Cross-border payments are becoming faster and more transparent, but companies remain exposed to the foreign-exchange movements that can cut into margins, disrupt forecasts and change the value of cash between invoice and settlement. Convera calls that disconnect the “volatility gap” in a report published Sept. 17, arguing that payment infrastructure has advanced more quickly than the systems businesses use to manage currency risk.
The report, The Volatility Gap: Why Payments Innovation Doesn’t Solve Currency Risk, examines how real-time settlement networks, stablecoins and ISO 20022 messaging have improved payment delivery without changing the underlying exchange-rate risk faced by importers, exporters and multinational companies.
A payment can now reach its destination in minutes, yet the conversion rate is generally locked in when the payment is initiated. For a company that receives revenue in one currency and pays suppliers, staff or lenders in another, the exposure can accumulate over the days or weeks separating invoices, approvals and payment runs.
That gap is becoming more visible as foreign-exchange markets handle greater volumes and businesses operate across more currency corridors. The Bank for International Settlements reported that global FX turnover averaged $9.5 trillion per day in April 2025, up 27% from its previous survey in 2022. Convera links the increase partly to companies turning to currency markets to manage exposure during more unsettled trading conditions.
Faster payments leave exchange-rate timing unchanged
Swift has made substantial progress in payment speed. Up to 75% of payments on its network now reach the beneficiary bank within 10 minutes, according to Convera’s report. That can improve working-capital planning, reduce uncertainty around delivery and ease reconciliation for finance teams.
The faster transfer does not resolve a separate question: what the company’s money will be worth when currencies are exchanged.
A European business that invoices in U.S. dollars, for example, may know that a payment will arrive quickly. If its costs are primarily in euros, a move in the dollar-euro rate before the conversion can still alter its realized revenue. The same problem applies to an importer whose purchase order is priced in a foreign currency but whose sales are made domestically.
Convera’s argument places currency risk at the center of the corporate payment process rather than treating it as a treasury issue handled after commercial decisions have already been made. Faster rails shorten the movement of funds, while hedging and currency planning address the value of those funds across the period of exposure.
The distinction has practical consequences for budgeting. A company may forecast a healthy gross margin using an exchange rate at the time it signs a contract, then find that margin reduced by the time it pays a supplier. Payment visibility can tell finance teams where money is; it cannot protect the purchasing power attached to that money.
Trade firms report pressure on margins
Currency moves are already affecting many companies involved in international trade. Bibby Financial Services found that 44% of importers and exporters said foreign-exchange movements had eroded their profit margins in its 2026 International Trade Report.
The same Bibby report ranked global conflict as the leading economic concern among surveyed trade businesses, ahead of tariffs, inflation and interest rates. That ranking reflects how geopolitical events can feed directly into currency markets, particularly for companies with limited ability to reprice contracts quickly or pass higher costs to customers.
For smaller and mid-sized businesses, the issue can be especially acute when foreign payments are irregular. Large multinational firms often have dedicated treasury teams, formal hedging policies and access to multiple funding sources. A growing exporter may instead rely on a monthly payment cycle, leaving its exposure open until an invoice is paid or a supplier bill comes due.
Convera says companies should align hedging decisions with actual payment dates rather than use broad or infrequent assumptions about their currency needs. A hedge is a financial arrangement intended to offset the impact of a currency move, but its usefulness depends on whether it matches the amount, currency and timing of the underlying business payment.
A mismatch can create new problems. Hedging too early may leave a company with coverage it no longer needs if a transaction is delayed. Hedging too late can leave the firm exposed through the period when the exchange rate changes. The report therefore frames operational timing as a core part of currency-risk management.
Stablecoins speed settlement, not currency protection
Convera also addresses stablecoins, whose market capitalization exceeded $300 billion in 2026 according to figures cited in the report. Stablecoins can offer round-the-clock transfer capabilities and may reduce friction in certain cross-border transactions, particularly where traditional banking schedules create delays.
Their use does not eliminate currency exposure when a business’s revenues, costs and reporting currency differ. A dollar-linked stablecoin can preserve a dollar value, for example, but it does not protect a company whose financial obligations are denominated in euros, yen, pounds or another currency. The exchange relationship between those currencies can move regardless of how quickly the stablecoin transfer settles.
That leaves stablecoins in a similar position to other payment innovations: they can improve the transport layer of a transaction without automatically managing the financial exposure around it. Businesses using digital settlement tools would still need to decide when to convert funds and whether to hedge the resulting currency position.
More payment corridors raise the operational burden
The scale of the market is likely to make the issue harder to ignore. FXC Intelligence projects that the business-to-business cross-border payments market will reach $51.2 trillion by 2033. As companies sell into more countries, source from more suppliers and maintain local operations, they also add currencies, payment dates and potential exposures to their finance processes.
Convera recommends that companies establish a currency-risk framework suited to their specific exposure and bring FX decisions into ordinary payment workflows. In practice, that means linking a payment schedule to the exchange-rate decision instead of treating currency conversion as a final administrative step.
The report’s conclusion is less about any single payment technology than about how corporate treasury practices need to adapt. Real-time settlement can reduce delays, while ISO 20022 can improve data carried with payment messages. Neither changes the fact that a company’s expected margin can move with the market until its currency exposure is addressed.
To manage FX volatility beyond faster payments, explore Toobit Academy’s insights on forex trading risk management today.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
