How Treasury Pros Drive Cash Flow and Business Impact Beyond the Ivory Tower

Oliver: It's not so easy for AI to replace a treasurer. Of course, there are certain elements where AI will be helpful, but AI will not be in a position to judge if this cash forecast is good or bad given the current political situation or the current business.

Philip: Oliver Gerstberger works in group treasury and asset-based finance at GO Corporate Funding Advisory and serves as a corporate treasury adviser at LeasingPilot. He advises companies on funding strategy, liquidity management, and the implementation of asset-based finance solutions to strengthen their financial structure.

Can you tell us: what is asset-based finance, and how do treasurers miss out on it?

Oliver: There are various ways of financing assets. Factoring, for example — financing your receivables — is one form of asset-based finance. If you, like Wolffkran or others, have machinery and equipment, or in our case tower cranes, you could lease them. But why do I believe that many treasurers miss out on the leasing element?

Philip: Hello and welcome to this latest episode of Treasury Leaders, our new podcast. It used to be called Corporate Treasury 101 and has now been rebranded as Treasury Leaders. I'm really excited to have Oliver Gerstberger as our guest today. Oliver is group treasurer of Wolffkran Cranes and has a lot of experience at many other companies, including Selecta — the vending machines where you get your coffee in the morning. What probably sets Oliver apart is his very hands-on approach: he is the kind of treasurer who will go to the production floor, talk to people, and really try to understand what makes the company tick and what is behind the numbers.

He's also an expert in asset-based finance. You don't see that a lot, and if you are a treasurer listening to this and you're not doing much with asset-based finance, this episode might be for you. It turns out you might be missing out on a nice opportunity — an arbitrage opportunity or not, we'll see — but it can be very useful for you. And lastly, Oliver started his career in banking, which is not too uncommon, but he made a very conscious decision to switch to corporate treasury, even taking a salary cut to do so. He's very driven, very clear on what he wants to do, what he wants to achieve, and why.

So these are a few of the pillars I would like to cover today with you, Oliver: one, your hands-on approach to treasury; two, the opportunities in asset-based finance; and three, why treasury, when you started somewhere else? Oliver, it's really nice to have you.

Oliver: Thank you, Philip. It's great to be on this call with you.

Philip: Let's start with hands-on treasury. Looking at your career, what was the moment when you realized: if I just stay behind my desk, I won't create enough value as a treasurer?

Oliver: For a few years I ran treasury at Selecta Group, the one with the vending machines and the coffee machines. And I built what was in the treasury book. When there was nothing, I built it: a treasury system was implemented, the cash pooling, everything else. But still, cash flow was not as good as management hoped for. Of course, treasury cannot single-handedly change that. But when I really started speaking with the MDs, with the FDs, and also with the operational leaders, I recognized: look, I'm actually missing out on something.

And what did I miss at Selecta? Well, there was a large capex every year — we bought new machines to be put into the market. But actually, what changed the economics was refurbishing vending machines. And that's also a different approach for treasury. Instead of financing and funding new equipment, let's look at what we can do with our existing asset base, with our existing machine park, to actually make the assets sweat more.

And then when I went to the factory, the refurbishment center, I saw two vending machines. One was brand new, unpacked from Evoca, and the other one looked exactly the same, but it was a 20-year-old box with just a new front door. So then I said: okay, my job as a treasurer is to educate our financing party that we should not only finance the new stuff, but also combine it with old stuff, because it gives better value. The customer pays the same for the coffee. The client who has something in his hospital pays the same monthly rent for the machine whether it's new or not, if it looks appropriately well-maintained.

And that was the moment that said: look, it's not good enough to have the best treasury system and be scored top-notch in the treasury survey by all the consultants because you have done all the steps they recommend. No, you must be there and understand the business, the shop floor, what drives the business, the unit economics. And I believe understanding unit economics will really help you as a treasurer to understand how you can improve the cash flow of a company.

Philip: So it's not only maximizing your return on, say, excess cash — which money market fund, how to make that money give a better return — but also how the money can make a better return in your actual business. So don't buy a new machine; refurbish it, and that will give you a higher return per euro.

Oliver: Exactly. But then go one step further. Frequently I noticed that treasury comes into play when someone has already decided on what should be bought. But treasury should be early in the capex decision process: why should we buy what, and how should we finance it? When it's already ordered, it might be too late — it might be a few weeks, maybe a few months before it's being delivered. So when you are involved in certain decisions, and you know we have the facilities, or actually the money on the bank account, to finance this, then later you don't fall into the trap of: okay, I need to finance three projects but only have money for one and a half.

And then everybody says: why don't you have money for three? The business decided on three. Yeah, but the banks don't really like three projects; they don't give us the money, so we must do something. And then it becomes, I call it, unpleasant for everybody: for the business, which promised something to the client or the customer; for the treasurer, because he couldn't deliver, because the market doesn't appreciate the way the company wanted to do it; and for management, being disappointed that the business case can't be materialized.

So, summing up: I believe you must be involved early with the business in certain decisions, and not sit in — you could call it — the ivory tower, in your finance team in the corner, and just report to the CFO. You must be really integrated with the business, and I believe at least twice a month you should have a touch point with the relevant parties.

Philip: And if you look at your peers and many other corporate treasury departments out there, what do you think they are missing today? Can you give an example? What are three things a treasurer should do today to become more hands-on, to do it more the way you do it?

Oliver: What is important for today's treasurers, I believe, is to really understand the unit economics of the business — what drives it, theoretically, through the P&L. Don't just look at the cash; look at the P&L and understand it. The P&L is built up of very different elements, and one is basically — if you're a manufacturing company, or a renting company like Wolffkran — what actually is the cash flow profile of our assets over the lifetime of those assets? And I see many treasury professionals not going that deep into those discussions and not actually asking to be involved.

It's not just the strategic planning. It's: what is our three-to-six-month planning process for the capex? What are the approval metrics? Where should I be involved as a treasurer? Don't wait to be asked to fund it. Ask to be included early on, at certain moments — not every step, of course, but when it becomes relevant. And I see many people optimizing the financial structure, as you mentioned, getting the best money market return on something. But I believe the best money market, for the companies I work for, is not to have so much debt on the balance sheet — or actually to invest the money you have into growth. That is the way I see it.

Philip: Okay, thanks. And then what? So you have spoken to the people on the floor, you are involved in the business and in making decisions, you are aware of your assets and your business. What other things could you do?

Oliver: I have seen that working capital is the next source of financing the business, and I personally believe working capital should be overseen or managed by treasury, because we see very different elements. We see the payables, because we approve the payments. We see the customer inflows on the bank account. We finance the capex, and we know about the money being invested into inventory. The other departments might not be aware of what it means for the cash flow.

So when there's a year-end push and someone says, "I'll give you a 1% discount, dear customer, if you pay in December" — that's nice for the December result. But if you as a treasurer don't know this happens, or if you don't warn some other people, you might just fall into the January trap: because everybody paid you in December, you have a great January in terms of cash outflow. And then on the payables, someone says, "Yeah, I extended for another 60 days." That's good for the moment, but you as a treasurer should know that early enough to change your cash flow forecasting — either the model, or, if it's done manually, to make sure you actually capture this.

And then it comes to the inventory side. If you do a last purchase order because one of your suppliers is stopping, and you suddenly have the whole inventory filled up by the equivalent of 5 million euros of something, you must know, because you suddenly must buy these products and it doesn't fall into the normal payment pattern.

So I really believe you should own, or at least oversee, the working capital development and manage it with the other leaders of the functions. And that again requires regular interaction with the sales leaders, with the MDs, or with the procurement leaders. What do they do? How do they do it? Can we work together and improve the cash flow, but also the P&L, of the company? And I really believe just looking at cash flow falls short, but just looking at the P&L equally falls short. Everybody says EBITDA is a number, cash is a fact. But if you just look at cash and not at the P&L, you might miss that the company is not making as much money as you believe. And then you must do something as well, as a treasurer.

Philip: Maybe let's focus on working capital for a second. I think you gave a good summary, but let's try to break it down for the least experienced treasurers, or for people not familiar with treasury. What is working capital, and what are you trying to do as a treasurer? And then we can break it down for the listeners.

Oliver: Working capital is a combination of what you invoice to your clients or customers — the accounts receivable; what you pay to your suppliers for services and goods — the accounts payable; and what you actually have in stock, in the factory or in the yard or in the warehouse, to deliver to your customer base. That is true in my case — I always worked for companies having some stock. Of course, if you're a software company, there's no stock; you just have the payables and the receivables, and the stock might be minimal.

Philip: And most companies I talk to, most treasurers, obsess with paying as late as they can and receiving as early as they can. Do you see the same, and do you share this view, this almost obsession?

Oliver: Of course I love to be paid as early as I can. But I noticed, also at Selecta, that at some moment DSO went longer and longer. We had, let's say, a structural issue in the way we invoiced. So if as a treasurer you just wait for the money to come and it doesn't come, and then you ask why it isn't coming — a customer complains about ABC, or there's an issue in operations — at some moment you must look closer and start a working capital project.

So yes, I love to be paid as early as I can and to pay as late as I can. Everybody laughs at quarter-end optimization. I believe doing it for one or two weeks is not nice to your supplier base, but everybody understands it. If you go beyond that, I personally believe that's the wrong approach. I have seen many times that procurement is very proud, presenting to senior management: "We have extended from 30 to 60 to 90 days." Everybody gives a big applause, and then you as a treasurer say: "Yeah, now it's quarter two, and we have to pay 8 million extra compared to last year because we didn't pay in quarter one. Why didn't we pay in quarter one? Yeah, we extended the payment terms — everything that was due in quarter one is now due in quarter two." And then I saw many times people start running and screaming: that can't be, quarter two must be good, it can't be bad.

And therefore I developed my own philosophy, saying: look, procurement is a very complicated process — you talk about quality, stranded costs, everything — but in the end I always prefer somewhat shorter payment terms, somehow in line with your production cycle, but not longer. Because if it falls into another reporting period, or maybe two reporting periods later, nobody will recognize that this was the sin, or the result, of two quarters before.

Philip: Because the organization forgets.

Oliver: Exactly. The organization just forgets the good or the bad and carries on. And if you have a stable cash flow profile, a stable revenue over the quarters, you have a one-time hit. But if it has seasonality, then it becomes quite crunchy. And I really say: I would rather have the good result in terms of P&L, and the cash flow — the inflow and the outflow — in a similar time frame. Within three months, everybody understands: I sold it in January and I have to pay in March, or I sold it in February and I have to pay in April — that is still connected. But if it goes out for more than two, three months, I believe that's not the right approach. And — this comes back to my P&L comment earlier — I would rather advise the business, in my function as group treasurer, to go for a lower unit price, with the P&L benefit lasting in the year-end numbers, than for longer payment terms.

Philip: So that means when you're negotiating, negotiate a somewhat shorter term. So you pay your suppliers in, say, 30 days instead of 90, and you get a bit of a discount for that. Is that what you mean?

Oliver: Exactly. And I believe it's not uncommon, from what I've seen, to get a 2% discount for that. And if you say, look, for 60-days-shorter payment terms you get a 2% discount, multiplied by the right number to come to the annualized result, it's better. And then the next value creation a treasurer can bring to the business is: what if we paid our suppliers structurally earlier and took out an extra bank loan — can that make money?

Philip: Well, 2% for 60 days, you say.

Oliver: Yeah.

Philip: That compounds to quite a lot on a yearly basis.

Oliver: Indeed.

Philip: So if your loan is less than 10%, you have an arbitrage opportunity here — or not?

Oliver: Exactly. And the procurement people might not come up with the idea, because they're always focused on paying later. But you can say: look, let's actually hunt the discounts. Let's structurally ask for them. Let's take out a bank loan for 10 million and fill it up with the suppliers who have the best discounts for us. Then you do the mathematics, and I would say nine out of ten times you will make money — lasting money in the P&L. Of course, your financing documentation must allow this extra loan, your covenants must allow this extra loan. But if they do, that's a real opportunity for treasury to create a lasting impact.

Philip: And that's not even accounting for the non-monetary benefits, I can imagine. As a supplier, if you pay me in 30 days rather than 90, or late and extended, I might be much keener to give you better support, better services and so on, because you'll become one of my best clients, isn't it?

Oliver: Of course. Yeah, that's the same — everybody loves being paid early. As I said, I also love being paid early, and the suppliers love to be paid early. And then it's quite important that you actually stick to the promise, and that the quarter-end optimization, if it happens, is not more than one or two weeks. People will understand it, but not appreciate it.

Philip: And Oliver, actually leveraging your hands-on approach — going into the business, looking into how things actually work, and making the most of it — you gave a few examples already. I also know you as an asset-based finance expert. Can you tell us something about that? What is asset-based finance, first of all? How do you think it can be used, and how do treasurers somewhat miss out on it?

Oliver: There are various ways of financing assets. Factoring, for example — financing your receivables — is one form of asset-based finance. If you, like Wolffkran or others, have machinery and equipment, or in our case tower cranes, you could lease them. Why do I believe that many treasurers miss out on the leasing element? Many treasurers, like me, come from the banking side. They pretty much understand all the capital market products and the bank loans, but they're not really used to financing assets — for that, there are leasing companies in the market. Actually, many banks are not even, department-wise, in a position to judge the quality of an asset, whereas leasing companies, when they finance for example a tower crane, know exactly how long the tower crane lasts, what type of configuration, what the market price is. So they can really say: okay, even if the quality of the company — the credit rating; I'll make up a number — is a B minus, the asset itself can lift this B minus to a higher rating, and you can get cheaper financing compared to just a corporate loan.

The little challenge is that you must find the companies who are interested in financing those assets. Sometimes those companies need slightly different information than the banks, and you must tailor the information package to those recipients — and then you have a great extra source of funding.

And there are three ways, for me, of finding out if someone really understands asset-based finance. Everybody, if you wake him up at 3:00 in the night, will tell you the margin on the syndicated loan or the margin on the bond or whatever. If you ask him what the amount of lease financing is — not financial lease according to IFRS, but really lease financing for equipment — some might know, but frequently the answer is: I must ask accounting. Then, if someone knows and you ask them what the average rate is that you pay, in absolute or relative terms, I would say 90-plus percent will not know. And in case they know, then you ask them: do you actually know when those contracts expire and what to do at the end — or do you only find out a year or half a year before the contract expires, or three months before? I would say by then you have lost 99% of the crowd. But there's such a great opportunity.

For example, in the Wolffkran case, all our tower cranes are financed by leasing companies, not by bank loans. We have carved out that basket in our financing documentation and say: look, financing of cranes runs separately; it has to be treated differently. Also at Selecta we had a huge leasing basket available, but nobody was using it. So I started structurally using this leasing basket to fund all our annual capex, and then suddenly you speak to the small and the big names. But you must find them, and the challenge then is: how far can you actually fly when the credit appetite is filled up and you need to have a second one? But in the end, in Selecta's case, I always got at least 200-300 basis points cheaper than the high-yield bonds which we took out. Selecta had very highly priced loans, and we could easily get 300-400 basis points cheaper in Swiss francs, 200-300 in euros. So it was an arbitrage opportunity, and if you try to max out the leasing basket, you have another source of value.

But it comes back to my earlier point: you really must understand how the business needs the capex to be financed, because you must organize those facilities early enough so that they are ready when the capex needs to be paid. You cannot come three or four weeks before the capex needs to be paid — then you're just too late. And if you sit in your ivory tower, as I would call it, I guarantee you will be too late, and then treasury comes into this crunch position: someone says, yeah, we must pay it, three times 5 million. Okay, that gives you a 15 million cash flow problem for the quarter, as the treasury guy responsible for the end cash position. So rather start early with the business on this.

Asset-based finance for me, in all the Selecta years but also now, was the right opportunity to finance even specialized assets. And when colleagues listening to this podcast say, "Yeah, but I don't have assets" — I can tell you, you can even finance software, and software implementation, with a leasing contract. It's not just the hardcore asset — the crane, which you can see here in the background of this picture, or the cars, or the copy machine. No, I would say nearly anything can be financed by leasing, if it's not real estate.

Philip: So you gave a nice example in there, where you said that at Selecta you had a leasing basket available. It had been carved out in the agreement with the bank. So that's step one: first carve it out, otherwise you cannot do anything.

Oliver: Exactly.

Philip: And then it was available, but no one was using it. So your point is: have a look at what is available, what can be done. And then you're saying the terms can be much better than the bank terms — 200-300 basis points difference, so that is huge. And lastly, you said that to still make it happen, you need to prepare documentation and make it easy for the leasing company to digest it, to understand it.

Oliver: That's exactly right. A leasing company focuses on the asset. I don't want to say they are simple-minded people — that's certainly not true; I saw very sophisticated lessors. But they have a different approach. A bank — you give them the investor relations package, the annual results, the annual report, the financing documentation. They love to read these 300, 400, 500-page documents. Leasing companies, I would say, hate it. So it's important to really prepare a little package for them. I call it a small info memo. It can be three or four pages if it's simple; it can be 15 pages if it's longer and more complicated, like a whole production line with some self-created assets and intangibles and what have you.

But if you make it pre-cooked, so that they can copy-paste it into their credit approval process, then they really love it. You say: look, this is our financing structure, these are our covenants, these are the baskets which are allowed, we are here — that's written on that page of the financial report for the quarter — or here is another extra analysis of why this asset creates value, why this project is good for us. You help the leasing companies to understand it. The banks disregard it because they're really interested in the big tickets, or they are particularly interested in certain assets like real estate. But production equipment is mostly out of scope, because banks don't have the capabilities in terms of departments, and/or the skills in terms of people, to really understand it. For that you need another kettle of fish, and I believe asset-based finance companies — leasing companies, or, if you talk about receivables, factoring companies — are really right there, and treasurers should not miss out on that opportunity.

Philip: It's interesting that you say that. Normally, creating an easy-to-read info deck is not in the top 10 skills of any treasurer, but you're saying it actually becomes important and useful to do, to secure good leasing terms — or good terms in general.

Oliver: Indeed. And now, thanks to AI, if you, like me, are not really entertained by writing little memos: you can do 75% of the work with AI. You just give it the document and say, "Give me a good summary," and then you have at least the structure, and with your knowledge as a treasurer, knowing what is relevant, you can actually improve it. And over time, if you build your own agent, you can really make it work, and you have less work to do as a group treasurer — or as a treasury senior or a treasury analyst. That's something where I really see a use case for AI in treasury to help you, and then it creates value: you unlock another source of funding which mostly you have not used, because working asset by asset is too complicated — so you'd rather work on the bank loan.

Philip: And actually, looking at the bank loan: in your experience, is it easy to negotiate with the bank to have the basket for leasing available? Do you ever encounter resistance, and do you have any tips for treasurers listening on how to negotiate it?

Oliver: In the beginning — if someone, let's say, legally owns the asset in the financing documentation, and you say, look, I would actually like to finance it, then it becomes complicated. Because even if the relationship manager supports the case, he has to go back to the credit committee, and the credit analyst always wants to protect the downside: no, I don't give anything, because it's already in my position — why should I deteriorate my position, and for what? So then maybe, as a treasurer, you need to pay a little bit of extra margin. If it's already in, it's too late or nearly too late. If it's not part of the financing documentation from the beginning, then you're quite good.

And actually, there is another opportunity with leasing: not just for new assets, but also for existing assets — sale and leaseback. You have your financing documentation, and you maybe negotiated it a few years ago — let's say before the current political tensions — and now you go back to the banks. Unfortunately, the interest margins might have increased. So if you now want to have this extra 10, 15, 20 million, they say: yeah, you can have it, but unfortunately it's not just the incremental part which will be priced higher — it's the entire financing which is priced higher. With asset-based financing, they say: look, I have the company as the one paying, I have the asset as just another collateral, and I just have one piece, so I don't need to look at the whole structure. And there can be real opportunities compared to your existing financing, which I frequently see colleagues not using to the best possible extent.

Philip: Thanks. Well, you make a very good case for that. You mentioned AI in your answers, and I want to touch upon AI with you a little as well. But first, let me switch to the human side and to yourself. You also mentioned you started as a banker and then you changed. Why did you do that? Why not stay a banker? It seems like quite a comfortable career, isn't it?

Oliver: It is. I had two or three thoughts about it. One: I was a number of years in banking on the corporate desk, advising companies about FX and commodity hedging. But you just see one part of the transaction. You do the FX, you do the commodity hedging, but you don't see the whole chain. And I had started business administration because I liked to be with a business, and I felt, at the age of 30, that I was falling short of what I had wanted to do six, seven, eight years earlier. So that was, let's say, the desire to be more involved.

The second element was that I saw banking at the time, in 2012/13, coming under more and more regulation, so you were actually documenting more than spending time on creating value for your client.

And thirdly — that was a very personal matter — there was a change of senior management, and the new senior management in place on purpose forgot the plans which had been made for my career. After discussing it twice and hearing "we don't have any plans for you," I said: okay, that is a very honest answer, thank you, but then I'll pursue my own plan. So I started to work actively on switching into corporate treasury. I did what I call the driver's license for corporate treasury — the corporate treasury certificate from the Swiss association — even if I knew a fair deal of what was taught. It's like with the police: if you don't have the driving license, nobody allows you to drive. If you don't have this certificate, the ACT certificate, they might not fully believe that you're equipped to work in or run a treasury function. And then I found the opportunity to enter corporate treasury.

But having been a few years in banking, you had this nice cushion of a good salary, and when you start at the entry level in corporate treasury, that's unfortunately not the same salary level. So I voluntarily decided to take a salary cut to move into corporate treasury — a few years later, that was fully compensated. But I thought: at the age of 30, I will most likely not enjoy the next 35-plus years in banking, so I must change something. And I said, okay, I'll go to what I really enjoy — and I haven't regretted being in corporate treasury.

Philip: So in the bank you were relying on plans made by others for your career, whereas as a corporate treasurer you feel you can make your own plans. Is that right? You're in more control.

Oliver: You can better make the plans. Of course, it depends on the type of organization you're in, but corporate treasurers are closer to what happens in the company, to the action. Whereas at the bank, even if it's a smaller bank, there will be quite a number of people — there's a customer relationship manager, and he only sees a certain part of it. I thought: look, if you really want to make an impact and do something, and you're not an entrepreneur, then for me corporate treasury was right, because I'm working close to the finance function, to the CFO. In many cases I also worked directly with the business owners or managing directors, because some really understand that cash is important in driving growth. And if you are in such an environment as a corporate treasurer — very focused on creating an impact, making the cash grow, or improving the cash generation capacity of the company — there's no better place than corporate treasury.

Philip: And if you look at the role of AI — you were in banking, you are in treasury — which one do you think is going to be disrupted most by AI? Banking or treasury?

Oliver: My view today is that banking will be more disrupted by AI than corporate treasury. There are now so many elements where AI companies actually replace the entry-level jobs, and it accelerates — it becomes more difficult to land a job in banking. I have recently spoken, in a kind of career-advice situation, with some trainees, or people who want to become a trainee, and it's not so easy to enter the banking world. Treasury — well, mostly, unless you're at a very big company listed in one of these large indices — is, I would say, leaner: maybe not as structured as a true banking career, but you very quickly come into more responsible positions, you can actually drive certain projects, you can create value. And because you have such a wide space of things you should conquer and master, it's not so easy for AI to replace a treasurer.

Of course, there are certain elements where AI will be helpful. AI can help with booking the payables, or with understanding which receivable position should be matched against the inflow on that bank account. There AI will help you — those are what I call the simpler tasks. But AI will not be in a position to judge if this cash forecast is good or bad given the current political situation or the current business, because AI here is a statistical model. You need experience — and treasurers gain experience quite fast — and then they can say: look, it's helpful to have AI as my co-pilot, to do some of the work and actually manage the cash position, to make sure that we have things on the right bank account when it's needed, or to understand when the customer will most likely pay based on previous experience. But for certain decisions, today I would not trust that AI makes the right decision. And in the banking world, there are many different areas where AI actually adds a lot of value and today replaces people. The same goes for insurance.

Philip: Yeah, that makes sense. So you're not worried about AI disrupting treasurers, as far as I can see.

Oliver: I'm not worried. I'm actually hoping that we can get more support, because treasury, as I've seen it over the last 13 years, is always understaffed. So here I see more support than threat.

Philip: And what would be the top three things in your mind that you would use AI for? You mentioned reconciliation. Okay, what else?

Oliver: You can have certain elements of the cash forecast — if you have a recurring business driven by clearly identifiable factors — being forecasted. An interesting example there, from the Selecta background: the turnover at vending machines is pretty much driven by the degrees outside. There's a kind of optimal range, by temperature, where people buy the most.

Philip: Yeah — because of the weather.

Oliver: So there AI can give you a good forecast. Maybe you also have other elements — say, when you are in the automotive industry — where AI can give you a certain prediction and say: okay, that's most likely to happen in three or four months. That can be good. We touched on the accounting elements. And I mentioned earlier that if you have to do certain summaries, AI can help you scan the documents. Unfortunately, LMA documents — LMA: Loan Market Association loan documents — are quite long and complicated. So why not ask AI to give you a good summary of this or that element, and then give you the reference? That truly shortens the time until you have the answer. But then, to decide what to do with this answer, or how to negotiate something — there I don't see AI being right for corporate treasury for the moment.

Philip: Oliver, thank you very much. I think we have covered a lot. I would like to start a new tradition on this podcast, and that is the one-thing tradition, the one-thing closing ritual. I would like to give you one minute, and in this one minute I would like you to give the best advice you can to a treasurer who wants to create the most impact. What is your one-minute advice?

Oliver: My one-minute advice to anybody in treasury: really try to make an impact. Go to the shop floor of your company, or go to the salespeople, the operations people, and understand what their challenges are. Don't spend time just with finance people or with the managing directors. You must speak with operations about what they need to do. What are their challenges? And if you understand the challenges, you can come up with better ideas for how to actually improve the performance of the company, cash-wise and maybe P&L-wise. Just spending time in the finance community will always fall short of what you could actually deliver.

Philip: Thank you, Oliver. For treasurers who want to stay in touch with you, what is the best way? LinkedIn?

Oliver: I would say LinkedIn — and I answer all the messages. Maybe with a few days' delay sometimes, but you will get an answer.

Philip: From you — not your AI agent.

Oliver: I don't use an AI agent. I hate these AI messages being sent to me — "Do you want this or that?" No. Joking aside: you always get an answer from me, and it's personally written by me, including the typos which might occasionally be there.

Philip: Oliver, thank you very much for being with us. I found it very interesting, and I really appreciate, admire, and completely agree with your approach and statements. So thank you for that.

Oliver: Thank you, Philip, for the opportunity. And anybody listening: please reach out if you have any questions about which decision I took at which moment and why, or about why I believe asset-based finance is really a good tool for anybody in corporate treasury to include in the next financing round.

Philip: Thank you. Till next time. Thank you.