Pricing and Hedging In the Age of Donald Trump and Elon Musk
This article is written by Kantox As U.S. President Donald Trump announces a 25% tariff on most Canadian and Mexican imports and raises the charge on China to 20%, Trade War 2.0 has started in earnest. How should FX risk managers react? In this article, we’ll look at how FX pricing strategies and hedging programs aren’t just important in this market landscape, they’re the difference between protecting profit margins and watching them vanish. We’ll also analyse how top companies link currency management programs to pricing and explore the solutions that help businesses stay ahead of the chaos. If Trade War 2.0 is rewriting the rules, it’s time to make sure your FX strategy isn’t playing by the old ones. Let’s dive in. Joined at the hip: pricing and hedging Companies as diverse as Hermès, Netflix and HBX Group have recently scored enormous successes in FX management, each in their own category. The French luxury firm’s highest ever annual operating profit margin of 42.1% was partly due —in Hermès’ own words— to “the favourable impact of currency hedging.” Meanwhile, the California-based streaming giant proudly mentions its layered FX hedging program in its latest earnings report. As for HBX Group, the Mallorca-based bed-bank operator announces an upcoming Initial Public Offering, with eyes firmly set on a €5bn valuation. Strikingly, these firms apply pricing criteria that differ widely from one another. We outlined these parameters —and how to protect profit margins from FX fluctuations in each case— in our blog Debunking 4 Currency Management Myths: Protecting Profit Margins in 2025: FX volatility in the age of Donald Trump and Elon Musk Now, let’s look at the importance of pricing in FX management. Ever since Donald Trump’s return to the White House, managers have had to contend with a new reality: a tweet or an impromptu statement from either the president or his advisor Elon Musk can lead to swift market adjustments—including daily moves in excess of 1% in key exchange rates. This is well captured by the implied 1-month volatility in EUR-USD (Bloomberg): The return of volatility in currency markets provides the ideal backdrop to tackle the question of pricing and fx-risk-management. We will concentrate on the following topics: Pricing as a hedging mechanism Pricing risk is the risk that —between the moment an FX-driven price is set and the moment it is updated— shifts in FX markets can impact either a firm’s competitive position or its profit margins. In 2025, a tweet by the U.S. president can wreak havoc in terms of profit margins at (unprepared) companies. The natural way to reduce it is to increase the frequency of price updates. After all, pricing is itself a hedging mechanism. But that is not an option for companies that wish to keep steady prices during a campaign/budget period or during a set of periods linked together. One solution is to set boundaries around an FX reference rate, such that prices are updated only if the market moves beyond the upper and lower bounds. The system then serves a new reference rate and dynamically adjusts the upper and lower bands around it. On the other hand, if FX markets remain relatively stable, the managers can keep prices unchanged, something that is attractive in many B2C setups. Pricing with the forward rate U.S. President Donald Trump recently called for lower interest rates on his Truth Social platform: “Interest Rates should be lowered, something which would go hand in hand with upcoming Tariffs!!! Let’s Rock and Roll, America!!!” he wrote. While it is unclear if Mr Trump referred to short- or long-term interest rates, the reality is that interest rate differentials between currencies are back in vogue. Short-term interbank interest rates in different currencies vary widely across the world: 13.25% in BRL, 7.50% in ZAR, 5.75% in PLN, 4.25% in USD, 2.90% in EUR and 0.50% in CHF. This has implications for currency managers, both in terms of pricing and hedging. European firms pricing in BRL —for example, French retailers Carrefour and Danone— can use the forward EUR-BRL to set prices, as BRL currently trades at a 9% one-year forward discount to EUR. Conversely, firms selling into low-interest rate currencies can take advantage of the implied forward premium by pricing with the forward rate. This helps them enhance sales-to-asset ratios. Failure to take advantage of such opportunities is a shortcoming at a time when —according to consultants McKinsey—pricing is a key strategic element. Setting markups when protecting the budget rate When selling in USD, many European firms use catalogue-based pricing models, i.e., they keep prices steady during an entire campaign/budget period. Prices are updated, if needed, at the onset of a new period. This situation presents a number of FX-related challenges, not least about how to set the budget rate used in pricing. What do best practices recommend? One useful approach is to set a markup at the time of budget creation, say 3%. If spot EUR-USD trades at 1.09 at the moment the budget is set, this would represent a 3% markup to the 1.1227 rate used in pricing. This rate, in turn, can be protected by setting three conditional stop-loss orders —each for ⅓ of the exposure under management— at 1.1336 (+4%), 1.1227 (3%) and 1.1118 (+2%). For a European-based exporter of manufactured goods, we backtested a combination of hedging programs especially well suited for such a setup. On top of the ‘static’ element, a micro-hedging program for incoming firm sales orders is added. When the dollar is weak and stop-losses are hit, hedging is executed at the budget rate, and profit margins are protected. When the dollar rallies, hedging is carried out on the back of firm sales orders at rates that ‘outperform’ the budget rate by an average of 13% (between 2021 and 2024). Note that, whatever the scenario for the EUR-USD rate, hedge execution is delayed, providing additional benefits in terms of: With such combinations of “Static + Micro-Hedging” programs, managers systematically protect the firm from unwanted currency market fluctuations,…
Franklin
Maximizing Share of Wallet with Banking Partners: A Strategic Approach to Economic Efficiency
This article is written by our content partner, Nilus In today’s complex financial landscape, companies must do more than just maintain relationships with their banking partners—they need to strategically manage their Share of Wallet (SOW) to optimize economic outcomes. What is Share of Wallet in Banking? For companies, Share of Wallet refers to the portion of their total financial needs (loans, cash management, treasury services, etc.) that are fulfilled by a particular banking partner. Effectively managing this share can significantly impact a company’s financial health and growth potential. Why is SOW Management with Banks Crucial? How to Optimize SOW with Your Banking Partners? By strategically managing Share of Wallet with banking partners, companies can not only enhance their economic efficiency but also build stronger, more beneficial financial relationships that drive long-term success. Let’s not just manage our Treasury Operations—let’s optimize them by thoughtfully allocating our Share of Wallet. More from Nilus Join our Treasury Community Treasury Masterminds is a community of professionals working in treasury management or those interested in learning more about various topics related to treasury management, including cash management, foreign exchange management, and payments. To register and connect with Treasury professionals, click [HERE] or fill out the form below. Notice: JavaScript is required for this content.
Treasury Contrarian View: Everyone Is Replaceable — But Some Are More Replaceable Than Others!
We’ve all heard it: “No one is indispensable.” In corporate finance, especially in treasury, the phrase gets tossed around as both a comfort and a warning. But as the function evolves — becoming more strategic, more tech-enabled, more integral — the truth gets murkier. Are treasurers truly replaceable? The answer is yes. And no. Let’s unpack it. The Case For Replaceability Systems Don’t Need Heroes In a well-run treasury, excellence doesn’t hinge on individual memory. It’s embedded in systems, processes, and shared knowledge. If the function collapses when one person leaves, that’s not loyalty — it’s a design flaw. Knowledge Hoarding Isn’t Power — It’s Risk We sometimes confuse being the only person who knows how things work with being valuable. But monopolising institutional knowledge increases operational risk and discourages team growth. A truly resilient function thrives on transparency, not dependency. The Market Has Moved On The rise of fractional CFOs, interim treasurers, and on-demand expertise has shifted the power dynamic. Treasurers are no longer the sole guardians of cash and risk. Expertise is mobile. Insight is portable. If someone leaves, someone else can step in — often faster than we’d like to admit. Boards Expect Replaceable Structures Good governance demands succession planning, bench strength, and process documentation. The question isn’t if a key person might leave — it’s when. Replaceability isn’t a threat; it’s a requirement for continuity. The Case Against Replaceability You Can Replace a Role — Not a Mindset While a new hire can fill the org chart slot, replicating a treasurer’s judgment, risk appetite, or strategic instincts is another matter entirely. Some decisions — when to hold your nerve in a funding negotiation, how to pivot a hedging strategy mid-crisis — come from hard-won, situational intuition. That doesn’t live in a playbook. Trust Is Earned, Not Transferred Bankers, auditors, execs — they trust individuals, not job titles. When a treasurer with deep institutional and external relationships exits, it doesn’t just leave a gap in process — it leaves a vacuum in influence. That’s not something interim cover can immediately fill. Culture Is Carried by People The best treasurers don’t just execute — they shape the ethos of their teams. They model curiosity, rigour, pragmatism, and calm under fire. That cultural imprint is hard to replicate. You can replace a function; it’s harder to replace a standard. Leadership Isn’t Modular You can outsource processes. You can document controls. But you can’t modularise leadership. The ability to lead through ambiguity, drive transformation, and push finance into new territory isn’t mass-produced. It’s grown over time — and it sticks with the person who grew it. The Paradox: Replaceability as a Sign of Strength Here’s the irony: the best treasurers actively make themselves operationally replaceable. They invest in automation, delegate meaningfully, and document the hell out of their workflows. But that’s precisely why they’re so valuable. They’ve built something bigger than themselves. Being “replaceable” in day-to-day execution isn’t a weakness — it’s a strength. But being irreplaceable in strategic influence, judgment, and trust? That’s leadership. And the two can — and should — coexist. So What Should Treasury Leaders Do? Being replaceable doesn’t mean being irrelevant. It means you’ve done the hard work of building a function that will outlast you — and earned the credibility that means people hope you’ll stay anyway. What Do You Think? Is treasury truly plug-and-play — or are we undervaluing the irreplaceable qualities great leaders bring? We’re featuring views from across the profession. If you’ve built a treasury team that balances system resilience with human leadership, we’d love to hear your story. COMMENTS Lee-Ann Perkins, Treasury Masterminds Board Member, comments: Every worker is replaceable – some just take longer and are more expensive to replace. In theory, any treasurer is replaceable; in practice, it’s an uncomfortable truth that those who translate strategy into fit-for-purpose structures and cultivate deep stakeholder trust are anything but interchangeable. For boards and CFOs, the lesson is clear: if you’re lucky enough to have a strategic treasurer, invest in retention, because replacing that caliber of leadership can be costly and time-consuming. Elite treasurers align every funding, risk, and capital-allocation decision with the company’s evolving strategy, often pivoting before the rest of the organization senses the need. They redesign bank panels, cash-pooling rules, KPIs, and talent pipelines so that treasury infrastructure keeps pace with acquisitions, technology changes, or any other strategic shift. Seasoned treasurers build crisis-tested rapport with banks, rating agencies, and boards, securing tighter spreads, faster approvals, and looser covenants. When they leave, that goodwill departs with them, raising the true cost of capital. Even with AI automating reconciliations and dashboards, only a treasurer who can select, integrate, and govern those tools ensures they reinforce, not derail, strategic goals. Patrick Kunz, Treasury Masterminds Founder/Board Member, comments: Can you imagine doing the same job for 40 years?I can’t. And if you can, you might be at risk of becoming obsolete. Not just because it sounds incredibly boring (in my humble opinion), but because there’s zero challenge in doing the same tasks over and over again—especially in treasury, where things evolve fast. My longest tenure? Four years. That was my first job. The second? One year. Then I became a freelancer and never looked back. One of the best things I can offer my clients isn’t just experience or knowledge—it’s that I aim to make myself obsolete.Why?Because if I’m no longer needed, it means we’ve really improved their treasury setup.It’s leaner. Smarter. Automated. Scalable. And let’s be clear: making yourself (or a permanent team member) “obsolete” doesn’t mean pushing someone out.It means creating space—space for new projects, new ideas, new roles.Most teams are so caught up in day-to-day operations, they never get time to step back and innovate. But innovation needs time and mental bandwidth. The best treasurers I know?They reinvent. They try new things.They don’t cling to the same job title or process for decades—they evolve. That’s where growth happens. In 2025, with tech evolving faster than ever, the “same…
FASB Crypto Accounting Changes: A Jargon-free Guide
This article is written by Fortris The new FASB guidance on accounting for crypto assets such as Bitcoin has officially come into effect. Here’s a breakdown of the changes, and what they mean for businesses that hold (or are considering holding) Bitcoin on balance sheet. Background to the changes The Financial Standards Accounting Board (FASB) is an independent body recognized by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as the United States’ designated accounting standard setter. The FASB sets accounting standards for public and private companies and not-for-profit organizations that follow the US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The FASB and crypto accounting Previously, the FASB had issued no specific guidelines on how cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin should be recorded and measured on the balance sheet. But in December 2021, they announced a project to review how a certain subset of crypto assets are accounted for and reported on in financial disclosures such as quarterly and annual reports. The crypto assets covered by this review have six characteristics, which are explained in this video by the FASB. Cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin are included, but other assets such as NFTs are not. In March 2023, the FASB released exposure documents for this proposed change, and invited public feedback. Finally, on 13 December 2023, the board issued their new guidelines in an Accounting Standards Update. What was the problem with the former system? Crypto assets such as Bitcoin were previously treated as indefinite-lived, intangible assets, along with other non-physical assets such as trademarks and patents. They were accounted for using a “cost-less-impairment” model. Impairment is a reduction in the value of a company’s asset. There were some exceptions for investment companies and broker-dealers, but otherwise, this meant the following: As discussed in a recent MicroStrategy World panel discussion with experts from Deloitte, this was a “one-way street”. The on-paper value of Bitcoin held by a company could be marked down, but not up, until it was sold – even if the price of Bitcoin rose in the interim. As the FASB noted in its media advisory of March 2023, this approach to accounting did not give clarity to potential investors. This is because the balance sheet value of a company’s Bitcoin holdings was unlikely to reflect its current market value, making it hard to assess the company’s financial health. It could also be time-consuming and therefore expensive for companies to track the lowest identifiable price for a crypto asset within any given reporting period, including within the day. What has changed under the new rules? The most headline-grabbing change in the FASB’s Accounting Standards Update (ASU) is the move away from the cost-less-impairment model. A move to fair value accounting for crypto As Deloitte expert Amy Park has explained, it is important to note that the FASB is not changing the categorization of crypto such as Bitcoin, which will still be considered as an intangible asset for GAAP purposes rather than a currency or other financial asset. However, they have changed the way that it is subsequently measured. Under the ASU, assets within the scope of the project are now measured at fair value instead of cost-less-impairment. In other words, financial reports should reflect the current market value of any Bitcoin rather than its historical low during the reporting period. Current market value is defined as the exit price (the price to sell that asset) in the principal market. What does this mean in practice? A key issue is how to define “principal market” in this context. The FASB voted not to provide specific guidance on this, and instead refers to existing guidance in ASC 820 on Fair Value Measurement. Those guidelines are written for a general rather than crypto-specific context. In effect, it is up to individual companies and their financial advisors how to identify the principal market. In a crypto context, there are some additional factors related to fair value measurements to consider. These include: Tax implications Recording the fair value of a company’s Bitcoin holdings in the profit and loss statement would fulfill accounting and audit requirements. But what about tax? As noted by Deloitte expert Rob Massey in a MicroStrategy World Tax and Accounting Panel, the rules on reporting for GAAP purposes do not always align with tax requirements. In the US, the IRS regards crypto assets such a Bitcoin as property. For most taxpayers, a capital gain or loss for tax purposes isn’t recorded until such time as Bitcoin is used or disposed of. This can result in a timing difference between GAAP and tax, which would generate a deferred tax asset or liability. Any deferred tax assets should then be evaluated for the need for a valuation allowance. The complexities of this are beyond the scope of this article, but it’s important to note that accurate recording and tracking of the cost basis of any amount of Bitcoin a company uses or holds is the key to fulfilling both accounting and tax requirements. Tracking the cost basis The more granular this information is, the more control the company has over which tranches of Bitcoin to dispose of and when, for maximum tax efficiency. This was the case under the cost-less-impairment model and will continue to be the case under the fair value model. The FASB noted in its exposure documents that “The Board decided not to provide specific guidance on how an entity should determine the cost basis of its crypto assets.” There are various methods for determining cost basis such as FIFO (first in, first out) LIFO (last in, first out) and specific identification. Under the new standards, whichever method a company uses, it will need to disclose it in financial statements. Further, there are separate considerations relevant for tracking cost basis and implementing a proper method for tax purposes. What other changes are included? 1) How to treat acquisition costs The FASB board also deliberated how companies should treat the costs of acquiring crypto assets. Such costs include Bitcoin mining fees (the commission paid…
Investec Capital Solutions and ETR Digital Partner to Bridge UK Trade Finance Gap for SMEs
London, UK – [17 June, 2025] – ETR Digital, a leader in financial technology innovation, is pleased to be assisting ICS explore opportunities to tackle the growing trade finance gap in the UK and beyond. At a period in world trade where access to flexible and timely pools of liquidity is critical for business responsiveness and growth, ICS is keen to take a pioneering role in exploring forward thinking solutions that draw on the inherent security and universal acceptance of digital negotiable instruments (DNIs). DNIs seamlessly integrate with existing funding products, offering businesses greater flexibility and allowing corporate customers to manage their working capital needs with increased speed and adaptability. A key facet of this initiative for finance directors and treasury managers is the introduction of the iC4DTI’s Cash Conversion Cycle Calculator https://ic4dti.org/getting-started-ccc/, a powerful tool in gaining deeper insights into working capital needs. By simply entering basic financial data such as turnover and accounts payable, corporates can instantly receive a comprehensive report comparing their performance against industry benchmarks. Rob Harris, Head of Operations and Technology at ICS, commented:“Investec Capital Solutions is proud to be at the forefront of exploring digital solutions that make trade finance more accessible and flexible for businesses. Tools such as the iC4DTI Cash Conversion Cycle Calculator, can offer finance teams a practical and immediate way to unlock working capital improvements.” Dominic Broom, CEO of ETR Digital, added:“We’re thrilled to be assisting ICS, a business that shares our commitment to providing innovative solutions to SMEs. By harnessing the power of digital negotiable instruments and business oriented tools like the iC4DTI Cash Conversion Cycle Calculator, we’re enabling businesses to achieve the financial flexibility they need to scale and grow.” Collaboration between ICS and ETR Digital can be a catalyst for broader industry-wide adoption of modern working capital solutions that bridge the gap between the business needs and available pools of liquidity. With a focus on promoting digital negotiable instruments and providing data-driven insights, the two companies are set to make a significant impact on the way UK SMEs access working capital and drive business growth. About Investec Capital SolutionsAn award-winning working solutions provider helping ambitious privately owned companies with growth. ICS is part of a leading UK corporate and investment banking business – Investec Bank plc, rated A1 by Moody’s and A- by Fitch Ratings. Investec Bank plc is the main banking subsidiary of Investec plc, a FTSE 250 listed company. About ETR DigitalETR Digital is a leading fintech company committed to driving innovation in financial services. Specialising in cutting-edge digital solutions, ETR Digital provides businesses with the tools they need to enhance their financial operations, optimise working capital, and scale effectively in a competitive landscape. Also Read Join our Treasury Community Treasury Masterminds is a community of professionals working in treasury management or those interested in learning more about various topics related to treasury management, including cash management, foreign exchange management, and payments. To register and connect with Treasury professionals, click [HERE] or fill out the form below. Notice: JavaScript is required for this content.
Exploring Stablecoin Strategies: Implications for Corporate Treasurers
From Treasury Masterminds In a significant move towards digital payment innovation, retail giants such as Amazon and Walmart are actively considering the launch of their own stablecoins. These stablecoins aim to streamline transactions, reduce card interchange costs, and potentially revolutionize the retail payment landscape. However, this ambitious step is not without its challenges. Understanding Stablecoins Stablecoins are digital currencies pegged to a stable asset, often fiat currencies like the US dollar, to minimize price volatility. For retailers, leveraging stablecoins offers advantages such as faster transactions, lower fees, and increased financial efficiency. By circumventing traditional banking systems, stablecoins also promise greater control over payment processes. Regulatory and Industry Challenges Despite these benefits, the path to adopting stablecoins is fraught with regulatory complexities and industry pushback. Regulatory bodies worldwide are scrutinizing stablecoin projects to ensure compliance with financial laws and consumer protection standards. Moreover, industry stakeholders debate the need for robust regulatory frameworks to safeguard against potential risks, including money laundering and market stability. Impact on Corporate Treasury For corporate treasurers, the rise of stablecoins presents both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, integrating stablecoins into payment ecosystems could streamline cash management, reduce transaction costs, and enhance liquidity management. On the other hand, treasurers must navigate regulatory uncertainties, operational complexities, and potential market volatility associated with digital currencies. Looking Ahead: Discussion Points As retailers explore stablecoin strategies, corporate treasurers are urged to stay informed and proactive. Understanding the implications of stablecoin adoption is crucial for shaping strategic decisions in treasury management. The dialogue around stablecoins prompts treasurers to consider: Join the Conversation The exploration of stablecoin strategies by retail giants underscores a transformative shift in payment methodologies, with direct implications for corporate treasury operations. As retailers navigate the complexities of stablecoin adoption, corporate treasurers must stay informed, proactive, and agile in embracing innovative payment solutions while managing regulatory and operational challenges. What are your thoughts on stablecoin adoption in corporate treasury? Is it a good or bad thing? Let’s discuss how these developments could impact your treasury operations. Reach out to us today to explore the opportunities and challenges of stablecoins for your organization. Stay tuned for more insights as the landscape of digital payments and corporate treasury evolves. Also Read Join our Treasury Community Treasury Mastermind is a community of professionals working in treasury management or those interested in learning more about various topics related to treasury management, including cash management, foreign exchange management, and payments. To register and connect with Treasury professionals, click [HERE] or fill out the form below to get more information. Notice: JavaScript is required for this content.