For most companies, the accounts payable profile is not the product of strategic design, but the accumulated result of years of one-off supplier negotiations. Each negotiation seems reasonable in isolation, but together they fail to form any coherent strategy.

The Bank of America commercial card consulting team once discovered at a client that its accounts payable file contained as many as 95 different combinations of payment terms and methods—some suppliers were on net 30 days, others on net 45; some were paid by check, others via ACH transfer. Procurement had been letting each new supplier decide its own preference, and the cost of this drift was never tracked as a separate line item. In reality, it was working capital being stranded on the wrong side of the clearing window.

How payment disorder quietly erodes working capital

This chaos is not unusual, but it is increasingly hard to justify at a time when finance teams are trying to squeeze more cash out of existing operations. Visa and Bank of America jointly surveyed 2,400 finance leaders in late 2025, and 80% rated improving cash and working capital forecasting as a very or extremely important transformation initiative for the coming year, second only to fraud prevention. Yet checks still account for 12% of total commercial payments, and 62% of surveyed companies still use checks on a regular basis—a habit with quantifiable costs.

Modern check payments no longer carry much payment float, because the federal Check 21 Act of 2004 significantly compressed clearing times. By contrast, virtual cards offer greater working capital headroom. Kyle Frase, vice president of commercial card consulting at Bank of America, said: "The working capital benefit comes from being able to pay suppliers over a time frame that extends beyond the original payment terms." For companies that are rebuilding their supplier base around card and virtual card channels, this is a meaningful advantage.

The leverage effect is usually most pronounced among suppliers that already accept card payments but have never been actively asked. Frase noted: "Some suppliers are willing to accept card payments if simply asked, because regardless of payment speed, card payments are already embedded in their processes. These suppliers offer substantial opportunities for capturing working capital benefits."

What a more streamlined path looks like

When Frase's team tackled the client's sprawling accounts payable file, they first built a visual picture to show how fragmented its payment terms had become. The solution was to set a default option: virtual payment upon approval, or net 60-day check. "The client began steering new suppliers toward the preferred payment strategy," he said, through a unified template that procurement could apply, unless a specific supplier relationship required a different arrangement.

The result was not total uniformity; exceptions remained, and Frase acknowledged they always will. But the new state was a focused strategic direction rather than fragments accumulated from one-off negotiations. The research revealed where the broader market is heading: surveyed companies expect virtual cards and electronic accounts payable to grow from 8.1% to 10.4% of total payment volume over the next twelve months, the largest increase among all payment methods; while checks recorded the largest expected decline. 78% of surveyed companies plan to expand their virtual card programs during that period.

The supplier perspective, and why CFOs hesitate

The other half of the equation is the supplier. When buyers shift payments to cards, suppliers bear interchange fees and processing overhead. Frase is realistic about what constitutes a fair exchange—suppliers receive funds faster, which is a partial win, but the right balance depends on the specific relationship and the goods involved. In his view, forcing a single answer across the entire supplier base would undermine the model.

Most CFOs have a clear enough understanding of the target direction. Frase said: "Extending DPO (days payable outstanding) is the top priority, and its link to the bottom line is almost instinctive." But what is harder to see from the top is the path to the goal. "Implementation takes time and effort. Changing the negotiation strategy for payment terms and methods requires investment, as does supplier communication and collaboration. So while CFOs understand the downstream impact, they may not fully appreciate the effort required to get there."

The path also runs into a more familiar obstacle: internal inertia. Frase said: "Change management is difficult. Overcoming the internal mantra of 'this is how we've always done it' is far harder in practice than in theory."

The work begins at the top—among the CFO, controller, and treasurer—to reach consensus on what the procure-to-pay process should actually achieve. Procurement can then execute against that framework rather than improvising supplier by supplier. Without this anchor, the accounts payable profile often ends up like the case with 95 combinations: less a strategy than the residue of a missing one.

Understanding what your payment mix is actually doing

Most companies did not actively choose their current payment mix; it accumulated over time through one supplier negotiation after another. Deliberately examining payment structures, where working capital is being parked, and which suppliers are already positioned to support a shift can reveal opportunities that can be captured without significant investment. A payment partner with payment optimization experience can help finance teams build this picture and make a practical case for change.

Bank of America works with finance teams at every stage.