CONNECT WITH US
Fintech

Fintech

The B2B payment stack wasn’t built for how businesses pay now

Payments Dive logo

Published on

Add as a preferred source on Google
The B2B payment stack wasn’t built for how businesses pay now

In 2024, ACH overtook checks as the most common form of B2B payment in the U.S, but it took more than a century to get there. The Federal Reserve centralized check clearing around 1920. ACH came online in 1972 and spent 50 years catching up.

In the last decade alone, there’s been an exponential increase in payment modalities. Consumer payments gained Venmo, Zelle, Apple Pay, Cash App and tap-to-pay. B2B followed with its own set of new rails, each one adding a different set of fraud controls, settlement timing, remittance expectations and compliance rules.

A single B2B relationship today might involve ACH, virtual card and check, all routing to different payees through different systems. For complex industries like healthcare and property and casualty, that mix shows up every day: one claim payout can route to a provider as ACH, a member as a prepaid card, and a contractor as a check, all off the same adjudication decision.

The payment mix is modern. The infrastructure moving it wasn’t built for how businesses pay now.

For most of the last century, the B2B payment decision was binary: check or ACH.

Today, the decision set is vastly wider. ACH, real-time payments, virtual card, cross-border, embedded. Each with different fraud profiles, settlement timing, remittance expectations and compliance frameworks. Legacy infrastructure wasn’t built for any of them.

“The paper check problem” only makes it worse. When a legacy infrastructure can’t handle a modern payment type natively, the workaround carries its own cost: a separate vendor, manual process and parallel system someone has to maintain.


Source link

Disclaimer

We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We TheMorningPulse.fyi want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It's possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.