Where does a company’s money sit idle? A new AFME report brings tokenisation into the CFO’s work

The finance department of a manufacturing company does not need another demonstration of a token transfer. It needs to know why it holds cash across several accounts, when a customer's payment will actually arrive, and how much work goes into reconciling bank and accounting records every day. These are precisely the operational areas addressed by the new report from AFME and the European Association of Corporate Treasurers, EACT.

Its significance lies in shifting attention from the issuance of a digital asset itself to the movement of money within a business. The potential is broad. A company's decision, however, must be much narrower: which specific problem does it want to eliminate, with whom, and by which outcome will it know that it has succeeded?

Summary for readers

• Published on 23 September, the report connects digital records with corporate payments, cash, collateral and financing.
• Industry associations' recommendations do not measure returns actually achieved across all companies. The benefit depends on the specific process and its connections to banks and internal systems.
• A usable pilot has an operational owner, baseline measurements and accounted-for costs of integration, controls and exception handling.

A map of possibilities is not an investment plan

AFME and EACT describe ten areas in which distributed records can be used. They include cash movement, collateral management, trade and supply-chain finance, and access to capital markets. In the final section, they recommend gradual adoption and connection to existing technology, data and reporting architecture.

The report's introduction addresses specific problems: money waiting to move, complex reconciliation of records, paper-based trade documents and difficulties in moving collateral. It describes potential benefits; it cannot be read as confirmation that every service mentioned is available to every business or brings the same savings everywhere.

For company management, it is therefore appropriate to use the report as a list of questions. It does not, without further work, produce a list of technologies for the budget. The selected solution must match actual cash flows, contractual relationships and organisational capabilities.

Start with an ordinary working day

Consider an illustrative company that pays overseas suppliers in the morning, waits for incoming payments in the afternoon and must also hold funds for possible additional collateral. At the end of the day, it has enough money overall, but during the day the funds may be in the wrong place or their availability may be insufficiently certain. This is not a case published by AFME; it illustrates a problem that makes sense to measure first.

For a limited period, the finance department could track when payments are instructed, when the money actually becomes available to the recipient, the number of manual interventions and the size of precautionary reserves. It would record normal processes separately from cases requiring correction. Average speed alone hides the problem if most costs arise in a small group of exceptions.

Only with such records can a decision be made on whether faster settlement, a better banking interface, higher-quality data or a change in internal approvals would help. A benefit must not automatically be attributed to blockchain if removing an unnecessary manual step produced the same result.

Cash and collateral are not interchangeable

In a study on central counterparties' liquidity, BIS examines the relationships between available liquid assets, margin requirements and the wider system. For a business, this is a reminder of a simple fact: owning a valuable asset is not the same as having an instrument accepted by a counterparty at the right time.

A tokenised instrument can make a technical transfer easier. It must nevertheless remain eligible under the specific agreement, correctly valued and available in the required currency or form. If turning it into usable cash requires another transaction, the liquidity of that market and the operating hours of subsequent services remain important.

A company should therefore not measure asset transfer speed alone. It also needs to know whether the asset actually reduced its need for more expensive short-term financing or precautionary reserves. That is a different measure from the number of successfully executed technical transactions.

Real examples exist, but each has boundaries

In September 2024, Siemens announced a 300 million euro digital bond with a one-year maturity. According to the company, settlement through SWIAT and the Bundesbank solution took place automatically within minutes in central bank money. This is specific historical evidence of corporate use, rather than a new September 2026 issuance or a general price list for smaller businesses.

A further development is the launch of Pontes, announced by the ECB on 21 September 2026. Available infrastructure expands the market's possibilities, but a company still needs appropriate counterparties, access and internal readiness. The technical launch of infrastructure does not itself pay for accounting integration or changes to treasury processes.

Similarly, EBA's assessment of tokenised deposits distinguishes potential benefits from open questions. Choosing the monetary instrument is therefore a separate decision. A company must understand whether it holds a bank deposit, another claim or an investment instrument, and which conditions apply to withdrawal.

A pilot budget must include less attractive items too

The licence price is usually visible in the first offer. The costs of connecting banks, accounting and approvals emerge only when work begins with specific data. Defining responsibilities, training the team and continuous checks require additional time. If a new service remains an isolated island, it can add another set of records instead of eliminating the old one.

For a first pilot, we propose a simple assessment in three columns: documented benefit, total costs and new operational commitments. Within the benefit, cash actually saved should be separated from released staff capacity and from a merely expected future possibility. These measures cannot be added into one impressive amount without explanation.

Ownership of the decision also matters. The technology team can verify connections between systems, but the finance department must confirm that the monetary process is correct. Legal and control functions should assess contractual relationships and records. Responsibility for the outcome must not disappear between the supplier, the bank and internal departments.

For a Czech or Slovak company: narrower scope, a more precise result

The first goal need not be a company's own token or a change to every banking relationship. It can be a single cross-border payment route, one recurring type of collateral or a precisely defined part of surplus management. A limited scope makes comparison with the existing procedure easier and allows a project to end if the benefit does not outweigh the costs.

Alongside normal operations, the trial should include at least one exceptional case: an unavailable service, a rejected transaction or incorrect input. This is where it will become clear whether the new infrastructure simplifies the whole team's work or just the part that is easiest to present.

The AFME and EACT report provides a useful impetus for that discussion. Yet what will help a company most is its own cash-flow map and a well-framed question. If management can identify precisely where money or people currently wait unnecessarily, it has a much better starting point for deciding on new technology.

Sources

Ledger Insights — AFME and EACT on corporate treasury; editorial lead

AFME — report publication, 23. 9. 2026

AFME — DLT & the Future of Corporate Treasury and Financing, overview page

AFME/EACT — complete report, especially pages 3 and 29–31

Siemens — 300 million euro digital bond, 4. 9. 2024

ECB — launch of Pontes, 21. 9. 2026

BIS — Liquid assets at CCPs and systemic liquidity risks, 2023

EBA — benefits and challenges of tokenised deposits, 2024

BIS — The next-generation monetary and financial system, 2025

Bank of England — Synchronisation Lab; context on connecting money and assets

Methodological note

We read the industry associations' report as a proposal for possibilities and an approach, rather than independent evidence of returns. The historical Siemens example was verified with the issuer; we use 2024 according to the primary announcement. The illustrative working day, budget breakdown and pilot proposal are the author's interpretations. The sources were verified as of 25. 9. 2026, rather than the future publication date.

Disclaimer

This article is for information and education. It does not constitute legal, investment, tax or regulatory advice, or a recommendation of any particular product or provider.