Tom Hoyle

A strong banking relationship makes this harder to spot: goodwill and good pricing can feel like the same thing, and only measurement separates them.

• The questions are plain: when were the rates last checked against the market, is there a benchmark on file, and would the company agree to these terms if it were signing today?
• Cost transparency is a rising priority for corporates managing FX.
• The recommended next step is an independent transaction cost analysis, which requires nothing but trade data.

A relationship manager leaves. Someone in finance pulls recent trades to check the rates and finds spreads are nowhere near where everyone assumed — often the first time in years anyone has checked.

Read original · Original 2

When it is finally examined, there may be no benchmark on file, no record of why the provider was chosen, and pricing that has not been tested since the day it was agreed.

• The arrangement came bundled with the banking relationship rather than being chosen in its own right.
• The central point: an incumbent arrangement does not have to win a comparison, only avoid one.
• The same three diagnostic questions from the benchmarking post reappear here almost verbatim, while figures on phone and email instructions for FX orders show readers who assume their company is unusually behind that they are not alone.

An incoming CFO inherits an FX setup whose pricing has never been tested against the market, with no document explaining how the provider was originally selected.

Read original · Original 2

But the exchange rate between them can be locked before the year starts.

• Left floating, a market move lands in the P&L as a variance that is awkward to explain.
• Unlike a sales miss or cost overrun, the risk could have been reduced at planning time.
• Hedging conversations therefore pick up through budget season, and the post points to a large share of corporates planning to lengthen their hedges to protect rates for longer.

A business operating across currencies forecasts revenue and costs but leaves the rate between them to chance, then has to explain the resulting variance to the board.

Read original

Tightened credit standards and more selective treatment of corporate relationships can carry from lending into hedging: the strategy may not have changed, but the ability to execute it might.

• The sharpest point is concentration: a company running FX through a single banking relationship inherits its counterparty's changed appetite as its own constraint.
• The focus widens from market exposure to the infrastructure that lets a treasury act on it.

A corporate with one banking counterparty finds its hedging capacity reduced when that bank reprices risk and becomes more selective, even though its own hedging policy has not changed.

The counterparty-concentration post widens the discussion beyond pricing and rate-setting, suggesting a broader treasury remit than the benchmarking-focused posts show. It also flags counterparty risk as a recurring subject for Tom Hoyle.

Read original

Most CFOs already know their cash could work harder; lengthy onboarding with each new fund provider, fragmented reporting and operational overhead outweighed the yield on offer.

• Tom Hoyle argues that trade-off has changed: firms treating cash as an active part of the treasury function, rather than something that simply sits there, are finding returns they did not realise were available — not by taking more risk, but by having access to more options.
• The post has no statistic and calls only for a direct conversation, making it a softer opener than the data-backed pieces.

A treasury team decides the yield on idle cash is not worth the onboarding and reporting effort across multiple fund providers, and leaves the balance where it is.

Read original

They open with a recognisable moment — a new CFO arriving, a relationship manager leaving or budget season starting — correct the assumption a reader might naturally make, then close with plain questions the reader could ask internally and a low-pressure invitation to talk or read more.

• Several use third-party report figures to show readers they are not alone, and one links to a quarterly corporate hedging monitor.
• The register is short, jargon-light and aimed at finance leaders rather than traders, with the hook in the first line and the argument made before any call to action.

The benchmarking posts end with the same three questions a CFO could put to their treasury team. The budget-season post makes its argument before mentioning anything further.

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

Start here: it explains the silent-erosion mechanism the other posts assume and shows how Tom Hoyle writes—challenge the premise, name the mechanism, and give readers a question to ask internally.

The post rejects the obvious explanation: pricing did not get worse the week the relationship manager left; it just got looked at for the first time in years.

• Tom Hoyle names the mechanism: unbenchmarked pricing drifts a few basis points at a time, spreads are not itemised, and nothing triggers an alarm.
• The central argument is that goodwill and good pricing feel identical, and only measurement separates them.
• It closes with three plain questions: when were rates last checked against the market, is there a benchmark on file, and would we sign these terms today?
• The low-friction next step is an independent transaction cost analysis requiring only trade data.
• A statistic from the MillTech Global FX Report 2026 shows that cost transparency is now a top priority for North American corporates.

For brands planning a campaign

For a CFO-focused FX benchmarking campaign, this is the natural lead asset.

• Open with the question, "would we agree to these terms if we were signing today?", then offer the transaction cost analysis as a no-cost next step.
• The post frames benchmarking as a check, not a pitch.

Read it to understand the timing window Tom Hoyle writes towards and see how a bundled banking relationship quietly escapes scrutiny.

Written for someone who has just stepped into a CFO role, the post walks through the setup they inherit: banking facilities, reporting, systems, and the team get reviewed instinctively, while FX sits near the bottom of the list.

• When it is finally examined, there may be no benchmark on file, no record of why the provider was chosen, and no test of pricing since the day it was agreed.
• The arrangement may have come bundled with the banking relationship rather than being chosen on its own.
• The persuasive line: an incumbent arrangement does not have to win a comparison; it only has to avoid one.
• Phone and email instruction statistics (34% and 29%, also from the MillTech report) show readers that their company is not unusually behind.
• The post repeats almost verbatim the same three questions as the benchmarking post, keeping the argument consistent across posts.

For brands planning a campaign

Use it to time outreach to newly appointed CFOs in their first months, when they are likely to review inherited arrangements. The post also supplies reusable questions for an email sequence aimed at incoming finance leaders.

Read it to understand the budget-season timing that shapes how treasury teams think about locking rates, and how Tom Hoyle connects a technical treasury choice to a routine planning decision.

The post draws a comparison: revenue depends on customers and costs depend on suppliers, and both can only be forecast, but the exchange rate between them can be locked before the year starts.

• That makes FX variance awkward in a specific way: unlike a sales miss or a cost overrun, it could have been reduced at planning time.
• The post cites a figure showing this is not a fringe view: 62% of corporates plan to increase hedge lengths to protect their rates, according to the MillTech Global FX Report 2026.
• The writing is short and tightly built, with the hook in the first line and the argument finished before the call to action.
• That makes it easy to read at budget season rather than as a standing pitch.

For brands planning a campaign

A seasonal hook for outreach timed to budgeting cycles. It gives a campaign a reason to make contact during planning season and a benchmark figure—hedge lengths—to frame the question around.

Read it to see how Tom Hoyle covers counterparty and credit conditions as well as rates and spreads—the broader treasury picture a campaign brief needs.

The post takes a counterintuitive position: the biggest external factor in Q1 hedging decisions was not market volatility but credit availability.

• It explains how tighter credit standards can affect how much a treasury team can hedge.
• The strategy may not have moved, but the ability to execute it might have.
• Its sharpest observation concerns concentration: a corporate running FX through a single banking relationship inherits its counterparty's changed appetite as its own constraint.
• The post widens the frame from market exposure to "the infrastructure that lets them act on those exposures at all" and points readers to a Q1 2026 Corporate Hedging Monitor for more.
• Its topic tags include counterparty risk.

For brands planning a campaign

Useful for positioning a campaign around multi-bank or counterparty diversification, not just cost. The single-counterparty constraint is a concrete outreach angle for treasurers at companies with concentrated banking relationships.

Read it to see the conversational register and the cash-management side of the treasury topics, alongside the FX and hedging material.

The post pairs two pressures: currency volatility compressing margins, while idle cash misses out on yield.

• Its argument focuses on the obstacle: most CFOs already know their cash could work harder, but acting meant lengthy onboarding with each new fund provider, fragmented reporting, and operational overhead that historically outweighed the yield.
• The post says that trade-off has changed: firms treating cash as an active part of the treasury function are finding returns they did not realise were available, without taking more risk, by accessing more options.
• Its direct-message call to action makes it a softer, discussion-opening post than the data-backed ones.

For brands planning a campaign

A gentle opener for a relationship-building step in a sequence, before making the benchmarking argument. It suits a message that invites a conversation about treasury operations rather than asking for trade data.

In one post, a relationship manager's departure prompts a review of recent trades, which reveals that spreads are not where everyone assumed.

• The post calls this silent erosion: pricing is never itemised, so nothing sets off an alarm.
• A strong relationship makes it easy to miss because goodwill and good pricing feel like the same thing.
• In another post, a newly arrived CFO finds an inherited FX arrangement with no benchmark on file and no record of why the provider was chosen.
• The argument is that an incumbent arrangement does not have to win a comparison, only avoid one.
• Both posts end with the same short list of questions: when were rates last checked against the market, is there a benchmark on file, and would we agree to these terms if we were signing today?

Opens with a familiar workplace situation, names an invisible cause, then gives readers plain diagnostic questions to ask internally.

For brands planning a campaign

This is the most direct hook for a benchmarking offer.

• The posts frame independent transaction cost analysis as the answer and say it costs nothing but the trade data.
• Outreach offering a no-cost pricing check against the market matches the framing the audience has already seen rather than introducing a new pitch.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

Revenue depends on customers and costs depend on suppliers, so both can only be forecast; the rate between them can be locked.

• When it is left floating and the market moves, the gap shows up as P&L variance.
• The post notes that this variance is awkward to explain because, unlike a sales miss or a cost overrun, it could have been reduced at planning time.
• It cites a figure of 62% of corporates planning to increase hedge lengths to protect their rates for longer, and says hedging conversations pick up through budget season.

For brands planning a campaign

This theme has a clear seasonal window. Campaigns aimed at treasury and finance leaders should land in the run-up to budget and planning cycles, when hedging conversations accelerate, rather than being spread evenly across the year.

Examples: Source 1

It reports that, for corporate treasurers and CFOs, the biggest external factor shaping Q1 hedging decisions was credit availability: credit standards were tightening, risk was being repriced, and corporate relationships were treated more selectively than a year earlier.

• The post traces this from lending into hedging: when credit is harder or more expensive to maintain, the practical conditions for how much a treasury team can hedge change, even if its strategy has not.
• It singles out corporates running FX through a single banking relationship, where one counterparty adjusting its appetite becomes the company's constraint rather than the bank's.
• The closing point is that treasury teams are now deciding about the infrastructure that lets them act on market exposure, not just the exposure itself.

Uses data to challenge an assumed driver, then traces the consequences from one treasury function to another.

For brands planning a campaign

Supports content pairing hedging strategy with counterparty and relationship concentration, and gives corporates a concrete reason to diversify or benchmark beyond a single banking provider. A campaign built only around volatility misses the driver this post puts first.

Examples: Source 1

It starts with currency volatility compressing margins on one side and unearned yield on idle cash becoming hard to ignore on the other.

• The post says the problem was never a lack of awareness that cash could work harder; the obstacles were lengthy onboarding with each new fund provider, fragmented reporting, and more operational overhead than the yield seemed to justify.
• It says that calculus has changed in the current environment.
• Firms treating cash as an active part of the treasury function rather than something that just sits there are finding returns they did not realise were available—not by taking more risk, but by having access to more options.

For brands planning a campaign

Extends the audience beyond FX pricing into cash and liquidity decisions, useful for campaigns targeting finance leaders reviewing how cash is deployed and concerned about yield left on the table. The emphasis on operational overhead over risk appetite suggests messaging should address effort and integration, not just returns.

Examples: Source 1

Each opens with a specific situation or assumption, often the arrival of a new CFO, the departure of a relationship manager, or the start of budget season.

• Each corrects a common assumption, then turns it into a small set of plain questions readers could ask internally.
• Three of the five cite the MillTech Global FX Report 2026 for a supporting statistic, such as 34% of corporates instructing FX by phone and 29% by email, or 62% planning longer hedge lengths; one links to a Q1 2026 Corporate Hedging Monitor.
• The register is short, jargon-light, and written for finance leaders rather than traders.
• Each post ends with a low-pressure invitation to message or read more.

For brands planning a campaign

The format suits research-led sponsorship or data partnerships: the creator already builds posts around third-party report findings, making survey data or a commissioned report a natural collaboration rather than a change of style. Outreach should match the plain, question-led tone rather than use promotional language.

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

View example

They name a long-standing arrangement the reader assumed was fine and ask whether it still does its job. D’Abranches’ working-capital posts question whether single-bank AR/AP programs still expand funding capacity or now constrain it, echoing Hoyle’s point that an incumbent FX arrangement only has to avoid comparison.

Michel D’Abranches writes from a commercial position, naming a product, an outcome-fee model and an offer, then asking readers to comment for a snapshot.

• Tom Hoyle’s posts make no platform pitch; they end with a benchmarking question or an invitation to talk.
• Readers seeking a vendor’s case for replacing working-capital structures should read D’Abranches; those seeking a neutral framing of an inherited pricing problem should read Hoyle.

Read original · Original 2

Hoyle opens each post by asking whether working capital is a constraint or a business driver, the same diagnostic approach they take with their three pricing questions.

Heather Crowley writes in an institutional voice for a global bank, citing scale figures such as operating in over 100 markets and 120 currencies and pointing to a named platform and demo link.

• Tom Hoyle writes as an individual, arguing about measurement rather than describing a bank’s coverage.
• They cite third-party survey findings, not an institution’s own footprint.

Read original · Original 2

Hoyle, for example, presents the exchange rate as the one budget number a company can fix in advance. Both build posts around a third-party report, quote its numbers and close by asking which finance leaders do things differently: Viswanath on the cash conversion cycle gap between top and lower performers, and Hoyle on corporates that benchmark their FX pricing.

Rajesh Viswanath writes about budgeting, capital allocation and the cash conversion cycle, with data visibility across procurement, operations and finance as the lever.

• Tom Hoyle focuses on foreign exchange pricing, hedging and the banking relationship behind them.
• Viswanath points readers to a named McKinsey or PYMNTS source and a link in the comments; Hoyle ends with questions readers can put to their own teams.

Read original · Original 2

Both posts argue that boards now ask CFOs and treasurers for weekly updates on liquidity and cash flow, that single-bank AR/AP programs can constrain working capital instead of expanding it, and that the answer is a multi-funder model layered on top of existing bank relationships.

• One post offers a worked example of that positioning: it opens by saying the first thing said to a CFO is that no relationship will be touched, asks only for the AR/AP the banks are not covering, and lets the CFO ask for the rest after watching both run side by side for around six months.
• For a treasury advisory firm whose offer is an add-on measurement or funding service rather than a replacement, this creator supplies ready-made language for the hardest part of the sale: getting a CFO to try something new without betting the incumbent setup.
• The fit is closest when the campaign promises incremental cash flow or capacity on top of what already works, and when a supplier or receivables angle is acceptable alongside FX.

The posts promote one commercial product, Monkey Global: they list named performance figures, point to a podcast episode, and close with a comment-to-receive-a-snapshot call to action.

• That makes them a weak fit as neutral support for an independent benchmarking campaign, which depends on the argument that pricing should be measured rather than taken on trust.
• The topic also shifts from FX execution to AR/AP funding, supplier participation, and cost of capital.
• Reusing this material for FX themes would mean rewriting the subject rather than borrowing it.
• Confirm commercial format, deliverables, and cost before booking.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

The two posts are written from inside J.P.

• Morgan’s trade and working capital business and address the same CFO and treasurer audience from the institutional side: fragmented tools, slow implementations, and regional programme differences, followed by the claim that a single platform with near real-time visibility, working ERP integration, and coverage across 100+ markets and 120 currencies turns working capital from a coordination problem into a strategic advantage.
• They also raise AI-flagged payment risk and access for smaller suppliers.
• Use this creator when the campaign goal is to place a CFO-focused message alongside mainstream treasury education and lean on the credibility and market coverage of a global bank, and when the subject can be framed as treasury infrastructure rather than FX pricing.

The writing is institution-led product communication: each post closes with a link to the bank’s own solution, and the argument is that one provider’s unified platform resolves the problem.

• That is the opposite stance to an independent FX benchmarking offer, whose pitch rests on the idea that an incumbent bank’s pricing should not be taken on trust.
• The posts also say nothing about FX execution, spreads, hedging, or transaction cost analysis, so this creator brings audience overlap rather than subject overlap for the specific campaign.
• Ask for audience composition and commercial availability before booking.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

The two posts take a CFO’s planning problem and reframe it: budgets are really capital allocation, most performance variance traces to eight to ten operational drivers, and the cash conversion cycle is a competitive advantage, with top performers converting cash in 24.2 days against 44.4 days for lower performers because their finance teams connect procurement, operations, suppliers, and finance data.

• Both posts cite published research and end with a clear takeaway: working capital is a data problem, and capital should go where it creates the most value.
• This suits a campaign that wants to reach CFOs on planning, performance, and visibility topics, with FX used as one example within a broader finance agenda, or a sequence that opens on budgeting and closes on FX rate planning in the same budget cycle.

The posts rely on other organisations’ reports rather than the author’s own client work or first-hand treasury engagements, so they do not demonstrate a track record in FX pricing, hedging mechanics, or transaction cost benchmarking. For a campaign that needs execution-level detail or must stand behind claims about what corporates actually pay for FX, ask for relevant first-hand examples or provide that information yourself.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2