Over one-third of treasury technology implementations fail. Too many FX hedging strategies leak value. And a fair amount of so-called innovation is little more than expensive noise. As treasurers look ahead to 2026, genuine opportunities do exist – from rare FX carry dynamics to AI moving into production – but only for those willing to ask the difficult questions everyone else avoids. 

In Hans Christian Andersen’s The Emperor’s New Clothes, everyone can see the problem – but no one wants to be the first to say it out loud. Treasury in 2026 is starting to feel uncomfortably similar. 

The past year has produced a predictable parade of promises. AI-powered insights and agents. Cloud-native architectures. Revolutionary platforms. Each presented as the missing piece that will finally transform treasury operations. 

Yet for many teams on the ground, the lived experience looks very different. And the disconnect between ‘noise’ and daily treasury reality is becoming harder to ignore (especially as a journalist!). 

While vendors race to package the next big thing, treasury teams are still grappling with what actually needs fixing – often the basics rather than the bells and whistles. Crucially, they are also becoming more confident in challenging partners on delivery, not just presentation, as the cost of over-promising and under-delivering becomes harder to absorb.

Cutting through the tech noise

Someone who has been in treasury tech long enough to separate genuine market trends from bluster is Tom Leitch, CEO, Salmon Software. Right now, he’s watching treasurers move beyond feature specifications to ask tougher questions about delivery, partnerships and what happens after the contract is signed. Because success stories aren’t always the best (or most realistic) barometer, he believes. 

There’s a 30-40% TMS implementation failure rate nobody in the market really mentions, he admits. Not projects that run over budget or take longer than planned, but actually failed. “After two years of economic uncertainty and some high-profile tech implementation failures across finance functions, treasurers are asking different questions,” Leitch notes. 

Because “failed implementations are expensive in ways that go beyond the licensing fee. They wreck internal credibility, drain resources, and can set treasury operations back years.” A proven delivery record has become as important as the feature set, perhaps more so.

Looking to 2026, Leitch believes that what treasurers truly want isn’t a TMS revolution, but rather an evolution. “There’s this false choice in the market: stick with legacy vendors offering incremental updates, or rip everything out for a startup’s ‘revolutionary’ platform. But most treasurers don’t want either extreme,” Leitch explains. “They’re looking for partners who are proven but actually transforming, and doing it based on what customers need, not what sounds good in a pitch deck.”

For multi-regional corporates, there’s another non-negotiable. “Multi-regional corporates need systems that genuinely understand the specifics of each market they operate in. EU regulatory requirements, GCC banking infrastructure, Asian payment schemes. Treasurers want platforms built to handle these complexities natively, not as add-ons or workarounds.” The difference between native support and bolted-on features becomes painfully apparent during implementation and even more so during daily operations.

So, what should treasurers be asking vendors that they’re not? Leitch suggests three questions: “Tell me about your last failed implementation and what you learned from it? Can I speak with three customers who are three or more years into their relationship with you? How do you incorporate customer feedback into your product roadmap?” While these might be uncomfortable questions, they should help reveal whether you’re dealing with genuine partnership or simply a skilled sales team.

“The smartest treasurers aren’t chasing the newest toy or settling for what they’ve always had,” says Leitch. “They’re backing partners with track records who are genuinely committed to evolving alongside them. That’s what investment in 2026 is really about. Trust and partnership through change, not just technology for technology’s sake.”

Now AI has to earn its keep

One development that could easily have fallen into the bucket of pointless innovation, but has instead shifted into real-world impact, is AI. The early experimentation phase is over, since the technology is already proving its worth, according to Tanya Kohen, Global Head of Finance Practice at Wave Access. “By 2026, the differentiator won’t be who is experimenting with AI or new treasury tools, but who has embedded them safely and reliably into live workflows. We’re moving away from pilots and proofs of concept and into a phase where systems actually have to run, day in and day out, without introducing new risk.”

Similarly, Matthew Davies, Head of Global Payments Solutions, EMEA and Global Co-head of Corporate Sales, GPS, Bank of America, sees this shift playing out in real time. During 2025, he’s seen corporates signalling “a clear desire to move beyond the theory of technology, exploring practical AI and automation use cases to enhance resilience and decision-making, even if full-scale adoption is still on the horizon.” The key phrase here being ‘practical use cases’, of course. 

On that theme, Kohen predicts that AI agents will increasingly sit inside treasury operations as execution layers rather than mere insight tools. “They won’t just surface information – they’ll move data between systems, trigger actions and help orchestrate processes in real time, under human oversight.” 

Davies also expects to see specific and targeted advances. “In 2026, AI will move beyond routine automation to play a more influential role in treasury – supporting predictive cash forecasting, improving real-time risk visibility, and turning data into actionable insights at speed and scale to enable smarter decisions. It will become more integrated into treasury workflows and systems, acting as a connected layer that enhances end-to-end process optimisation.”

Nevertheless, Kohen issues a warning to the uninitiated: “There is a real risk that treasuries move too quickly with automation and lose control of how things are built. Invention is exciting, but at enterprise scale it has to be paired with governance, documentation and testing. By 2026, control around AI agents will be just as important as the technology itself.”

She also believes the most meaningful treasury inventions over the next few years won’t happen inside treasury alone. “They’ll come from finance, operations and IT designing solutions together, because that’s where you start to see how cash, data and decisions really flow through the organisation.”

After all, invention in treasury isn’t about headline technologies. “It’s about the willingness to question how work really gets done and to challenge assumptions that have been in place for years. Often the most powerful changes are structural, not spectacular.” Her hard-won advice is that the goal isn’t to chase every new tool or trend. “It’s to stay curious, ask better questions and be very intentional about where change is introduced. That’s how invention becomes sustainable rather than disruptive.”

This pragmatic attitude could easily extend to another area where technology promises have often outpaced reality for treasury teams, namely real-time payments.

Why ‘right now’ isn’t always better

Although instant payments continued to gain traction throughout 2025, Davies says that many treasurers are finding the greatest strategic upside not in real-time treasury but in ‘on-time’ operations. This approach helps to align payments with working capital objectives and ensures predictability, rather than prioritising speed in every instance.

“Instant payments offer clear benefits for collections and credit control, but many corporates still value the efficiency of scheduled batch processing for recurring payments,” notes Davies. And as we move into 2026, the toughest challenge remains identifying scalable B2B use cases for real-time payments, he cautions. 

“Treasurers also want to see tangible benefits from real-time treasury management, such as intra-day interest optimisation.” And with renewed focus from boards and wider finance teams on governance and cybersecurity, real-time payments need to prove they enhance rather than complicate these priorities because the risks of getting things wrong when money moves instantly are too great to ignore.

Of course, tech risk is far from the only threat to contain in 2026. FX risk is also high up the treasurer’s agenda, with markets proving as unpredictable as ever. 

Exploring the FX carry window 

Alain Groshens, Co-Founder and CEO, SystematicEdge, is well-versed in helping companies navigate unpredictable markets. “While precise FX forecasts are impossible, the starting point for 2026 is clear: we end 2025 with US and UK policy rates around 4% – roughly twice, or more, the levels in the Eurozone (2%), China (RMB 1.4%) and Japan (JPY 0.5%),” he notes. With inflation muted and unemployment above target, rate cuts are likely coming on both sides of the Atlantic.

Add sizeable trade deficits and the potential moves look meaningful. “While the exact FX levels in 2026 cannot be predicted, the balance of risk suggests that USD and GBP could move meaningfully lower – on the order of 10% versus EUR, 15% versus RMB and potentially up to 20% versus JPY – as interest-rate differentials normalise.”

Although undeniably challenging, those higher domestic (UK and US) rates create interesting risk management opportunities, too. “There is a particularly attractive window for US and UK corporates in 2026,” says Groshens. “With domestic interest rates well above those in the Eurozone, China and Japan, FX hedging of investments or revenues in these markets can generate positive carry: the forward points effectively pay you the interest-rate differential.”

Most treasury operations aren’t capturing this opportunity, believes Groshens. “Too many corporates hold substantial USD, GBP, EUR, RMB or JPY balances that are unremunerated or poorly remunerated, even though hedging P&L is driven by interest-rate differentials. The result is that some companies pay the cost of carry on their hedges while earning nothing on their long cash positions, leaving millions of dollars in interest income on the table.”

Where the forward carry is favourable, Groshens says that simple solutions often remain the most effective path. “When the carry is negative, structures such as zero-cost collars (using bought and sold options to create a floor and a cap) and ratio forwards (hedging only part of the exposure in exchange for zero cost with respect to the spot level) are gaining traction.”

The corporates not embracing such opportunities are often constrained by FX process and policy shortcomings. To this end, Groshens identifies three elements that will differentiate effective policies in 2026. 

• First, treating FX risk as a governance issue rather than a tactical one: “FX risk should be managed systematically across all exposures as part of sound corporate governance and fiduciary duty. The objective is to protect earnings from currency volatility – failure to do so can undermine creditworthiness and access to financing.”
• Second, being deliberate about execution, not just instrument choice: “Disciplined execution – minimising spreads, fees and operational costs – directly supports the bottom line. At the same time, hedging structures should be optimised to take advantage of FX carry where possible, enhancing overall P&L.”
• Third, aligning FX policy with the company’s wider financial architecture: “Hedging must sit alongside broader business and capital structure decisions, with regular stress testing to ensure the policy remains value-accretive across a range of 2026 scenarios.”

This is arguably easier said than done, though, for many teams operating with limited capacity. So, if treasurers could fix just one meaningful thing? “Teams should focus on fully integrating FX hedging with active multi-currency cash management,” urges Groshens. The scale of what’s being left uncaptured is significant. “Every currency balance – including margin posted for hedging – should earn a competitive interest from the first dollar to maximise and protect the bottom line.”

Of course, all of this must function where structural volatility has become the baseline. “Russia’s war in Ukraine, renewed US tariff measures and persistent political tensions in the US, UK and Europe all point to a more structurally volatile environment in 2026. In addition, the stop-start communication on rate cuts from major central banks is triggering sharp repricing each time guidance shifts, reinforcing the need for more robust and dynamic FX hedging frameworks.”

That volatility and uncertainty won’t be limited to FX markets, either. Unpredictability is also reshaping how treasurers think about every aspect of short-term investment strategy, from ESG credentials to counterparty exposure.

Cash is no longer ‘neutral’ under the ESG lens

Despite political pressure, ESG in treasury hasn’t disappeared in 2025 – but it has become far more pragmatic. The performative phase is fading fast, replaced by a more challenging realisation that treasury decisions are not neutral when it comes to risk, resilience and long-term value.

Nigel Owen, Head of Corporate Origination, TreasurySpring, observes: “Whilst it may not be addressed as often or publicly as recent years, actively incorporating ESG factors can help protect stakeholders’ interests and support more resilient decision-making.” The grandstanding and greenwashing have largely been silenced. What remains (broadly) is a recognition that ESG, handled properly, can strengthen investment frameworks rather than dilute them.

The difficulty, of course, has always been practical application. Short-term instruments leave little room for significant sustainability narratives, and treasurers remain constrained by liquidity, credit and operational realities. As Owen puts it, “it is more about investing in companies that embody their ESG credentials rather than the specific use of proceeds, so third-party ESG ratings and accreditations (for example, LSEG Sustainability Identifiers) will become more important.” In a world of daily cash decisions, workable solutions matter more than theoretical purity.

That pragmatism is also shaping a deeper rethink about treasury’s role in the emissions conversation. For Joanna Bonnett, Group Treasurer and Global Head of Insurance for Straumann AG, and one of the founders of the Strategic Treasurers Alliance (STA) working group, the starting point is recognising that treasury decisions are not as neutral as they are often assumed to be.

“For a long time, emissions have been viewed as something that sits firmly in operations or the supply chain,” she explains. “What is less well understood is that treasury decisions – where cash is placed, how liquidity is managed, and which counterparties are supported – also carry an environmental footprint.”

This is not about turning treasurers into sustainability specialists overnight. “It’s about recognising that cash is not neutral,” Bonnett says, “and that treasury already makes decisions every day that influence outcomes well beyond financial return.”

One of the challenges, until recently, has been the absence of credible, treasury-led frameworks. “This topic sits in a grey area, which is precisely why STA was established,” she notes. “Treasurers sense that emissions linked to cash and liquidity matter, but there hasn’t been a practical, consistent way to quantify or compare them.”

Early research suggests the issue is far from marginal. “What surprised many of us wasn’t just that treasury-linked emissions exist,” Bonnett adds, “but how material they can be once you start looking across cash balances, investment structures and counterparties in a consistent way.”

Crucially, the aim here is not to create another reporting burden. “It’s about giving treasurers better information, so they can make more informed choices within the frameworks they already use for risk, liquidity and return,” she confirms.

Here, the emphasis on visibility rather than perfection is deliberate. “Progress doesn’t come from getting everything right on day one,” Bonnett says. “It comes from visibility. Once you can see and compare the emissions implications of different options, you can start to integrate that thinking gradually into treasury decision-making.”

Nor is this something treasury can solve in isolation. “The most meaningful progress won’t derive from treasurers working alone,” she adds. “What’s required is collaboration with banks, asset managers and peers, so the industry can agree on definitions, methodologies and benchmarks that make emissions a practical consideration rather than an abstract concept.”

Counterparty risk returns to centre stage

Alongside ESG considerations, treasurers are also reassessing the structure of their short-term investment toolkit more broadly. Repo, for example, is gaining traction where it fits investment policy and governance requirements. “Repo is likely to be used more widely by corporates where it fits their investment policy and can offer collateralised exposures with risk-adjusted returns,” says Owen. 

Long-standing barriers – documentation complexity, operational overhead and collateral management – are gradually being lowered through infrastructure developments. “At TreasurySpring, we recently announced our collaboration with Eurex Clearing, to support more standardised access to centrally cleared overnight EUR repo markets, and streamline operations for eligible institutional participants.”

What has not changed, and should not, is the primacy of counterparty risk. “Protection of capital is paramount,” Owen stresses. “Playing fast and loose with counterparty and credit risks is irresponsible.” Events such as Credit Suisse and SVB Bank have served as sharp reminders of why policy discipline matters. “It does get more focus when we see credit being squeezed or a credit event, particularly around banks.”

And here is where the next test may come. “We have only seen a handful so far, but if we see any ramping up of private credit losses and defaults, banks will start to take hits and have write-downs,” Owen warns. “Treasurers should be able to handle questions about their banks wherever and whenever these situations occur. This should be your moment to shine.”

All of which brings the conversation back to policy best practice. “A good, robust policy shouldn’t need much adaptation,” Owen says. “It will prove its worth in moments of stress, when it should be relied upon to preserve capital and provide access to liquidity.” If policies require major surgery every time market conditions shift, they were never robust to begin with.

That reality raises a more uncomfortable question: when treasury teams are stretched thin managing volatility, system change, regulatory scrutiny and governance pressure all at once, where does the judgement come from to make the right calls?

Judgement versus capacity

“The challenge for a lot of treasury teams is that all of these market changes and forces are happening at once,” says Chris King, Co-Founder, Dukes & King. “FX volatility, funding decisions, system change, governance expectations – it’s hard to absorb all of that with a lean in-house team. Fractional support lets organisations dial expertise up or down as those pressures peak.”

But King is emphatic that this isn’t about cost reduction (or not that alone). “Fractional treasury isn’t about saving money for the sake of it. In many cases it’s a risk-based decision,” he explains. “Bringing in the right experience at the right moment can help avoid far more expensive mistakes around hedging, liquidity or major change programmes.” The cost of bungling a major hedging decision or TMS implementation vastly exceeds the cost of bringing in someone who’s navigated similar situations before.

“What many organisations are really short of isn’t just capacity, it’s judgement,” he notes. “Fractional roles work best when they add perspective – people who’ve seen similar situations before and can help teams make decisions with a bit more confidence.” That experience premium (the ability to recognise patterns, spot risks early, know which battles are worth fighting) becomes particularly valuable when teams operate outside their usual comfort zones, as they are expected to in the year ahead. 

Back to basics

In summary, what emerges across these expert perspectives is not a single ‘trend’ for 2026, but a clearer dividing line between illusion and substance. When the noise is stripped away, the questions facing treasury teams over the coming months are not new ones – they are simply harder to dodge.

What breaks when volumes surge or markets move sharply? Where does risk sit when processes stop flowing end-to-end? Which assumptions in the FX policy only hold in calm conditions? And when pressure mounts, is there enough experience in the team to make the call – or does everything stall?

Much of what is being sold as innovation ultimately comes back to fundamentals – execution, discipline and judgement. The difference now is that weaknesses surface faster, and the cost of getting it wrong is higher.

In that sense, 2026 may be less about transformation than exposure. Just don’t get caught wearing the Emperor’s new clothes!