Media Appearances

Industry groups caution against fragmented rollout of the EU’s CRD6

Via Global Trade Review by Jenny Messenger

Baft (Bankers Association for Finance and Trade) and other industry bodies have urged EU member states to be consistent in implementing the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD) 6 to avoid disrupting cross-border financial services.

CRD6 is the latest iteration of the directive that requires banks and investment companies to put aside capital as insulation against financial shocks, and will ensure EU firms are aligned with outstanding aspects of Basel 3.

Previously, banks headquartered in non-EU countries could provide services like loans and guarantees in the EU without a physical presence by relying on cross-border waivers.

But changes under the regulation will bring in the branch requirement, meaning that third-country banks and large investment firms must operate through locally licensed branches, unless an exemption applies.

The European Commission published CRD6 in June 2024, and the directive must be transposed into the national law of each EU member state by 10 January 2026. The branch requirement will enter into force from 11 January 2027.

Yet some countries’ proposed legislation differs from the CRD6 text in “several significant areas relating to the branch requirement” and the activities that are exempt from it, the industry groups say.

Alongside Baft, the position paper is supported by UK Finance, the Bank Policy Institute, the Swiss Finance Council, the Loan Market Association, the Association of Foreign Banks and the Japanese Bankers Association.

“A national transposition of the branch requirement that omits or unduly narrows these exemptions and carve-outs is not aligned with the intended scope” and would “introduce uncertainty and unnecessary risk to the stability of the local banking market”, the paper says.

The exemption covers core banking activities that involve inter-bank business, intragroup business or reverse-solicited business – where a client contacts a firm first.

It also applies to core banking services, including ancillary services like taking deposits or granting loans, related to the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (Mifid).

“We would advocate that all member states ensure that they faithfully transpose the branch requirement in this regard, ensuring that core banking services connected with Mifid services are exempt,” the paper says.

The branch requirement also does not apply to existing contracts entered into before 11 July 2026.

Custody services, which enable corporates and institutional investors to hold international assets and settle cross-border transactions, could be particularly at risk if member states’ legislation is imprecise.

“Lending by custodians is an intrinsic part of transaction settlement and, therefore, integral to the smooth functioning of capital markets,” the paper notes.

Other consequences of a fragmented system could be interruptions in banking services for EU clients, higher costs for service recipients and fragmentation of liquidity pools.

There is also the risk that European recipients of third-country core banking services could move out of jurisdictions with reduced flexibility, the paper adds.

In response, the industry groups have recommended that ambiguities over the exemptions be clarified.

For example, they argue the follow-on right in reverse solicitation – which covers products or services that are closely related to those initially requested by the client – should be explicitly referenced.

The associations’ position paper includes sample text to make sure member states harmonise the regulation of cross-border banking services and avoid “gold-plating” the legislation.

Uncertainty over CRD6 is the latest challenge arising in the EU’s implementation of the Basel framework.

Banks last year were spared what they said was a potentially significant blow to trade finance when the EU decided not to implement parts of the framework that would have more than doubled capital treatment for off-balance sheet trade finance instruments.

PODCAST | Tariffs, inside and out

To explain the impact tariffs have on global trade and the strain they cause on banks, Trade Finance Global (TFG) spoke with Craig Weeks, Senior Vice President of BAFT.

Via Trade Finance Global by Craig Weeks

Since US President Donald Trump came to office in January 2025, not a day goes by without some mention of ‘tariffs’ in the news. International markets have reacted to landmark shifts initiated by US President Donald Trump’s new tariff policies. Tariffs have evolved from a more specialised economic tool to one gaining political and ideological ramifications, generating renewed and expanded interest in them.

At the 51st Annual International Trade and Forfaiting Association’s (ITFA) Conference in Singapore, Mahika Ravi Shankar, Deputy Editor at Trade Finance Global (TFG), sat down with Craig Weeks, Senior Vice President for Trade at BAFT (Bankers Association for Finance and Trade), to discuss the impact of tariffs from a banking and trade finance perspective. 

What are tariffs?

Tariffs have historically had two essential uses: raising revenue for the government or protecting domestic industries by making foreign goods more expensive. Tariffs can be imposed on imports or exports. 

There are three main types of tariffs: 

  • Ad Valorem tariffs are added as a fixed percentage of the total value of the imported product. 
  • Specific tariffs are a fixed monetary charge added to each unit, such as a kilogram, a ton, or a pair, which operates regardless of the total value of the product. 
  • The last type, compound tariffs, is a hybrid of the two. 

Tariffs differ in aim and impact from other trade barriers such as quotas and sanctions.

Quotas are a tool to cap foreign competition by limiting “the quantity of a product that can be imported or exported during a certain period, ” Craig Weeks explained. Restricting the total number of goods from one or several countries drives up the cost of that import, making domestic products more attractive. 

Quotas serve an economic purpose for governments. By comparison, sanctions, another form of trade barriers, are often used as political and ideological tools.

“Sanctions are broader restrictions and sometimes total bans on trade with a specific country, company, or individual”, explained Weeks. “People use sanctions to pressure governments to punish bad behaviour or to restrict access.”

Breaking down the differences, Weeks said: “Tariffs impact the cost, quotas restrict the quantity, and sanctions restrict who.”

Impact on trade finance and financial institutions 

This year, financial institutions involved in trade finance have been heavily impacted by US tariff developments in several ways. 

Firstly, tariffs on key inputs increase invoice values, necessitating increased working capital and larger credit value facilities, including credit lines, letters of credit, and pre-export or import loans. This increases “the overall value of supply chain finance programmes”, explained Weeks.

Secondly, tariffs cause increased credit risk, a side effect of larger sources of credit requirement, and borrowers either try to absorb tariffs, or if unable to, pass them on, reducing the banks’ margins. Some contracts now also include a Material Adverse Changes (MAC) clause, allowing a party to exit or renegotiate an agreement if a significant adverse event increases volatility. 

Thirdly, compliance risks have increased due to “the need to interpret the intent of trans-shipment and alternate supplies, which raises the risks of misdeclarations and misunderstood rules of origin”, explained Weeks. 

Fourthly, increased operations risk due to heightened documentation checking and compliance requirements and unclear mitigating protocols. “This is new territory for a lot of banks”, said Weeks, which can increase operations risk as banks are “feeling their way”.

And fifth, insurance premiums have increased, which hikes up the overall cost of business. 

Impact on SMEs

Tariffs have exacerbated the trade finance gap, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in emerging economies. Increased working capital demands, to fund the same-sized shipments, are more challenging to finance for less capitalised, smaller banks that cannot proportionally expand credit facilities. 

“It becomes a vicious cycle”, Weeks said, as “increased uncertainty about supply chains (causes) banks respond with stricter credit terms, higher collateral requirements, shorter tenors, and tighter covenants.”

“This negatively impacts SMEs disproportionately as they are the least able to pass along the tariff impact onto their client”, he added.

In the US, big box stores have been more able to absorb the impacts of tariffs than smaller suppliers, forcing smaller companies out of business, who had no choice but to pass on increases to clients.

US tariffs have already significantly impacted SMEs globally. For instance, by the end of March this year, following the announcement of President Trump’s tariffs, two South Korean automotive suppliers had declared bankruptcy despite reporting high turnovers. Notably, both filed for bankruptcy before Trump’s 25% tariffs were due to take effect on 2 April.

South Korea’s example opens a broader issue of the impact of the anticipation of tariffs. On 8 August, the US and China announced that they had agreed to a 90-day extension on their tariff break, the third similar extension this year. However, despite the delayed and postponed impact of many of Donald Trump’s tariffs, financial institutions acted to prepare and reacted to uncertainties.

“They’ll front-load inventory purchases or shipments, getting it now before the tariff takes effect, making advanced payments, reducing tenors, accelerating discounting”, said Weeks. Front-loading refers to bulk ordering before tariffs take place, before prices increase.

Tariffs have also caused a transition away from letters of credit (LCs), which have grown increasingly expensive under the added complexities caused by Trump’s tariffs, towards other forms such as documentary collections or open accounts, both of which now have broadly lower associated costs.

Perhaps the most aggressive form of tariff anticipation responses has been proactive derisking, which Weeks explained involves “moving your suppliers to other countries or changing your customer base from one country to another to get out from under this uncertainty”.

Trade wars and retaliatory tariffs

One of the most significant problems caused by Donald Trump’s tariffs is increased market uncertainty. Buyers and sellers are left unclear on what to buy, what to sell, how much to buy, how much to sell, and when to buy. 

The uncertainty in the market reduces global market efficiency, complicating the decision-making matrix behind transactions. Commenting on the additional risks that trade wars can pose, Weeks said: “Trade wars inject cost, uncertainty, and compliance complexity into supply chains. The risks and effects cascade exponentially onto SMEs.”

Tariffs: What’s next?

This year has seen a political demonstration of new and old economic alignments between nations. China, in particular, has taken centre stage, positioning itself as the source of global financial stability in the face of US uncertainty. China signed several huge deals this week, indicating an economic alignment and desire to reduce uncertainties. 

On Friday, Pakistan signed a £6.29 billion new investment agreement with China and unveiled the next phase of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. Russia and Beijing agreed to build the Power of Siberia 2, a natural gas pipeline between the two countries, bringing 50 billion cubic metres of gas to China every year, doubling the 38 billion cubic metres capacity of the current Power of Siberia pipeline.

—

Weeks explained that tariffs have caused “countries to completely rethink their strategic alignment when it comes to who their economic friends are”. He added that a side effect of uncertainty is that companies and countries had stopped dealing in terms of strategy “for the next year”, but now were broadly discussing “tactics for dealing with the next two weeks”.

But they are something we have to start getting used to. Governments are growing increasingly accustomed to the revenue tariffs generated, meaning we will unlikely see a sharp decline in tariff rates soon.

“​​Tariffs go up by the elevator and they come down by the stairs very, very slowly”, summarised Weeks.

5 Takeaways from the BAFT Global Annual Meeting 2025: The tug-of-war Between Localisation and Collaboration

Via Trade Finance Global by Glee Baniago

Navigating the trade finance landscape, with constant dodgeballs in the form of geopolitical tensions, regulatory requirements, and threatening technology, requires considerable agility. But this year’s BAFT Global Annual Meeting, in Washington, DC, revealed the considerable opportunity in times of turbulence.

These takeaways are drawn from the following sessions: 

  • ‘Beyond Buzzwords: Supporting a Fair and Inclusive Workplace’, featuring Shannon Manders, Editorial Director, GTR (moderator); Leigh Amaro, Head of North America, Swift; Priya Raghavan, Managing Director and Head, US & Canada Financial Institutions, BBVA; James Rausch, Managing Director, Head, Global Transaction Banking, Royal Bank of Canada; and Nick Smit, Head, Financial Institutions Americas, ING
  • ‘AI: Leading the Way in the Future of Finance’, featuring Manuela Veloso, Head of AI Research, JPMorgan; and Mike Katergaris, Head of North America Financial Institution Sales, JPMorgan
  • ‘Meaningful Collaboration for Enhancing the Client Experience in Supply Chain Finance (SCF)’, featuring Wouter Hazenberg, Managing Director – Head of VCF Supplier Finance North America, Rabobank; and Flav Pop, Director, Financial Partnerships, PrimeRevenue

1. Banks and fintechs are choosing collaboration over competition

The traditional rivalry between established banks and fintech disruptors is giving way to partnerships which leverage each other’s strengths; banks can typically provide deep client relationships and multi-currency funding capabilities, whilst fintechs handle complex supplier onboarding and electronic time drafts.

This shift reflects mounting client expectations for real-time analytics, automated payment execution, and comprehensive supply chain visibility, a demand so large it is impossible to solve alone. The approach is proving commercially successful: joint responses to client RFIs are becoming commonplace, with customers explicitly requesting collaborative solutions that neither party could deliver independently.

2. Geopolitical tensions are accelerating supply chain localisation

Samarium is a rare-earth metal used in military-grade magnets, and its supply is entirely controlled by China. This should serve as an emblem of the wider inefficiencies in the geopolitical ecosystem, where skyrocketing tariffs (from the US and in response) are forcing companies to rethink global dependencies.

The rhetoric around this is largely politicised. Returning to Samarium, the magnets which it produces are critical components in missiles, smart bombs, and fighter jets, making it clear that whoever controls such resources has a large stake in military capabilities and strategy. 

But rethinking has created new opportunities for trade finance providers. The renewable energy sector and the data centre supply chain particularly illustrate this shift. The rapid expansion of the data centre sector has led to streamlined procurement and modular construction, but has also exposed an over-reliance on a small pool of suppliers, contractors, and standardised components. As such, massive data centre projects exceeding two gigawatts require localised supply chains to ensure resilience. Tesla’s ‘Gigafactory Nevada’ battery facilities and in-house lithium refining operations represent the future that many corporates are moving towards.

3. Gender diversity in trade finance remains stubbornly poor despite business benefits

In GTR’s first comprehensive gender diversity survey, 47% of respondents reported women hold just 0-5% of C-suite positions in trade finance organisations; 45% of employees don’t know whether their organisation has gender pay parity policies, suggesting fundamental communication failures around diversity initiatives.

There’s a business case for inclusion which extends beyond the ethical one. McKinsey data shows that companies prioritising diversity achieve a 39% greater likelihood of outperforming peers on profitability. Yet the sector appears to have embraced technological partnerships more readily than workplace inclusion. As the industry transforms through artificial intelligence (AI) and embedded finance, diverse perspectives will become increasingly valuable.

4. Human-AI collaboration is essential, but scale demands AI-to-AI verification

The integration of AI across trade finance operations is moving beyond experimental phases into practical applications. Fintech providers are leading this adoption, using AI to optimise supplier onboarding programmes and enhance real-time analytics capabilities that clients increasingly demand.

Deep-tier supplier finance – extending credit down the supply chain to suppliers’ suppliers – exemplifies AI’s potential impact. While still in its infancy, this approach can unlock significant value by financing entities that might otherwise pay 6-7% interest rates. As AI capabilities mature and processes become increasingly automated, industry leaders predict this will enable financing of entire value chains more efficiently, making supply networks more resilient while reducing overall borrowing costs.

While banks have traditionally focused on data analysis and pattern recognition, AI agents can understand policies, execute rules, and take actions based on business knowledge, and could present a space to watch in the future. This could render the ‘human in the loop’ approach redundant when dealing with systems that can process hundreds of sources: ‘AI checking AI’ could be implemented, with humans performing random spot checks to build trust over time. 

This approach mirrors how we learned to trust GPS navigation systems like Waze. Banks need to develop systematic verification processes where different AI models cross-reference results, and humans validate randomly selected outputs to maintain quality control while leveraging AI’s scale advantages.

Whether agentic AI or otherwise, the competitive consequences of avoiding AI adoption could be fatal, all the while maintaining data security and regulatory compliance.

5. Accounting transparency requirements are unexpectedly boosting market adoption

The introduction of IFRS and FASB disclosure requirements for supplier finance programmes initially sparked industry concern about potential market contraction. Rating agencies like S&P began scrutinising programmes more closely, with blanket rules such as treating anything over 90 days as debt regardless of industry context.

However, the opposite effect has materialised. Increased transparency has actually attracted new corporates to consider supplier finance: the global supply chain finance market is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 8.8% from 2022 (the year the new standards took effect) to 2031.

While some programmes with excessive payment terms or disproportionate balance sheet dependency have scaled back, the clearer regulatory framework has provided confidence for new entrants. Industry participants now argue for more nuanced rating agency approaches that consider sector-specific norms, recognising that 30-day terms suit perishable goods like dairy, whilst 360-day terms may be appropriate for capital equipment like wind turbines.

VIDEO | BAFT’s Strategic Independence in an Era of Geopolitical Complexity

Via Trade Finance Global by Tod Burwell, Mahika Ravi Shankar, and Suresh Subramanian

Try to conceptualise the financial landscape of 1921. In the direct aftermath of the First World War, many European economies were burdened by war debts and reparations, particularly Germany under the Treaty of Versailles; the US emerged as the world’s leading creditor nation, shifting the financial centre of gravity from London to New York; global trade and investment were disrupted; and the gold standard, though still influential, was under strain as countries struggled to stabilise their currencies.

Also in 1921, the Bankers’ Association for Finance and Trade (BAFT) was established, uniting 10 banks in midwestern US to expedite business transactions of their international trade customers.

After more than two decades under the American Bankers Association (ABA) umbrella, the Bankers’ Association for Finance and Trade (BAFT) is charting a new course as an independent organisation. The separation, effective September 2025, will be in response to an increasingly fragmented global financial landscape.

“When we started talking about this separation, some maybe 30 months ago, we looked at it from a theoretical construct. The events of today tell us how right we were,” explained Suresh Subramanian, outgoing BAFT Chair, in the opening remarks of the BAFT 2025 Global Annual Meeting in Washington, DC. With 70% of BAFT’s membership coming from international institutions, the need for geopolitical neutrality has become paramount.

Neutrality in a polarised world

The challenge was clear: how can an organisation truly serve global banking interests while remaining a subsidiary of an association chartered specifically for US banks? The ABA, by design, focuses on US-chartered institutions. For BAFT to maintain credibility as a neutral voice in international trade finance, independence became not just desirable but essential.

BAFT is expanding its engagement beyond traditional boundaries, recently electing its first Americas Council co-chair from Mexico’s Banorte—the first time this position has been held by someone outside the US or Canada. These partnerships mirror broader industry trends toward collaboration in an increasingly complex environment. Just as Swift works with banking associations worldwide to navigate regulatory frameworks while maintaining global connectivity, BAFT is positioning itself to serve as an independent bridge between diverse financial jurisdictions. Local partnerships will enable BAFT to provide more relevant, jurisdiction-specific support while maintaining its global perspective.

Managing transition risks

The separation won’t be without challenges. Moving from the infrastructure support of a large, well-funded parent organisation requires significant operational restructuring. All HR, finance, IT, and customer systems must be migrated to new platforms—a complex undertaking that could disrupt member services if not executed flawlessly.

The re-onboarding requirements that many member organisations will face represent perhaps the biggest immediate challenge. As banking institutions implement increasingly stringent vendor management processes, BAFT’s change in legal structure may trigger lengthy approval procedures, so the organisation is actively working with members to streamline this process, emphasising continuity despite structural changes.

As Tod Burwell, President and CEO of BAFT and Trade Finance Global (TFG) Editorial Board Member, emphasised, operational continuity in the transition will be important.

—

BAFT’s upcoming independence reflects broader themes reshaping international finance: as geopolitical tensions intensify and regulatory frameworks diverge, financial organisations must balance global reach with local relevance. The ability to maintain neutrality while serving diverse stakeholders becomes increasingly rare and thereby increasingly valuable.

Strategic independence doesn’t mean isolation—it means having the flexibility to build the partnerships that best serve members’ evolving needs, and also stands as an experiment in organisational agility.

The separation from ABA was conducted on amicable terms, with expectations of continued collaboration where beneficial. 

Analysis: BAFT’s Burwell on New York Digital Trade Reforms

Via Global Trade Review by John Basquill

New York legislators have taken an important step towards digitalising trade in the state, adopting reforms that provide a legal basis for electronic records and digital assets. 

Adopted by the Assembly and Senate on June 11, the reforms bring New York in line with the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), a model law amended in 2022 to incorporate digital trade documents and other emerging technologies. They will become law once the amending bill is signed by Governor Kathy Hochul. 

Electronic bills of lading have been recognised as title documents in New York since 2014, but the latest reforms are broader in scope, applying to electronic versions of negotiable instruments and digital assets. 

GTR speaks to Tod Burwell, president and chief executive of Baft (Bankers Association for Finance and Trade), about the background to the reforms, the role of the association in bringing about change, and what the new-look legal framework means for US digital trade. 

 

GTR: What is the background to these reforms, and Baft’s role in helping bring them about? 

Burwell: The broader effort to provide a legal framework for digital trade originated around seven years ago, and we wrote a paper on the subject in 2018 called Code Is Not Law. At that time, there was a lot of energy around the use of blockchain as a vehicle to transform how trade could happen in the future. The paper essentially said that you need to adjust the legal framework and not just the technological capability to do trade digitally. 

Interestingly, the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (MLETR) was published around that same time, and what we then started to see was the socialisation of that model law, and countries trying to incorporate those elements into their legal frameworks. There were a few early adopters, but the really large trade jurisdictions were a bit further behind in getting that going. 

In terms of Baft’s engagement, the International Chamber of Commerce convened a variety of stakeholders across the globe to structure a group called the Legal Reform Advisory Board. We would meet periodically to target jurisdictions where we feel we can move the needle, and for Baft, it was natural for us to be designated to drive efforts in the US. 

 

GTR: What is different about the US market compared to jurisdictions that have already fully adopted digital trade laws? 

Burwell: In some jurisdictions, it is easier to take a national approach, but the complication with the UCC is that changes have to be adopted state by state. There is no single step the federal government can take to switch from analogue today to digital tomorrow. 

Also, because legal frameworks are different across jurisdictions, you couldn’t just take MLETR and slot it into US law. The way it worked in the US was the Uniform Law Commission passed amendments in 2022, and from there the process started to drive this through the individual states. 

On Baft’s side, we have been highly engaged with the Uniform Law Commission and the bar associations that drafted the amendments to the UCC that would, in effect, accomplish what the MLETR framework was intending to do. 

 

GTR: What is state-by-state adoption like looking now, and how significant is it that New York has reached this milestone? 

Burwell: So far, there are 30 states that have adopted the changes to the UCC into law, and there are eight states – technically including New York, as we still have to wait for the Governor to put her signature on the bill – that are somewhere in the process.  

We still have some work to do in the major land port border states, like Texas and Michigan. But nine of the 10 largest seaports in the US are now governed by laws that support digital trade, and most of the international trade traffic tends to come through West Coast ports that are in states that have already adopted the UCC amendments. 

In that context, the big one from the US perspective was to get New York across the finish line. Within the US, the volume of trade that is subject to New York law is pretty substantive. 

One of the nuances with the UCC is that one state’s version will not be the same as the others. To give an example, the electronic bill of lading has been in place in New York for some time, but other forms of negotiable instruments still require paper evidence of ownership.  

One of the other nuances with the New York structure and framework is that it is a little more forward-looking in that it incorporates elements of how digital assets should be treated. The MLETR framework doesn’t really get into that, but in the UCC amendments, we’re trying to account for more than just digital documents. 

 

GTR: Has there been much impact so far in states that have introduced these changes, or is it still too early to see the benefits? 

Burwell: It’s still very early days. Getting the legal framework in place is an important milestone because that enables commercial parties to move forward more assertively with digitalising their processes. If you know that a digital version of an instrument is not legally enforceable, you might not make the investment necessary to be able to transact in that form.  

Now, this opens the window for organisations to push forward on some of those investments, and for the ones that have already done that, it enables them to progress with live electronic end-to-end transactions. 

BAFT Elects New Chair Ahead of Structural Shift

Via Global Trade Review by Shannon Manders

Baft (Bankers Association for Finance and Trade) has appointed Nick Smit, global head of financial institutions banks at ING, as chair of its board of directors for the 2025-26 association year. He succeeds Suresh Subramanian, head of North America for transaction banking at BNP Paribas, who has served as chair since 2023 and oversaw the initial phases of Baft’s transition to become an independent organisation.

Smit takes over as Baft prepares to formally separate from the American Bankers Association (ABA), effective September 1, 2025. The two organisations first announced their intention to part ways in January, citing Baft’s increasingly global footprint and the need for greater strategic alignment with its international membership.

“I really appreciate this vote of confidence by the Baft community,” says Smit in a release. “Baft has grown into the leading global organisational forum for not only trade, but payments and cash management, and working capital solutions, too. I am very much looking forward to continuing the good work done in the past as we operate and grow further as an independent organisation in the future.”

Based in New York, Smit leads ING’s global relationship management team covering US, Canada, Latin America and global banks. He brings over 30 years of international banking experience and has served on Baft’s board since 2022.

Speaking at Baft’s annual general meeting in Washington, DC, on May 5, president and CEO Tod Burwell reflected on the rationale behind the separation: “The ABA is designed to focus on US charter banks. Baft’s membership is 70% international. If you have to have neutrality from a geopolitical perspective, it is complicated to be a subsidiary of the ABA and play that role without compromising the ABA’s position.”

Also speaking at the event, Subramanian noted the extensive preparation undertaken to ensure a smooth transition: “The last two years have perhaps been the most active period for the Baft board and executive committee. A lot of heavy lifting has taken place, not only to strengthen the financial position, but also to get the pieces needed so that the transition is as seamless as possible.”

The association has stated that its core focus on advocacy, education, thought leadership and industry collaboration will remain unchanged.

“The independence affords the Baft board and membership the ability to chart a path for growth and set our own direction on the topics that matter most to our community,” Subramanian added.

Smit will be joined by re-elected officers Michelle Knowles, head of trade and working capital of Absa, as vice-chair and Miriam Ratkovicova, managing director in the anti-money laundering economic and trade sanctions practice of Deloitte, as secretary/treasurer.

The board also includes a group of senior leaders from banks, fintechs and other financial institutions across multiple regions.