Michel D'Abranches

Most fintechs lose the room by asking a CFO to bet their career on a swap.

• The alternative pitch is deliberately narrow: leave the CFO’s existing banks, credit lines, and program untouched.
• Start with only the tail — the receivables and payables the banks are not covering — run the new marketplace alongside the bank program, and let the CFO compare the two experiences before deciding whether to move more.
• The reasoning is behavioral: CFOs do not swap; they add, compare, and then decide.

One post lays out a sequence: month one, plug into the tail without disruption; months two to five, the marketplace runs alongside the bank program; around month six, on average, the CFO asks whether the rest of the program can move over. Michel says the company never asked for that; the CFO did.

Read original · Original 2

Start with supplier value: access to liquidity, transparent pricing, and a process that does not add friction to an already busy finance team.

• Procurement, Treasury, and Accounts Payable should align early, and supplier communication should be part of the commercial strategy from day one, not a launch task.
• When suppliers have choice and clarity, adoption follows.

One post asks CFOs, treasurers, and procurement leaders what percentage of their strategic suppliers actively use their program and what prevents the rest from joining.

• Another says supplier participation averages more than 55% on the Monkey Global model.
• Ask for the data behind that figure.

Read original · Original 2

The question is not whether an AR/AP program is still running, but whether it is increasing funding capacity, lowering the cost of capital, and producing meaningful incremental cash flow.

• A single-bank program means one price and one appetite for risk.
• Michel says that made sense when capital was cheap and rates were stable, but is far less effective today.
• The proposed response is a hybrid, multi-funder model that complements existing banking relationships instead of replacing them.

One post says corporates still rely on single-bank programs designed for a different capital environment, and that being active is not the same as being optimized.

• It cites a Hackett Group figure of $1.7 trillion tied up across the largest U.S. companies, alongside Monkey Global claims of 25% cash-flow expansion in four months and average supplier participation above 55%.
• Ask for the data behind those performance figures.

Read original · Original 2

Receivables sit uncollected, payment terms were set years ago and never revisited, and suppliers borrow at rates two or three times higher than the company’s own — costs that find their way back into prices.

• In this framing, the cash is already earned; it is just parked in the wrong place.
• The goal is to move it without adding new debt to the balance sheet.

One post asks every treasurer Michel meets in Barcelona how much of their cash is still parked inside their own supply chain.

• It opens with the contrast between quoting the cost of debt to the decimal and giving a fuzzy answer on trapped cash.
• Another repeats the $1.7 trillion Hackett Group figure and points to slow receivables, untouched payment terms, and higher supplier borrowing rates as the explanation.

Read original · Original 2

A pre-event poll asks the audience what should lead the discussion, panels bring in named practitioners, and follow-up posts continue the dialogue. Podcasts and direct invitations serve the same purpose: testing arguments with people who manage working capital day to day.

Michel previewed an inaugural Monkey Global working capital roundtable with a poll on what should lead the conversation, then hosted it with panelists Patrick Miller, Rob Santo, and Wayne Brown.

• Two posts covered EuroFinance in Barcelona, including booth IH7 and open meeting slots through the event app.
• A FEI Dallas chapter meeting covered working-capital, resilience, and capital-markets discussions, with thanks to Warren Rapert and a mention of Miguel Molina.
• Michel also joined Seth M.
• Marlowe on the Treasury Whisperer Network Talkcast Podcast and invited treasurers who had either expanded cash flow or struggled to do so into individual conversations.

Read original · Original 2 · Original 3 · Original 4 · Original 5 · Original 6 · Original 7

This post traces the reasoning from the first meeting to a possible later decision.

Michel argues for adding coverage to receivables and payables an existing bank program does not reach, rather than asking a CFO to replace it.

• The post lays out a sequence: connect to the uncovered portion, run the new marketplace alongside the bank setup, then let the CFO compare the two.
• Its memorable line is: “CFOs do not swap.
• They add.
• Then they compare.
• Then they decide.”

For brands planning a campaign

A thought-leadership collaboration could explore how to test a new liquidity option without opening with a disruptive replacement pitch.

This post offers a concise starting point for understanding the tradeoffs they emphasize.

The example brings together three competing needs: preserving company liquidity, paying suppliers earlier, and working within a bank program with limited room to grow.

• Michel presents supplementing the existing program with additional relationship banks as one possible first step, then names what Treasury can assess: pricing, supplier participation, operational effort, and working-capital impact.
• They stress that the answer depends on each company's capital structure and suppliers.

For brands planning a campaign

This could anchor a case-led collaboration about evaluating financing options against operational effort and supplier needs, rather than prescribing one standard model.

This post puts supplier participation at the center.

Michel says a program can look strong in a board presentation but fail if suppliers have no reason to join.

• They point to liquidity access, transparent pricing, and low-friction processes as supplier value, and argue that Treasury, Procurement, and Accounts Payable should work together early.
• In this framing, supplier communication is part of the commercial strategy, not a launch-day task.

For brands planning a campaign

A collaboration could help a fintech audience assess adoption barriers and explain how supplier value and cross-functional planning shape program design.

This post shows how they make the case for reviewing established programs.

Michel links requests for weekly liquidity and cash-flow updates with a tougher test for legacy financing structures: are they increasing funding capacity, lowering capital costs, and producing incremental cash flow?

• They contrast a single-bank approach with a hybrid, multi-funder model, presenting the latter as a way to complement existing banking relationships.
• The post also includes Monkey Global performance claims, including average supplier participation above 55% and 25% cash-flow expansion in four months.
• Ask for the data behind those figures before using them in a campaign.

For brands planning a campaign

This could support a collaboration about the questions boards and finance leaders can ask when reviewing a working-capital program, with performance figures clearly attributed.

The opening contrast gives newcomers a clear example of the gap they want Treasury teams to examine.

The post contrasts precise knowledge of borrowing costs with uncertainty about cash tied up in a supply chain.

• It identifies receivables, old payment terms, and suppliers borrowing at higher rates as areas to investigate, then frames the issue as cash already earned but parked in the wrong place.
• The post promotes a platform approach and an event appearance.
• Ask for evidence behind any outcome claims before using them in a campaign.

For brands planning a campaign

A campaign could turn the contrast into a practical diagnostic for finance teams: what do they know about debt costs, and what should they measure across receivables, payment terms, and suppliers?

The posts argue that many existing single-bank AR/AP programs are still running but no longer increase funding capacity, lower the cost of capital, or generate incremental cash. Supporting evidence includes a Hackett Group figure of $1.7 trillion tied up across the largest U.S. companies and a Monkey Global claim of 25% cash flow expansion in four months.

Anchors the argument in an outside number, then turns it into questions for treasury teams about their own programs.

For brands planning a campaign

A collaboration can lead with the shift from reporting hygiene to measurable cash-flow outcomes, using a CFO-facing hook on cost of capital and funding capacity rather than software features.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

One post describes starting with the tail — the receivables and payables the banks are not covering — and reports that around six months later CFOs ask to move more of the program over on their own.

• Another recommends bringing additional relationship banks into a multi-funding marketplace before considering a broader change, to test pricing, supplier participation, and operational effort.
• Both posts reject rip-and-replace and position the offer as incremental cash flow.

For brands planning a campaign

Well suited to skeptical treasury audiences: build the collaboration around a no-migration promise and a side-by-side comparison, not a transformation narrative that asks buyers to bet on a swap.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

The teaching starts with supplier value — access to liquidity, transparent pricing, and a process that does not add work for an already busy finance team — and calls for procurement, treasury, and AP to align from day one rather than treating supplier communication as a launch task. One post reports supplier participation averaging more than 55% on the Monkey Global model; another asks readers what share of their strategic suppliers actively use their program and what is stopping the rest.

For brands planning a campaign

Useful for a brief aimed at procurement and treasury together, with a call to action built around a supplier-engagement diagnostic readers can run internally rather than a product demonstration.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

They previewed an inaugural Monkey Global working capital roundtable with a poll asking what should lead the discussion, then posted about hosting it with panelists Patrick Miller, Rob Santo, and Wayne Brown.

• EuroFinance in Barcelona (September 16 to 18) appears twice, with a booth and open meeting slots through the event app.
• A FEI Dallas chapter meeting is covered through discussions of working capital, resilience, and capital markets, including the Texas Stock Exchange.

For brands planning a campaign

A partnership can attach to an event or roundtable through agenda-shaping pre-event content, panel participation, or a post-event summary, rather than a standalone article competing for attention outside the calendar.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4 · Source 5

They joined Seth M.

• Marlowe on the Treasury Whisperer Network Talkcast Podcast and invited individual conversations with treasurers who had expanded cash flow in the past year and those whose programs had not.
• Other posts open direct dialogue, describing a treasury leader's situation and inviting readers to message, book, or meet at a booth.

Invitation-driven: asks readers to vote on a topic, book a slot, comment a keyword for a snapshot, or message directly.

For brands planning a campaign

Best matched to interview-style or practitioner-panel formats where the brand supplies the audience or topic rather than the script, with a booked conversation as the follow-up.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

It carries no working-capital argument, data, or buyer decision.

A holiday or brand message about the people behind supply chains — factory and distribution workers, entrepreneurs, and suppliers — sits alongside the working-capital material.

For brands planning a campaign

Cause-linked or values-linked posts run alongside the analytical ones, so brands seeking an evergreen calendar slot can account for both.

Examples: Source 1

D’Abranches describes its hybrid AR/AP, multi-funding model, real-time pricing and supplier participation rates, invites treasury leaders to comparison conversations, and points readers to Monkey Global’s booth and roundtable.

• The posts speak as “we” and “our” about the business, but don’t clarify whether D’Abranches is an employee, owner or contracted partner.
• Ask them to clarify the relationship before evaluating the promotion.

View example

Ask whether the appearance involved sponsorship or a client arrangement.

View example

Ask whether the event involved any commercial terms.

View example

Marlowe on the Treasury Whisperer Network Talkcast to discuss why legacy AR/AP financing structures may constrain working capital.

• The post links the full episode.
• Ask whether the appearance was a paid partnership.

View example

Both end posts with the same kind of diagnostic question: how much of your cash is stuck, and what is stopping the rest of your suppliers from joining?

Crowley writes from inside a global bank and sells the case for one integrated platform: near real-time visibility, ERP integrations, and coverage the bank already operates in over 100 markets.

• D'Abranches argues for the opposite starting move: leave the incumbent bank program alone, begin with the tail it does not cover, and let the CFO compare before moving anything.
• Crowley's AI-and-automation framing sits closer to conventional bank product marketing; D'Abranches builds posts around a go-to-market behaviour claim about how CFOs actually decide.

Read original · Original 2

D'Abranches says a single-bank working-capital program can be operational but not optimized; Hoyle says an FX relationship is rarely examined once set up. Both reduce the issue to questions a treasurer can put to their own team: when was this last benchmarked, and would we choose it again today?

Hoyle focuses on foreign-exchange cost transparency and transaction-cost analysis, not AR/AP funding, and calls for an independent pricing benchmark rather than a financing model. He writes in short numbered questions and plain observational prose; D'Abranches writes longer narratives built around a specific market position, event appearances, and named practitioners.

Read original · Original 2

Gelb's second-opinion pitch—let me look before your client accepts the bank's terms—has the same shape as starting with the tail and letting the CFO see both programs running.

Gelb works in commercial real estate debt, so the comparison is usable loan proceeds versus bank proceeds, illustrated with a property-level example in dollars and a personal-recourse list.

• The reader is a broker or owner, rather than a treasurer.
• D'Abranches stays inside trade and working capital, where the argument turns on supplier participation and cost of capital rather than loan sizing.

Read original · Original 2

Crowley’s posts speak from inside a global bank, cover cash conversion, payment terms, supplier access, and platform integration, and argue for real-time visibility and control at scale. That is a better match if the buyer wants a provider already operating in many markets and currencies, or if the campaign is meant to show how a large financial institution frames the shift from legacy tools to automated working capital.

The tradeoff is independence and control.

• Michel’s posts tie their content to J.P.
• Morgan’s products and market reach, so it may read as institutional promotion unless the collaboration is clearly labeled and the client can work within bank approval and compliance constraints.
• Their posts offer a more neutral review of existing bank programs and supplier adoption, making them a better fit for campaigns asking CFOs to question or supplement incumbent arrangements rather than adopt a single bank platform.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

Hoyle’s posts target CFOs and treasury leaders who inherited an FX setup, argue that unbenchmarked pricing erodes quietly, and recommend independent transaction cost analysis when a relationship manager changes. That is a better choice if the fintech’s working-capital offer can be framed around cost transparency and a second look at existing arrangements, especially for a CFO audience.

The tradeoff is scope.

• Tom Hoyle’s posts focus on FX execution and cost optimisation, not receivables, payables, supplier participation, or funding capacity.
• A collaboration would need to stretch the topic or risk missing the working-capital decision Michel’s posts address directly.
• Hoyle’s posts also position benchmarking as a service, so the content may lean more toward a direct commercial offer than broad thought leadership.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

Gelb’s posts compare bank financing with institutional or life-company financing, show a specific example where usable proceeds differ by about $1.3 million, and argue that borrowers should get a second opinion before accepting bank terms. That is a better fit if the fintech’s campaign can target property-level capital decisions or bank-replacement capital rather than corporate working-capital programs.

The tradeoff is audience and problem mismatch.

• Stuart Gelb’s posts cover commercial mortgages, DSCR, recourse, and loan proceeds; they do not address corporate treasury’s receivables, payables, or supplier adoption.
• A working-capital collaboration would need a different buyer and a different promise, so it would not substitute for Michel D’Abranches in a campaign aimed at CFOs and treasury leaders.
• Gelb’s posts also make direct calls for a second opinion, which may read as more sales-led than discussion-led.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2