Answer
Usually no. A payment factory centralizes payment execution and bank connectivity — files, channels, approvals, investigations. An in-house bank is the internal bank books: entity current accounts, funding and deposits, often FX, and interest that must survive transfer pricing. Many groups run both; neither label creates the other. Both sit under liquidity management.
Why
- Different objects — Factory metrics are STP rate, cut-offs, channel uptime, and exception ageing. IHB metrics are internal balances, intercompany interest, and funding coverage for release.
- Different failure modes — A factory without usable cash at the payer only centralizes shortfalls. An IHB without a reliable release path (factory or clear bank channels) only centralizes books.
- POBO is a third dial — Who appears on the rail (POBO vs entity-level) is not decided by calling the ops center a factory or an IHB. See POBO vs entity-level payments.
- Sequence — Fix visibility and concentration first (cash pooling, cash forecasting); decide whether you need IHB books; then scope the factory (domestic vs cross-border; entity-level vs POBO corridors).
- Common mix-up — “We need an IHB” often means “centralize payments + fewer bank wallets.” That can be a factory (and BAM) without full internal bank documentation.
Next
Factory: payment factory. Books and funding: in-house bank. Umbrella: liquidity management. Release choice: POBO vs entity-level payments.