A practical guide for treasury and finance professionals<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here is something most treasury managers will recognise. Somewhere in the office \u2014 on a shelf, in a cabinet, or buried in a shared drive \u2014 there is a collection of bank guarantees that nobody is actively watching. They were filed when they were issued, and unless someone has a particularly good memory or a very diligent assistant, they will stay there until either the project ends or something goes wrong. More often than not, it is the latter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is not incompetence. Treasury teams are stretched, banks are slow, internal approvals take forever, and guarantee management sits at the bottom of the priority list \u2014 until it suddenly becomes the most urgent thing on everyone\u2019s desk. The problem is that by the time it becomes urgent, the damage is usually already done: a lapsed guarantee, a disputed claim, a frantic search through six months of email to prove that yes, the obligation was actually fulfilled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Investing in reputable bank guarantee management software<\/a><\/strong> is what separates teams that catch these problems before they happen from those that spend their time firefighting after the fact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n People consistently underestimate how much a disorganised guarantee portfolio actually costs. The obvious risk is the missed expiry \u2014 a guarantee lapses, the beneficiary makes a claim, and suddenly there is a dispute that nobody budgeted for. That happens more than finance teams like to admit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But the less visible cost is equally significant. Every guarantee that is not released promptly after the underlying obligation ends is quietly consuming a bank credit facility. That facility has a cost. It limits what the company can borrow elsewhere. And in most manual environments, nobody has a clear enough picture of the full portfolio to know which guarantees are still genuinely needed and which have simply been forgotten.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Multiply that across twelve projects, four banks, and two currencies \u2014 a perfectly ordinary situation for a mid-sized Indian infrastructure or manufacturing company \u2014 and the drag on working capital becomes very real.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Most treasury teams that claim to have their guarantees \u201cunder control\u201d are actually relying on a spreadsheet maintained by one person. When that person is travelling, sick, or moves to another role, the spreadsheet stops being updated. Nobody notices immediately because it still looks like a complete record. Weeks later, an expiry gets missed. Months later, someone realises the data has been wrong since March.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is the core weakness of spreadsheet-based tracking \u2014 it looks functional right up until it is not. Consider the contrast:<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Regulatory expectations have moved considerably in recent years. Bank guarantees are contingent liabilities, and both internal and external auditors increasingly expect to see proper controls \u2014 not just a list of instruments, but evidence that someone is actively monitoring them, that amendments are properly authorised, and that releases happen in a timely way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pulling that evidence together from emails and spreadsheets is painful and slow. A digital platform keeps the full history of every instrument:<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n There is a version of this conversation that happens in most organisations every few years. Someone raises the idea of getting a proper system. Everyone agrees it would be helpful. Nothing changes because there is no immediate crisis and implementation feels like effort. Then a guarantee lapses, or an audit raises a finding, and the conversation starts again \u2014 except now with a specific incident attached to it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The organisations that do not wait for that incident are the ones that move faster, manage risk better, and build banking relationships that hold up when things get difficult. That advantage compounds over time in ways that are hard to quantify but very easy to notice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nThe Real Cost of Doing Nothing<\/mark><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\u201cThe drag on working capital compounds quietly. Unreleased guarantees are invisible liabilities that cost real money every single month.\u201d<\/mark><\/em><\/h4>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
The Spreadsheet Problem<\/mark><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Manual \/ Spreadsheet<\/strong><\/td> Digital Platform<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Depends on one person remembering to update<\/td> Automatically maintained; no manual input required<\/td><\/tr> Expiry alerts only if someone checks<\/td> Proactive alerts sent automatically<\/td><\/tr> Approvals chased by email<\/td> Workflows move approvals forward on their own<\/td><\/tr> Accuracy depends on individual effort<\/td> Accuracy is built into the system design<\/td><\/tr> Data siloed and hard to audit<\/td> Full history always available, audit-ready<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n What Auditors Actually Want to See<\/mark><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/sapatarshi.in\/wpexample\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/1764169661946-1024x576.jpeg\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\nWhy Now Makes Sense<\/mark><\/h2>\n\n\n\n