Download - China Corporate Treasury Benchmarking Study 2012ba.ml.com/SB/benchmarking-2012-10-china-tt799.pdf · China Corporate Treasury Benchmarking Study 2012. ... 9 Key performance indicators

China Corporate Treasury Benchmarking Study 2012

research | insight | analysistreasurytoday

in association with

treasurytoday.com/benchmarking

“ Bank of America Merrill Lynch” is the marketing name for the global banking and global markets businesses of Bank of America Corporation. Lending, derivatives, and other commercial banking activities are performed globally by banking af�liates of Bank of America Corporation, including Bank of America, N.A., member FDIC. Securities, strategic advisory, and other investment banking activities are performed globally by investment banking af�liates of Bank of America Corporation (“Investment Banking Af�liates”), including, in the United States, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated and Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp., all of which are registered broker-dealers and members of FINRA and SIPC, and, in other jurisdictions, by locally registered entities. Investment products offered by Investment Banking Af�liates: Are Not FDIC Insured May Lose Value Are Not Bank Guaranteed. ©2011 Bank of America Corporation

The freedom to see your position

without moving your schedule.

CashPro® Mobile.

CashPro Mobile makes the world your of�ce. Providing anytime, anywhere access

to your account balances and administrative functionality that puts you in control

when you’re on the go. So both you and your capital can work more ef�ciently.

The power of CashPro to go.

Taking your opportunity further.

Scan to view CashPro Freedom video.

baml.com/cpmobile

Ivo Distelbrink - Head of Global Treasury Services, Asia PacificIvo Distelbrink is a Managing Director and Head of Global Treasury Services (GTS) in Asia Pacific. Based in Hong Kong, he is responsible for developing and executing the integrated strategy for the full end-to-end regional treasury business in Asia Pacific, including treasury and trade sales, treasury product solutions, trade and supply chain finance, fulfilment and service, technology and operations and product innovation, development and management. He was named Treasury Cash Management Banker of the Year at the Asset AAA Asian Awards for 2012. Distelbrink also plays a leading role in delivering an integrated global corporate banking plan in conjunction with all his debt, FX and other partners, for building market share in the region. Prior to joining the company in March 2010, Distelbrink had an extensive career at Citibank, where he held various senior positions including Business Head of Treasury and Trade Solutions in Asia Pacific and Japan, Head of Client Sales Management for Treasury and Trade Solutions in Asia Pacific and Japan, Head of GTS in China, CEO and Head of Corporate Banking for Citibank in New Zealand, and COO and Head of Strategy and Planning for Citibank in Brazil. He has a Master of Science degree in Business Administration from the Rotterdam School of Management at Erasmus University. He specialised in international finance at the Graduate School of Business Administration, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor USA.

FOREWORD

Ivo DistelbrinkHead of Global Treasury Services,

Asia Pacific

Bank of America Merrill Lynch is proud to sponsor the 2012 China Corporate Treasury Benchmarking Study facilitated by Treasury Today in China. Now in its fourth year, the survey provides a highly relevant snapshot into the ever-evolving China treasury space, focusing on a diverse range of issues including risk management, supply chain financing, technology and the changing nature of banking relationships. As an organisation, we value the honesty and integrity of the responses and take into consideration the findings and how to best apply the same to our strategic priorities for 2013. I would like to offer my gratitude on behalf of Bank of America Merrill Lynch to all corporates who responded.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s footprint spans the Asia Pacific region, with more than 8,000 professionals providing a comprehensive range of products and services. With more than 60 years of experience in the region, Bank of America Merrill Lynch delivers unrivalled solutions with the focus of a local banking relationship and the strength of a global leader. Our Asia Pacific-based client coverage and product professionals, work together to leverage Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s global strength to meet clients’ comprehensive needs including treasury management, trade and supply chain, capital raising and M&A advisory, FX and risk management, investment management and leasing.

treasurytoday © November 2012 | 1

“ Bank of America Merrill Lynch” is the marketing name for the global banking and global markets businesses of Bank of America Corporation. Lending, derivatives, and other commercial banking activities are performed globally by banking af�liates of Bank of America Corporation, including Bank of America, N.A., member FDIC. Securities, strategic advisory, and other investment banking activities are performed globally by investment banking af�liates of Bank of America Corporation (“Investment Banking Af�liates”), including, in the United States, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated and Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp., all of which are registered broker-dealers and members of FINRA and SIPC, and, in other jurisdictions, by locally registered entities. Investment products offered by Investment Banking Af�liates: Are Not FDIC Insured May Lose Value Are Not Bank Guaranteed. ©2011 Bank of America Corporation

The freedom to see your position

without moving your schedule.

CashPro® Mobile.

CashPro Mobile makes the world your of�ce. Providing anytime, anywhere access

to your account balances and administrative functionality that puts you in control

when you’re on the go. So both you and your capital can work more ef�ciently.

The power of CashPro to go.


Scan to view CashPro Freedom video.

baml.com/cpmobile

Contents

3 Introduction

4 Executive summary and major findings

6 Respondent profile

8 Treasury priorities

9 Key performance indicators (KPIs)

10 Bank relationships

12 Counterparty risk

13 Foreign exchange

14 Investment policy

15 Credit

16 Risk management

16 Supply chain finance

17 Technology

19 China specifics

20 The future

PublisherAngela Berry

Executive Assistant to the PublisherSamantha Cowling

Editorial DirectorJoy Macknight

EditorialTom AlfordChris Davis

Senior Relationship ManagerShona Hannah

Business Development DirectorJohn Nicholas

Relationship ManagerSophie Jackson

Business Proposition ManagerColin Jones

Operations ManagerLisa Bigley

Circulation ManagerSarah Arter

Subscriber ServicesPauline Wood

Megan Coates

Production ManagerDawn Ingram

Website ManagerLuke Scammell

ApprenticesJoanna Smith-Burchnell

Joshua ThompsonRobert Murray

Managing DirectorRichard Parkinson

Switchboard +44 (0)13 0462 9000

Publisher +44 (0)13 0462 9012

Subscriptions +44 (0)13 0462 9002

Advertising +44 (0)13 0462 9018

Editorial +44 (0)13 0462 9006

Production +44 (0)13 0462 9013

Fax +44 (0)13 0462 9010

Annual Subscription Rate £260

[email protected]

© treasurytoday in China: ISSN 1759-8311

treasurytoday in China is published five times annually by Treasury Today Limited

• Courtyard Offices • Harnet Street • Sandwich • CT13 9ES • UK

Printed by: Snap Printing, Shanghai, www.snapprinting.com.cn

Translated by: Mu Shihong,

Simultaneous Interpreter, [email protected]

The entire content of this publication is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval

system or transmitted in any form or by any means mechanical, electronic, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written consent of the copyright holders. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy

of the information contained in this publication, Treasury Today Limited cannot accept liability for inaccuracies that may occur. No statement is to be considered as a recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell securities

or other instruments, or to provide investment, tax or legal advice. Readers should be aware that this publication is not intended to replace the need to

obtain professional advice in relation to any topic discussed.Photograph credits: shutterstock.com, p32 Mikhail Nekrasov

Audited member of BPA Worldwide

treasurytoday.comNovember 2012

IntroductionTreasury Today continues to strive for excellence, providing unbiased insight and analysis of the emerging trends in treasury and best practices being deployed around the globe. We continue to gather rich data from a diverse range of companies and this year’s China Study is no exception. We are, therefore, delighted to be publishing this fourth Report on the comprehensive findings from the China Study in association with Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

This Report builds upon the Benchmarking Studies we conducted in 2009, 2010 and 2011 and includes an entirely new Section on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). The Study again covers a broad array of subjects from bank relationships, credit and risk to supply chain, foreign exchange and technology.

These results provide a useful barometer on what is going on today and a helpful view on the treasury landscape of tomorrow.

China is facing the challenge of maintaining strong growth as the world economy verges on recession. With exports forecast to decline as western nations address their debt obligations and the Eurozone continues on its uncertain journey to recovery, companies operating in China have a difficult road ahead. A more intraregional or even domestic approach to growth is now on the cards and such strategies pose additional and potentially different challenges to the corporate treasury function.

Nevertheless, with the internationalisation of the renminbi, regulations becoming more business-friendly and the country wholeheartedly embracing best practices, the future looks extremely promising.

We would like to express our sincere thanks to the many corporates who responded to this Study and we would, of course, welcome any feedback from you, our readers.

About usTreasury Today is an independent publishing house and the leading provider of treasury information. We supply reliable, well-researched information to senior finance personnel including CFOs, Finance Directors, Corporate Treasurers and other treasury practitioners.

We have been writing about treasury for well over a decade, making us one of the most trusted treasury publications. This positions us perfectly to conduct this fourth China Corporate Treasury Benchmarking Study in association with Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Our thanks go to the corporate respondents without whom the survey would not have been possible.

About the StudyThe combined online, telephone and paper dual-language Study was conducted between May and September 2012. The Study attracted just over 170 responses from companies across China from a diverse universe in terms of size, industry and company structure.

This Report includes many of the exact comments made by respondents where they were invited to offer additional comments. These quotes are anonymous in order to respect confidentiality.

Read more at treasurytoday.com/benchmarking



Executive summary and major findingsThis Study was conducted at a time of continued economic turbulence around the world, uncertainty surrounding the Eurozone, its future make-up and potential impact on China, and pressure on oil prices. Nonetheless, the Study attracted just over 170 responses with a good mix of industries, company structures and size represented.

The key findings are summarised as follows:

Treasury priorities

• It appears a ‘back to basics’ approach is the way the majority of treasury functions are viewing their priorities with cash management and cash pooling structures at the top of the list of priorities.

• Unsurprisingly bank relations and banking group organisation comes second with regulations and compliance next on the list.

• These findings are consistent with the Studies we have conducted in Europe and the Asia Pacific regions.

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)• The 2012 Study includes a specific Section on KPIs and

the following table identifies the top measure deployed under each of the key treasury disciplines listed:

Treasury discipline Number one KPIOverall treasury efficiency. Cash pooling structures.

Core cash management efficiency. Cash pooling structures.

Working capital management. Days sales outstanding.

Liquidity management. Cash flow forecasting accuracy.

Risk management. Value-at-Risk (VaR).

Funding/balance sheet management. Net interest expense.

4 | treasurytoday © November 2012

• Just 8% of respondents said they use scorecards to measure their banks.

Bank relationships• The importance of bank relationships has increased with

the following points worthy of note:

� Service quality is again the most important factor, carrying the highest number of ‘very important’ responses at almost 80%. Price has just leap-frogged credit, geographic footprint and relationship.

� The majority (58%) have increased their banking partners. Just 3% say they have decreased the number of relationships.

� 72% say the purchasing department has no involvement or influence in the cash management bank selection process.

Counterparty risk• Unsurprisingly, given the current economic climate, almost

a third of respondents say their focus on counterparty risk has increased over the past year.

• When it comes to assessing counterparty risk, the ratings agencies’ reports are the most popular measure used to control counterparty risk.

Foreign exchange• Price carries the highest number of ‘very important’ ratings.

• Telephone remains the preferred communication channel when obtaining multiple bids.

Investment policy• It is no surprise to see security, liquidity and counterparty

rating as the factors carrying the highest number of ‘very important’ mentions.

• Vanilla bank deposits are by far the preferred method of investing surplus cash.

Credit• Last year, 63% of respondents said pricing had increased.

This year, that number has reduced to 34%. 45% said pricing has remained the same.

• 28% said it is easier to get credit and 33% said it is more difficult. Therefore credit conditions are still difficult, but not compounding to the extent that some might think.

Risk management• Credit and counterparty risk are cited as having an

increased focus.

Supply chain finance• There has been no movement at all in the percentage of

respondents who say it is still not on their agenda at 22%.

Technology• The most commonly used technology today is e-banking

(92%), with ERP systems in second place (79%), followed by treasury management systems (TMS) (47%).

• Perhaps true eBAM is proving more difficult to achieve than originally thought although it appears to be gaining greater traction in China.

• With the exception of eBAM applications, corporate usage of SWIFT remains lukewarm amongst respondents; the vast majority saying they have no plans to use it within the next 12 months.

• The banks have been investing in their technology too, with improvements seen in treasury portal technology, SWIFT connectivity, eBAM, mobile banking and ERP/TMS integration.

China Specifics• Just over half of respondents see CNH/CNY actively being

used for inter-company and third-party trade settlements within the next 12 months.

• Shanghai (67%) and Hong Kong (58%) are top of the list as the preferred location(s) for sub/regional treasury centres for the Greater China region.

The future• Technology remains a major stumbling block and the

banks and vendors must work together with corporates to ensure efficiencies are being realised.

• Notwithstanding the pressure on exports from China, with the internationalisation of the renminbi, regulations becoming more business-friendly and the country wholeheartedly embracing best practices, the future looks extremely promising.



Respondent profileThe Study again attracted responses from a broad universe of companies in terms of size, industry sector, treasury function and company structure. This year, over 68% of responses were from individuals performing the role of CFO, Group and/or Regional Treasurer.

Staffing levelsIt is also interesting to note the number of FTEs being employed in the treasury departments (as Chart 1 illustrates), as a far greater number of companies in China employ over 12 FTEs than their European counterparts.

The vast majority of companies said they have not increased their treasury headcount in the last year. However, those companies that had increased it cited the following reasons:

• Expansion of treasury activities, scope and volume.

• M&A activity.

35%

Chart 1: How many FTEs are employed in your treasury department?

25%

12%

28%

1-4–

5-8–

9-12–

More than 12–


Respondent universe by sizeAlmost a third of respondents have an annual sales turnover in excess of €1 billion globally. Over 30% have a turnover of above €10 billion.

The spread of industry sectors was broad with chemicals, software/technology, energy and natural resources and retail sectors particularly well represented.

Breakdown by legal entityAs Chart 3 illustrates, nearly half of respondents are (centralised) regional treasury centres (RTCs). A further 33% are de-centralised RTCs.

The number of shared service centres was low at only 2%.

The most prevalent company structure represented in terms of foreign investment vehicle used is the wholly foreign-owned enterprise or WFOE at 34% as Chart 4 illustrates.

34%

Chart 4: Company structures in China - Does your company use any of the following foreign investment vehicles?

18%

14%

13%

Wholly foreign-owned enterprise (WFOE)–

Regional HQ–

Equity joint venture (EJV)–

Holding company–

Representative office (RO)–

Foreign investment company limited by shares (FICLS)–

Co-operative joint venture (CJV)–

13%

7%

1%

Chart 2: What is your company’s annual sales turnover globally?

7%

22%

7%

30%

Up to $100m–

$100m to $500m–

$500m to $1 billion–

$1 billion to $10 billion–

Above $10 billion– 34%

47%

Chart 3: Who are you responding on behalf of?

33%

13%

5%

Regional treasury (centralised) –

Regional treasury (de-centralised) –

Subsidiary/operating company with head office –

Local company with office located in China –

Shared service centre – 2%



Treasury priorities

What is high on the treasury agenda?Respondents were asked “how important are these responsibilities in your treasury department in 2012?” Although the majority of possible responses are key responsibilities for all treasurers, the focus on cash and banking is still paramount for treasurers operating in China. The table below provides an interesting list of where treasurers are currently focusing and how the priorities for treasurers in China compare to their counterparts in Europe and Asia Pacific.

Table 1: Treasury priorities: a regional comparison.

Priority China Study 2012 Priority European Study 2012 Priority Asia Pacific Study 2012

1.Cash management/cash pooling structures.



2.Bank relationships and banking group organisation.


2. Compliance and regulations.

3. Compliance and regulations. 3. Improving cash flow forecasting. 3. Foreign exchange risk management.

4.Funding/credit lines.

4.Counterparty risk.


5. Working capital management. 5. Funding/credit lines. 5. Improving cash flow forecasting.

6. Improving cash flow forecasting. 6. Foreign exchange risk management. 6. Counterparty risk.

7.Foreign exchange risk management.

7.Compliance and regulations.

7.Funding/credit lines.

8. Technology and systems. 8. Working capital management. 8. Balance sheet optimisation.

9. Balance sheet optimisation. 9. Technology and systems. 9. Technology and systems.

10. Establishing a shared services centre. 10. Short-term investments. 10. Interest rate risk management.


Key performance indicators (KPIs)In our 2011 Study, 80% of respondents cited compliance with treasury policy as the most frequently used measure of treasury performance. This year, we introduced an entirely separate Section on Key Performance Indicators. We have identified six key treasury disciplines and we asked respondents to tick the KPIs they use under each discipline as shown in Table 2 below:

Table 2: Top three KPIs

Treasury Discipline No 1 KPI No 2 KPI No 3 KPI

Overall treasury efficiency. Cash pooling structures. Cash visibility. Costs as % of total treasury costs or revenue.

Core cash management efficiency. Cash pooling structures. Balance/transaction reporting. Cash flow forecasting accuracy.

Working capital management. Days sales outstanding (DSO). Days payables outstanding (DPO). Stock control inventory outstanding (SCIO).

Liquidity management. Cash flow forecasting accuracy. Short-term funding. Short-term investments.

Risk management. Value-at-Risk (VaR). Mark-to-market. Hedging effectiveness.

Funding/balance sheet management.

Net interest expense. Weighted average cost of capital (WACC).

Net debt/EBITDA.

The above KPIs are consistent with the performance measures used in other regions although the number of corporates using KPIs is lower among respondents to our China Study, indicating there is still some way to go with regard to measuring treasury performance.

Scorecarding banksJust 8% of respondents say they use scorecards to measure their banks. This is far lower than corporates in Europe, Asia Pacific and the Middle East where 25%, 24% and 38% of respondents respectively are using scorecards to measure their banks.

Whilst only a handful of respondents said they use formal scorecards, a number said they do use the following to measure their banking relationships:

• Overall level of banking fees/charges.

• Transaction costs.

• Number of relationships.

Elsewhere, in contrast to other regions, the issuance of a request for information (RFI) or formal request for proposal (RFP) appears far less prevalent amongst China respondents.

Yes –

No –

8%

92%

Chart 5: Do you use scorecards to measure your banks?



Bank relationshipsIt is fair to say the importance of bank relationships has increased substantially since the troubles of 2008, as the findings from this Study illustrate only too well – see Chart 6 below.

In our 2011 Study, we asked: “outside of credit, what is the SINGLE most important factor when deciding on your bank account relationships?” Service quality was the most important factor among 46% of respondents. Relationship was second at 29% and price was less important than product capabilities.

Service qualityService quality is again the most important factor, carrying the highest number of ‘very important’ responses at almost 80%. Price has just leap-frogged credit, geographic footprint and relationship.

Respondents’ comments:

“Not each factor is equally important for each bank relationship. We distinguish between core banks (those that offer financing, advanced cash management systems etc) and local banks which provide mainly cash and cheque collection services.”

“Actually it also depends on the specific product we are purchasing from the bank.”

Chart 6: How important are these factors when appointing a bank?

56% 36% 8%

67% 24% 9%

70% 23% 7%

54% 38% 8%

77% 23%

68% 21% 11%

50% 34% 16%

35% 46% 19%

61% 28% 11%

54% 39% 7%

Very important Fairly important Not a priority

Credit –

Service quality –

Relationship –

Price –

Geographic footprint –

Product capabilities –

Brand reputation –

Quality of cash management personnel –

Cost/potential disruption of changing banks –

Counterparty risk –



Number of banking partnersAre treasurers in China increasing or decreasing the number of banks they deal with? The findings suggest the majority (58%) have increased their banking partners. Just 3% say they have decreased the number of relationships.

Respondents’ comments:

“Due to the growth of our business, we had to diversify the funding sources.”

“Increased counterparties to diversify growing cash portfolio risk.”

“Consolidation of bank relationships as a result of treasury project.”

“Increasing difficulty of funding; new ERP go-live and increasing demand of automatic operation; variety of the demand of bank’s products”.

Decision makingRespondents were also asked about the involvement and influence the purchasing department has in the cash management provider selection process. Perhaps surprisingly, 72% say the purchasing department has no involvement or influence in the process. However, this is probably a reflection of the current selection process criteria which relies heavily on service quality. Although with price now a key factor, perhaps the purchasing department will assume increased involvement in future.

Purchasing manages the selection process –

Purchasing is involved and has some influence in the selection process –

Purchasing has no involvement or influence in the selection process – 72%

21%

7%

Chart 8: How much involvement and influence does your organisation’s purchasing department have in selecting a cash management provider?

Increased –

Remained the same –

Decreased –

39%

58%

Chart 7: Has the number of bank relationships you use in China increased, decreased or remained the same over the past 12 months?

3%



Counterparty risk

Depth of focusUnsurprisingly, given the current economic climate, almost a third of respondents say their focus on counterparty risk has increased over the past year. 66% said their focus on counterparty risk has stayed the same with just 7% saying it had decreased.

As one respondent commented: “With the current economic turmoil in Europe affecting the US and Asia, the world is a much smaller place right now – which implies that counterparty risk is ever so important.”

Measuring counterparty riskWhen it comes to assessing counterparty risk, the ratings agencies’ reports are the most popular measure used to control counterparty risk amongst over 70% of respondents. Credit checks and analyst reports/briefings are also used, but to a lesser extent.

Increased –

Stayed the same –

Decreased – 7%

66%

27%

Chart 9: Has counterparty risk increased, decreased or stayed the same for your company over the past 12 months?

Rating agencies –

Credit checks –

Information provided by the bank(s) themselves –

Quality of bank executive and management board –

CDS spreads –

Analyst reports/briefings –

Other market risk ratios –

Share price–

73%

Chart 10: What do you use to measure and control counterparty risk?

65%

35%

17%

18%

52%

15%

10%



Foreign exchange

Price does matterUnsurprisingly, price carries the highest number of ‘very important’ ratings at 62%. Technology doesn’t really feature as an important factor but this is due to the telephone being used to obtain multiple bids for FX transactions amongst 71% of respondents (see Chart 12). The fact that the ‘driven by cash management bank’ option features so prominently again demonstrates how corporates reward their banks with ancillary business, such as FX, where that bank continues to allocate its balance sheet to the corporate.

Additional factors cited by respondents include:

“Whether it allows flexible actions and a short delay of our payment.”

“A clear quotation procedure. Single and familiar traders are also key.”

FX bidsThe telephone remains the preferred communication channel when obtaining multiple bids.

FXall is cited several times as the preferred FX portal.

And with over a third of respondents to this question using either Bloomberg or Reuters, these two service providers remain heavy hitters in the FX space. A large percentage of respondents (68%) are also using the banks’ portals.

Price –

Technology –

Operational efficiency –

Driven by cash management bank –

Speed of execution –

Transparency – 56% 16% 28%

59% 26% 15%

29% 39% 32%

59% 27% 14%

33% 21% 46%

62% 18% 20%

Chart 11: How important are the following factors when awarding FX business to a provider?

Very important Fairly important Not important

Telephone –

Bank portal –

FX portal –

Bloomberg –

Reuters – 6%

33%

47%

68%

71%

Chart 12: How do you obtain multiple bids for your FX transactions?



Investment policy

Security, liquidity, yieldIt is no surprise to see security, liquidity and counterparty rating as the factors carrying the highest number of ‘very important’ mentions at 94%, 81% and 74% respectively. Yield and relationship have taken a backseat since the financial crisis hit.

MMFs and ETFsEmphasising the focus on liquidity, respondents have taken to short-term investment instruments – 31% use money market funds (MMFs) although just 6% are using exchange traded funds (ETFs).

Vanilla bank deposits are by far the preferred method of investing surplus cash amongst 92% of respondents.

Liquidity –

Relationship –

Security –

Counterparty rating –

Yield – 54% 40% 6%

74% 26%

94% 6%

22% 67% 11%

81% 19%

Chart 13: How important are the following factors when deciding upon your investment policy?

Very important Fairly important Not important

Chart 14: Are you using the following short-term instruments in China?

Money market funds (MMFs) –

Exchange traded funds (ETFs) –

Deposits–

Repos–

Commercial paper–

8%

31% 69%

6% 94%

92%

22% 78%

48% 52%

Yes No



Credit

Price of creditChart 15 offers some interesting findings compared to the 2011 findings in this area. Last year, 63% of respondents said pricing had increased. This year, that number has reduced to 34%. 45% said pricing has remained the same.

“Most countries remained unchanged, except a few whose pricing was increased,” summarised one respondent.

Availability of creditThere appears to be some significant change with regard to the availability of credit over the past 12 months. Last year, 7% said it was easier to obtain credit, 56% said it was more difficult. In 2012, 28% said it is easier to get credit and 33% said it is more difficult. Therefore credit conditions are still difficult, but not compounding to the extent that some might think.

Does credit really matter?Well, respondents to the Study clearly think so. The granting of credit lines continues to play a vital role in the decision to appoint the cash management bank(s) as Chart 17 clearly shows. 43% say their decisions are highly influenced. This is down slightly on the 2011 Study (50%).

Increased –


Decreased – 21%

45%

34%

Chart 15: Has pricing changed in the last 12 months?

Chart 17: How much are your decisions to appoint your cash management bank(s) influenced by their willingness to continue to grant you credit lines?

Highly influenced –

Partly influenced–

Sometimes influenced –

Not influenced at all–

17%

29%

43%

11%

Easier –


More difficult – 33%

39%

28%

Chart 16: Availability to obtain credit now



Risk management

Top risk concernsForeign exchange risk was the key area of risk management focus in our 2011 Study. This year, credit and counterparty risk are cited as having an increased focus at 57% and 48% of respondents respectively. Foreign exchange risk has become more of a concern for 77% this year.

This may be a reflection of market volatilities, or could reflect the fact that companies are expanding into new markets to seek growth opportunities.

Supply chain finance

Back on the agenda?In our 2011 Study, half of the respondents said the importance of supply chain financing had increased. This time round, that number has reduced to 31% as Chart 19 illustrates. There has been no movement at all in the percentage of respondents who say it is still not on their agenda at 22%.

Foreign exchange risk –

Interest rate risk –

Supply chain risk –

Counterparty risk –

Credit risk –

Commodity risk –

Enterprise risk –

Chart 18: How has your focus on risk management changed over the past 12 months?

21% 74% 5%

57% 43%

48% 52%

23% 71% 6%

43% 57%

77% 20% 3%

35% 65%

More focus Same focus Less focus

Increased in importance –

Decreased in importance –


Still not on our agenda – 22%

47%

0%

31%

Chart 19: Has supply chain financing changed in importance over the past 12 months?



Technology

Current and future usageThe most commonly used technology today is e-banking (92%), with ERP systems in second place (79%), followed by treasury management systems (TMS) (47%).

In last year’s Study, eBAM was identified as the system which the majority of respondents were planning to use but whilst the 2012 findings identify 23% currently using eBAM, 34% are still saying they plan to use it. Perhaps true eBAM is proving more difficult to achieve than originally thought although it appears to be gaining greater traction in China.

TMS vendors would do well to look at the Chinese market for future growth – almost a third of respondents say they are planning to use a TMS in the next 12-18 months.

SWIFT for CorporatesCorporate usage of SWIFT remains lukewarm amongst respondents with the vast majority saying they have no plans to use it within the next 12 months. The exception to this is in the eBAM space as mentioned above, or where SWIFT is of interest in the wider organisation. As one respondent commented: “the usage of advanced technology depends mainly on the development in the group treasury. SWIFT is a topic there, so the roll-out may come within the next 24 months.”

e-banking/bank portal –

TMS –

ERP –

Inter-company netting system –

e-Invoicing –

Payment factory software –

eBAM –

Money market portal –

Mobile banking solutions –

Cloud technology –

Card solutions –

Chart 20: Which of the following systems do you use already or plan to use in the next 12-18 months?

12% 13% 75%

38% 15% 47%

35% 3% 62%

79% 15% 6%

47% 32% 21%

92% 6% 2%

41% 18% 41%

9% 10% 81%

3% 15% 82%

24% 9% 67%

23% 34% 43%

Use Plan to use Do not use



Bank investment

It appears that banks have been investing in their technology too, with improvements seen in treasury portal technology, SWIFT connectivity, eBAM, mobile banking and ERP/TMS integration. However, the banks should not be complacent as the majority of respondents say there is still work to do. According to one respondent, “there is a need to distinguish between foreign and local banks. Whereas local banks offered more services in the last year but still not in a satisfying standardised way.”

Technology barriersThere are mixed responses to the question we asked “what are the major technology barriers you face?” But the following key themes emerge:

• Lack of systems compatibility.

• Internal blockages/bottlenecks.

• Connectivity.

• Security and firewall issues.

• Cost.

• Lack of standardisation.

• Too many interfaces.

One respondent cited “multiple eBAM” as his major technology barrier. In other words, there is no standardised approach.

MA-CUG –

SCORE –

Alliance Lite –

Third-party bureau services –

eBAM –

Trade utility – 11% 89%

23% 34% 43%

4% 5% 91%

6% 94%

3% 9% 88%

3% 97%

Chart 21: Do you currently use or plan to use (within the next 12 months) SWIFT to provide access to your banks?

Use Plan to use Do not use

Treasury portal technology –

SWIFT connectivity –

Electronic bank account management (eBAM) –

Integration with third-party TMS and ERP –

Automated financial supply chain solutions –

Multi-banking capabilities –

Mobile banking solutions –

Chart 22: Have you seen any improvement by your bank(s) in the following areas?

Yes Some, but not enough No

18% 51% 31%

15% 44% 41%

38% 44% 18%

33% 19%

32% 39% 29%

22% 35% 43%

41% 44% 15%

48%



China specificsJust over half of respondents see CNH/CNY actively being used for inter-company and third-party trade settlements within the next 12 months. A further 26% believe this will happen in the next 1-3 years.

This appears at variance with respondents to our recent Study of corporate treasurers in the Asia Pacific region where 31% believe this will not happen at all.

Respondents’ views are mixed on the geographies they see emerging as the preferred location(s) for sub/regional treasury centres for the Greater China region.

Shanghai (67%) and Hong Kong (58%) are top of the list – see Chart 24. Respondents to our Asia Pacific Study identified Singapore as the preferred location (51%) with Shanghai a close second (46%).

Within 12 months –

1-3 years –

3-5 years –

Not at all – 6%

17%

26%

51%

Chart 23: Do you see CNH/CNY actively being used for inter-company and third-party trade settlements?

Hong Kong –

Shanghai –

Beijing –

Singapore – 19%

28%

67%

58%

Chart 24: Which location(s) do you see emerging as the preferred location(s) for sub/ regional treasury centres for the Greater China region?


The future

So what do corporates think needs to change to address all of these challenges going forward?

“Better listening skills, more forward-looking to corporates’ needs, instead of just focusing on their own product strength”.

“More customer-centric solutions. More often than not in China, there is a tendency for the rules to change every so often so that our service providers are unable to provide clear solutions, as they themselves are not clear on what the regulators want.”

“Efficiency on cash pooling.”

Technology also remains a huge stumbling block and the banks and vendors must work together with corporates to ensure efficiencies are being realised.


Ivo Distelbrink——亚太区全球资金管理服务主管Ivo Distelbrink担任董事总经理兼全球资金管理服务（GTS）亚太区主管。他在香港工作，负责为亚太区的整套端到端区域资金管理业务开发并执行整合战略，包括资金管理和贸易销售、资金管理产品解决方案、贸易和供应链融资、履行与服务、技术与营运以及产品创新、开发和管理。他在“2012年资产AAA级亚洲大奖”中被提名为“年度资金现金管理银行家”。Distelbrink还与所有的债务、外汇及其他合作伙伴一起发挥领导作用，为占据亚太地区的市场份额而制定整合性全球企业银行计划。在2010年3月加入美国银行-美林之前，Distelbrink在花旗银行度过了丰富的职业历程，担任过各种高级职务，包括亚太及日本地区资金管理和贸易解决方案业务主管，亚太及日本地区资金管理和贸易解决方案客户销售管理主管，全球资金管理服务中国区主管，花旗银行新西兰首席执行官兼企业银行主管，以及花旗银行巴西首席运营官兼战略与规划主管。他从伊拉斯姆斯大学鹿特丹管理学院获得工商管理硕士学位，在美国安阿伯市密歇根大学工商管理研究生院主修国际金融。

序

Ivo Distelbrink美国银行-美林全球资金管理服务

亚太区主管

美国银行-美林很荣幸为《今日资金管理在中国》推出的“2012年中国企业资金管理基准比较研究”提供赞助。在调查开展的第四年里，基准比较研究对不断发展变化的中国资金管理形势进行了极为切实的概括性描述，重点关注一系列形形色色的问题，包括风险管理、供应链融资、技术以及银行关系性质的变化等。作为一家组织，我们看重这些回复的诚实性和完整性，并对调查结果以及如何将其应用于我们2013年的战略重点进行思考。我愿代表美国银行-美林，向所有参与研究的企业表示感谢。

美国银行-美林的足迹覆盖整个亚太地区，共有8,000多位专业人士提供一系列全面的产品和服务。美国银行-美林凭借在该地区60多年的经验，再加上对本地银行关系的关注以及全球领先的实力，提供无与伦比的解决方案。我们在亚太地区的客户覆盖与产品专业人士共同发挥作用，充分利用美国银行-美林的全球实力，满足客户的全面需求，包括资金管理、贸易和供应链、资金筹集和并购咨询、外汇和风险管理，投资管理以及租赁。

《今日资金管理在中国》版权所有-2012年11月 | 21

目录

23 引言

24 摘要及主要调查结果

26 受访者档案

28 资金管理重点

29 关键绩效指标（KPIs）

30 银行关系

32 交易对手风险

33 外汇

34 投资政策

35 信贷

36 风险管理

36 供应链融资

37 技术

39 中国细节

40 未来

PublisherAngela Berry

Executive Assistant to the PublisherSamantha Cowling

Editorial DirectorEleanor Hill

EditorialLouise KellyTom AlfordChris Davis

Senior Relationship ManagerShona Hannah

Business Development DirectorJohn Nicholas

Relationship Manager – AsiaSophie Jackson

Business Proposition ManagerColin Jones

Operations ManagerLisa Bigley

Circulation ManagerSarah Arter

Subscriber ServicesPauline Wood

Megan Coates

Production ManagerDawn Ingram

Website ManagerLuke Scammell

ApprenticesJoanna Smith-Burchnell

Joshua ThompsonRobert Murray

Managing DirectorRichard Parkinson

Switchboard +44 (0)13 0462 9000

Publisher +44 (0)13 0462 9012

Subscriptions +44 (0)13 0462 9002

Advertising +44 (0)13 0462 9018

Editorial +44 (0)13 0462 9006

Production +44 (0)13 0462 9013

Fax +44 (0)13 0462 9010

Annual Subscription Rate £260

[email protected]

© treasurytoday in China: ISSN 1759-8311

treasurytoday in China is published five times annually by Treasury Today Limited

• Courtyard Offices • Harnet Street • Sandwich • CT13 9ES • UK

Printed by: Snap Printing, Shanghai, www.snapprinting.com.cn

Translated by: Mu Shihong,

Simultaneous Interpreter, [email protected]

The entire content of this publication is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval

system or transmitted in any form or by any means mechanical, electronic, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written consent of the copyright holders. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy

of the information contained in this publication, Treasury Today Limited cannot accept liability for inaccuracies that may occur. No statement is to be considered as a recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell securities

or other instruments, or to provide investment, tax or legal advice. Readers should be aware that this publication is not intended to replace the need to

obtain professional advice in relation to any topic discussed.Photograph credits: shutterstock.com, p32 Mikhail Nekrasov

Audited member of BPA Worldwide

treasurytoday.comNovember 2012

22 | 《今日资金管理在中国》版权所有-2012年11月

目录

23 引言

24 摘要及主要调查结果

26 受访者档案

28 资金管理重点

29 关键绩效指标（KPIs）

30 银行关系

32 交易对手风险

33 外汇

34 投资政策

35 信贷

36 风险管理

36 供应链融资

37 技术

39 中国细节

40 未来

引言《今日资金管理》继续努力追求卓越，就资金管理的新兴趋势以及全球各地采用的最佳实践提供客观的洞见与分析。我们继续从各类公司收集丰富的数据，在开展今年的中国基准比较研究时也不例外。因此，我们很高兴与美国银行-美林联合发布这第四份报告，将中国基准比较研究的综合调查结果公之于众。

这份报告以我们在2009、2010和2011年开展的基准比较研究为基础，并包括一个全新的部分，即关键绩效

指标（KPIs）。此次研究仍然涵盖了广泛的主题，包括银行关系、信贷和风险以及供应链、外汇和技术等

等。

这些结果为当前动态提供了实用的晴雨表，并帮助人们看清未来的资金管理形势。

在全球经济濒临衰退之时，中国面临着保持强劲增长的挑战。由于西方国家忙于应对债务危机，欧元区复

苏之旅前途未卜，因此中国出口预计将有所减少，而在华营运公司的前行之路也会充满艰辛。如今以区域内

甚至国内为重点的增长方式已不可避免，这种战略向企业资金管理部门提出了额外的而且可能是全新的挑

战。

不过，随着人民币国际化进程，监管规则为企业提供更多便利，中国正全心全意地采纳最佳实践，未来看起

来一片光明。

我们向此次研究的众多受访企业致以诚挚谢意，当然，我们欢迎读者们提出任何反馈意见。

关于我们今日资金管理是一家独立的出版机构，是资金管

理信息的主要提供者。我们为首席财务官、财务总

监、企业资金主管等高级财务人员及其他资金管

理从业人员提供可靠的、研究透彻的信息。

我们拥有十余年撰写资金管理文章的经验，这使

我们成为最受信赖的资金管理出版机构之一。因

此，我们完全有实力与美国银行-美林携手，开展

第四次“中国企业资金管理基准比较研究”。

我们向受访企业致以诚挚谢意，因为没有他们的

参与，我们就不可能完成这项研究。

关于此次研究2012年5月至9月期间，此项研究以双语的形式通过网络、电话和纸质问卷同时展开，吸引了来自中国各地的170多份答复，受访公司的规模、所处行业和公司结构千差万别。

这份报告原文引用了许多受访者应邀发表的附加评论。为保密起见，这些评论都是匿名发表的。

请登录treasurytoday.com/benchmarking，阅读更多内容。


2012年中国企业资金管理基准比较研究

摘要及主要调查结果此项研究开展之时，全球经济持续动荡，欧元区及其未来构成以及对中国的潜在影响和对油价的压力充满不确定性。不过，研究仍然吸引了170多位受访者参加，他们来自各行各业的公司，公司结构和规模也各不相同。

主要调查结果总结如下：

资金管理重点 • “返璞归真”模式似乎成为大多数资金管理部门看待业务重点的方式，其中现金管理和现金池结构是重中之重。

• 不出所料，银行关系和银行团体组织排在第二位，其次是监管与合规。

• 这些调查结果与我们在欧洲和亚太地区开展的研究相符。

关键绩效指标（KPIs） • 2012年的研究包括一个“关键绩效指标”专区，下表列出了每个主要资金管理科目中所应用的首要指标：

资金管理科目首要KPI

资金管理的整体效率。现金池结构。

核心现金管理效率。现金池结构。

营运资金管理。应收账款天数。

流动性管理。现金流预测的准确度。

风险管理。风险价值（VaR）。

融资/资产负债表管理。净利息支出。


• 只有8%的受访者称，他们使用记分卡对合作银行进行评估。

银行关系 • 银行关系的重要性有所提高，以下几点值得关注：

• 服务质量仍然是最重要的因素，回答“非常重要”的受访者最多，几乎占80%。价格的重要性略高于信贷、地域覆盖和关系。

• 大多数受访者（58%）增加了合作银行的数量。只有3%的受访者称，他们减少了合作银行。

• 72%的受访者称，采购部门不会参与或影响选择现金管理银行的过程。

交易对手风险 • 不出所料，在当前的经济形势下，近1/3的受访者称去年他们对交易对手风险的关注度提高了。

• 在评估交易对手风险方面，评级机构的报告是控制交易对手风险的最常用指标。

外汇 • 回答价格“非常重要”的受访者最多。

• 电话仍然是获得多方报价的首选沟通渠道。

投资政策 • 认为安全性、流动性和交易对手评级这几项因素“非常重要”的受访者最多，这并不令人意外。

• 迄今为止，普通银行存款是投资富余现金的首选方法。

信贷 • 去年，有63%的受访者称定价提高了。今年，这一数字降至34%，另有45%的受访者称定价保持不变。

• 28%的受访者称获得信贷比原来容易，而33%的受访者表示比原来困难。因此，信贷环境仍然艰难，但还没有困难到一些人所想象的程度。

风险管理 • 受访者指出，他们对信贷和交易对手风险的关注度有所提高。

供应链融资 • 尚未将供应链融资列入议程的受访者比例没有任何改变，仍然是22%。

技术 • 如今最常用的技术是电子银行（92%），其次是企业资源规划（ERP）系统（79%），再其次是资金管理系统（TMS）（47%）。

• 事实证明，也许实现真正的电子银行账户管理（eBAM）要比最初设想的困难，尽管它在中国获得的动力似乎更大了。

• 除了eBAM的应用之外，受访者企业使用环球银行间金融通信协会（SWIFT）的热情仍然不高；大多数受访者表示他们在未来12个月内没有使用SWIFT的计划。

• 银行也一直在投资于技术，在资金管理门户技术、SWIFT连接、eBAM、移动银行和ERP/TMS整合方面均取得了进展。

中国细节 • 有一半多一点的受访者认为，在未来12个月内，公司间和第三方贸易结算将积极使用离岸人民币/人民币。

• 在大中华区分区/区域资金管理中心的首选地点名单中，上海（67%）和香港（58%）高居榜首。

未来 • 技术仍然是一个主要障碍，银行和供应商必须与企业合作，以确保效率。

• 尽管中国面临着出口压力，但随着人民币国际化进程，监管规则为企业提供更多便利，中国正全心全意采纳最佳实践，未来看起来一片光明。



受访者档案此次研究再次吸引了来自形形色色公司的答复，他们的规模、所在行业、资金管理职能和公司结构均各不相同。今年，超过68%的受访者担任的职务是首席财务官、集团和/或区域资金主管。

员工配备水平资金管理部门聘用的全职员工人数（如图1所示）也值得关注，因为聘用12名以上全职员工的中国公司要比欧洲公司多得多。

大多数公司称，他们去年没有增加资金管理人员的人数。不过，扩招员工的公司列出了以下原因：

• 资金管理活动、范围和业务量的增加。

• 并购活动。

35%

图1：贵公司资金管理部聘用了多少名全职员工？

25%

12%

28%

1-4名–

5-8名–

9-12名–

超过12名–


按受访者的规模划分近1/3的受访者公司全球年销售额超过10亿美元。超过30%的受访者公司全球年销售额在100亿美元以上。

受访者所在行业分布广泛，尤其具有代表性的是化工、软件/技术、能源和自然资源以及零售行业。

按法律实体的性质划分如图3所示，近一半的受访者公司是（集中式）区域资金管理中心（RTCs）。另有33%的受访者公司是分散式的区域资金管理中心。

共享服务中心的数量很少，只占2%。

如图4所示，从使用的外商投资工具来看，最普遍的公司结构是外商独资企业（WFOE），占34%。

34%

图4：在华公司结构——贵公司是否使用以下外商投资工具？

18%

14%

13%

外商独资企业（WFOE）–

地区总部 –

合资企业（EJV） –

控股公司 –

代表处（RO） –

外商投资股份有限公司（FICLS） –

中外合作企业（CJV）–

13%

7%

1%

图2：贵公司全球年销售额是多少？

7%

22%

7%

30%

1亿美元以下–

1亿 – 5亿美元–

5亿 – 10亿美元–

10亿 – 100亿美元–

超过100亿美元– 34%

47%

图3：您代表哪个机构填写这份调查？

33%

13%

5%

区域资金管理中心（集中式） –

区域资金管理中心（分散式） –

总部不在中国的子公司/营运公司 –

总部设在中国的本地公司 –

共享服务中心 – 2%



资金管理重点

资金管理议程上的重点是什么？我们询问受访者，“2012年，这些职责在贵公司资金管理部中的重要性如何？”虽然大多数备选项是所有资金管理者的重要职责，但对于在中国工作的资金管理者来说，对现金和银行业务的关注仍然最为突出。下表是一份值得关注的清单，列出了目前资金管理者重点关注的领域，并将中国与欧洲和亚太地区资金管理者的重点工作加以比较。

表1：资金管理重点：区域比较重点 2012年中国研究重点 2012年欧洲研究重点 2012年亚太地区研究

1. 现金管理/现金池结构。 1. 现金管理/现金池结构。 1. 现金管理/现金池结构。

2. 银行关系与银行团体组织。 2. 银行关系与银行团体组织。 2. 合规与监管。

3. 合规与监管。 3. 改进现金流预测。 3. 外汇风险管理。

4. 融资/信贷额度。 4. 交易对手风险。 4. 银行关系与银行团体组织。

5. 营运资金管理。 5. 融资/信贷额度。 5. 改进现金流预测。

6. 改进现金流预测。 6. 外汇风险管理。 6. 交易对手风险。

7. 外汇风险管理。 7. 合规与监管。 7. 融资/信贷额度。

8. 技术与系统。 8. 营运资金管理。 8. 资产负债表优化。

9. 资产负债表优化。 9. 技术与系统。 9. 技术与系统。

10. 建立共享服务中心。 10. 短期投资。 10. 利率风险管理。


关键绩效指标（KPIs）在我们2011年的研究中，80%的受访者将符合资金管理政策列为最常用的资金管理绩效指标。今年，我们将关键绩效指标单独划为一个部分。我们确定了六个主要的资金管理科目，并请受访者为每个科目勾选出他们使用的关键绩效指标，如下方表2所示：

表2：三大关键绩效指标

资金管理科目第一KPI 第二KPI 第三KPI

资金管理的整体效率。现金池结构。现金可见度。成本占资金管理总成本或收入的百分比。

核心现金管理效率。现金池结构。余额/交易报告。现金流预测的准确度。

营运资金管理。应收账款天数（DSO）。应付账款天数（DPO）。库存天数（SCIO）。

流动性管理。现金流预测的准确度。短期融资。短期投资。

风险管理。风险价值（VaR）。逐日盯市。对冲效率。

融资/资产负债表管理。净利息支出。加权平均资本成本（WACC）。净债务/扣除利息、税项、折旧及摊销前盈利。

以上关键绩效指标与其他地区应用的绩效指标一致，不过中国研究中应用关键绩效指标的受访者企业较少，表明在衡量资金管理绩效方面仍有一段路要走。

使用记分卡评估银行只有8%的受访者称，他们使用记分卡对合作银行进行评估。这一数字远远低于欧洲、亚太和中东的企业，在这些地区，分别有25%、24%和38%的受访者使用记分卡评估合作银行。

虽然只有少数受访者称他们使用正式记分卡，但也有一些人说他们使用以下指标对银行关系进行评估：

• 银行手续费/费用的整体水平。

• 交易成本。

• 合作银行的数量。

与其他地区相比，发布信息索取书（RFI）或正式招标书（RFP）的做法在中国受访者中的普及程度似乎低得多。

是 –

否 –

8%

92%

图5：贵组织是否使用记分卡对合作银行进行评估？



银行关系平心而论，自2008年经历艰难时期之后，银行关系的重要性显著提高，正如此项调查的结果所示——见下方图6。

在2011年的研究中，我们询问“除了信贷之外，在确定银行账户关系时，最重要的一个因素是什么？”服务质量被46%的受访者列为最重要的因素，其次是关系，占29%，而价格的重要性低于产品性能。

服务质量服务质量仍然是最重要的因素，回答“非常重要”的受访者最多，几乎占80%。价格的重要性略高于信贷、地域覆盖和关系。

受访者评论：

“不同的银行关系未必同等看重同一因素。我们会区分核心银行（提供融资、先进的现金管理系统等等）与主要提供现金和支票托收服务的本地银行。”

“实际上，这也取决于我们从银行购买的具体产品。”

信贷 –

服务质量 –

关系 –

价格 –

地域覆盖 –

产品性能 –

品牌声誉 –

现金管理人员的素质 –

更换合作银行的成本/可能产生的中断 –

交易对手风险 –

图6：在指定银行时，以下因素的重要性如何？

56% 36% 8%

67% 24% 9%

70% 23% 7%

54% 38% 8%

77% 23%

68% 21% 11%

50% 34% 16%

35% 46% 19%

61% 28% 11%

54% 39% 7%

非常重要相当重要不是重点



合作银行的数量在华资金管理者是增加还是减少了合作银行的数量？调查结果显示，大多数（58%）增加了合作银行的数量。只有3%的受访者称，他们减少了合作银行。

受访者评论：

“由于业务的增长，我们必须开辟多元化的融资渠道。”

“增加交易对手，以分散不断提高的现金投资组合风险。”

“因实施资金管理项目而合并银行关系。”

“融资越来越难；新的企业资源规划系统上线，对自动操作的需求不断增长；对银行产品的需求多种多样。”

决策我们还询问受访者，在他们选择现金管理供应商的过程中，公司采购部门的参与度和影响力如何。也许令人惊讶的是，有72%的受访者称，采购部门并不参与或影响这个过程。不过，这可能反映出目前选择过程的标准高度依赖于服务质量。不过现在价格是一个关键因素，采购部门也许会在未来更多地参与这个过程。

增加 –

保持不变 –

减少 –

39%

58%

图7：在过去12个月里，贵组织在中国的合作银行数量是增加、减少还是保持不变？

采购部门管理选择过程 –

采购部门参与选择过程，并发挥一定的影响力 –

采购部门既不参与选择过程，也不发挥影响力 – 72%

21%

7%

图8：在选择现金管理供应商时，贵组织采购部门的参与度和影响力如何？

3%



交易对手风险

关注深度不出所料，在当前的经济形势下，近1/3的受访者称去年他们对交易对手风险的关注度提高了。66%的受访者称，他们对交易对手风险的关注度保持不变，只有7%的受访者称关注度有所下降。

一位受访者评论说：“由于欧洲目前的经济动荡对美国和亚洲造成影响，如今世界变得更小了——这意味着交易对手风险从来没有像现在这样重要。”

评估交易对手风险在评估交易对手风险方面，评级机构的报告是控制交易对手风险的最常用指标，超过70%的受访者勾选了这一选项。信用检查和分析师报告/简报也被一些公司使用，但普及程度较低。

提高 –

保持不变 –

降低 – 7%

66%

27%

图9：在过去12个月里，贵公司的交易对手风险是提高、降低还是保持不变？

评级机构 –

信用检查 –

银行提供的信息 –

银行执行和管理委员会的素质 –

信用违约掉期利差 –

分析师报告/简报 –

其他市场风险比率 –

股价–

73%

图10：贵公司使用哪些工具来评估和控制交易对手风险？

65%

35%

17%

18%

52%

15%

10%



外汇

价格的确重要不出所料，认为价格“非常重要”的受访者人数最多，占62%。技术并非是真正重要的因素，但这是因为有71%的受访者公司使用电话获取多方外汇交易报价（见图12）。“由现金管理银行推动”这一选项仍然非常突出，这说明了企业如何用外汇等辅助业务来回报持续向其提供信贷的合作银行。

受访者列出的其他因素包括：

“是否允许灵活行动和短期延迟付款。”

“明晰的报价程序。单一和熟悉的交易商也是关键。”

外汇报价电话仍然是获得多方报价的首选沟通渠道。

FXall多次被列为首选的外汇门户。

超过1/3的受访者使用彭博或路透的平台，因此这两家服务供应商仍然是外汇领域的巨头。有相当一部分受访者（68%）也使用银行门户。

价格 –

价格 –

技术 –

由现金管理银行推动 –

执行速度 –

透明度 – 56% 16% 28%

59% 26% 15%

29% 39% 32%

59% 27% 14%

33% 21% 46%

62% 18% 20%

图11：将外汇业务交托给某家供应商时，以下因素的重要性如何？

电话 –

银行门户 –

外汇门户 –

彭博资讯 –

路透集团 – 6%

33%

47%

68%

71%

图12：贵组织如何获取外汇交易的多方报价？

非常重要相当重要不重要



投资政策

安全性，流动性，收益率认为安全性、流动性和交易对手评级这几项因素“非常重要”的人数最多，分别占94%、81%和74%，这并不令人意外。自金融危机爆发后，收益率和关系已退居次要地位。

货币市场基金（MMFs）和交易所指数基金（ETFs）受访者强调对流动性的关注，因此比较青睐短期投资工具——31%使用货币市场基金，而使用交易所指数基金的只占6%。

迄今为止，普通银行存款是投资富余现金的首选方法，有92%的受访者选择这一选项。

流动性 –

关系 –

安全性 –

交易对手评级 –

收益率 – 54% 40% 6%

74% 26%

94% 6%

22% 67% 11%

81% 19%

图13：在确定公司投资政策时，以下因素的重要性如何？

非常重要相当重要不重要

图14：贵组织是否在中国使用以下短期投资工具？

货币市场基金（MMFs） –

交易所指数基金（ETFs）–

存款–

回购协议–

商业票据–

8%

31% 69%

6% 94%

92%

22% 78%

48% 52%

是否



信贷

信贷价格与2011年这一领域的调查结果相比，图15揭示出的某些结果值得关注。去年，63%的受访者称定价有所提高。今年，这一数字降至34%。45%的受访者称定价保持不变。

“除了少数国家定价有所提高之外，大多数国家都没有什么变化。”一位受访者总结说。

信贷可用性过去12个月里，信贷可用性似乎出现了一些显著变化。去年，7%的受访者称获得信贷更容易了，56%的受访者则认为更难。2012年，28%的受访者称获得信贷更容易，而认为更难的占33%。因此，信贷环境仍然艰难，但还没有困难到一些人所想象的程度。

信贷真的很重要吗？此次研究的受访者显然这样认为。从图17可以明显看出，在公司指定现金管理银行的决策中，银行是否授予信贷额度继续发挥着关键作用。43%的受访者称，他们的决策会受到高度影响，比2011年研究中的比例（50%）略有下降。

提高了 –

保持不变 –

降低了 – 21%

45%

34%

图15：过去12个月里，定价有变化吗？

图17：银行继续授予信贷额度的意愿，对贵组织指定现金管理银行的决策有多大影响？

高度影响 –

部分影响 –

有时会有影响 –

完全没有影响 –

17%

29%

43%

11%

更容易 –

保持不变 –

更困难 – 33%

39%

28%

图16：现在获得信贷的难易程度如何



风险管理

最重要的风险问题在2011年的研究中，外汇风险是风险管理关注的主要领域。今年，分别有57%和48%的受访者表示，他们对信贷风险和交易对手风险的关注度有所提高。今年对外汇风险关注提高的受访者比例增加到77%。

这或许反映出市场的波动性，以及公司向新市场扩张以寻求增长机会的事实。

供应链融资

在议程中位置后移？在2011年的研究中，半数受访者称供应链融资的重要性提高了。而这次这一数字降至31%，如图19所示。尚未将其列入议程的受访者比例没有任何改变，仍然是22%。

外汇风险 –

利率风险 –

供应链风险 –

交易对手风险 –

信贷风险 –

商品风险 –

企业风险 –

图18：在过去12个月里，贵组织对风险管理的关注度有何变化？

21% 74% 5%

57% 43%

48% 52%

23% 71% 6%

43% 57%

77% 20% 3%

35% 65%

关注度提高关注度不变关注度降低

重要性提高 –

重要性降低 –

保持不变 –

尚未列入我们的议程 – 22%

47%

0%

31%

图19：在过去12个月里，供应链融资的重要性是否有所变化？



技术

当前和未来的应用如今最常用的技术是电子银行（92%），其次是企业资源规划（ERP）系统（79%），再其次是资金管理系统（TMS）（47%）。

在去年的研究中，电子银行账户管理（eBAM）被大多数受访者列为计划使用的系统，但2012年的研究结果显示，有23%的受访者正在使用eBAM，而34%仍然表示他们计划使用这一系统。事实证明，也许实现真正的eBAM要比最初设想的困难，尽管它在中国获得的动力似乎更大了。

瞄准中国市场寻求未来的增长的资金管理系统（TMS）供应商必将大有发展——近1/3的受访者称，他们计划在未来12-18个月内使用TMS。

企业应用SWIFT受访者企业使用环球银行间金融通信协会（SWIFT）的热情仍然不高，大多数受访者称他们在未来12个月内没有使用SWIFT的计划。但上述的eBAM领域或者SWIFT对整个组织有利的情况则例外。一位受访者评论说：“先进技术的应用主要取决于集团资金管理的发展。集团正考虑应用SWIFT，则也许会在未来24个月内推出。”

电子银行/银行门户 –

资金管理系统（TMS） –

企业资源规划（ERP） –

公司间净额结算系统 –

电子开票 –

支付工厂软件 –

电子银行账户管理 –

货币市场门户 –

移动银行解决方案 –

云技术 –

银行卡解决方案 –

图20：以下哪些系统，是贵组织已经在使用，或计划在未来12-18个月内使用的？

12% 13% 75%

38% 15% 47%

35% 3% 62%

79% 15% 6%

47% 32% 21%

92% 6% 2%

41% 18% 41%

9% 10% 81%

3% 15% 82%

24% 9% 67%

23% 34% 43%

使用计划使用没有使用



银行投资银行似乎也一直在投资于技术，在资金管理门户技术、SWIFT连接、eBAM、移动银行和ERP/TMS整合方面均取得了进展。不过，银行不应该因此而自满，因为大多数受访者称还有许多工作要做。一位受访者说：“我们需要区分外资银行和本地银行。虽然去年本地银行提供了更多的服务，但仍然没有采取令人满意的标准化方式。”

技术障碍对于我们提出的“贵组织面对的主要技术障碍有哪些？”这一问题，受访者的回答各不相同。但调查结果揭示出以下关键主题：

• 缺乏系统兼容性。

• 内部阻碍/瓶颈。

• 连接性。

• 安全性和防火墙问题。

• 成本。

• 标准化缺失。

• 接口过多。

一位受访者将“多个eBAM”列为主要的技术障碍。换句话说，就是没有标准化的方式。

会员管理式封闭用户组（MA-CUG） –

标准化企业环境（SCORE） –

Alliance Lite –

第三方服务局 –

电子银行账户管理 –

贸易服务设施 – 11% 89%

23% 34% 43%

4% 5% 91%

6% 94%

3% 9% 88%

3% 97%

图21：目前，贵组织是否使用或计划（在未来12个月内）使用环球银行间金融通信协会（SWIFT）来提供银行接入服务？

使用计划使用不使用

资金管理门户技术 –

SWIFT连接 –

电子银行账户管理（eBAM） –

与第三方TMS和ERP的整合 –

自动化财务供应链解决方案 –

多银行能力 –

移动银行解决方案 –

图22：在以下领域，贵组织是否看到你们的合作银行取得了进步？

是有些进步，但还不够否

18% 51% 31%

15% 44% 41%

38% 44% 18%

33% 19%

32% 39% 29%

22% 35% 43%

41% 44% 15%

48%



中国细节有一半多一点的受访者认为，在未来12个月内，公司间和第三方贸易结算将积极使用离岸人民币/人民币。另有26%的受访者认为这将在未来1到3年内实现。

这一结果似乎有别于我们最近开展的亚太地区企业资金管理者研究，在这项研究中，31%的受访者认为这一前景根本不会实现。

对于哪些地区将崛起为大中华区分区/区域资金管理中心的首选地点，受访者观点各不相同。

上海（67%）和香港（58%）名列榜首——见图24。而亚太研究的受访者则将新加坡列为首选地点（51%），紧随其后的是上海（46%）。

12个月内 –

1-3年 –

3-5年 –

根本不会应用 – 6%

17%

26%

51%

图23：您是否认为离岸人民币/人民币会在公司间和第三方贸易结算中得到积极的应用？

香港 –

上海 –

北京 –

新加坡 – 19%

28%

67%

58%

图24：您认为哪些地区将崛起为大中华区的首选分区/区域资金管理中心？


未来

那么，若想在未来应对所有这些挑战，企业认为有哪些领域需要改变？

“提高倾听技能，以更长远的眼光看待企业需求，而不是仅仅专注于自己的产品实力。”

“解决方案更加以客户为中心。相比其他地方，中国的规则往往会频繁更改，导致我们的服务供应商无法提供明晰的解决方案，因为他们自己也不清楚监管机构究竟有哪些要求。”

“提高现金池效率。”

技术仍然是一个巨大的障碍，银行和供应商必须与企业合作，以确保效率。


“Bank of America Merrill Lynch” is the marketing name for the global banking and global markets businesses of Bank of America Corporation Lending, derivatives, and other commercial banking activities are performed globally by banking af� liates of Bank of America Corporation, including Bank of America, N.A., member FDIC. Securities, strategic advisory, and other investment banking activities are performed globally by investment banking af� liates of Bank of America Corporation (“Investment Banking Af� liates”), including, in the United States, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated and Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp., all of which are registered broker-dealers and members of FINRA and SIPC, and, in other jurisdictions, by locally registered entities. Investment products offered by Investment Banking Af� liates: Are Not FDIC Insured May Lose Value Are Not Bank Guaranteed. ©2011 Bank of America Corporation.

Client commitment.

Global solutions.

Total connectivity.


That’s return on relationship.