ACT Awards

Speaker A: Not a lot of people speak about the odds. And this is something that me personally, as a treasurer, was asking myself. Should I actually nominate myself? Should I nominate someone else? Am I qualified? Is any of my friends qualified?

Speaker B: We've had a number of deserved winners of the Treasury Professional over the years. It's just a really great example of. It doesn't always have to be the group treasurer. It can just be

Speaker C: if you've done something that's interesting or been through a particular experience, put it down and share it.

Speaker B: I would encourage anybody who is having a thought about it go on and have a look at the criteria it is free to enter.

Speaker A: It would be really nice to understand what key criteria you look at, what points that you look at when you're evaluating a project or a person or a nomination. So I think, uh, I'm really grateful that you guys are here. I'm really happy that you joined me. Um, I believe this is going to be one of the best episodes that we're going to make because not a lot of people speak about the odds and how they are being judged and what happens in the backstage of the awards. And this is something that me, myself, personally, as a treasurer, was asking myself when these awards were coming out. Should I actually nominate myself? Should I nominate someone else? Am I qualified? Is any of my friends qualified? So these questions, they came to my mind that I'm sure they come to Other Treasures. So that's why I really thank you for being here. And I, um, think it's going to be very, very interesting for Other Treasures to hear what happens in the backstage. So thank you, Laura. Thank you, Andrew, for being here.

Speaker B: Thank you.

Speaker A: Um, as we start, maybe if you can introduce yourself and also share with us who are the other Treasures and judges that we have on the panel of the Duchess, that would be great. Sure.

Speaker B: So thanks for having us. Um, this is actually the first time I've been invited to appear on a podcast, so it's pushing, uh, me a little bit outside the comfort zone. But I'm really pleased to be here and, uh, I know we're in good hands with you, so looking forward to the conversation. So, I'm Laura Ford and I am, um, Director of Treasury at Majid Al F. Uh, for your listeners that might not be familiar with the group, we're in the business of creating great moments for everyone every day. What does that really mean? Um, we run a portfolio of lifestyle destinations across the MENA region. Um, so think of shopping malls, residential communities, cinemas, lifestyle brands, and of course, our iconic, um, uh, ski slope in the desert. Ski Dubai. Um, so it's a fascinating business to be in. Um, and I've had the great pleasure, um, of seeing how the treasury community has grown over the years here in the region. I came to Dubai in 2008, um, which is probably one of the best professional personal decisions I've ever made through my career. And, uh, back in those days, there were only small handful of dedicated treasury functions within companies. And I think we've grown the community tremendously over the years. So it's been great to witness that firsthand.

Speaker A: And thank you for being a huge part of that. Really appreciate it. And um, Andrew, it's a pleasure to have you.

Speaker C: Thank you. Nice to be here. Also my first time. So, uh, hey, it's all good fun. Um, so I'm Andrew. I look after Treasury Group treasurer for Agility. Uh, Agility is a probably a company. It's been around for 20 years. I actually arrived in Kuwait 20 years ago and uh, moved over to Dubai three years back now. Uh, so, uh, 17 years in Kuwait, three years now in Dubai. Uh, all of that time with Agility.

Speaker A: So you almost made it Eastern. Now 20 years in Middle East.

Speaker C: Maybe the beard's a bit too short. Um, but yeah, no coming along. Um, Agility is for those that don't know. We're a $5 billion revenue company. Uh, we've got three main business. We do fuel logistics, we do airport ground handling, and we build and manage warehouses that are key businesses. We have some other investments outside of that as well that are quite significant, but, uh, they're not owned, they're more investments. But that's who Agility is. And it's been a lot of fun and a very interesting 20 year ride.

Speaker A: It's pleasure to have you, Andrew. So Andrew and Laura, you are both part of a bigger panel of judges on the ACT Awards. So who else are there on the panel of judges and how, basically how did this happen? How did you become one of the judges on the ACT Awards?

Speaker B: Yeah, so maybe I'll take us back to 2008, which is when I moved to Dubai. And coincidentally that is also when the ACT established a presence in the region with the launch of the ACT Middle east back then. And the awards actually followed a couple of years after that. So I think we started the awards around about 2010. Um, and you know, back in those days, the Middle East Treasury Summit was part probably 100, 150 people gathering together, thought sharing and discussing ideas. That's grown tremendously. The summit is now Over a thousand delegates, uh, that we have each year. Um, so that's been fantastic to see and I think the awards has grown alongside that. So when we started back in 2010, I think we had two or three categories of awards. We had maybe deal of the year, team of the year, and that was probably about it. Um, we now have 10 categories that are open for nomination. Um, so it's great just to see how the awards has kind of evolved alongside the profession. Um, to answer your question about the judging panel, so there are currently seven of us, seven, uh, treasury practitioners that sit on the judging panel and Andrew and myself co chair that that panel. Um, folks working across different industries, different sectors, but all of us are act qualified treasury profess. And I think that's important because it gives us that common foundation and I would say maybe it allows us to kind of have a common understanding and speak a common language when it comes to our understanding of what treasury best practice looks like. Um, so we are people that are representing the treasury profession through our many years of experience of living it and working in it. Um, and we're there really to serve the treasury community and help people celebrate the achievements of what they've, what they've delivered for their organizations.

Speaker A: Love it. Um, can we maybe go through the types, different types of awards that we have so that treasures who are watching or listening to us know, okay, these are the types of awards and then they can decide, okay, which award I might be eligible for. But the first, let's list them if we can.

Speaker B: Absolutely. Uh, so as I say, we went from having sort of two maybe deal categories to ten different uh, awards categories that we have for the awards this year. I think I would probably sort of categorize them in three main buckets. Um, so the first one you have the deals or funding awards and within that we have uh, capital raising, we have sustainable financing, we have working capital solutions, these type of transaction based, um, awards that people can nominate themselves for. Um, and what I would say there is, it's not always necessarily about the big multinationals with the multi billion dollar deals. Of course those are important and they absolutely deserve a seat at the table. But we've seen other smaller SMEs win awards in this category, um, just based on the context of their operations and their treasury team and the industry that they work in. So it's not necessarily always a matter of the size or the scale of the deal, but the context is very important. So that's the first category, that's the, the deals and funding. We Then have the second category which is around treasury operations and transformation. So within that you have things like, um, treasury transformation programs, systems implementations, cash management projects and the like. So there it's more around how treasury teams have adapted and transformed the way that they work on a day to day basis. And then the third broad category is around the people. And I think for me personally that's the most fun and enjoyable category to judge because this is actually the story of the people behind the projects and behind the organizations, the treasury teams themselves. So we have awards there for treasury teams and then we have individual awards as well. Um, so we have the individual award for Treasury Professional of the Year. We have something called the Rising Star in Treasury, um, which we've slightly, we've changed the name this year because historically, and some of your listeners might be familiar, it used to be called the Future Leader in Treasury Role. And I think maybe this award category was the one where we've had the most confusion, I would say in past years, because people haven't quite been sure what criteria we're looking at within that award. So if you are the group treasurer or the treasury director of a business with 10, 15, 20 years experience under your belt, this is not the category for you. The rising Star and Treasury category here, what we're really looking at is perhaps you have somebody within your team who's coming up through the ranks of the Treasury Department. Um, somebody who's throwing initiative and potential to be perhaps the next group treasurer in five, 10, 15 years, whatever that looks like. Uh, maybe it's somebody who's taken ownership of their own career path, they're learning their professional development. Um, so it's more about future potential of somebody who's coming up through the ranks of your team.

Speaker A: This, this actually takes us to the uh, next question. Maybe Andrew, which is, okay, maybe I'm one of the treasures listening now to the episode or I have seen the awards or the advertisement that the awards submissions are open and I'm seeing the awards there and I'm thinking, what makes me eligible to apply? Should I apply? I would feel maybe hesitant to apply. Maybe, maybe I will make an, um, I'm being very transparent, but maybe I'll make an embarrassment on myself. If I apply, should I apply? Should I not apply? What makes me eligible to apply and which one of these categories should I apply for? So you as one of the judges, how would you advise someone who's like me, m sitting there and wondering should I apply or not if he or she should apply, what makes him eligible?

Speaker C: Yeah, that's a very good question. And I think the answer is if you're in a corporate treasury and you feel that you maybe want to apply, you probably should. Um, the official criteria, and they're on the website on the link, you need to be in a corporate treasury. So we have had submissions from banks. Uh, there was one last year that was maybe borderline, but we as judges decided that since it was actually submitted by a bank, we would not. That's interesting. So from banks, uh, occasionally you see something from a bank or corporate. Needs to be a corporate treasury department. And that one, we do apply. The project needs to be completed in the last 12 months. Um, so if it's something that was done two years ago, sorry, but that one's missed. If it's finished, you should have done it last year. Um, I mean, if it's nearly finished, we would probably look at it. Um, but it may be, if you're partway through and actually you think you'll be finishing at the end of this year, you're probably better to submit it next year. Um, but those are the. Those are the two sort of key criteria. And I think from, you know, as one of the judges and like, Laura been here pretty much since we started, uh, on the judging panel, the range of things we've seen is immense. Um, and we've seen things from, you know, very small companies just doing something we've really liked. And we just thought, this is really well thought out. But it may be they've got one senior treasury manager and it goes up to the cfo and it goes all the way through to the, you know, the big multibillion dollar companies doing their next multibillion dollar bond. And as. As the judges, and in terms of what we're doing, which is to look. To encourage professional treasury operations, uh, we love to see all of. All the range, the whole range. So if you've done something that's interesting or, you know, been through in a particular experience, please put it down and share it. That's what I would.

Speaker A: Don't be embarrassed. Don't feel belittled. Just go ahead.

Speaker C: Okay.

Speaker A: I believe that would maybe. Okay. Before I was going to ask, uh, what actually happens when you're evaluating the submissions, but before that, maybe can we go through the dates? So, okay, I've gathered my courage. M. Okay, I'm going to apply. So what's the process as I'm applying? I want to know when should I apply, what is my deadline for application? And then what's the timeline that I should be expecting for the judging of my application and when should I expect the announcement of the results?

Speaker B: Yes, so the website is open already as we speak, so people can feel free and I'm sure you'll share the link to the website where people can visit treasurers.org and have a look over there. Um, the, the process is open now for to submit their nominations. Um, that runs through until the 24th of August. So the nominations close 24th of August to then give us sufficient time to run the judging process. And the awards actually takes place on the first night of the Middle East Treasury Summit, which is on 22nd September at the Grand Hyatt here in Dubai. Um, so I would encourage anybody who is having a thought about it go on and have a look at the criteria. I think, uh, the mechanics of how to submit your application are quite straightforward on the website. Um, it is free to enter so there is no cost to put a submission forward and you are free to submit as many nominations as you see fit. Um, I would caveat there though to please ensure for anyone who's considering it that um, you know, if you're not sure about the category that you're entering for, feel free to reach out to the ACT to understand where they think it might fit best. Or you can use your own judgment call and nominate within a category. But I would discourage people from nominating, um, the same project or the same team across multiple categories, just if they're not sure, uh, where it sits best. So reach out to the ACT if you're um, wondering where best your nomination might sit. Um, so that's a little bit around the timelines and the process. Um, the judging session itself is great fun. Um, but at the same time we do take it seriously with the trust that has been placed on us to judge fairly and accurately. I, um, would say that if there is any question around conflict of interest if any one of our teams or projects has been nominated into the award, naturally we do recuse ourselves from uh, judging for that particular category.

Speaker A: Before we go to the judging process, there's one important thing that you mentioned where you said if you're not sure, do not apply to multiple awards at the same time or multiple categories. Right.

Speaker B: With the same information. If you feel that you have nominations, different ones that are um, applicable to different categories, by all means use your discretion and you can submit as many nominations as you like. But we have found in the past, perhaps when people have been unclear about where they, which category their particular project sits best and they've Just submitted the same application across five or six different awards categories.

Speaker A: This is something that I would do. That's why. Because if I'm not sure which category, then I might. If I have two categories, I'm thinking, okay, let's apply. So in that case, what should I do?

Speaker B: So either reach out to the act and say, listen, this is what I'm thinking. This is the project I have. This is where I think it sits its best. Does that make sense or not? Um, what I would also say is that, you know, whilst this is important, don't spend too much time racking your brains on the category. Right. Because as the judges within the, within the session itself, we have the discretion to move a nomination into another category if we feel that that's where it sits best. So it's not to say that if you've, um, you know, nominated yourself in the wrong category that you're going to be disqualified. That's not the case at all. Uh, we have some leeway there to, uh, work with nominations and make sure that we're judging them in the fairest manner possible.

Speaker A: That's great. That's great to mention. Okay. So going to the judging, um, process. So now you've received the nomination. So how do you. I know that there isn't not. We cannot share each and every detail.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: But for the treasures, who's watching or listening, it would be really nice to understand. Okay, how does it work, the actual judging of the project from your end, what key criteria you look at or what points that you look at when you're evaluating a project or a person or a nomination.

Speaker B: Yeah. So I think, uh, I mean, it's a fun session for us, there's no doubt about it. But as I was saying before, we do also take it seriously and regard it with the rigor that it deserves. We appreciate that people take the time and the effort to, to make the nominations with as much information as they can. And so we take the time that each one deserves. And each and every single nomination is read through from start to finish by one of the judges. And then we come together in normally, what's a half day session to actually debate and discuss, um, and ultimately come up with a short list, um, and then a winner against each category. Um, we don't always necessarily agree and some of those discussions can get quite heated when we have different opinions. Uh, but that's what makes it fun. Right. And that's what makes it rigorous as well, that we make sure that we pay attention to the detail. Um, and perhaps one Judge might have picked up on a nuance of the nomination that another one hasn't and brought that to the attention of the panel. So we will debate that at length. Um, and there have been instances where we've literally run out of time after a half day and still not been able to come up with a winner in certain categories because the quality of the nominations has been so high. Um, so we've perhaps parked it and had to come back at a later date and discuss again. Um, on the other hand, there have also been occasions where we haven't been able to reach a decision perhaps because the quality of the entry is not quite given enough to work with. So it's not necessarily that the team or the project hasn't done great work, but the nomination hasn't given us enough evidence of that for us to make an informed decision on whether they qualify as a winner or not. So it's a reminder again that the more substantiate of evidence you can give us in your nomination, um, the more fruitful of a discussion we can have as a judging panel.

Speaker A: So, uh, Andrew, how, from your perspective, how do you evaluate a project and has there been an instance where maybe there wasn't an unanimous agreement within the judges? Maybe if there is something that you can share with us, okay, this has happened and then we, uh, we. This is how we were able to solve it. Because maybe the criteria where we were judging this project was, uh, there was a bit of confusion or there was a bit of disagreement between the judges.

Speaker C: I say there is every time. It's, it's not, um, you know, but that's the reason you've got a panel, right? I mean, and I think you've, you know, you need to look at the judges and our relative experience. So you know, for example, there's some transactions that I've not done myself as a treasurer. So I haven't been in a rated institution, not for 30 years. Um, and I haven't actually issued a bond. Right. Laura's done plenty of those and other people. So you may lean towards the expertise of a, uh, particular judge or number of judges because there's normally at least two or three or more that have done each thing and we'll pick those experiences. I think quite often the bigger debates can be, um, it's probably two. One is where you've got very similar quality. Right. And somebody's got nuances because you're not going to have everybody issuing an ESG based bond at this sort of size on this sort of scale for this sort of company, they won't look the same. So you've got to be um, sort of qualitative about what you're judging. The other one can be where there's maybe insufficient information coming in from the applicant or from, from whoever's submitting and there you're sometimes leaning on other knowledge that you might have about the corporate or some other source of information. And that's where I think Laura was also saying there are instances where we'll say, okay, well this probably really good but we actually don't have quite enough information to judge it. Um, and that's where it's important that people try and submit, ah, a well rounded application.

Speaker A: Can the candidates just help with that? So if he or she is applying, is there something that they can do to add more information to help with that?

Speaker C: Well, we have gone back. So in the past we have, as Ora said, there's occasions where we've looked at it and maybe we have something that we think is good but we just don't have quite the right information. We've paused it, we've gone back and we've asked for additional information and we have done that a few times. It probably also depends a little bit what the range of alternatives are because if you've got seven, uh, submissions and six of them are fully presented, you'll probably be picking from one of the six. But if you've got a smaller group and you've only got, you know, you may take it the other way around if six of them are missing some information and that's probably too extreme an example because I can't remember that happening, but you would then go back and try and get further information about the majority. So we try and be fair if a submission is missing information that we feel we need, but it does also go to, and I think Laura, you've touched on this already. It's really requesting people to try and make a well rounded submission. So somebody only gives two lines about a company that's maybe not very well known. It's quite difficult for us to judge how big an impact uh, uh, a change in cash management might have. So somebody just writes, uh, you know, we moved all our bank accounts to bank X and we saved amount Y and we did this in six months. It's not really giving us enough information to judge how that cash management project A was really implemented and B delivered value for the company. Um, and these are the sorts of things that we as the judges are looking to understand with a project. So I think I'm Sure. I mean Laura, sure you'd echo. We've seen both extremes. We've seen kind of 40 page submissions where you're like, have I really got to try and read and summarize 40 pages? Because that's the challenge. But we've seen three lines where it's just insufficient. I don't know whether I can put a number. I think it depends on the project. But something where you've got three, four, five pages of good information is probably ideal. Somebody wants to attach an appendix. So we've seen it where there's been a bond issuance and people attach the press release or attach part of the uh, documents that went with it. That's great. Right. We can scan through the attachments and read the four or five pages. But it's always bear in mind that we're a panel of judges. We've been given the information two weeks before we have our half day session and we may have 30 or 40 packs to read.

Speaker A: Mhm. Right.

Speaker C: So we need to have something that's digestible and easy to understand. So I think those are the key messages that I'd want to uh, share.

Speaker A: This is interesting because it takes us to the following discussion which is what do you advise Candice, when they are applying or nominating nominations? When they are nominating, um, or submitting their application, how does the application should look like? How should they present their case? Um, so maybe if you can share on that, on maybe the best practices that you have seen or maybe not the best ones that you have seen, that maybe you think if they only had this added or if they had a disqualification, it would have made a huge difference.

Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, sure. Um, I think the most interesting submissions that we've had in the past have always been the ones that have conveyed the story. So you know, whilst the supporting evidence and information, whether that be the numbers, the cost saving, etc. Of course is, is absolutely valuable for the judging process. Um, you know, we're not looking just for a checklist of data points the story around how that has been achieved, the team behind it, what were the challenges they faced, what did the solution look like that they brought, who were the stakeholders that they had to bring along the journey with them. So the more storytelling kind of angle that you can give to your nomination just helps us to understand actually, um, you know, the meat of the story that you're trying to tell. Um, and those tend to be the nominations that we remember for many years. You know, I mean, as Andrew was saying, we've judged probably hundreds of nominations, uh, over the many years that we've been working as a panel together. But there are always a few that stand out because you've really been able to put yourselves in the shoes of that team or that project and really understood the challenges that they were facing and how they've overcome them. So I would say the storytelling pieces is, Is, uh, very important, but the rigor of making sure that you have the evidence to Andrew's point to back that up as well is important. And maybe just a small practical tip, if people are listening and thinking, um, maybe I could have a shot at submitting something this year, but I'm not quite sure how to tell my story or exactly what the judges are looking for. Call up one of the previous winners of the awards, or if you need an introduction, feel free to reach out to us or through the act, and we're happy to, to make that introduction. Talk to people who've been winners in the past, understand from them what it is that they have done or submitted that enabled them to, to, to be successful, um, in winning an award in past years. You know, um, just a small practical tip, but I think, uh, it's invaluable when you understand a little bit about what success looks like in terms of what the judges are looking, but also from, from previous winners as well.

Speaker A: And are there any standout cases or standout examples that you would maybe like to share with us that you thought, okay, this is a really standout application?

Speaker C: Yeah, I, I was actually just going to have one point to Laura, what you're saying there, which is, I think as, as one of the judges, and I think my, my fellow judges as well. We're also comfortable if people know us or want to connect to, to share what we think with people as well. So I think it's reaching out to the act, previous winners or judges, and I think all of us were quite happy to give some guidance as to what we, you know, how we would like to see the submission makes our role easier. So, um, that's great. Um, I think coming back, some of the standout submissions, it's interesting, Laura, what you're saying, because it's actually about the story. So often that leaves the one or two that stick in your mind, and there's one. Um, I think we won't put the names of the winners out here, but probably they could work it out from this. But there was a lovely story, uh, about a, I guess a taxi firm over here, and they were modest size, a few thousand vehicles, and their story was Actually that they wanted to change their fleet and therefore they had a bit of an esg. So they wanted to move to hybrid vehicles, but they also had, uh, I'm trying to remember, three or four thousand drivers and they wanted to move away from cash and over to a more cashless solution. But this actually had an impact on the drivers because most of them were used to receiving cash as their salary. And the way they'd done it is they created or set up a credit facility for my numbers may be off here, but something like $10 million to buy and refleet with hybrid vehicles. But what they'd also done, they then moved and implemented a sort of a. I, uh, mean this is a few years back, but moved to, you know, implement the card readers in, in each taxi. But what they'd done that I really liked was that they'd actually brought in the bank that had arranged the financing, had three or four desks and set up bank accounts for the individual drivers.

Speaker A: Wow.

Speaker C: So the individual drivers then had a bank account. All very easy for them just to come in when they're taking their break, sit down for 10, 20 minutes, get their account opened and could actually allow the organization to move to a more cashless solution. Now that was done by a very small team with a very small firm. But the story and the complete range of the solution just stuck, right? They were a winner and they were very deservedly a winner sitting alongside somebody that had raised a, uh, multi billion dollar bond and re engineered 30 country cash management. But these are the stories and these are the solutions that I, and I think we as judges find really good messages. Because for that organization, they had delivered a brilliant treasury solution. But it was wide, it was across the scope of what they needed to do. And it was well thought out. I wouldn't think automatically of I need to do something with my employees so that we can change. But this was a very well thought out solution. So that's probably the standout. If I want to pick one over my judging career, that's probably the one that really jumps out. There's plenty of others people moving for their first bond in with an ESG element or moving their credit facilities. Somebody was moving all of their credit facilities. They'd done their main loan with an esg, but they then moved their uh, derivative lines and others also with an ESG angle on it, right? And that's like, oh, that's innovative, that's good. And these things count for us. Um, but you know, Laura, you said it, it's the story, it is the story.

Speaker B: And I can remember the uh, nomination that you're talking about, the Taxi company because we just uh, you know, it was such a pleasure to kind of feel that you were part of that experience and that journey and that impact that the small team had delivered. And actually that year, because we had a number of very strong submissions, but we really felt that this one stood out and we really wanted to give it a spotlight and recognize it for the good work that they'd done. So we actually created a separate SME category specifically so that we could award um, that company as opposed to having them against, you know, five or six other really strong technical entries. We felt that, you know, this was a story that stood out and we want to make sure that we acknowledge the specific category. So we awarded them as an SME, um, project of the year. Oh, I don't remember exactly the title but yeah, in a category of its own to make sure that it, it had the recognition that it, it, that it's so well deserved. So it's a good example of just, you know, sort of. We do apply a certain amount of agility as we're going through the judging process to make sure that we recognize those entries that um, that have really delivered some meaningful impact for them.

Speaker A: It is fair to say it's not the value of the project in terms of dollar amount, it's the difference it makes to the business and the magnitude of change that adds value to the business. It's not the dollar amount.

Speaker B: Absolutely. And I think that's what Andrew was saying earlier. Not every company is, you know, a multinational accessing the debt, capital markets with mega deals listed, credit rated, whatever it may be. Some are the taxi hailing companies of the world, um, whose treasury probably looks very different, but they are still delivering meaningful, impactful work for their organization. We want to make sure that they're recognized as well.

Speaker C: I think there's one thing I'd add in and I think we sort of. I'm not sure whether it quite fits in one of the other crises or questions, but let me put it out there. I think that's where who is going to make the submission is also important because I can't actually remember who submitted that one, whether it was was the company or the bank they'd worked with. But we would encourage not only the corporates themselves, but the banks and, or advisors or similar advisors is quite a wide category to also look at what they've done and who they work with. Because if they think something has been done by a company that Maybe isn't familiar with the act. Right. We would welcome that to be submitted. So we do get submissions coming in from banks. Banks but for corporates that's the important difference. Or from systems providers or consultancies or advisors. And those are also very good and very welcome uh, as additional submissions because sometimes those, you know, if you've got the bank who looks at it and they have an ACT connection themselves and says actually this is a great story, they should be submitting that um, uh, you know that, that offer or that indication for the um, for the award as well, that submission.

Speaker A: So it's a message as well for the banks and the FSPs. If you, if you are working with a client, a corporate that you believe that they have done a great job in one of the projects, do feel free to nominate them. We actually welcome them to nomination.

Speaker C: Absolutely, yeah.

Speaker B: And the testimonials, sometimes, you know, uh, that's a great way to actually, you know, get the message across. It's not just necessarily the team nominating themselves, but if a provider or a third party is nominating with additional testimonials from folks that might have worked on the project as well, it just helps to substantiate the nomination even more.

Speaker A: That's right.

Speaker C: I guess I might just add one caveat which is what we have seen occasionally, uh, is a provider and advisor submitting multiple applications for multiple different corporates that tend to read a little bit similar. Um, I don't know whether it's sort of a cut and paste and change the name and a few other bits. Those get a little bit more tricky to judge because they all look very similar and you're sort of, well hang on a minute, Advisor X has submitted six of their projects or bankx has submitted six of their projects and you almost read what you've got and see the bits they've edited to swap the companies. Those are not the best submissions. Right. So it really does want to be something individual. If some um, if a bank or an advisor wants to submit five or 10, that's fine, but they need to tell the individual story.

Speaker A: Right.

Speaker C: And I think that's something, that's something we have seen a little bit. And what unfortunately happens is if you've got five that look the same, it gets quite difficult to differentiate. And the other one that's got a different story can work. We try and make sure that we eliminate those things as we go through the process but it's really about making sure that the, you know, if you are submitting, if you are an advisor or a bank, and you're submitting for multiple clients, please make sure the individual one is individual.

Speaker A: Yeah. So try and focus on the one that, again, adds value, the magnitude of the change, and it actually has a story to tell.

Speaker B: Yes. And going back to your question about, you know, some indication of standout winners in the past and, you know, taxi companies, a great example. But on the people side of things, we've had a number of deserved winners of the Treasury Professional of the Year over the years. Um, and one that sticks in my mind probably going back about five or six years now was, um, a lady who was actually working as cabin crew for Etihad Airlines. Um, and she decided that she really just wanted to pivot her career completely. And so she enrolled herself for the, uh, ACT qualifications, got herself ACT qualified, and within three or four years, she was a key member of the Etihad's treasury team. And then she went on to roll out her own training, uh, programs within the team. But it's just a really great example of, you know, it doesn't always have to be the group treasurer who's leading a large team M and executing, uh, large projects. It can just be a case of somebody who's interested in a career in treasury and has completely pivoted their career and got themselves qualified and is now doing great things. So these are the kind of stories that I, uh, think remain in our minds for many years after the fact.

Speaker A: That's great, because this was actually crossing my mind where you guys were speaking. Okay. What if I want to apply for a personal award? How do I evaluate myself? Because usually we. Sometimes we undervalue ourselves or undervalue our efforts.

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker A: So what would you say to people who are applying for personal awards? Um, how to properly vary themselves, um, and from different stages of Treasury? Because we do have junior treasurers, we do have senior treasurers, we have group treasures in these different stages. What advice would you give them to not undervalue themselves and actually see the value that they're adding and have the courage to apply for an award?

Speaker B: Yeah, I think it's absolutely right what you say. And not to generalize too much, but at least as treasury professionals generally, I, um, think we're not always great at recognizing our achievements and putting ourselves forward and our teams forward for these type of things. Um, yeah, so, again, it's, you know, the technical expertise and that foundation level, um, I think is absolutely important. You know, somebody's taken the time to put themselves through the qualifications. They can show and demonstrate the credentials that they are a Treasury professional, and then it's about how do they craft their career? Are they somebody who is taking ownership for their continuing professional development? Are they getting out there and being part of the community and the network of treasurers, um, attending conferences, perhaps volunteering to speak on panels, these type of things, increasing their visibility within the community? Um, are they people that are bringing others and inspiring others along the journey with them? So we have. I mean, uh, a great example is, uh, Khaloud Alhamadi, who. I'm sure she won't mind, um, me mentioning her by name. I think you had her as a guest.

Speaker A: I will add a link to her episode.

Speaker B: Please do. Yeah, so she was our very deserving winner of, uh, Treasury Professional of the Year last year. Um, and. And her technical expertise speaks, uh, for itself. But really what was so interesting about her story was that she has set up an internal sort of mentoring program within her organization, um, aimed towards, uh, Emirati women working in treasury and more broadly, the finance profession. So she is, in a way, sort of paving the way for the next. Next future leaders of Treasury. And, um, this is exactly the type of story that we love to hear about, and it should be celebrated. So I would say to anybody who's thinking, oh, perhaps I'm not worthy or I haven't achieved enough, uh, it's not the case. Um, whatever you're doing, as long as you're taking ownership of crafting your career and your development, um, I think that's, uh, something to be. To be celebrated.

Speaker A: I love that. I love that.

Speaker B: And to the extent, again, that you can substantiate with a testimonial, whether that's from your group treasurer, your cfo, one of your providers, one of your banks, um, on the good work that you're doing, again, might not be so comfortable for people to feel that they can reach out and ask for that. Um, but, uh, it reflects well in the nomination for us as judges.

Speaker A: I agree 100%. And I had Spencer, um, on, um, one episode, and she did mention that we do often, as treasures undervalue ourselves. And she has a famous saying that treasures are the unsung heroes. So, yeah, I do agree with you, but we need to look at the value that we are really adding to the organization and actually recognize that and not be afraid or embarrassed or, um, humble to show that and, uh, have the courage to actually go out and say, we have done this. We made this difference. We added this value. So I do agree with you 100%. Um, 1. 1 thing I Wanted to maybe also shed a light on if there has been some mistakes that you have seen in some of the applications and thought, oh, if they can only do this or if they just had added this part, that would have been great to the application. Maybe if you can share some of the examples of mistakes that some of the applications had.

Speaker B: Sure.

Speaker C: I think it's things like the occasional where it's not for a corporate or it's not something that's done within the 12 months, et cetera. So just following the, you know, those we stick to, um, we have had submissions coming in where it's actually for somebody outside of the treasury team. So sometimes a CFO or something, those we'll look at. I guess it depends a little bit, bit contextually on what's been submitted. But if it's, ah, you know, if it's more about what the CFOs done, that includes a little bit of treasury, but other things, that's probably not quite what we're looking for. Equally, um, if the, you know, some instances we've got CFOs who are ex treasurers and actually they still lead with a close touch. So it's not a hard and fast rule, it's just a guideline. Um, I think the other is probably where we already covered, which is, is the story being told? Right. And if it's, you know, my, my mind keeps going back to if you send us three lines about something, it's very difficult. Unless we happen to have additional knowledge, we're not going to be able to get it. And some of the judges may have additional knowledge and, and most will not. So really tell the story and make sure there's sufficient detail for a standalone submission. I think they're the key, key messages.

Speaker B: Uh, maybe to be a bit controversial, we're not looking for a pitch deck from a bank on their product or their solution. Absolutely. Talk about the solution that you've implemented for your clients. But you know, you're not trying to pitch us your product. It's about the value that that has generated for that, for that client, for that, for that company and how that's transformed their Treasury. Uh, treasury transformation. It's not just about out telling us about your product.

Speaker A: Is there a question that I didn't ask you that I should have asked or is there anything that you would love to add?

Speaker C: So the only other thing I would want to add is that I would emphasize these are the Middle east, not the UAE awards. So we do receive a lot of nominations from the uae, unless from the Other regional, uh, countries. And I think what is also important, these are regional awards. And so we do strongly encourage people to do the submissions from any other country in the region. Um, and I think we do see a majority coming in from the uae, but we really welcome and encourage them from, uh, the other countries around here. So that's something that I just want to emphasize that as part of the. What else we want to put out there.

Speaker A: So countries like. Let's name some. So Saudi Arabia, any of the gcc,

Speaker C: Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, um, uh, Bahrain, Kuwait, etc, all are welcome, right? All are welcome. And all. We are very keen to see the submissions.

Speaker A: No, that's great to add. Uh,

Speaker B: you know, I think for anybody who's listening and is thinking, I'm, um, still not quite sure, not quite sure my team is big enough, not quite sure my project is worthy enough, etc. I hope that your listeners have come away with a sense that that's absolutely not the case. That if you feel that you have done good, impactful work within your organization, then I think you've earned the right to nominate yourself or your team for that. Um, and you know, the awards evening itself, you know, when Andrew and I stand up on the stage and announce the stories behind the winners and then the winners themselves, it's just so wonderful and gratifying to see the faces of those deserving winners sometimes surprised, um, that they've even been nominated or that they're winning the award, coming up onto the stage and accepting the award, um, with gratitude, um, and being able to have that small moment of celebrating, um, treasury excellence, whatever it looks like for that company, is really a great thing. And I think that is part of what we do in building a Treasury community. It's about talking and celebrating the achievements that you've done. So, um, people should not hesitate. The nominations are open. So, uh, if you feel that you've done good work for your company, get your nomination in.

Speaker A: And I hope this episode would be one step further into encouraging them. And this is what we're trying to do. A lot of treasures out there. I know I am, um, one of them. Sometimes feel hesitant, as you say. So this is why I thought of having this episode is, guys, it's not the judgment. The people who are judging are just treasures, just like you.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: Uh, they went through what you're going through now.

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker A: So they understand where you're coming from. So don't be shy, don't be afraid, don't be embarrassed. Uh, we're here for you. We're here to show the value that you're adding.

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker A: So I really, really appreciate you, Laura and Andrew for coming in and for sharing your experience and. And sending comfort to treasures who are hesitant to apply that. No, don't be hesitant. Have the confidence and be comfortable in applying. And if anything, we're just here to support you. And I really, really appreciate that about you. And you coming here and enjoying this episode just says a lot, so thank you. Really appreciate it.