connectivity

Leveraging Scale And Reach To Create Global Connectivity

Global Finance (GF): What are the highlights of your professional journey, and what was appealing about your move to Scotiabank?

Francisco Aristeguieta (FA): Before joining Scotiabank in April 2023 to lead the group’s International and Global Transaction Banking (IGTB) businesses, I was CEO for custody services at State Street. Prior to that, I spent 25 years at Citibank, where I held several senior leadership roles including CEO for Asia, overseeing retail bank operations in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and the UK. Earlier at Citi, I was CEO for Latin America, and previously led transaction banking at Citi in the region.

After about 30 years as a global banker, joining Scotiabank was a natural progression in my career. The bank’s focus around innovation, client-centricity, and global connectivity, mandated by the newly appointed CEO, aligned with my professional values and aspirations. It’s exciting for a bank of this scale to take this approach, and it plays to my strengths and experience in managing change, building strong teams, and improving performance.

GF: What role does Global Transaction Banking play in Scotiabank’s global strategy?

FA: Global Transaction Banking (GTB) plays a transformational role in Scotiabank’s global strategy. It enables us to deliver the full force of our footprint across corporate, commercial, and SME clients—supporting their needs in managing payrolls, collecting payments, paying suppliers, transacting in multiple currencies, and creating capital efficiency in their supply chains.

As a growth engine and anchor for client primacy, we are embedding Scotiabank into the operational and financial lifeblood of our clients by providing a full suite of transaction solutions like cash management, trade finance, liquidity, and digital integration.

Companies seek straightforward onboarding, a seamless digital interface that feels as intuitive as consumer platforms, and attentive, personalized service at every stage. In response, we’ve enhanced the end-to-end journey:

  • Clients now benefit from the Treasury Management Sales Officer (TMO) model that offers a single global point of contact to guide them through their banking needs wherever they operate.
  • We have organized our product implementations and servicing team across our footprint to ensure that clients experience the same high standard of service, regardless of their location.
  • And ongoing technology upgrades enable an always-on digital experience for managing payroll, payments, and multi-currency transactions.

By bringing these elements together, GTB delivers Scotiabank’s extensive footprint and capabilities in a way that puts client needs at the center—making us a differentiated leader in Canada and an increasingly competitive partner internationally.

GF: With products and services spanning the Americas, Europe, and APAC, how do you take advantage of this unique footprint?

Francisco Aristeguieta, Scotiabank
Francisco Aristeguieta, Group Head, International & Global Transaction Banking | Scotiabank

FA: We are leveraging the acquisitions we have historically made around the world by creating a connected network to become truly client centric, rather than product led. This involves using our footprint to create solutions and value propositions that are relevant to our clients, positioning us to become their primary banking partner.

Clients today expect a consistent digital experience wherever they operate. This includes having a single set of login credentials, the ability to view and take action on their cash positions across all markets, and straightforward access to products and services.

Driven by this evolution of client demands, we’re investing heavily in our digital platforms to ensure that, whether a client is in Canada, Mexico, the US, or further afield, they have a unified and intuitive experience. We do this by building a treasury platform that enables seamless connectivity, allowing clients to manage transactions and liquidity across borders with ease. Our platforms also provide data-driven insights, empowering clients to make informed decisions and optimise their cash flow. By integrating these capabilities, we’re not just connecting geographies—we’re connecting clients to the information and functionality they need to thrive globally.

GF: As businesses pursue cross-border opportunities across Canada, the US, and Mexico, how is Scotiabank supporting them in the current global trade environment?

FA: As the old playbook for global trade is being rewritten, our deep, hands-on knowledge of the markets in which we operate has never been more essential. This expertise—honed across Mexico, the US, and Canada—positions us uniquely to guide clients through today’s uncertainty. With around 10,000 employees in Mexico, where we are the fifth largest bank, and strong presence in the US and Canada, our understanding is comprehensive and current.

Our awareness of shifting trade dynamics, such as the growing significance of regional corridors and the rise of new partnerships, allows us to anticipate market needs and offer strategic advice. For example, the US–Canada–Mexico corridor alone accounts for more than US$1 trillion in annual cross-border trade, underscoring the increasing importance of interconnected regional markets.

As treasury teams face leaner structures and greater complexity—juggling technology, innovation, and risk management—our role as a bank is to act as a trusted advisor. We help clients navigate new markets, manage documentation, and simplify integration, deploying our balance sheet to support working capital and Capex financing, and optimizing treasury management for lasting resilience.

In a rapidly evolving environment, our market knowledge is the foundation for enabling clients to adapt, thrive, and seize opportunity amidst uncertainty.

GF: What is your perspective on Scotiabank’s GTB role as a connector of global capital and trade between Europe, APAC, and the Americas?

FA: Europe–particularly Spain–is a key investor in Latin America and the US. We also have a lot of clients from the UK, France, and Italy. In addition to our traditional role of financing these investments, we provide offshore CAD cash management and trade finance.

We also have presence in Asia. A lot of sovereign wealth funds and Asian companies are investing in Canada, Latin America, Mexico, and the US, so we can connect these flows.

Another example is our recent partnership with Davivienda, one of the largest banks in Colombia, which will enable us to participate in a business with greater scale and to provide clients with cash management services across its footprint.

Scotiabank’s commitment to the North America corridor, combined with our retail, commercial, and corporate banking strategy deployed at scale across our markets, positions us as a leading partner for globally connected businesses seeking a seamless treasury experience.

GF: How do you envisage the next stage of Scotiabank’s GTB transformation?

FA: Moving forward, our priority will be to keep the client experience front and center as we invest in our team and build an integrated vision to drive the next stage of GTB’s transformation.  In everything we do, we’re looking to make transaction banking simpler, faster, and more transparent.

Technology will be an important part of this plan as it continues to disrupt traditional cash management services. For example, a major focus of our strategy is the rollout of ScotiaConnect, our advanced digital banking portal now live in Colombia, Mexico, and in the US, with expansion planned across markets. ScotiaConnect delivers secure, single sign-on access for treasurers and CFOs, enabling real-time balance and transaction reporting.

Another key upcoming initiative is the enhancement of our cash management capabilities in the US, which allows us to transition from transactional deposit relationships to deeper, day-to-day cash management partnerships, ultimately increasing client primacy. With this launch, we are excited to service US-based needs of our clients. To address this significant opportunity, we have developed a robust roadmap of new capabilities and are committed to continued investment into 2026. We will be closely tracking adoption to ensure we are effectively meeting our client’s evolving needs and maximizing our impact on this market. 

Scotiabank logo

Source link

Promoting Cross-Border Connectivity In An Era Of Payments Fragmentation

A host of enhancements to cross-border payments are promising to enrich the global payments landscape. But implementing change within this complex industry isn’t straightforward.

In today’s instant, interconnected world, a crucial juncture has been reached in cross-border payments. Businesses and consumers – increasingly frustrated with inadequate, inefficient legacy international payment processes – are demanding fast, transparent and low-cost services from their providers. And the need for the industry to deliver is becoming ever-more pressing.

Initiatives are progressing at pace to help facilitate the move to seamless, 24/7 real-time global payments. The aim is to effectively replicate the same client experience that has become easily accessible in the domestic payments space. But change of this scale comes with challenges, and a by-product of the race to deliver real-time cross-border payments is a landscape inundated with different concepts and services, with fragmentation exacerbated by individual countries’ unique sets of payments rules and regulations.

Internationally, initiatives such as the G20 Roadmap for Enhancing Cross-Border Payments, which sets out quantitative targets to help make cross-border payments cheaper, faster, more transparent and accessible by 2027, have catalysed industry-wide efforts to promote greater standardization, legal and regulatory harmonization and payment system interoperability1. Certainly, as the industry edges closer to enhanced cross-border payments, there must be a focus not only on enablement, but standardization to tackle the fragmentation head-on, while also ensuring security and client satisfaction are maximized.

The challenging world of cross-border payments

Moving funds internationally is a complex undertaking, involving multiple parties, navigating time zones and adhering to regulatory requirements of each jurisdiction. This makes the process slow and convoluted, with high costs for both sender and receiver, and a lack of transparency regarding payment status and the associated fees. Given this, it is unsurprising that global payments have become a pain point for clients – and indeed their banking partners. Financial institutions (FIs) are only too aware of the impact of legacy processes on client service, and the very real need to implement enhanced processes to get global payments up to speed – literally – with the demands of the 21st century.

As banks resolve to deliver cutting-edge cross-border payments, they face legacy platform challenges, a lack of real-time infrastructure, and innovation hobbled by regulatory constraints. Against this backdrop, banks must also contend with an increasingly competitive landscape. Inventive, nimble non-bank players with a global presence have thrown their hats into the cross-border payments ring to deliver non-traditional approaches to solve the high cost and obscurity problem. By creating alternative payment networks, fintechs are providing a user experience that many banks are currently unable to match when it comes to speed, transparency and cost.

As FIs seek to overcome these obstacles and provide clients with flexible, instant cross-border payments, aligning with the pillars of the G20 Roadmap is essential for supporting a uniform global payments ecosystem and enabling banks to progress effectively towards the cross-border end goal. Designed to promote faster acceleration of global instant payments, it is invaluable to helping the banking industry most effectively chart a path to a coherent, consistent future.

Fusing the old and the new: combining legacy low-value rails with instant clearing

A key approach the industry is adopting will enhance existing infrastructure, with an emphasis on improving speed and visibility. Banks are readily implementing new industry initiatives – such as those provided by Swift – and other new technologies and processes to meet the needs of their global clients.

For example, by standardizing correspondent banking payment reporting under uniform rules, Swift gpi provides real-time, end-to-end tracking and transparency for cross-border payments. This has subsequently contributed to reduced overall end-to-end processing times, and therefore a better service for clients. Building on the success of Swift gpi, Swift Go standardizes correspondent banking relationships under uniform service level agreements. This enables similar capabilities for the low-value payment space – facilitating more efficient delivery channels such as ACH and instant payments, rather than funds transfers only.  

Complementing these developments, financial institutions are embracing interoperability, alternative payment rails, and smart foreign exchange (FX) services to reduce costs and enhance service delivery. BNY’s Swift to ACH initiative allows financial institutions to initiate cross-border payments via ISO 20022 pacs.008 messages and deliver them through the domestic US ACH rail – a lower-cost alternative to traditional USD wire transfers. Beneficiaries receive the full amount by the next day, while originators benefit from reduced transaction costs and the ability to provide a predictable client experience. This service is part of a suite of Low Value Payment resources that include offering FX conversions into a wide range of local currencies for delivery over low-cost payment rails – helping institutions lower costs and stay competitive with fintech offerings. BNY’s extensive correspondent banking network, along with strategic collaborations with fintechs and other service providers, empower us to broaden our offering to deliver a wider range of service beyond conventional financial services.

The combination of industry and proprietary initiatives are helping banks to expand their global payments value propositions and deliver the quality of service that clients are seeking – without the need for prohibitively expensive investment in new infrastructure. Banks are becoming truly competitive in today’s cross-border payments space.

Standing on solid ground: foundations for consistency

The next step is to enable interoperability and connectivity between different payments systems and platforms by aligning compliance and regulatory requirements across jurisdictions. This requires governments, network operators, banks, and industry bodies to move in the same direction, adopt common standards, and create uniform processes for exception management. Encouragingly, progress is already underway across several regions.

This is being addressed in Europe through the EPC’s One-Leg Out Instant Credit Transfer (OCT Inst) scheme, which enables payment service providers (PSPs) to leverage existing Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) payment rails – including procedures, features, and standards – to facilitate cross-border payments that have one euro leg inside and one leg outside SEPA. For example, in November 2024 EBA CLEARING went live with an OCT Inst Service for RT1, its pan-European, real-time payment processing system for instant credit transfers2.

A similar approach is being adopted in other markets to enable cross-border interoperability using existing domestic rails. One notable example is BNY’s partnership with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA). Through our correspondent banking relationship, BNY clients can now send real-time payments to Australia 24/7, 365 days a year. This has been made possible by a new feature within the New Payments Platform (NPP), Australia’s real-time payments system. The International Payments Service (IPS) allows the Australian dollar component of inbound cross-border payments to be processed instantly. Previously, international transactions could only be settled via traditional funds transfers. Now, CBA can settle and clear payments on BNY’s behalf 24/7, with beneficiaries able to access funds in as little as 60 seconds – regardless of the sender’s location. With a network of over 2,000 correspondent banks across the globe, BNY is replicating this process with partner banks in other countries as other jurisdictions adopt an international framework within their instant payment schemes.

Elsewhere, the US-Mexico-Canada agreement (USMCA) has been established to enhance cross-border payments between the three countries. As part of the strategy, input from fintechs is being encouraged to share skillsets and develop optimized processes.

Certainly, fintechs and emerging technologies have a role to play in shaping global payments. Blockchain-based services for continuous settlement on a single ledger are emerging as alternatives to correspondent banking. Several markets are increasingly selecting digital wallets as a preferred service option.

Combined, these infrastructure developments may allow global payments to occur at any time, without being limited by business hours, time zones, or working days. This could result in greater cash flow visibility, more efficient supplier management, and improved liquidity control for businesses. Overall, real-time payments have increased flexibility in managing liquidity.

Piecing together the payments puzzle

While the industry unites to create a more standardized environment there will, however, inevitably continue to be different schemes in different markets, all with their own unique models, rules and Service Level Agreements. Banks should consider their target markets and integration with relevant initiatives to effectively meet clients’ international payment needs.

Banks then must provide a one-stop shop for global payments that allows clients to move money fast, anywhere, and anytime with ease. Indeed, with complexity and fragmentation rife, it is the ability to offer a simple, effective experience that will provide the greatest value.

At the same time, the industry must work towards integrating common values and infrastructure within initiatives such as ‘one-leg-out’ settlement, digital wallets and correspondent banking models, to enable the global payments ecosystem as a whole to function seamlessly. In this respect, the G20 Roadmap should be regarded almost as a North Star, guiding the industry towards alignment by following its principles. Doing so will help to instil a common infrastructure framework, centered on standardized rules and principles around 24/7 availability, transparency, finality, fraud prevention, and a common messaging standard.

While fragmentation continues to exist within cross-border infrastructure, building solid foundations and promoting collaboration will champion future solidarity, manage markets holistically for a truly global solution, and map the path for future connectivity.

Source link

India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor: Promise, Peril, and the Politics of Connectivity

During a recent meeting of Egypt’s Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty with Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi, on Friday, October 17, Egypt’s Foreign Minister Abdelatty reiterated that “the resolution of the Palestinian question” remains central to the progress of the IMEC connectivity project and strengthening the strategic ties between India and Egypt. His comments captured the essence of the challenge that confronts the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), that grand infrastructure schemes in this region cannot be separated from enduring political conflicts. Abdelatty’s emphasis indicated that IMEC, which was launched with so much enthusiasm at the 2023 G20 Summit hosted by New Delhi, will only move from rhetoric to reality if its architects reconcile geography with geopolitics.

The Strategic Vision: What IMEC proposes

IMEC was announced as a transformative connectivity framework which aims to link India, the Arabian Peninsula, and Europe through maritime, rail, energy, and digital networks. The project promised to reconfigure the trade routes and foster sustainable growth by involving India, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, Israel, and the EU with the support of the United States and major European economies. It also emerged as a counterpart initiative against China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). However, the “IMEC vs BRI” debate is as much about the narrative competition as about logistics. Yet translating that narrative into a functioning framework is a complex process.

IMEC’s blueprint comprises two interconnected legs. An eastern maritime route between India and Gulf ports and a northern corridor of railways across Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel leading into Europe. Furthermore, it envisions plans for electricity grids, a hydrogen pipeline, and digital fibre networks. The idea is to reduce shipping time between India and Europe by nearly 40% and diversify global supply chains away from vulnerable checkpoints such as the Suez Canal and the Red Sea.

 

Barriers to the Vision

The road to the execution of this vision remains riddled with obstacles. IMEC’s future depends on bridging political divides and closing financial gaps. The physical links across the Arabian Peninsula are still incomplete, and key rail segments between Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel exist largely on paper. Different technical standards and varied customs regimes with no unified authority to synchronise investment or implementation make the project susceptible. Moreover, the funding model lacks transparency. Neither a dedicated corpus nor a multilateral mechanism has been finalised, which leaves the corridor vulnerable to delays and competing priorities.

Furthermore, there is uncertainty due to diplomatic and security dynamics. The Israel-Gaza war has frozen Saudi-Israeli normalisation efforts that initially spirited the IMEC. Egypt’s renewed engagement suggests that Cairo intends to shape any connectivity framework that intersects its sphere of influence. Given the role of Egypt in the control of the Suez Canal and its political weight in the Arab World, Cairo’s participation is crucial. Abdelatty’s linkage of IMEC’s viability to progress on the Palestinian question implies that diplomatic legitimacy will precede logistical cooperation. Unless the participants address the regional trust deficit, the corridor politics may remain trapped between ambition and ambiguity.

Divergent Priorities of Participants

Each participant in IMEC has divergent goals. For India, the project aligns with its “Act West” policy and its long-time desire to consolidate middle-power status through connectivity leadership. For the Gulf monarchies, IMEC represents a channel to diversify beyond hydrocarbons and attract investments in technology and management. Europe views it as a hedge against over-dependence on Chinese infrastructure. To reconcile these varied interests, it is required to focus on continuous negotiations and proper planning. Tensions among Gulf states and between regional powers such as Iran and Turkey could further complicate the situation. The overlapping interests may blur the line between cooperation and competition, which will undermine cohesion before the corridor gains momentum.

From India’s viewpoint, IMEC holds immense significance if managed strategically. It will not only strengthen the supply-chain resilience but will also enhance energy security and expand India’s diplomatic footprint in the Middle East. The corridor perfectly aligns with global efforts to provide transparent alternatives to Chinese financing, for instance, the U.S.-led Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment. However, this association might expose IMEC to great power rivalry, turning a development initiative into another strategic sport. This might dilute the economic rationale of the corridor.

Egypt and the Latest Turning Point

A new dimension has been added as Egypt re-emerges as a key stakeholder in the project. Cairo’s interests not only stem from geography but also from economic logic. The Suez Canal is the lifeline of the Egyptian economy, so any alternative corridor must complement rather than compete with it. Abdelatty’s emphasis on integrating political stability with economic planning reflects a broader regional lesson that peace and prosperity must progress together. Incorporating Egypt as a central player through port linkages or co-investment in logistics could enhance IMEC’s legitimacy and reliability. Contrary to this, if Egypt gets excluded, it may trigger diplomatic resistance or perceptions of marginalisation.

The most important question in the current context is whether IMEC can survive the cyclical turbulence of the world’s most unstable region. The region where energy markets are unstable and unresolved conflicts fuel the mistrust among participating states. Moreover, the delays in implementation might erode momentum. To demonstrate progress and sustain the confidence of investors, IMEC needs measurable milestones such as pilot projects, customs harmonisation or digital integration.  Even partial success, such as improved India-Gulf maritime connectivity or cooperation in renewable energy, could build credibility.

The Way Forward for IMEC

IMEC challenges the prevailing assumptions about how connectivity projects emerge in contested regions on a conceptual note. It suggests that strategic corridors can no longer depend solely on geopolitical alliances. They require inclusive governance, transparent financing, and conflict-sensitive design. Egypt’s diplomatic stance on the palestinian question and IMEC implies that development without justice is unsustainable. For India, the opportunity lies in using its credibility with multiple actors, such as Arab states, Israel, Europe and the U.S. to keep the corridor protected from zero-sum politics. This would present New Delhi not just as a participant but also as a facilitator.

In conclusion, IMEC is both a promise and a puzzle. It incorporates the aspiration for cooperative connectivity but remains hostage to the very divisions it aims to bridge. Abdelatty’s statement in New Delhi, which echoed across regional capitals, was less a warning than a reminder that infrastructure cannot transcend politics and it must be engaged with constructively. The corridor might evolve from a strategic deal into a genuine intercontinental partnership if India and its allies can translate this vision into sustained diplomacy and practical implementation. However, if it fails, IMEC will join the long list of visionary projects that turned out unsuccessful in the Middle East.

Source link