Corporate cash teams are entering the second half of 2026 with a familiar problem in a more demanding form. They want liquidity immediately available, principal protected and payments ready to move around the clock. Their systems, investment structures and banking relationships often force them to choose between those goals.

Jiko’s 2026 Corporate Cash Confidence Survey shows how often those priorities collide. Some 76% of respondents consider 24/7 settlement important, yet only 18.6% say their organisation can move cash or settle transactions in real time. Almost half keep more than 10% of operating cash uninvested at any given time, including nearly one quarter that regularly leaves at least 25% idle. 

Caution runs through the rest of the responses. Interest rates are the most frequently cited influence on cash strategy, geopolitical tension is expected to shape decisions over the next year, and banking-sector stability remains prominent long after the disruption that unsettled US regional banking in 2023. 

Cash needs to remain protected, earn a return and be available at short notice. Jiko’s findings suggest that the systems around it still make those aims difficult to reconcile.

Safety sets the terms

Rates, geopolitical risk and memories of the 2023 banking turmoil are setting the boundaries for cash decisions. Some 63.3% of respondents are concerned that geopolitical tensions could directly affect their corporate cash strategy during the next 12 months. Within that total, 16% are very concerned, 47% are somewhat concerned, 26% are neutral or unsure, and 11% are not concerned. 

Interest rates rank as the most influential factor shaping strategy in 2026, selected by 57.4% of participants. Banking-sector stability follows at 24.5%, making it the second-most-frequently chosen influence. Respondents could choose up to three factors. Even so, the answers put rates clearly first and banking stability second. 

Rate expectations shape how long treasurers are willing to commit cash, when maturities are scheduled, and how much liquidity remains on hand. A shift in the policy outlook can change whether treasurers favour overnight access, staggered maturities or a longer-duration position. Geopolitical shocks can quickly redraw those assumptions through energy prices, inflation, and market volatility.

Where the cash is held matters almost as much as what it earns. Memories of the 2023 regional bank disruption appear to remain part of the decision-making process, according to the report, particularly when companies assess concentration and the accessibility of balances during periods of stress. A deposit may appear readily available in normal conditions, while still carrying counterparty, operational, or timing risks when markets become unsettled. 

Access to cash when needed is the leading consideration for 60.1% of respondents, followed by protecting principal and minimising risk exposure at 46.3%. Operational simplicity and ease of management are selected by 38%, while maximising yield trails at 30.9%. A further 3% are unsure. 

Payroll, supplier runs, and collateral calls do not wait for an investment to mature or a market to reopen. A few extra basis points are of limited value when the balance cannot be mobilised at the required time. Liquidity is therefore being judged by its usability as much as by the amount showing on an account statement.

Yield nevertheless remains material, especially when short-term returns are high enough to make idle balances conspicuous. Finance teams are trying to earn more on cash without making it harder to reach or control. Any gain can disappear quickly when it requires extra manual work, delays settlement, or creates a structure that becomes harder to explain under pressure.

Operational simplicity, selected by 38%, points to a quieter cost. Fragmented accounts, manual sweeps and separate investment portals can consume time even when they cause no immediate financial loss. A strategy that improves yield while adding reconciliation work or exception handling may simply move the burden elsewhere.

The price of keeping cash close

Keeping money ready for use comes at a measurable cost. Some 51.9% of respondents say less than 10% of operating cash is uninvested at any given time. Another 24.7% leave between 10% and 25% idle, 15.8% leave between 26% and 50% and 7.6% report that more than half of operating cash is uninvested. 

Combined, 48.1% have more than 10% sitting outside investment allocations. Around 23.4% regularly leave at least a quarter idle. Such balances may serve a deliberate purpose, supporting near-term payroll, supplier disbursements, tax payments or collateral calls that cannot wait for a sale and settlement cycle. 

At the largest companies in the sample, those percentages translate into very large sums. Some 29% of respondents manage an average cash position above US$1bn. A further 17% sit between US$250m and US$1bn, 13% between US$50m and US$250m, 24% between US$10m and US$50m and 17% below US$10m. 

Even a 10% buffer can therefore run into hundreds of millions of dollars. The cash may be doing exactly what treasury intends by remaining available, but the opportunity cost rises when rates are elevated, and payment timing remains uncertain.

The idle-cash figures expose the handoff between investment and payment. A short-term instrument may be liquid in market terms, yet the holding may still have to be sold, settled and returned to an operating account before it can reach a supplier. Each step introduces another cut-off, dependency, or manual action, encouraging treasurers to keep larger buffers in transaction accounts than they would otherwise.

In comments published alongside the report, Katlin Mongelluzzo, BlackRock director and head of Cachematrix product and platform, said: “The findings in this survey reflect a tension we see across the market: the appetite for better yield and faster settlement is there, but the path to getting there runs through infrastructure modernisation that takes time.”

Much of that idle cash is buying operational certainty: it helps ensure tomorrow’s payments leave on time. The cost is the return forgone between payment events.

When business outruns banking hours

The 57-point settlement gap shows how far business hours have moved beyond banking hours. Some 76% of respondents regard the ability to move cash or settle transactions outside standard banking hours as important, while only 18.6% currently have that capability. 

A late payment approval, an overseas funding request or a sudden collateral call can arrive after the final bank cut-off. Cash may be visible on the balance sheet and still unavailable for the transaction that needs it. A few hours may be enough to miss a funding window, leave a subsidiary short or push a payment into the next day.

Banking cut-offs also complicate forecasting. A payment instruction late in the day may not settle until the following morning, while an investment redemption may take additional time before funds reach the right account. Timing uncertainty affects intraday liquidity, cash positioning and the confidence with which teams can commit funds elsewhere.

Global operations make it harder to contain those timing gaps. A US account may receive funds after a European investment cut-off, while an Asian subsidiary needs liquidity before New York opens. Local teams can protect themselves with larger buffers, but every workaround fragments the group’s cash position and reduces the value of central visibility. Late receipts can also leave borrowing and investment decisions resting on yesterday’s position rather than cash already moving through the business.

Integration is the most common barrier, cited by 30.6% of respondents who regard 24/7 settlement as important. Existing treasury management systems, bank connections and payment processes may not support real-time movement or may require extensive redesign before the capability can be used safely. 

Those figures place the problem within the corporate stack, where bank channels, treasury systems, and payment controls must connect. Cyrille Oudard, Kyriba EMEA business value advisory senior director, put it plainly in comments accompanying the research: “Integration is where most organisations get stuck.”

Counterparty or settlement risk concerns follow at 20.8%. Faster movement has limited appeal when a company lacks clarity over where funds sit before, during and after settlement, or when real-time availability depends on exposure to an unfamiliar provider. Cost is close behind at 20.1%, while transaction limitations are cited by 17%. 

Every real-time payment still has to pass through the company’s bank connections, approval rules, ledger and reconciliation process. Any one of those can preserve the old cut-off even when the payment rail itself runs around the clock.

General ledger postings, bank account reconciliations, sanctions screening, user permissions, and payment approval policies must all accommodate transactions that can occur at any hour. Currency coverage and counterparty reach will decide whether 24/7 settlement becomes a core capability or remains limited to selected flows.

Some organisations will have little need for continuous settlement across every payment flow. Even so, the gap between demand and capability is striking: 76% regard 24/7 settlement as important, while only 18.6% can currently move or settle cash in real time.

Appetite for more productive liquidity appears just as strong. Some 88.9% said they would place at least some value on holding cash directly in US Treasury bills while preserving immediate access for payments. The finding reflects a wider ambition running through the survey: cash should continue earning until the moment it is needed.

Direct Treasury holdings are one route towards that outcome. Money market funds, deposits and other short-term instruments offer different combinations of yield, access and risk. Whichever vehicle a company chooses, the harder question is whether the systems around it can turn an invested balance into usable cash without delay.

When cash has to keep moving

The survey leaves US treasurers with a practical question: how much of the cash visible on screen can actually be invested or moved at short notice?

The answer depends on more than the account or instrument holding it. Cut-offs, redemption steps, approval chains, and reconciliation rules determine whether a balance can fund a subsidiary, meet a collateral call, or reach a supplier after hours. Each delay encourages another buffer, leaving more cash idle in case tomorrow’s payment cannot wait.

Infrastructure has therefore become part of the cash strategy itself. A payment rail may operate around the clock while the company’s bank connections, ledger and controls still follow the working day. Unless those processes move together, real-time settlement simply meets the next manual handoff.

A more useful cash position would continue earning until it is needed, move without a chain of transfers and appear correctly in the ledger once it arrives. Achieving that will require investment, payment and accounting processes to operate as one continuous sequence.

Jiko’s findings suggest demand for that flexibility is already firmly established. US companies increasingly operate around the clock. Too much of the cash infrastructure supporting them still keeps banking hours.