Skip to content

Palm Internal - IC (Intercompany) Sync - 2026-02-02

Metadata

  • Date: 2026-02-02
  • Company: Palm (Internal)
  • External Participants: None
  • Palm Participants: Emma, Gurjit, Jennifer, Giannis
  • Type: Internal Discussion
  • Domain Areas: IC Activity, Categorization, Cash Forecasting

Summary

Context

Internal Palm sync to evaluate where to start improvement work on intercompany features. The team discussed current IC categorization issues across ON, Personio, and Euroports, and identified key problems before involving engineering.

Key Discussion Points

  • IC categorization assumption validated: it's not good enough, especially for granular IC types
  • Two-level problem identified: (1) Is it intercompany? (2) What TYPE of intercompany?
  • ZBAs are solvable separately and represent highest transaction volume
  • Personio blocked from using platform due to ZBA balance display and forecast timing issues
  • Cost plus invoice settlements are complex, high-value, and AP-driven (treasury lacks visibility)
  • Customers increasingly want MORE granular IC categories, not fewer

Pain Points

  • IC categorization fails - misidentifies as FX transfers or ZBA transfers instead of proper IC type
  • Transaction descriptions often lack data to determine if tax, interest, dividend, loan, etc.
  • ZBA participant accounts show decreasing balances instead of zero (Personio)
  • Forecast timing incorrect - monthly IC transactions averaged across all weeks instead of pinned to correct week
  • "Internal transfer" vs "intercompany" terminology confusion (intra-company vs inter-entity)
  • Treasury doesn't have visibility on AP-initiated cost plus payments between entities

Feature Requests & Needs

  • ZBA forecasting: child accounts should forecast activity, parent shows net sweep, child balances stay at zero
  • Calculated categories for ZBAs instead of ML forecasts
  • Ability to distinguish FX-related IC from same-currency IC (for hedging/trading needs)
  • Counterparty account connection to identify IC transactions automatically
  • Rule-based + LLM approach: if counterparty identified as internal entity, narrow LLM to IC categories only

Jobs & Desired Outcomes

Job: Accurately categorize intercompany transactions by type (cost plus, dividend, loan, equity, etc.)

Desired Outcomes: - Minimize time spent manually reviewing and correcting IC categorization - Increase accuracy of IC type identification from transaction data - Reduce confusion between ZBA sweeps and other IC transaction types

Job: Forecast intercompany cash flows with correct timing

Desired Outcomes: - Minimize forecast error for periodic IC payments (should reflect actual monthly timing, not averaged weekly) - Increase reliability of ZBA sweep forecasts by treating them as calculated rather than predicted

Job: Understand entity funding needs vs incoming settlements

Desired Outcomes: - Minimize unnecessary funding transfers by surfacing upcoming cost plus settlements - Increase visibility into AP-driven intercompany payments that treasury doesn't control

Domain Insights

  • ZBAs = highest volume: Most IC transactions are automatic ZBA sweeps; non-ZBA IC typically 1-2 per account per month
  • Cost plus settlements: Large amounts ($5-20M/month), kicked off by AP not treasury, flow from one entity to many
  • Internal transfer vs intercompany: Internal = same entity different accounts (book transfer); Intercompany = different legal entities
  • IC categorization trend: Customers adding MORE granular IC categories, reducing top-level categories
  • Counterparty + currency: If you know both account currencies, FX vs non-FX IC becomes trivial to identify
  • Merchant field: Often contains counterparty info that could help identify IC, but not currently leveraged

Action Items

  • [ ] Schedule engineering discussion on IC categorization improvements (Emma, Gurjit)
  • [ ] Schedule engineering discussion on ZBA forecasting behavior (Emma, Gurjit)
  • [ ] Giannis to catch up on Euroports categorization with Gurjit
  • [ ] Consider opinion/guidance on IC category granularity best practices

Notable Quotes

"I think the intercompany categorization failed couple of times and categorized it as FX transfers or ZBA transfers instead of intercompany transactions" - Giannis

"The main one that he said is stopping him from using the platform is that we don't have those calculated categories. It should be a calculation of a ZBA or target balance, not a forecast." - Jennifer (on Personio)

"This is where I'm getting literally goosebumps thinking if we could solve this part... it's really good. And it's complex, but that's what we're here to solve for." - Gurjit (on cost plus visibility)

"We should be able to influence the treasury teams to change the details in the payments to capture some word that allows our models to say this is intercompany dividend." - Gurjit

Full Transcript

Them: Hello.
Me: Hello. Hello.
Them: How. Are you?
Me: I'm good, thank you. How are you? How's the us.
Them: It's good. Just settling in? Settled in? Pretty much. I just got into the apartment yesterday. Last night. Spent the weekend at my parents. My cousin actually got married as well. So went to a wedding already. yeah good otherwise Good. Morning. Hey. Good morning, Giannis. How is this department? It's nice. That's good. That's good. So I am up. It's, like, home already. I I got in last night. It's all furnished, unpacked. I'm in my old neighborhood. I'm literally, like, one block over from my old apartment. So America. Nice. Is my Internet or is that, like, connection okay? It's a little bit choppy for me.
Me: Yeah.
Them: Do you guys have any It's choppy?
Me: A little bit, but it it's better now. It was worse, I think, at the beginning of the call.
Them: Yeah. Let me see. There's another there's two desks in here, so I can get another one. This should be.
Me: Alright.
Them: Okay. Yeah?
Me: Yeah. Sounds good enough.
Them: Good.
Me: Yeah.
Them: Good. How's the weekends? Plan before? Yes.
Me: What did
Them: We had a friends over for horror movie night.
Me: All night.
Them: What was the movie? Abigail. One that was released last year. That's interesting. Half of the people slept through the movie. So yeah, I cannot say it was good or not.
Me: Okay.
Them: You included? Yeah. Thanks.
Me: Oh, well.
Them: And this
Me: Yeah. That would yeah. We just threw away a bunch of stuff. It was really nice. Went through the storage room and the apartment. And just got rid of so much stuff.
Them: That's why I like moving apartments. It's usually the good good good time to get rid of stuff. For me, was selling out because, like, I have one suitcase that's full. It's gonna last me for six months. That means that everything that I left back in Amsterdam, all my closet, like, I should be able to just toss everything because I'm able to go six months with a suitcase with the clothes, so, yeah, maybe maybe a bit of a purge for me. This this summer. As well.
Me: Very cool. Hey. So Jen, couldn't join, unfortunately, but she said that, Giannis, you should know a lot as well. Me and Jen will have a quick sync tomorrow just to make sure we didn't miss anything. But a bit of background, what we would love to do is is basically start improvement work on anything in the company. And we would like to first evaluate where to start. Right.
Them: Alright.
Me: So, basically, the current sort of situation as it stands, with on and Personio, would be really interesting. To understand more in-depth I did ask the Palm bot a few questions and shared them in a thread. I don't know how useful that is for this conversation, but it's it's there, and it's not amazing, like, the performance terms of it identifies way more, let's say, inflows of certain intercompany than outflows, and there's no way to to know for for sure if the categorization is correct. But I also know that there were some very specific intercompany things from personas point of view, I think, Giannis, and if there's anything very specific from on that they're struggling with as well, I think that could provide really good starting points for us to make sure that we're solving value problems.
Them: Yep.
Me: To begin with, and then we can also look at a bigger But
Them: Yeah. And I and I also think it the why did I think timing of this is also good is, saw Euroports categories come across, and they have quite a few intercompany pieces. Right? And so A lot. Sorry. Go ahead, Emma.
Me: I have interrupt, but I have to say my the discussion me and Rodell had with your reports way back, they're expecting fully accurately categorized intercompany
Them: Yeah.
Me: transactions. I I promise you that their expect their expectations are quite high.
Them: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And and so I would say, like, when it comes to intercompany in general, I've I've most of the companies I have to work with and, like, I'm close enough to I haven't seen this much robustness on intercompany categorization as I've seen that on and a Euroports. Typically, it's pretty straightforward of it's like, is it pooling? Is loans? Is it equity? That's it. But there's a lot of the stuff that's being built across these companies. And I'll venture to guess it's probably gonna be more of that than it is the non granular stuff for whatever reason. I guess there's one question for us is also, like, do we wanna be opinionated and say, hey. Best practice that we've seen is you don't need to be this granular. You can still get the value without newness. But I guess that's maybe a discussion we'll we'll tease out over over the next couple of days, weeks. The other thing I'll say, Giannis is what Emma and I, our assumption is that the categorization isn't great on intercompany. I think first and foremost, you wanna know, like, is that a correct assumption? Because if so, we gotta start there first before we do anything else. That your company I think, And I saw you shaking your head. So
Me: Yeah.
Them: Hey. Assumption. I think that's something in my Let me share a couple of things. Although, I think be completely fair, I think Zen has more visibility on the in the company. I think the intercompany categorization failed couple of times and categorized it. I think as let me check. I have some notes here. Some transfers. Like, I think FX transfers or ZBA transfers, etcetera, instead of intercompany transactions Because I think in the past, on had its ZBA ZBA and then they had different categories on intercompany. And because those were very close to each other, we couldn't separate where to go to that category or to the other category. And to be honest, I ran a small demo during the workshop session with Matthias as well. And yeah, we couldn't find a way even through his let's say, categorization instructions on how to separate because the transaction description does not mention anything if it's a tax, if it an interest, if it's a dividend, or whatever that is. So I think in general, it's going to be a big problem.
Me: You're muted, Gurjit.
Them: Two things there. Like, I'm not trying to get too tactical. I think ZBAs themselves, there is absolutely a way to get those really quickly.
Me: Yes. Hi, Emma.
Them: Alright?
Me: CBAs, we we
Them: Yeah.
Me: need to worry about. They're
Them: Yeah. Yeah.
Me: yes.
Them: Yeah. Yeah. On the other intercompany pieces, I think one one position we should take is we can influence what details go into those transactions when someone is actually executing the payments so that it flow through into the statement and then can be tagged. Right? Because outside of cost plus, which are, like, invoice payments between entities, which are typically run out of an ERP ERP. All other intercompany is typically managed by the treasury team or the local treasury teams. And so it's okay for us to to be able to be able to kinda I think, position them or kinda influence them to say, hey. Look. We can read the statements. You just gotta add the details going forward, and it makes everybody's lives easier. And so that's, I think, one way we could we should be able to tackle it, and we should be comfortable to push back and say, this is gonna optimize your treasury function. If you're able to do that.
Me: Yeah.
Them: They don't do that now because they don't do categorization. They don't know what they're looking for. They don't know what how it's run. Right? So
Me: Yeah. That makes a lot of sense, and that resonates with most people as well. My experience that they understand that it's AI. It's not a wizard. The data needs to have something in it that would indicate the type of transaction. So I think it's
Them: Mhmm. Mhmm.
Me: that's that's a fair point.
Them: We talking only about categorization or intercompany forecasting as well? Is the discussion that as well in
Me: But so the categorization is the foundation for all of it. So we need to know which end to start. Gut feeling is categorization. But, yes, for sure, we want so what what separates the intercompany forecast from an operational cash flow? In terms of forecasting? You need
Them: Yeah.
Me: you need two you need, like you need two flows for two different accounts. Right? It's not enough to just do one boop or one So oh, hey, Jen.
Them: Agent. Hey. I managed to wrap it up really quick.
Me: Super cool. Yeah. No. We were just discussing, like, a bit of maybe now we're a bit broad still on intercompany and what we're trying to understand but we're trying to understand whether or not the categorization an issue. As it is right now. For our customers. Our assumption is that it is. And in order for intercompany forecasts beyond CBAs to be useful, would need maybe improved categorization. But this is this is an assumption me and Gurjit has just been running with, and we wanted to double check with you and Giannis. Your gut feeling is or what you've been hearing And, also, we know there are some very specific issues around in the company for both persona and on. So it would be interesting to just learn a bit more about those.
Them: I mean, yes, I think we haven't heard much about the categorization being issued specifically for intercompany. Recently. But we we have dashboards now that show ins and outs side by side, so it's more easy to recognize the bigger differences. I think there's other categories that are more of the challenge, which is why when they're not hearing about it as much. I would say that we had a different use case this week. Of where we actually there's obviously a lot of information internally about intercompany. You know? People, they know every vendor, and it's can we feed the model with these big amount of information. Like, we'll have another example. We're still sort of figuring that out. And we don't think that you can at the minute, but I think you can be really specific with it. You could literally list every entity like, every possible or you you can just feed in the bank account. And if that isn't quoted as the merchant, in the transaction, know, how we try and identify that field. And it is quite helpful for intercompany, the merchant field. That we could be more accurate, but we we're not putting that level of detail in the prompt. You know?
Me: But isn't that the same as we need a counterparty connection in place? Like, because how would we know the merchant without knowing the sender?
Them: I think yeah. I think yes. Yes. On the connection, but also in the you do obviously get the information in the description. Often, the counterpart is or that merchant is quoted in there.
Me: Okay.
Them: I think we should feed that information since we have it. Like, we should find a way to feed it in.
Me: Yeah.
Them: I thought we did I I thought we did that for on, right, where we added all the entities that are in the on ecosystem. And if that pops up as a vendor, or as a in the payment deal, sender was on a and receiver is on Germany, whatever. Then then we're able to say, okay. That's gonna be intercompany. Think there's two prob not two problems, there's two ways to look at it. There's one is this an intercompany transaction? Yes or no? I think that's a little bit more straightforward with what you're mentioning, Jen. It was, like, if you could find the counterparty, we know it's an internal entity. Check. It's in their company. Problem that Giannis mentioned is, okay, it's intercompany, but what intercompany Is it a cost plus? Is it a dividend? Is it a loan payment? Is it a whatever? And I think that's the other challenge, and that's where you hop on, Jen, we were saying this, like, that we should be able to influence the treasury teams to change the details in the payments. To be able to capture some word or something that then allows our models to say, oh, okay. This is intercompany. Yes. We see the two entities. Also mentions a dividend. I don't know. So it's inter intercompany dividend.
Me: Yeah. I would love to involve engineering in the solutions discussions,
Them: Yep.
Me: for this thing, it's
Them: Yeah.
Me: it's it's not so much about solutions. It's about understanding where there are problems because there was problems with Pithonia as well, right, quite recently. You know? Interesting. Sorry. I just wanna be mindful about the Yeah. So let's
Them: Okay.
Me: let let's try not to go into solution mode, Saurabh. So much right now. But rather make sure we capture all the problems that we have too. Okay. Unless, Giannis, you wanted to say something to conclude the
Them: I was about to mention a solution that they followed in the past.
Me: Yeah. But feel free. Do it, then we'll go back into the problem mode. It's interesting to
Them: Yeah. Very quickly. So
Me: but I just wanna
Them: here, we need to follow, I think, a rule based approach plus LLM. So as long as we get the where the money is coming from and where the money goes, and we can match because we already have the account numbers. Know that this is going to be most probably a intercompany transaction. And maybe we can have a more elaborate cast categorization instructions specifically for inter company. And then we trigger the LLM to say, you don't have filter or map the category to a big list of categories that they have, but only to these four intercompany
Me: Yep.
Them: categories, and we can give more context to the LLM to find which of these four categories it is. This is one approach.
Me: I think we need that counterparty connection in place for that to work or or some really cool, like you said, indication that, hey, this is definitely in the company because the market field.
Them: Yeah.
Me: But let let bring let's bring this to engineering because I know Rodell also probably is a good person to to talk about when it comes to solutions. But first, it our job right now to understand problem. Right? So I it's I'm hearing that we could do better for the categorization likely. Right. So are we agreeing on on that?
Them: Yeah. And, like, as more granular, like, they're adding more categories to intercompany. They're reducing all the categories at the top, and they're wanting to out into company mode. That's like a universal thing.
Me: Yeah.
Them: And another thing that Matthias mentioned about I was not yep. Maybe it's terminology. But is it different internal transfer? Is it internal transfer different than intercompany?
Me: Yeah.
Them: Yeah. I think he's referring to transfers between the same entity. As an internal transfer or my good book transfer. Yeah. Yeah. That's correct.
Me: In
Them: Funny because you could say it's in your company still in the sentence within the company. You've got but it's just that it doesn't really impact the bal intercompany balance of an entity because it's just moving between two bank accounts. Okay. That one was a big issue for him in the past. Separating internal transfer within their company. Yeah. Yeah. That'll still, I think, comes back to understanding the two counterparties, number one. And then number two is the right descriptor in the payment, I think. But yeah.
Me: So problems we have so far. The categorization is not good enough. We also see already that there is descriptions that doesn't seem to contain enough data. So that's something we could influence. Unclear whether we're leveraging that potential merchant field. To help. But that's a little bit now borderline solutions based, but it's really good information Jen, would you mind just sharing what what exactly has Persona been struggling with?
Them: Okay.
Me: With regards for intercompany lately or on? Or both.
Them: So so for personia, I think the big things are the cash balances in their accounts are not correct because it's not they don't have the the cash pool and the so firstly, it's the cash flow balances. It's in the zero balances that the accounts look like they're going down forever when they always be at zero. And the header account should be going down. So the forecast trends are not recognized the big one. And the other one is the intercompany forecasts themselves. They are using they do have machine learning forecast turned on because they have very specific once a month transfers, which should be quite easy to forecast. But the forecasts are not being it's the issue where they're not being pinned to the correct week. They're just being attributed over the year. So they're not the timing of them is incorrect. They want to split out the intercompany that is in currency from FX. Because that's obviously two different processes. They wanna have a a currency forecast for intercompany, and in in currency forecast for the ones who don't have to do So that's more of a categorization. Piece. And yeah, they are doing that review of the categories each month, and I think that's getting better. But we've just added a lot more categories for them, so he's gonna have to recategorize into those new categories. But, yeah, the main one that he said is stopping him from using the platform is that basically, we're just we don't have those calculated categories. That should be instead of it being a forecast, it should just be a calculation of, say, a ZBA or a target balance or something like that. That's for him, that's he said that, and the forecast timing's been There was two biggest reasons he's not using the platform more.
Me: Okay. So for him, we need so we we we are not So the CBAs are not behaving. As expected. Apparently. And we could definitely fix that. As far as I'm concerned, I think I know what it means. Is it is he fine with, let's say, with forecasting the activity on the child accounts and then we're netting all of that out which results in, like, the or it will it would result in, like, either sweep to or from the the parent. Right? And that would be the forecast at the parent level. And then the forecast for the balances of the child accounts is always zero, whereas the parent balances would fluctuate in accordance with the activity on the And I think that's what we need to definitely make sure Boom. Okay. Julie noted, prioritized, I think, across customers through that behavior. And the second thing was an in a specific intercompany category. Did we market as non intercompany for the for the forecast to turn up in the app?
Them: M Possibly. But he wanted to be
Me: Yeah.
Them: he thinks it should be forecasted. Like, it's very consistent each month. But it's more the and I know this is a wide issue, but the timing of it is not recognized in the forecast. So even though it's once a month, say a 100 k, the forecast shows 25 k every week.
Me: Yeah.
Them: And I know there's lots of categories like that, but we're intercompany specifically is often very periodic process. It highlights it just as much as payroll.
Me: Do we know if those historic if there's a lot of wrongly categorized transactions
Them: I think this
Me: that goes into it, or is it no?
Them: a common issue. We'll let you just spoke to our department for discord. So they're working on it more generally. Like, because it's quite a common problem. It's apparently, it's picking the most numeric forecasting model, which just is average forever. But comments make Yeah. He had the same for payroll too. Right? Or payrolls the third week of the month, but you average it out every week. But, so I don't think Emma, it's the categorization that's driving you. Think it's the forecasting model that's driving driving that issue. But, Jen, just going back one more second on the categorization. The reason we're spending so much time on categorization is because we know that it's been messy, and we wanna first figure out, is the categorization the problem, or is it something else later. Right? But, like, you mentioned the thing around if he wants to categorize the FX. Intercompany differently than the what was it, the other intercompany? Than just the ones where he doesn't have to do a trade. But the intercompany so this is the part where I get kinda confused on how people wanna tack tackle this because I think companies decide. Right? So you can have intercompany that requires an FX. Right? So I could have a a US entity paying cost plus to a UK entity. And I have to do the trade for it. That situation, would you would he wanna tap tag that as intercompany cost plus? Intercompany FX transfer. You know? How you because that's where it's it's that's a bit harder to really kinda understand and do right because it's right in both ways technically. How did the customer wanna actually identify, tag, and see that? That will ultimately also drive our forecasting. Right? Yeah. I think he would want that as FX. So if I he asked his most recent intercompany ask actually was to look at any company that has any any account that has any intercompany and make sure it has intercompany in and out and intercompany treasury FX in and out. Where previously it was some of them had some and not others. He said he wants that option in all of his accounts. So and he's gonna manage that recategorization as FX. I guess that's his I can he can see it as well, can't you? Because he like, operationally wise to manage something that I need to trade, which you can hedge or something that That is a benefit. And it it Yeah. Also, in the in the categorization, it should be so easy because the one's GBP, and then it's come in as USD, and then the other's just GBP, GBP. It should be we should be able to tell it I know we're not having think what said, we should be able to give it some rules. So waiting to come here, there is rules. Yeah. I I think, like, this is not a a categorization issue, though. In my head. Like, I would I would think of it as you wanna see the commercial transaction. Why was money moved? And that's what you're trying to categorize it as. Right? Because we wanna forecast what money is moving between accounts or outside accounts. I'm wondering if not to go to solutioning, but, like, there's another way to be able to surface the effects intercompany transfers that have happened over the course of whatever months or between entities But it doesn't necessarily have to be tagged as an FX. Intercompany. It's more of I know. Like, if can it be a report that says, give me all the intercompany that has FX? And then that's your FX forecast. But then I don't know. But it to me, I feel like it's not it's
Me: But that's the thing. Right? Though, if we have the counterparty,
Them: it's two different two different things on the
Me: accounts connection, that would be really easy because, oh, currency of that account versus currency of this account, and then we could sort of
Them: Yeah. Yeah.
Me: build that. Course.
Them: Yeah. Yeah. Mhmm. So this is I think, for Tom specifically, this is where, again, we should have a bit of an opinion and push not push back, but, like, influence that we categorize this as what's the commercial transaction category. Like, what type of intercompany, and then we could work on a way to figure out how you identify the FX net impacts, impact, and how does that translate into the future FX?
Me: Really nice.
Them: Yeah.
Me: Love that. It's much more outcome focused. Like, why does he want those? Right? It's not entirely that we need to give him this exact feature that he asks for.
Them: Right.
Me: But he's looking for a specific outcome.
Them: When when to trade how much. Right? And so
Me: Yeah.
Them: yeah.
Me: Yeah. Alright. So but to me, it still sounds we wanna have a discussion with engineering pretty soon. Both regarding CBAs and any ideas. For how to capture these intercompany and intercompany flows, I suppose.
Them: K.
Me: But my question so persona Neo, do we have any idea how how many? Of these transactions there are monthly? Also, I wanted to ask, is it is it reasonable that the report I pulled up for on from the Palm chat had, like, 1,500 intercompany transactions per month.
Them: Yeah.
Me: Is that
Them: I mean, they
Me: Just wondering about the volumes we're dealing with also for different customers. And and in my
Them: yeah.
Me: point of view, only slightly more ICP, so I think we should expect maybe large volume. And also just have that as a factor.
Them: Yeah. I mean, it it it compounds over the number pools you have. Right? So that's gonna be every day you have transactions across every single pool of the account.
Me: When we can exclude those, then we could get the true number of okay. Good.
Them: Potentially. Yeah. Yeah. Then then it should be it
Me: Okay.
Them: should be less. I would imagine it's, like, one a month maybe two a month per account that are non ZBA intercompany. Is
Me: Gotcha.
Them: pretty normal.
Me: Okay.
Them: Yeah. Again, generally, like, I'm sure there's some nuance, but, like, it's the highest volume will be ZBAs. For sure. By by a lot.
Me: Goskva. I think they're they just had three categories. It was like balance and transfer. Yeah. That's the CVAs one. Guess a lot of those. The balancing transfers.
Them: Yeah. Because Anne has some manual cash flows. That's all I think told me.
Me: Yeah.
Them: Yeah. They're last time I checked, they were doing a lot of this, like, monthly true up of their cash pool where they just send the funding down to, like, clear their cash pool balances. They've set up, like, these recurring payments that would just auto send every x day of the month. Know if they're still doing that. And I don't know maybe, Giannis, are they doing any sort of now cost plus intercom monthly intercompany settlements, like invoice settlements? I know they were working on it when I first talked to them. I'm not sure if they kicked that off yet. Not that I'm aware of, but they haven't mentioned it. And I kinda feel like they would wanna see if they were. Yeah. Because that to me is the the really important ones. Like, ZBA is a thing again. We that that feel pretty straightforward. The kind of manual kicked off funding that, again, is treasury owned. You decide how much you wanna transfer when. The tricky, the large ones that actually really impact and kinda bring the anxiety is the cost plus invoice payment settlements because typically, you'll have one entity, paying dozens of others, they're, like, large amounts where you're talking, like, Mhmm. $5.06, $1,020,000,000 a month out of one account going into a bunch of smaller accounts. So once they pick that off, I would imagine that's important. But that's where I think where we can really bring value to to to customers who accept forecasting that and identifying that. And see More so than efficient. Seeing how efficient that transfer was, and if they could've rough transfer a bit less. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Like, yeah. It's like it it almost feels like you the you could forecast what you could almost allocate what you do your intercompany funding for. Like, some people will just fund on a requirement, but some people will fund for specific things. Yeah. Yeah. Consider, you know, because not always the entity forecast is gonna be correct because they might have trapped cash in that entity. You have to be quite specific. I'm funding for this, and this is how much I've funded, so you can track how accurate
Me: Yeah.
Them: Yeah. And I think just the other the other kinda caveat or uniqueness on those is that those payments are typically kicked off by your AP team. And so treasury doesn't always have visibility that hey. Entity a is gonna make all these payments to entity b, c, d, e, f, g. It's in the ERP most likely. And so because they don't have that control, that's why I this is where we have an opportunity to be able to say, hey. We got that visibility for you. You have this money coming into these accounts. And those transactions are not typically fucked. Funding related. They facilitate funding, but it's just a commercial agreement between two entities. Right? And so where do I see Palm being valuable for an outcome is hey. Can Company b is about to run out of money next week. Should I send funding? Or, hey. Wait a second. There's a cost plus that's coming week because it's on our ERP. It's gonna get settled. I don't need to fund anything because AP is gonna make that settlement.
Me: Yeah. But you you need to make sure it is.
Them: And clear it up for me.
Me: Somewhere to fund it. From.
Them: And there's, yeah, and there's money in the account that's gonna put it. Right? So that's where the web starts coming together. This is where I'm getting, like, literally goosebumps thinking if we could solve this part it's it's it's really good. And, it's complex, but that's what we're here to solve for. Right?
Me: Very. Okay. I think Gurjit, you'll probably need to be prepared to discuss these nuances with engineering as well.
Them: Yep.
Me: What is a good next step? Is it to just schedule something with you and me in engineering? Jen, Giannis, do you want to
Them: I think Gurjit is the intercompany have nightmares of intercompany. I mean, I I think I I think that makes sense, Emma. Like, so we've identified the stuff on categorization. I think that's a discussion we need to have around how do we get better on that piece. And then the second piece is then on the the ZBA forecasting and the, like, stuff that Jen mentioned for Personio and I could bring in more details around the more complex cost plus related intercompany that's
Me: Yeah. Because I I kind of relay that point, Jan made around what are they funding for resonated with me a lot. Because it's something that we should be able
Them: Yep.
Me: to do a better job at warming on anyway. So
Them: Yep.
Me: okay. Very cool. I'll yeah. We'll we'll take it from here, you guys. Thank you, Jen and Giannis, for joining. Super helpful.
Them: Thanks, Sj. Thanks for setting it up. Thanks, Emma. I have one more question. Regarding Euroports. Because I I have a feeling that we're not going to be able to cap let's say, the different intercompany at the moment. And it seems a bit important for him is it a good idea to merge the intercompany transactions just as intercompany expense, intercompany inflow, and then you update me basically on what progress we made on this. And then I will transfer the road map to Matthias Barco. This categorization? How have you done have you done the categorization? I know you guys say you guys exercise with them while you were there. Like, what how how would you rate the success of the current status of using his intercompany, all those categories, not good, I think, that you mentioned. You mean from his side? Like, as in how accurate were we are we able to Wait or granular? No. No. No. Okay. Okay.
Me: But they
Them: No.
Me: were lacking any descriptions. Right? So that's
Them: We had all
Me: But was
Them: No. We had all the descriptions from him.
Me: but was it wasn't it okay. Maybe I confuse it.
Them: The transactions
Me: But
Them: The transactions, the transactions didn't have a description, I think.
Me: But there wasn't, like, anything around, like, what it was was just like a was it a good description, or wasn't that one of the issues with their We couldn't tell what kind of transaction it was essentially.
Them: I have no idea how to judge if it's a good description. I can give you the transactions, but I have no idea if yeah, if I look at the transaction, I cannot judge if it's an interest or or not.
Me: Gotcha.
Them: Long as if if it's in the company. Got it. Giannis, when are when are you gonna work on this? Maybe we could do, like, could do, like, a session with you as well just to see if there's something I have I have, basically, the category list ready. I can send it to you if you want to to have a quick look, and then Sure. Let's catch up. Yep. Let's do that. Let's do that. Yep.
Me: Perfect. Will you guys take your reports from there and then
Them: Sounds good. Thanks. Awesome. Yeah.
Me: me know and we can yeah. Okay. Cool. Amazing. Thank you so much, everyone.
Them: Thanks, everyone. Thank you. Yep. Bye.
Me: Bye.