17 banks line up for Swift tokenised payments pilot

Swift’s blockchain ledger is ready for initial use, with 17 banks across six continents preparing to pilot live cross-border transactions using tokenised deposits. Built in nine months, the ledger is designed to support 24/7 payments between participating institutions. Banks will issue tokenised deposits on their own ledgers, while Swift provides an orchestration layer to record and validate commitments before final settlement takes place through existing systems.

ANZ, BNP Paribas, BNY, Citi, DBS, First Abu Dhabi Bank, FirstRand, HSBC, Itaú Unibanco, Lloyds Bank, Mashreq, MUFG Bank, OCBC, Standard Chartered, UBS, UOB and Wells Fargo are among the first institutions preparing to use the service.

According to Swift, the model could allow banks to move funds for customers overnight and at weekends, extending payment availability beyond conventional cut-off times. Liquidity could also be deployed more efficiently across time zones, although participating banks would still operate within existing compliance, credit and risk controls.

Thierry Chilosi, chief business officer at Swift, said the ledger would allow “tokenised value to move across borders with the velocity and flexibility modern commerce expects”, while preserving the standards required by regulated finance.

Initial use will focus on tokenised deposits, with functionality and availability expected to expand after the controlled go-live phase. Swift also sees the ledger as a foundation for possible future applications including programmable money and agentic commerce.

Existing payment rails remain central to the design. Swift says 75% of payments on its network already reach beneficiary banks within 10 minutes, often in seconds. The ledger will operate alongside existing systems, preserving current settlement arrangements during the pilot and making adoption more practical for participating institutions.

Kellie Johnson, senior vice-president, Americas payments at RedCompass Labs, said the approach was pragmatic but warned that interoperability would determine whether it scales. “The harder question isn’t whether this works inside the pilot but whether the bank-specific ledgers underneath stay interoperable,” she noted.

Interoperability will matter as tokenised payment models move beyond a small group of early adopters. The pilot will also test how smoothly obligations pass between bank-specific ledgers and conventional settlement systems. Shared standards, consistent data and links between legacy and digital rails will be needed if banks are to avoid creating isolated networks that function well internally but struggle across the wider market.

Corporate users may be attracted by faster settlement, wider operating hours and more flexible liquidity movement. Adoption will depend on whether those benefits can be delivered without adding complexity to reconciliation, controls or compliance.

Moving from controlled pilots into scalable cross-border infrastructure will be the central test. Success would show whether tokenised deposits can extend payment availability while retaining the trust, resilience and risk discipline of established banking systems.

 

Mega-deal slowdown tests global M&A resilience

Global M&A activity slowed sharply in the second quarter of 2026, but completed deal volumes remained above last year’s level as buyers continued to pursue transactions despite volatile markets, according to WTW.

Produced with the M&A Research Centre at Bayes Business School, WTW’s Quarterly Deal Performance Monitor found that acquirers completing deals worth more than $100m underperformed companies not involved in M&A by 11.9 percentage points between April and June. The measure is based on share-price performance and covers completed transactions that meet the study’s criteria.

A clear reversal emerged from the start of the year. Twelve mega deals worth more than $10bn closed in the first quarter, compared with just three in the second. Large deals above $1bn also fell, with 48 completed transactions versus 56 in the previous three months.

That drop pushed the total value of completed deals down from a five-year high of $438bn in the first quarter to $232bn in the second. Even so, 202 deals worth more than $100m were completed globally between April and June, ahead of the 176 recorded in the same period of 2025 and only slightly below the 215 completed in the opening quarter.

Jana Mercereau, head of Europe M&A consulting at WTW, said: “The M&A market continues to undergo sharp, seesaw swings in deal performance, reflecting an unpredictable macroeconomic and geopolitical environment.”

She added that buyers had “barely paused” despite uncertainty and were continuing to pursue deals through the volatility.

Regional performance weakened across the board. North American acquirers underperformed their regional index by 11.6 percentage points, compared with 5.4 points in the first quarter, while completed deal volume fell from 117 to 103.

European buyers moved from outperforming their benchmark by 6.0 percentage points in the first quarter to underperforming by 8.3 points in the second. Deal volume was broadly stable at 38 transactions, compared with 40 previously, while British acquirers also lagged their index.

Asia-Pacific recorded the sharpest decline in performance, with buyers underperforming by 35.8 percentage points, compared with 3.4 points in the first quarter. It was, however, the only region to post a rise in completed deal volume, from 49 to 51. Chinese buyers accounted for just seven transactions, down from 21.

Weakness was concentrated in larger transactions and post-deal market performance. Overall deal appetite held up, with second-quarter volumes remaining above last year’s level. The divergence raises questions over whether financing structures, synergy targets and integration plans can absorb a less predictable cost and demand environment.

That leaves buyers facing a difficult second half in which valuation discipline, financing assumptions and integration planning will matter more as geopolitical risk, trade policy shifts and market volatility continue to affect returns.

WTW said the push for scale and cost efficiency remains a central driver of activity, with buyers still seeking strategic advantages despite weaker market responses, but sector selection and execution discipline are likely to prove increasingly important if deals are to create long-term value in unsettled conditions.

 

Finance leaders reject opaque AI despite high accuracy

Seven in ten finance leaders would reject an AI tool that was 99% accurate if it could not explain its answers, according to Sage. Based on a survey of 2,275 senior finance decision-makers and influencers, The 'Emerging Economics of AI in Finance' white paper found that 71% regarded explainability as more important than near-perfect model performance. More than half of organisations would also pay more for AI tools that provide greater visibility into how decisions are reached.

Auditability and accountability are becoming central to AI adoption decisions. Finance professionals spend almost 13 hours a week reconstructing, validating and defending AI outputs, according to the study. Some 48% spend at least 15 hours a week on verification, while 19% devote 30 hours or more.

Sage describes that burden as a “verification tax”, with productivity gains from automation partly offset by the time required to check whether outputs can be trusted. Across a large finance function, that overhead could erode much of the time saved by automating routine work. Pressure rises as AI moves beyond drafting and analysis into workflows that influence forecasts, payments, reporting and financial decisions.

Aaron Harris, chief technology officer at Sage, said: “In finance, almost right has always been wrong. As AI takes on more complex financial workflows, the cost of uncertainty is simply too high.”

Skills expectations are shifting alongside the technology. Respondents ranked risk, governance and decision judgement as the most important capability for a finance leader hired today, valuing it almost twice as highly as deep technical accounting expertise.

Vendor selection may face similar scrutiny. Some 71% of finance leaders said a move towards “glass box” design principles, where sources, reasoning and logic can be examined, would strongly or critically improve a provider’s status as a preferred partner. Transparency is becoming a core procurement requirement, particularly where AI is embedded in finance systems and controls.

Black box systems create a different problem. In regulated or audit-sensitive work, a high-confidence answer may still be unusable if the finance team cannot trace its source, test its assumptions or explain the decision to auditors, management or regulators.

IDC conducted the survey across companies with between 20 and 1,999 employees in 17 industry sectors. Respondents were split between North America, which accounted for 63% of the sample, and EMEA at 37%.

Results indicate that AI investment decisions will increasingly depend on the controls surrounding a model, including evidence trails, human approval points and the ability to challenge outputs. Finance teams’ willingness to rely on an AI tool will depend on whether its outputs can be explained, traced and challenged.

 

Risk aversion slows US growth despite AI push

US finance leaders are allowing risk aversion to slow growth decisions, even where governance structures are mature, according to a Coface survey of senior finance and risk executives. Coface’s 2026 Risk Survey: Risk Management from Risk Control to Growth Engine found that 57% of US respondents would rather reject an opportunity than build the case for pursuing it, compared with a global average of 50%.

Expansion decisions show that caution particularly clearly. Only 17% of US leaders begin a new-market discussion by looking for a route forward, while 31% start by considering what could go wrong. Just one third are comfortable entering a market without a complete view of the risks.

Slow decision-making was named as the biggest obstacle to growth by 33% of US executives, while 66% pointed to internal risk aversion. Some 65% said commercial ambition and risk discipline are fundamentally at odds, slightly above the global average of 62%.

Organisational culture appears to be the main constraint. Risk teams are involved at the idea stage in 29% of US companies, compared with 24% globally, while 76% of firms have clear decision rights and 71% link risk appetite directly to growth strategy.

Even so, only 28% of US respondents view risk teams as growth partners. Some 42% still see them primarily as trusted guardians against downside, although 51% expect finance and risk functions to become strategic growth partners within three to five years.

Executives also want those teams to translate risk into commercial choices. Seventy-one per cent said this was critical, while 66% want risk professionals to identify opportunities as well as problems.

AI is emerging as the main tool companies hope will close that gap. Eighty per cent of US executives said AI-driven insights and early-warning signals are a top priority, while 68% want predictive data embedded in daily workflows rather than separated into specialist systems.

Weakness lies in the information supporting those tools. Almost one third, 31%, said data quality varies significantly by market, making cross-business comparison and confident decision-making harder.

Coface argues that this caution reflects decision-making systems that leave finance and risk leaders struggling to assess uncertainty with enough confidence to support an opportunity.

Christina Montes de Oca, chief executive officer of Coface North America, said: “What companies actually need is better intelligence feeding AI tools, and the organisational confidence to act on it.”

Only 12.6% of companies globally have shifted towards a growth-oriented risk model, according to the survey. Within that group, 70% involve risk teams from the earliest stages of decision-making, compared with an average of 58%.

Results point to a widening divide between firms that treat risk as a reason to delay and those using it to price, structure and pursue opportunities. Finance and risk leaders need enough influence to turn stronger intelligence into faster commercial decisions.

 

Kyriba connects treasury clients to Merge stablecoin payments

Kyriba and Merge have partnered to connect corporate treasury management with stablecoin-based cross-border payments, giving clients access to both platforms’ capabilities. Under the agreement, Kyriba customers will be able to use Merge’s regulated stablecoin infrastructure for international settlement, while Merge clients will gain access to Kyriba’s treasury management tools for liquidity, cash forecasting and global operations.

Multinational companies managing supplier payments, payroll and other flows across markets are the main target. In high-friction corridors, settlement delays and transaction costs can tie up working capital and complicate cash visibility.

Stablecoin rails can shorten settlement times and improve payment traceability, although adoption by large companies still depends on the surrounding compliance, safeguarding and operational controls. Integration with treasury systems may also determine whether the technology can fit into existing approval, reconciliation and audit processes.

Bob Stark, global head of market strategy at Kyriba, said debate among treasury teams had shifted from “whether stablecoins work” to “whether they can trust the infrastructure behind them”.

He pointed to Merge’s regulatory authorisations and safeguarding arrangements as factors intended to address that concern for companies operating across markets including Brazil, India and the UK.

Kyriba says more than 4,000 multinational companies use its platform to manage liquidity, forecast cash and run treasury operations. Merge provides stablecoin payment infrastructure designed for enterprise use.

Growing interest in combining established treasury systems with newer payment rails is encouraging partnerships of this kind. Corporates may see value in faster cross-border settlement and clearer transaction tracking, but the practical test will be whether stablecoin payments can be embedded without adding complexity to controls, compliance or the recipient experience.

Initial uptake is likely to depend on the corridors involved, the cost reduction available and how easily firms can reconcile stablecoin transactions alongside existing bank-based flows.

 

Project Pangea targets real-time euro-won FX settlement

Chainlink has joined European and South Korean banking groups to develop a framework for real-time foreign exchange settlement using regulated stablecoins. Project Pangea will assess how international FX transactions could move from the traditional T+2 cycle to T+0 payment-versus-payment settlement. The working group includes institutions representing more than $10 trillion in assets under management.

Participants include FairSquareLab, the Unified Korea Alliance and Qivalis, a euro stablecoin consortium backed by 37 European banks. UniKA’s steering committee comprises Shinhan Bank, JB Bank, Kbank, FairSquareLab and OBDIA, alongside more than 10 participating Korean commercial banks.

Under the proposed model, banks would exchange euro and South Korean won stablecoins through direct atomic swaps, allowing both sides of an FX trade to settle simultaneously. The project aims to reduce settlement delays, liquidity fragmentation and the intermediary currency conversions that can complicate cross-border transactions.

Swift messaging and ISO 20022 standards would remain part of the process. Chainlink’s infrastructure would translate instructions from existing banking systems into blockchain-based settlement actions, allowing institutions to use familiar payment messages while connecting to public and private networks.

A three-layer architecture separates bank messaging, connectivity and settlement. Chainlink’s Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol would move assets between networks, while its data services would provide FX prices and its runtime environment would coordinate activity between Swift and blockchains.

FairSquareLab is providing the on-chain FX settlement technology and a dedicated blockchain for the project. Its liquidity model is designed to price transactions against external FX data, with controls intended to limit slippage and prevent individual asset pools from being depleted.

Initial work will focus on euro and won transactions, but the structure is intended to support a broader multi-currency network. The central test will be whether atomic settlement can scale across regulated institutions without creating new liquidity, interoperability or operational risks.

 

SS&C plans digital cash settlement for tokenised funds

SS&C Technologies plans to add digital cash settlement for tokenised investment transactions, extending its existing fund issuance and distribution capabilities into the settlement stage. The company said the planned service will support regulated forms of digital cash, including stablecoins and tokenised commercial bank deposits. It is intended to let eligible tokenised fund transactions settle using regulated digital cash.

The development follows SS&C’s acquisition of Calastone in 2025 and the launch of live tokenised fund issuance and distribution earlier this year. Asset managers can already use the combined infrastructure to bring tokenised versions of traditional funds to market through existing connections.

Adding digital cash settlement would create a more complete operating chain for tokenised investments, covering issuance, distribution and payment. SS&C said the capability is being designed with future atomic settlement in mind, where the exchange of an asset and payment occurs simultaneously.

Such a model could reduce settlement risk and simplify cross-border transactions, although implementation will depend on regulatory acceptance, interoperability and the availability of suitable digital cash instruments. Eligible funds across the SS&C and Calastone ecosystem are expected to be able to use the planned service once it is introduced. No launch date was provided.

Growing interest in tokenised funds is shifting attention towards the infrastructure needed to support production-scale transactions. For asset managers and service providers, the key question is whether issuance, distribution, cash settlement and reconciliation can operate within one controlled process without adding new operational complexity.

 

US Bank bundles faster payments for small businesses

US Bank has launched a subscription-based payments package for small businesses, combining domestic and international money movement inside its online banking and mobile app. Enhanced Payments includes digital international wires, same-day ACH, instant payments and standard domestic wires. The bank said the bundle is intended to give small businesses more choice over speed and cost without requiring a branch visit or separate payment tools.

Subscribers will pay $25 a month and receive lower per-transaction charges. A domestic wire will cost $16 under the plan, compared with $30 for non-subscribers using online banking.

Access to several payment methods within one interface could help smaller firms match payment speed to the urgency of each transaction. Instant payments may suit time-sensitive supplier or payroll needs, while ACH and wires provide alternatives where cost or reach matters more.

US Bank is also introducing higher transaction limits for growing businesses and tools to help users select an appropriate payment route. Those additions form part of a wider effort to bring account monitoring, payments and other banking activity into one digital environment.

For small companies, the practical value will depend on transaction volumes. Businesses making frequent wires may recover the monthly fee through lower charges, while firms with lighter usage will need to weigh the subscription against pay-as-you-go pricing.

Growing competition among banks is giving smaller businesses access to payment capabilities once associated mainly with larger corporate platforms. Greater speed and choice may improve cash flow control, but adoption will hinge on pricing, transaction limits and how easily owners can compare the options.