When your next corporate treasury client issues a request for proposal (RFP), don’t assume you’re the only one at the table who understands bank pricing.
Today’s corporate treasury teams are increasingly sophisticated negotiators. They have access to detailed fee analyses, competitive benchmarks, specialized advisors, and a clearer understanding of what their banking relationships should cost. They know what they’re paying, what competitors may be offering, and where there’s room to negotiate.
And they’re putting that knowledge to work.
Meanwhile, many banks are still approaching negotiations with processes, information, and tools that haven’t kept pace. Relationship managers may know their customers exceptionally well, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they have the data or pricing flexibility needed to compete effectively.
I’ve spent much of my career working in the space between banks and their corporate customers, and one thing has become increasingly clear: the balance of information at the negotiating table is changing.
For corporate treasury teams, that creates opportunity. For banks, it should be a wake-up call.
An RFP is more than a procurement exercise. It’s a test of how well both sides understand the economics, expectations, and value of their relationship.
Should there even be an RFP?
Before discussing how to win an RFP, there’s a more fundamental question worth asking: should there be one in the first place?
There are plenty of legitimate reasons for a corporate treasury team to reconsider its banking relationships. Organizational changes, business growth, shifting transaction volumes, service challenges, cost-reduction initiatives, and changing compliance requirements can all justify taking a fresh look at the market.
An RFP can provide structure to that process, helping treasury teams compare providers, evaluate capabilities, and establish a competitive basis for negotiation.
But an RFP isn’t always the right answer.
Sometimes, a direct negotiation with an existing banking partner can achieve the desired outcome more efficiently. If the relationship is working well and the objective is to address a specific pricing or service concern, inviting multiple banks into a lengthy competitive process may create more work than value.
The important question is what the organization is trying to accomplish.
Is the goal to find a new banking partner? Test the competitiveness of an existing arrangement? Address service gaps? Or simply achieve better pricing?
The answers should determine the approach. An RFP should serve a strategic purpose, rather than become an exercise organizations undertake simply because it’s time to go back to market.
A bad RFP is theater. A good RFP creates genuine competition.
There’s another uncomfortable truth about RFPs: sometimes the outcome has effectively been decided before the process begins.
Perhaps an organization already knows which bank it wants to work with. Perhaps it’s using the competitive process primarily to pressure an incumbent into reducing fees. Or perhaps the RFP is being conducted to satisfy an internal procurement requirement, with little genuine appetite for change.
Whatever the motivation, a predetermined outcome undermines the credibility of the exercise.
Banks invest considerable time and resources responding to RFPs. When the opportunity isn’t genuine, that effort is wasted, and the process can damage trust between the parties.
For corporate treasury teams, a successful RFP requires transparency about objectives, meaningful evaluation criteria, and a willingness to consider alternatives.
For banks, the challenge is different.
A genuine RFP represents an opportunity to win new business, deepen an existing relationship, or demonstrate capabilities that competitors may lack. But capitalizing on that opportunity requires understanding what the customer is actually evaluating.
And that’s where the conversation becomes particularly interesting.
What actually wins?
It’s tempting to assume that the bank offering the lowest fees will win the business.
In practice, the decision is rarely that simple.
Corporate treasury teams are responsible for complex financial operations. They need banking solutions that work reliably, integrate with their existing processes, meet their service expectations, and support the organization’s broader objectives.
A lower price means relatively little if the proposed solution introduces operational complexity, creates implementation challenges, or fails to address the underlying business need.
The strongest proposals tend to combine competitive pricing with a clear understanding of the customer’s operating environment.
That means asking better questions before proposing solutions. Understanding the economics of the relationship. Knowing where your bank is competitive and where it isn’t. And demonstrating that what you’re proposing can actually be delivered.
It also means recognizing that two customers purchasing similar banking services may place very different values on those services.
One might prioritize cost reduction. Another may be willing to pay more for operational efficiency, superior service, or capabilities that support future growth.
Banks that understand these differences are better positioned to develop compelling proposals. Those relying primarily on historical pricing, standard rate cards, or assumptions about customer priorities risk missing the mark.
Price matters, of course. But so do credibility, execution, and the ability to demonstrate value.
The uncomfortable question: What does “fair” actually mean?
This is one of my favorite questions in bank fee negotiations, largely because the answer depends on who’s sitting across the table.
For a corporate treasurer, a fair deal might mean achieving pricing that’s competitive with what comparable organizations receive elsewhere.
For a bank, fairness also involves the cost of delivering services, the profitability of the relationship, the risks involved, and the broader commercial value of serving that customer.
Neither perspective is inherently unreasonable.
Banks are businesses. They have a legitimate interest in generating returns from the products and services they provide. Corporate treasury teams have an equally legitimate responsibility to manage costs and secure value for their organizations.
Those objectives naturally create tension.
But I think we sometimes make the mistake of treating that tension as evidence that one side must be taking advantage of the other.
A bank defending its pricing isn’t necessarily being unreasonable. A corporate customer negotiating aggressively isn’t necessarily being unfair.
They’re two parties pursuing legitimate economic objectives in a competitive marketplace.
The more interesting question is whether both sides have enough information to reach an agreement they can justify.
To me, fairness isn’t simply the lowest price a corporate can extract or the highest price a bank can defend. It’s a deal both parties can support with a clear understanding of the underlying economics, market conditions, and value being exchanged.
And increasingly, the ability to make that case comes down to data.
Data is changing the balance of power
Consider what happens when a corporate treasury team enters a negotiation armed with detailed information about its existing banking arrangements.
It understands transaction volumes, service utilization, fee structures, and the total cost of its relationships. It may also have access to market benchmarks showing how its pricing compares with that of similar organizations.
That knowledge changes the conversation.
Instead of simply asking whether the bank can offer a better price, the treasury team can challenge specific fees, identify inconsistencies, and negotiate from a more informed position.
For corporates, this creates confidence.
For banks, it creates a challenge that many are still working to address.
Relationship managers and pricing teams need to understand not only what they’re charging, but why. They need visibility into the broader relationship, the economics of proposed deals, and the competitive implications of pricing decisions.
They also need processes that allow them to respond effectively when customers challenge those decisions.
That’s difficult when critical information is scattered across systems, pricing decisions depend on manual analysis, or teams lack a consistent way to evaluate the profitability and competitiveness of a deal.
The result can be a significant disadvantage at the negotiating table.
And the gap may only widen as data analytics, benchmarking capabilities, and AI-powered tools become more sophisticated.
Corporate treasury teams are already demonstrating what’s possible when negotiations are informed by better information. Banks should be asking whether their own capabilities are keeping pace.
Because if your customer understands your pricing, their alternatives, and their negotiating position better than you do, winning the next RFP becomes considerably harder.
Let’s put both sides of the table in the same room
These are some of the questions we’ll be exploring at AFP 2026 in our panel discussion, “How to Play Your Cards Right: Winning RFPs, Bank Fees & Fair Deals.”
The session will bring together perspectives from corporate treasury, bank-fee advisory, and banking industry expertise to examine what motivates an RFP, what separates effective processes from ineffective ones, how organizations should define a fair deal, and what success actually looks like for everyone involved.
I’m particularly looking forward to the opportunity to explore these questions from both sides of the relationship.
Corporate treasury professionals will hear how different organizations approach banking relationships and negotiations. Bankers will get a valuable window into how sophisticated customers evaluate their proposals, challenge their pricing, and make decisions about where to place their business.
And both sides may discover that understanding the other’s objectives is one of the most valuable negotiating tools available.
Whether you’re issuing the RFP or trying to win it, understanding what’s happening on the other side of the table can change how you approach the deal.
At AFP, we’ll put both perspectives in the same room.
