Why global payments access is only the starting point

Written by:

Manuel E. Collazo  | CAO & Treasurer | Avalo

Joe Higginson | Director GTM – Financial Institutions – Americas | Convera

A cross-border payment can move in seconds. Delivering it reliably still depends on decisions about FX, funding, compliance, documentation, approvals, settlement and client communication.

As clients expect faster and more transparent cross-border service, the disconnect between payment rails and the institution’s operating model becomes a competitiveness and relationship issue. For financial institutions, the commercial opportunity is to serve more of each client’s international business while preserving the relationship and earning a sustainable return after funding and servicing costs.

Convera’s Payments 2026+: Liquidity in Motion report argues that a nuanced corridor strategy will increasingly distinguish leaders in cross-border payments.¹ This article examines what that means for Latin American financial institutions. The opportunity is not simply to connect to more markets, but to make those connections work harder for the clients they serve.

Faster rails have not closed the gap

Payment infrastructure has advanced faster than many institutions’ operating models have adapted. A December 2025 BIS Bulletin found that improvements for cross-border payment users had so far been modest. The point is not that infrastructure investment has failed. Infrastructure cannot make a decision an institution has not made.

Consider a supplier payment. The relationship manager obtains a quote, treasury checks funding and compliance completes its review before operations releases the instruction. Each team can do its job correctly and still miss the settlement window when they are working from different information.

While the payment waits, a quote may expire or funds may sit idle in an account that cannot fund the transaction. Staff then spend time tracing an instruction without knowing whether the beneficiary can use the money.

Institutions also need to be precise about delivery. Confirmation that an instruction was sent is different from confirmation of beneficiary credit; a measure that blurs the two can give management unwarranted confidence.

Access is a connection. Capability is an operating model.

Before committing to a client, the team needs agreement on when a rate becomes binding, when funding must be available and who is responsible for an exception. Treasury needs visibility through settlement and reconciliation. Clients should not discover the institution’s internal handoffs by chasing an answer.

The same transaction data should travel from quote and approval through compliance, execution, settlement and reconciliation rather than being re-entered or reinterpreted at every handoff. Controls should be part of the same workflow and information set.

The same test applies to resilience. A second provider offers little protection if the route is not approved, funds cannot be made available or staff have never tested the process. Counting connections reveals little about readiness.

Partner for reach while retaining control

Mid-sized institutions do not need to recreate the infrastructure of a global bank. The more useful question is what they should retain and what they can obtain through partners.

Specialized providers can supply payment and FX capabilities, connectivity, corridor coverage, technology and market intelligence. The institution retains the client relationship, commercial judgment, pricing strategy and compliance accountability. Institutional infrastructure makes that division workable, connecting client instructions with treasury decisions, approvals, supporting information, compliance controls and transaction status, so oversight of the service stays with the institution.

U.S. interagency guidance makes clear that using third parties does not diminish a banking organization’s responsibility for safe and sound operations or compliance with applicable laws.⁴ Requirements vary by jurisdiction, but contracts should assign obligations clearly and operating procedures should define how the institution and provider resolve delayed or rejected transactions. Both teams need the information required to do their part.

Profitability is one test, alongside client experience, delivery reliability, exception rates and liquidity use. An attractive FX spread can disappear into idle prefunding, manual repairs and support costs. Management should distinguish a deliberate decision to accept a lower return for a valuable relationship from margin lost through poor execution.

One region with many operating realities

Payments 2026+ identifies Latin America as a region where leapfrogging is common. Domestic rails show that leapfrogging is real, but the cross-border experience built on them remains uneven.

Mexico’s SPEI and Brazil’s Pix show how quickly domestic payments can move.⁵·⁶ Reaching those systems through a cross-border payment still depends on funding and receiving arrangements, FX execution and compliance checks. A country on a provider’s coverage list does not establish that a particular client or payment purpose is supported. The institution needs that confirmation before setting a delivery expectation.

The direction of the flow changes the problem. An importer collecting Mexican pesos and paying a supplier in US dollars needs conversion and delivery coordinated around a commercial deadline. An exporter receiving dollars to meet expenses in Brazilian reais needs to know when those receipts become usable local funds. The specifics differ across the region, and even payments that remain in dollars depend on banking access and funds availability.

Corridor strategy cannot be reduced to a coverage map. Financial institutions understand their clients’ recurring flows, commercial priorities and service expectations. Global providers bring payment reach, FX capability and market expertise. A stronger cross-border proposition emerges when those perspectives come together.

Volatility exposes weak handoffs

Faster payments do not remove the financial consequences of moving money across currencies. As Convera has explored through The Volatility Gap, faster and easier international payments do not solve the effects of currency volatility on margins, cash flow and forecasting. Inside the institution, volatility makes unresolved operating decisions expensive.

If a client has accepted a binding rate and the institution has not completed the corresponding execution, an adverse currency move may create a loss, depending on the contractual terms. If execution is complete but settlement funding is missing, treasury faces a liquidity and delivery problem. Calling both transactions “pending” hides the distinction that determines what should happen next.

If the usual provider becomes unavailable while the market is moving, an alternative may require prefunding or carry a higher execution cost. Institutions should test that situation before volumes grow: can the alternative handle the payment, who can authorize funding and when must the client be informed? Some transactions will need to be paused or declined, and staff should know those limits before making decisions under pressure.

Start with one corridor and prove the model

A practical place to begin is one commercially important corridor. Bring treasury, operations, compliance and the relationship team together around recent transactions. Examine where money waited, where staff intervened and what the client was told.

Use that review to agree on changes with providers and measure delivery against the agreed timeframe, unresolved exceptions and manual repairs. Compare prefunded balances with actual use, and revenue with funding and servicing costs. The results will show whether the service and the underlying business are improving.

The institutions that close this gap will be able to state, for a given client and corridor, what they have committed to and who is accountable when something goes wrong

From global reach to client value

Global payment infrastructure is becoming faster and more accessible, but connectivity alone is unlikely to produce lasting differentiation. The competitive opportunity lies in identifying where cross-border capability matters most to clients and combining external reach with the institution’s knowledge, judgment, controls and relationships.

Convera and Avalo address complementary parts of this challenge. Convera brings global payments and FX capabilities, together with market expertise. Avalo, through its Ionfi by Avalo platform, brings the institutional infrastructure, workflows, visibility, controls and regional context that help financial institutions put those capabilities to work for their customers. Together, they offer a more complete and practical view of how mid-sized Latin American institutions can expand internationally without building and maintaining every component themselves.

Going global without building globally becomes a credible and durable growth strategy when the institution and its partners understand the operating model behind it.

About the partnership

Convera and Avalo are collaborating to help financial institutions across Latin America expand their cross-border capabilities while retaining the client relationship, governance and control.

Convera is a global leader in commercial payments that powers international business by moving money with ease. It provides tech-led payment solutions that help tens of thousands of financial institutions and businesses capture more value with every transaction.

Avalo provides payments and treasury infrastructure for regulated financial institutions and fintechs. Through Ionfi by Avalo, institutions access U.S. banking relationships, payment services, treasury and FX capabilities, connected to the workflows, information, controls and transaction visibility they need while retaining governance.

Avalo serves 60+ financial institutions across 20+ countries and has processed more than $12 billion in cumulative payments. Learn more at avaloglobal.com.