In the second episode of The Open Ledger, host Stephan Ireland sat down with Tamara Saront-Eisner, Treasurer and VP of Mergers & Acquisitions, Americas at Air Liquide, to unpack the hidden cost of not really seeing what’s happening inside a finance team’s banking structure. For professionals focused on corporate treasury management, this conversation is a reminder that even highly sophisticated organizations can still struggle with visibility, fee clarity, and relationship management across a complex banking network.
Tamara’s perspective is especially valuable because she has lived through a major acquisition, a banking rationalization effort, and years of managing treasury operations across the Americas. Her experience shows that visibility gaps can affect margins, create operational friction, and make it harder for treasury teams to prove value across the business. In a world where the cost of banking can quietly become a major line item, this episode offers a practical look at how treasury leaders can move from assumptions to clarity.
Banking relationships are not one-size-fits-all
One of the strongest themes in the episode is that banking relationships need to be built around the company’s operating model, geography, and business priorities. Tamara explains that when Air Liquide integrated a large acquired business in the U.S., the company had to align two very different banking structures. One more international and centralized, the other more regional and localized. That kind of transition is common in corporate treasury management, where the goal is not simply to reduce the number of banks, but to build a structure that supports the business.
A key soundbite from the episode is that good relationships are “long-term relationships.” Tamara stresses that corporates and banks need transparency and long-term goals to work well together. She also notes that banking relationships vary depending on the role each institution plays. Some banks are strategic partners for capital markets and revolvers, while others provide highly specific local services or technology support. That distinction matters because treasury teams often need to “share the wallet” intentionally rather than assume every bank should serve the same purpose.
A healthy bank relationship is not necessarily the most emotional or the friendliest. It is the one that fits the job.
Visibility gaps create real budget risk
The episode also goes deep on one of the biggest pain points in treasury: The visibility gap. Tamara describes bank invoicing as a “black box” and explains that even when treasury teams receive monthly invoices, it can still be difficult to understand what is actually being charged, why it is being charged, and how it compares across institutions. In the context of corporate treasury management, that lack of clarity can undermine budgeting, benchmarking, and performance tracking.
One of the most useful takeaways from the conversation is that bank fees are not just a cost center to monitor passively. Tamara argues that they directly affect operating margins, so they should be treated as a real KPI. She emphasizes the importance of setting a budget for bank fees, comparing actual charges to that budget, and digging into the underlying services rather than simply tracking the monthly debit total.
A strong soundbite here is her observation that it is not enough to know only the “simple part” of the invoice, such as ACHs, wires, or lockbox charges. The harder part is understanding how to use banking platforms, move files, and navigate the service layers that sit behind the scenes. That is where many treasury teams lose visibility and where many organizations leave money on the table.
If you cannot explain what you are paying for, you cannot manage it effectively. And if you cannot manage it effectively, you cannot optimize it.
Discipline matters more than detection
Another major takeaway from the episode is that identifying bank fee issues is only the beginning. The real challenge is maintaining the discipline to follow through. Tamara points out that many treasury teams already have the data they need, but the difficult part is keeping the team focused, following up on discrepancies, and continuing the conversation with banks and internal stakeholders until the issue is resolved.
That is a familiar challenge in corporate treasury management. Treasury teams are often lean, busy, and juggling multiple priorities. Even when they know something is off, the follow-up work can get delayed because other urgent tasks take precedence. Tamara’s advice is to make the review process systematic rather than optional. In her view, the team should not just investigate bank fees when there is a problem; investigation should always be part of the operating rhythm.
She also notes that banks are generally willing to explain their pricing when asked. The issue is not always resistance from the bank. More often, it is the internal discipline required to ask the right questions, compare the right data points, and keep pushing until the answers make sense. That is a useful distinction because it shifts the focus from blame to process.
The right bank shows up in the hard moments
The episode’s “horror story” segment is a strong illustration of how banking relationships are tested in real life. Tamara shares a story from earlier in her career involving a crude oil transaction in Argentina during a time of severe political and financial volatility. On the day the structure was set to go to the credit committee, the country’s president left office by helicopter, and the bank effectively shut down the transaction. The deal was not approved, and the timing could not have been worse.
What makes the story important is not just the setback itself. It is what happened next. A different financial institution, one with a stronger relationship and deeper knowledge of the company, stepped in and helped make the transaction happen. That is a powerful reminder that the best banking relationships are measured not only by service during stable periods but also by how banks behave under pressure.
Tamara’s insight here is especially relevant for enterprise treasury teams. She suggests that the difference came down to closeness, knowledge of the company, and understanding the executives and transaction context. In other words, trust is built over time and becomes visible when a bank has to make a quick judgment call.
The future: Technology and transparency
The final major theme in the episode is the future of banking visibility. Tamara sees a future in which treasury teams will no longer be able to rely on the excuse that bank fee analysis is too difficult or too time-consuming. Technology, data availability, and AI are all making it easier to break down invoices, organize information, and surface the details that matter most.
This is where corporate treasury management is heading. More structured data, more automated analysis, and better benchmarking. Tamara believes the banking industry itself will also evolve, with banks increasingly forced to define whether they want to be strategic advisors or technology providers. That shift could create a more specialized market in which some banks focus on high-value expertise, while others compete on commoditized services.
Her advice for treasury teams is practical. Start by collecting the information, organizing the data, and understanding the fixed versus variable components of banking costs. Then compare actual results to the budget and ask the questions that reveal whether your current structure is really working. As Tamara puts it, the journey starts by “beginning to ask the questions.”
That may sound simple, but it is often the hardest and most important step. Treasury visibility does not happen by accident. It happens when teams commit to the work, build the discipline, and keep pressure on their banking partners to stay aligned with market expectations.
Listen and subscribe
If you found this episode useful, make sure to follow The Open Ledger for more conversations about banking relationships, fees, treasury strategy, and the hidden costs that shape financial performance.
Watch or listen:
