# The banking relationship is the most under-managed financial asset. Source: https://firmaadvisory.com/insights/banking-relationships-2026 Last updated: 2026-10-01 TYPE html> Managing Corporate Banking Relationships | FIRMA Advisory [Skip to main content](#main) By [Federico Lleonart](https://firmaadvisory.com/federico-lleonart) · Published April 10, 2026 · Updated October 1, 2026 · 6 min read Why is the banking relationship so under-managed? Because banks price, structure and renegotiate for a living, while most corporates review their banking once every few years. The result is recurring cost in FX spreads, fees and credit terms that nobody owns. Visibility, benchmarks and a yearly negotiation cadence close the gap. Banks are professional negotiators. Corporates, by and large, are not. A bank prices, structures and renegotiates as its core business. A corporate does so once every several years, often reactively. That asymmetry is one of the most consistently overlooked sources of cost in corporate finance. It is not a problem of poor relationships. The relationships are usually excellent. It is a problem of structural under-management of a major recurring expense. ## Why is banking cost recurring rather than one-time? Banking cost is rarely a single number on a P&L. It is spread across FX spreads, payment fees, account maintenance, commitment fees, ancillary services and cash held in non-yielding accounts. The total, across a mid-sized international corporate, frequently exceeds what the finance team assumes when asked. The cost compounds for a simple reason. Pricing set in one environment tends to stay in place after the business, the rate environment or the banking landscape changes. Pricing transparency is not a default property of banking relationships. It has to be created. ### Worked example: what the total can look like The table below uses illustrative numbers for a hypothetical company with USD 300 million of revenue. Every figure is invented to show the arithmetic. None of it is client data or a market benchmark. | Cost line | Illustrative basis | Illustrative annual cost | | --- | --- | --- | | FX spreads | USD 120 million converted at an all-in margin of 0.30% | USD 360,000 | | Payment and transaction fees | 150,000 payments at an average of USD 1.50 | USD 225,000 | | Account maintenance | 60 accounts at USD 150 per month | USD 108,000 | | Commitment fees | 0.35% on a USD 50 million undrawn facility | USD 175,000 | | Idle cash | USD 20 million earning 0% instead of an illustrative 3% | USD 600,000 | | Total | Five cost lines, each owned by a different part of finance | USD 1,468,000 | None of these lines looks large on its own. Together they form a material, recurring expense that no single person in finance owns. In most finance teams, FX sits with treasury, payment fees with accounts payable, account charges with the controller and commitment fees with the CFO. Nobody sees the total, so nobody is accountable for it. ## Where does the asymmetry show up? ### FX spreads FX spreads are the single largest source of avoidable cost in most banking relationships. Spreads agreed when the relationship was established, or when volumes were lower, are rarely revisited. The market has moved. The pricing has not. ### Credit facility pricing Commitment fees, margin grids and covenant packages often reflect the business's risk profile at an earlier point in time. As businesses mature, this pricing should evolve, and frequently it does not. ### Cash management services Account fees, transaction fees and value-dating conventions accumulate quietly. Reviewed item by item, each looks small. Reviewed in aggregate, they often represent the second-largest source of avoidable cost. ### Concentration Single-bank dependency is the most expensive form of relationship management. It is not a function of strategy. It is a function of inertia. ## What the bank sees Seen from inside a bank, a corporate relationship is a set of revenue lines measured against the capital and risk it consumes. FX margins, payment fees, deposits and credit are tracked together, and pricing decisions are made with that full picture. The relationship manager knows which fees were discounted at onboarding and which were not. They know the client's FX volumes by product and how its pricing compares with similar clients. The client rarely knows any of this. A pricing review from a client is not unusual for a bank. What changes the response is evidence. A request backed by a cost baseline, benchmarks and a clear view of the wallet goes to internal pricing committees. A general request for better terms gets a standard answer. Banks also notice cadence. A client that reviews pricing every year, with data, is treated as a client that will move business if the terms are wrong. None of this is hidden in bad faith. It is simply how banks manage their business, and clients can manage theirs the same way. ## How can a corporate rebalance the relationship? The asymmetry can be addressed. It requires three things. 1. **Visibility.** A consolidated view of the cost paid across all banking counterparts, by service. Most corporates cannot produce this in less than several days of work, and that is the first signal. 2. **Benchmarks.** Independent reference points for pricing across FX, fees and credit. Without them, negotiation reduces to asking whether the price is competitive, a question the bank will answer in its own favor. 3. **A structured negotiation cadence.** Banking pricing is a relationship-cycle conversation, not a one-time procurement event. Corporates that negotiate every year, with structure, build negotiating strength that compounds. > The banking relationship is one of the few major financial expenses where the seller knows more about the price than the buyer. That is true by structure, not by accident. The order matters. Visibility comes first, because benchmarks need a baseline to compare against. Benchmarks come next, because a negotiation without them is a request for goodwill. Cadence comes last. It keeps the gains from eroding once attention moves elsewhere. ## What should a CFO ask the bank this year? A short list of questions turns the annual review into a structured conversation. Use it as a checklist before the next relationship meeting. - What did we pay you last year, in total, across fees, FX margins and credit? - Which fees on our schedule are at list price, and which carry a discount? - What margin over mid-market did we pay on our FX trades and payment conversions? - What rate do our surplus balances earn, and what would change it? - Which of our accounts could be closed or merged without losing a service? - What would you need from us to improve pricing at the next review? ## What can corporates learn from private equity? This is one of the areas where private equity portfolio companies have moved well ahead of standalone corporates. PE operating teams treat banking as a [value creation lever](https://firmaadvisory.com/private-equity-treasury-advisory) from day one of ownership. They expect a banking review, a benchmarking exercise and a renegotiation as part of the discipline introduced after acquisition. The savings are reliable enough to be modeled into the value creation plan. The method is not complicated. It needs a cost baseline from statements, a benchmark for each service line and a written request to each bank. New prices are then verified on later statements. There is no structural reason a standalone corporate cannot adopt the same discipline. The barrier is usually internal capacity, not opportunity. ## Why is the asymmetry also an opportunity? Banking relationships are too important to leave unmanaged, and too technical to manage casually. Corporates with a structured, independent banking strategy turn one of finance's largest silent costs into a durable source of margin. Those without one keep paying for the privilege of not having looked. A [bank fee analysis](https://firmaadvisory.com/banking-cost-reduction) is often the fastest way to build the baseline. For an independent review of your bank panel, see our [corporate banking advisory](https://firmaadvisory.com/banking-financial-strategy). It covers relationship wallet, bank panel rationalization and bank RFPs. [](https://firmaadvisory.com/federico-lleonart) [Federico Lleonart](https://firmaadvisory.com/federico-lleonart) Federico Lleonart is the founder of FIRMA Advisory and its Head of Treasury Advisory. Formerly in cash management at J.P. Morgan and Barclays, he advises CFOs and private equity firms on treasury, banking and FX. [Read his full profile.](https://firmaadvisory.com/federico-lleonart) * * * This insight reflects general analysis and observations from FIRMA Advisory's work in treasury, banking, and cross-border financial advisory. It does not constitute investment advice, financial advice, or a recommendation in respect of any specific security, transaction, or financial decision. For analysis specific to your organization, contact us at [contact@firmaadvisory.com](mailto:contact@firmaadvisory.com). ## Continue reading ### [Cash Management in 2026](https://firmaadvisory.com/insights/cash-management-2026) From visibility to deployment. ### [EU and US rates in 2026](https://firmaadvisory.com/insights/rates-eu-us-2026) Implications for corporate treasury. ### [Banking relationships](https://firmaadvisory.com/insights/banking-relationships-2026) The most under-managed financial asset. ## Discuss your financial priorities with us. A brief, confidential conversation is the most efficient way to determine where FIRMA Advisory can support your organization. [Book a 30 minute call](https://firmaadvisory.com/contact) [contact@firmaadvisory.com](mailto:contact@firmaadvisory.com)