during a banking disruption |
| Working capital | Which institution provides credit? | Liquidity can become tied to one lender |
| Foreign exchange | Where are currencies converted? | FX pricing and execution capacity may be concentrated |
| Cash reserves | Where is surplus liquidity held? | Operating cash and reserves may be exposed to the same institution |
| Treasury reporting | Where is group cash visibility obtained? | Fragmented reporting can make diversification difficult to manage |
A company that invoices only in euros and buys only in euros may need little complexity. A group collecting dollars, paying Asian suppliers, funding an EU payroll and maintaining a Gulf operating entity has a different problem.
3. Cross-border payments are still structurally more complex than domestic payments
International businesses often see only the beginning and the end of a payment.
They send funds from Bank A and expect them to arrive at Bank B. Between those two points, the transaction may involve correspondent banks, local clearing systems, compliance screening, currency conversion, cut-off times and differences in operating hours.
The BIS notes that much cross-border activity still relies on correspondent banking networks. Historically, those networks have become more concentrated, which can increase dependence on particular routes and intermediaries.
This is one reason a company should not assume that opening a second account automatically creates a second independent payment route.
Two banks may still use the same correspondent for a particular currency, depend on the same payment processor, rely on the same local clearing access, apply similar restrictions to the same corridor, or require the same missing information before releasing a payment.
Operational independence must be tested, not assumed.
4. A second bank should solve a defined problem
The phrase “backup bank” is often used too loosely.
A useful secondary relationship should have a purpose. Examples include an alternative collection account for a major currency; a second institution capable of paying critical suppliers; a separate reserve account; a bank in the jurisdiction where a regional entity actually trades; a second FX execution relationship; or redundancy for payroll and tax payments.
A dormant account with no tested payment history, no recent KYC review and no operational permissions may offer far less resilience than management believes.
The best time to discover that a secondary bank needs updated documents is not the day the primary bank becomes unavailable.
| Relationship | Best use | What it does not automatically solve |
|---|---|---|
| Primary operating bank | Daily collections, payments, lending and core treasury | Concentration risk if every critical function remains there |
| Secondary bank | Redundancy for selected currencies, payments or liquidity | Resilience if it is dormant, untested or dependent on the same route |
| EMI / payment institution | Collections, FX or selected payment corridors | Deposit, credit or full-service banking functions unless specifically provided |
| Regional bank | Local operations and market-specific payments | Group-wide treasury unless integrated into the wider architecture |
5. Bank, EMI, payment institution and fintech are not interchangeable labels
The cross-border payments market increasingly includes non-bank payment service providers.
The BIS Financial Stability Institute notes that technology and new payment providers have expanded the number of channels available for international transfers and, in some markets, now compete with or complement banks.
This is useful. It also requires precision.
A business should understand what legal entity provides the service, what regulatory licence it holds, where client money is legally held, whether funds are deposits or safeguarded payment funds, which bank ultimately holds or settles the money, which currencies and jurisdictions are supported, whether credit is available, and what happens if the provider or its banking partner terminates the service.
The question should not be “Is this fintech good?” It should be: Which function does this provider perform, under which legal framework, and what dependency does it create?
A payment institution can be excellent for collections or FX and still not replace a full-service bank.
6. KYC consistency is part of treasury design
International companies often treat KYC as a one-time onboarding exercise.
It is better understood as an ongoing requirement to keep the company’s financial story coherent.
Banks and payment providers need to understand ownership and beneficial ownership; business activity; customer and supplier geography; expected transaction size and frequency; currencies; source of funds and source of wealth where relevant; management and signatories; connected companies; and reasons for international transfers.
Problems can arise when each institution receives a different version of the same business.
None of the facts need be problematic. The problem is inconsistency.
A scalable banking architecture therefore needs a KYC master file: a controlled set of current corporate records and explanations that can be adapted to each institution without changing the underlying facts.
7. Payment transparency is increasing, not decreasing
The international direction of travel is towards richer payment data.
FATF revised Recommendation 16 in 2025 and in 2026 consulted on guidance for implementation of stronger payment-transparency requirements. The objective includes better information accompanying cross-border payments and stronger tools against fraud and errors.
At the same time, ISO 20022 has become the global standard for interbank cross-border payment instructions. Swift says the structured data can improve reconciliation, forecasting and cash reporting for corporates.
For international companies, this has an important practical implication: poor payment descriptions, inconsistent counterparties and weak internal records will become harder — not easier — to manage at scale.
The payment message is increasingly part of the compliance record.
Treasury teams should therefore care about correct legal names, consistent invoice references, clear purpose-of-payment information, ultimate debtor and creditor information where relevant, related-party identification, structured remittance data, and reconciliation between payment instructions and accounting records.
8. Faster payments do not remove the need for banking architecture
The EU’s instant-payments rules illustrate how quickly payment infrastructure can improve.
Since October 2025, euro-area payment service providers have been required to offer instant euro payments to customers, with verification-of-payee protections also introduced. For businesses, this improves speed and can improve cash management.
But faster settlement does not answer every treasury question.
An instant payment can still originate from the wrong entity; an account with insufficient liquidity; a provider that does not support the relevant corridor; a banking relationship that has not been updated for the new business activity; or an account concentrated in the same institution as every other critical function.
Speed is a payment feature. Resilience is an architecture feature.
9. Currency architecture matters as much as bank architecture
An international business can be diversified across banks and still concentrated in one currency.
That may be intentional.
A European company may decide that its functional currency should remain the euro even though some customers pay in dollars. Another group may naturally hold multiple currencies because expenses and revenues are matched geographically.
The important questions are: in which currencies is revenue earned; in which currencies are costs paid; where does conversion occur; who bears FX risk; is there a natural hedge between receipts and payments; where are currency balances held; who approves conversions; and what happens during periods of market volatility?
Opening accounts in multiple currencies without a treasury policy can simply create more balances to monitor.
The objective is not to speculate on currencies. It is to reduce avoidable friction between commercial activity and cash management.
10. Banking resilience is also a governance question
Who controls the accounts?
In many owner-managed international businesses, the answer is effectively: one person.
That creates a different kind of concentration risk.
A banking architecture should address authorised signatories; dual-approval thresholds; emergency authority; director changes; access when one person is unavailable; corporate cards; payment limits; beneficiary approval; device and authentication management; and documentation of treasury decisions.
The aim is not bureaucracy for its own sake.
The aim is to ensure that the company — rather than one individual’s phone, token or banking relationship — controls the treasury function.
11. Do not confuse more accounts with more cash
Diversification can create a dangerous illusion.
Suppose a company has €1 million of total liquidity spread across four institutions.
If €850,000 is operationally committed to taxes, payroll, supplier invoices and collateral requirements, the company does not have €1 million of freely available resilience.
A useful treasury review separates operating cash, committed cash, reserve liquidity, restricted or collateralised funds, customer money where applicable, amounts held for tax, and currency-specific requirements.
The central question is not how much cash appears across dashboards.
It is: What amount can management actually deploy, through which entity, in which currency, and how quickly?
12. Stablecoins and digital settlement: potential rail, not automatic treasury strategy
The payment landscape is evolving quickly.
IMF research in 2026 found that financial markets increasingly price stablecoins as potential competitors to incumbent payment firms, particularly in cross-border payments. The IMF also notes that stablecoins may offer speed and cost advantages in some contexts while creating important regulatory, financial-stability and currency-substitution risks.
For companies, the sensible approach is neither to ignore digital settlement nor to assume it replaces banking.
Questions include whether the activity is lawful in every relevant jurisdiction; whether the provider is regulated; who the counterparty is; how reserves and redemption are managed; how auditors and banks will treat the flows; whether the company can reconcile the transaction history; what happens when funds need to return to the banking system; and whether the arrangement creates additional sanctions, AML, tax or accounting issues.
A digital payment rail may eventually become one component of a treasury architecture.
It is not, by itself, a substitute for one.
13. A practical banking-architecture model
Consider a hypothetical European company that sells industrial equipment in Europe and the Gulf, buys components from Asia and invoices in euros and dollars.
Model A — one bank does everything
The company uses one European bank for euro and dollar collections, supplier payments, payroll, cards, FX, working capital, tax payments and cash reserves.
This is simple and may be efficient. Its weakness is that one relationship supports nearly every financial function.
Model B — functional diversification
The company keeps its primary European bank for operations and lending. It also has a second regulated institution capable of receiving customer payments; a tested secondary route for critical supplier payments; a separate reserve account; documented FX procedures; updated KYC files across providers; and dual authorisation for material transfers.
This is more complex, but each additional relationship solves a defined problem.
Model C — account proliferation
The company opens accounts in six countries because it believes more jurisdictions mean more safety.
Balances become fragmented, KYC updates multiply, fees increase, accounting becomes harder, some accounts remain dormant and management cannot explain why each provider exists.
The third model is not diversified treasury. It is administrative sprawl.
14. A decision framework for international companies
Before adding or replacing a bank, management can map the architecture in one table.
| Review area | Questions to answer |
|---|---|
| Collections | Which customers pay into which accounts and currencies? |
| Payments | Which suppliers, payrolls and taxes depend on each institution? |
| Liquidity | Where is operating cash, reserve cash and committed cash held? |
| FX | Which currencies are collected, paid and converted? |
| Credit | Which facilities depend on one banking relationship? |
| KYC | Are ownership, activity, geography and expected flows described consistently? |
| Resilience | Which critical function has no tested alternative? |
| Governance | Who can access, approve and recover control of the accounts? |
| Regulation | Which providers are banks, payment institutions, EMIs or other regulated entities? |
| Exit | How would balances, payments and counterparties be moved if a provider exits? |
The exercise frequently shows that a company does not need “more banks”. It needs a clearer allocation of functions.
Frequently asked questions
Does every international company need more than one bank?
No. The number of institutions should follow the company’s real operating risks. A small international business with simple flows may be well served by one strong relationship. The need for alternatives increases when payment corridors, currencies, subsidiaries, transaction volumes and operational dependencies become more complex.
Is an EMI or payment institution a valid backup to a bank?
It can perform useful banking-adjacent functions, but it should not automatically be treated as equivalent to a bank. The regulatory status, treatment of client funds, available services, underlying banking partners and jurisdiction all need to be understood.
Should cash reserves be held separately from operating cash?
That can be a useful governance and resilience tool, but there is no universal rule. The legal entity, tax position, liquidity needs, financing arrangements and regulatory framework should be reviewed before deciding where reserves belong.
Can a second bank prevent account closures or compliance reviews?
No. No structure guarantees uninterrupted banking access. Each institution applies its own legal, regulatory and risk requirements. The objective is to reduce avoidable concentration and maintain accurate, consistent documentation — not to evade compliance.
Do stablecoins eliminate the need for correspondent banking?
Not at present. Digital settlement may reduce friction in some use cases, but businesses still need to consider regulation, redemption, counterparty risk, accounting, tax, sanctions compliance and the point at which funds interact with conventional banking.
Conclusion: design the banking system around the business
The most important change in international corporate banking is conceptual.
A bank account should no longer be seen as an isolated administrative product.
For an internationally active company, banking connects customers, suppliers, currencies, working capital, compliance, tax payments, payroll, treasury, governance and business continuity.
The correct architecture may still involve one bank. It may involve two banks and a payment institution. It may include local accounts for regional entities, centralised treasury, tested backup payment routes and a separate reserve policy.
There is no universal model.
The objective is simpler: every critical financial function should have a clear owner, a clear account or provider, a clear compliance rationale and — where the business justifies it — a realistic alternative.
A company should be able to explain its banking architecture to management, its accountants, its banks and its legal advisers using the same facts.
If the explanation changes depending on the audience, the structure is not ready.
Discuss your international banking structure
Studio Legale Internazionale Bertaggia assists with international company structures, governance and cross-border banking coordination. Avv. Daniele Bertaggia leads the legal assessment, supported by Gustavo Scriffignano on international corporate and banking matters.
A preliminary review should normally identify the group entities, beneficial owners, management locations, customer and supplier countries, currencies, expected volumes, current banking relationships, credit facilities and the specific operational problem the proposed structure is intended to solve.
International company formation · Foreign bank accounts · Contact the Studio
Related reading
The New Map of Global Business · Hong Kong or Singapore? · Source of Funds and Foreign Bank Accounts · Foreign Company Costs 2026
About the author
Gustavo Scriffignano
Junior Partner | International Corporate & Banking Consultant
Gustavo provides international corporate and banking support under the leadership of Avv. Daniele Bertaggia.
Editorial notice: General international business and banking analysis, not individual legal, tax, investment, treasury or regulatory advice. Banking access, credit approval, payment execution and account continuity remain subject to the policies of the relevant institutions and applicable law.
Sources and further reference
- Financial Stability Board — G20 Roadmap for Cross-border Payments: Consolidated progress report for 2025: https://www.fsb.org/2025/10/g20-roadmap-for-cross-border-payments-consolidated-progress-report-for-2025/
- Bank for International Settlements — Enhancing cross-border payments: state of play and way forward: https://www.bis.org/publications/bulletin-119-enhancing-cross-border-payments-state-play-and-way-forward
- Bank for International Settlements — Monitoring cross-border payments: https://www.bis.org/committees/cpmi/cross-border-payments/monitoring
- BIS Financial Stability Institute — Regulating and supervising cross-border payment service providers: https://www.bis.org/publications/fsi-summary-regulating-and-supervising-cross-border-payment-service-providers-executive-summary
- Swift — ISO 20022 for corporates: https://www.swift.com/corporates/iso-20022-corporates
- Swift — ISO 20022 for financial institutions: https://www.swift.com/standards/iso-20022/iso-20022-financial-institutions-focus-payments-instructions
- European Commission — New EU rules make instant euro payments faster and safer: https://finance.ec.europa.eu/news/new-eu-rules-make-instant-euro-payments-faster-and-safer-2025-10-10_en
- FATF — The FATF Recommendations, updated June 2026: https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/publications/Fatfrecommendations/Fatf-recommendations.html
- FATF — Public consultation on guidance to increase payment transparency: https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/publications/Fatfrecommendations/R16-Public-Consultation-June-2026.html
- FATF — Guidance on correspondent banking services: https://www.fatf-gafi.org/content/dam/fatf-gafi/guidance/Guidance-Correspondent-Banking-Services.pdf
- IMF — Stablecoins and the Future of Payments: Evidence from Financial Markets: https://www.imf.org/en/publications/wp/issues/2026/03/20/stablecoins-and-the-future-of-payments-evidence-from-financial-markets-574831
- IMF — Stablecoins: Promise, Risks, and Policy Choices for Emerging Markets: https://www.imf.org/en/news/articles/2026/08/07/sp080726-stablecoins-emerging-markets-dan-katz