Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Top Ten Challenges for Investment Banks 2015: Restructuring: Challenge 5

Read a report from Accenture Capital Markets on simplifying complexity and rationalizing and decommissioning process and technology.

Comments are closed

  • Be the first to comment

Top Ten Challenges for Investment Banks 2015: Restructuring: Challenge 5

  1. 1. Simplifying Complexity: Rationalising and decommissioning process and technology Top Ten Challenges for Investment Banks 2015 05 SimplifyingComplexity: Rationalisinganddecommissioning processandtechnology
  2. 2. 05 Simplifying Complexity: Rationalising and decommissioning process and technology The era of the full service offering generating mega profits is over. With banks in the process of finding their niche, it is necessary to determine an operating structure that best supports this new strategy. The industry is at a point of intersection. Regulators are driving banks to rationalise and, at the same time, cost pressures across all business is intense. This requires banks to become dismantlers, rather than creators, of complexity. To do this banks should take a firm-wide view of change, looking across management structures, operations and technology to shed the complexity made redundant by shifting business focus. Simplification imperatives Internal landscapes are characterised by legacy technologies and processes siloed by asset class, product and geography. Historically, executives often focused purely on growth and disregarded the challenges of simplifying operations. However, headwinds in the current operating environment make this position increasingly untenable. Regulation Regulation is driving rationalisation in two ways. Firstly, capital requirements are driving simplified business models, as the increased cost of capital informs participation decisions by Group. The withdrawal of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase from commodities and metals emphasises that this rationalisation impacts even players of scale. Secondly, regulation is increasing the cost of business and the need to rationalise structures in businesses where banks choose to remain, due to focus on rationalised governance, reporting structures and transparency. Dodd-Frank, MiFID and EMIR requirements, for instance, will push 90% of the market’s voice and manual interactions to electronic platforms and, by 2016, the move to electronic trading venues is expected to cause sales and trading losses of 9%, heightening the need to rationalise the cost base. Though e-trading spreads are cheaper, the increased regulatory capital requirements from margining may actually increase the overall cost of trading.i 2 i Source: Deutsche Bank AG FS Report
  3. 3. 3 The dual running of systems during transition will further increase costs, emphasising the need to decommission legacy systems effectively. Passing these costs onto clients is not sustainable in an increasingly competitive and lower- returning market. Rather, rationalisation of the cost base is required in order for banks to remain competitive. Downward pressure on headcount and compensation is central to meeting these cost pressures, and a regulatory tailwind has emerged in the form of CRD IV governance requirements. Management structures remain inconsistent, with minimal recruitment in some and limited promotion in other areas distorting the pyramid. The authorities’ monitoring of internal governance arrangements, according to specific milestones, put simplifying governance and headcount structures at the forefront of senior-level decision making. Withdrawal from certain businesses will make rationalisation of the headcount part of ongoing change – but within remaining lines, the need to meet renewed cost pressures and regulatory governance requirements will drive further rationalisation. Technology The move to electronic trading has been noted – but initial efforts have demonstrated the requirement for unified, scalable technologies, rather than solutions built onto existing architecture. For example, 85% of listed futures and options are now traded electronically, but 75% of banks’ buy-side clients suffer from “data overload”, finding their bank’s platform unnavigable as pricing, counterparty information and execution avenues are fed from different departments.ii The lingering short-termist approach is demonstrated here by banks building on existing business models rather than focusing on client needs. More pressingly, it is exposing banks to disruptive technologies and platforms that are tailored to client needs. The rapid growth in market share of private investment services, with scalable platforms offering a front-to-back service, has been impressive. Banks may baulk at Figure 1: Revenue by Asset Class, Q2 2013 vs. Q2 2014 (Advisory vs. Equities vs. FICC), £bn 5.1 5.1 4.1 4.9 5.4 3.9 3.7 4.5 4.4 5.6 5.8 6.4 7.0 4.3 4.2 1.5 1.5 2.4 2.2 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 5.3 Bank of America Barclays Citi Credit Suisse Deutsche Bank Goldman Sachs JP Morgan Morgan Stanley RBS UBS • Advisory • Equities • FICC 47% 50% 60% 41% 55% 40% 54% 25% 18% 45% 63% 63% 36% 42% 58% 29% 17% 32% 22% 27% 26% 24% 32% 28% 33% 40% 31% 16% 21% 26% 22% 24% 26% 29% the potential of market entrants in the private investment space occupying their market share, but Barclays Stockbrokers’ recent entry into the price war in investment platforms is a harbinger of future moves. Achieving Simplification Core competencies As banks find their niche and differentiate their offerings against their peers - as we are beginning to see in Figure 1 - the growth of cross-asset execution and multi-asset portfolios will require unified pricing, routing and drive automation. UBS’ Neo platform is an instructive example. Whilst accounting for incoming structural changes – agency dealing in the principal-focused fixed-income business is supported, for example – it provides a view across products. Encompassing a lateral product view across global equities, currencies and fixed income, it provides coverage of the trade lifecycle with counterparty eligibility, trading history, central clearing methods and best execution. Consolidating around core capabilities, organisational change is 20% 24% 27% 13% 20% 16% ii GreySpark 33% 38% 21% 29% 32% 18% 42% 18% 23% 46% 100% 100% 42% 53% Source: Accenture Research 56% 26%
  4. 4. 4 Figure 2: Non-interest expenses as a % of revenue 61 64 67 54 51 76 67 77 71 68 67 65 61 71 80 67 72 81 65 68 Bank of America Barclays Citi Credit Suisse Deutsche Bank Goldman Sachs JP Morgan Morgan Stanley RBS UBS • Q1 2014 • Q1 2013 the simplification of products and the move to exchanges will order a rationalisation of product processes and the operations that support them. achieved with a necessarily bold approach to outsourcing to decommission non-core businesses. In APAC, Nomura has radically simplified its trading structure, routing equity execution to Instinet and merging their fixed income and equity platforms once it became clear that their market share did not support the complexity of two separate platforms. Nevertheless, there are banks which will keep a broad client service model. Credit Suisse has rationalised to meet the increased cost of business by creating an off-balance sheet FI trading platform – which currently contributes to 20% of the firm’s share priceiii – and apportioning off Wake USA operationally, allowing them to retain a full service desk without holding the required capital. For streamlined business models, cross-product rationalisation is achievable; for those retaining a broader service model, operational rationalisation across departments enables operational simplicity. Standardisation Furthermore, the simplification of products and the move to exchanges will order a rationalisation of product processes and the operations that support them. And yet, cost bases continue to vary hugely across peers (see Fig.2). Cost inefficiencies are, in part, driven by a traditional reticence in investment banking iii Based on Forbes / Trefis analysis, 2014 toward outsourcing, where the industry remains 10-15 years behind other industries. However, third-party vendors have reacted to this standardisation by developing deployable solutions. These solutions can enable rationalisation and decommissioning, where required, at drastically reduced levels of cost. Source: Accenture Research
  5. 5. 5 Captive vs. third-party headcount for BPO June 2014, Percentage Source: Accenture Sourcing Research, Everest • Captives • Third Party Providers 97% 3%Bank A Bank B Bank C Bank D Bank E Bank F Bank G Bank H Bank I Bank J Bank K 95% 5% 55% 45% 35% 65% 9% 100% 100% 85% 15% 90% 10% 100% 90% 91% 85%Bank A Bank B Bank C Bank D Bank E Bank F Bank G Bank H Bank I Bank J Bank K 46% 15% 5% 60% 20% 25-30% 43% 75% 35% 70-75% 75% Captive vs. third-party headcount for IT June 2014, Percentage Figure 4: Captive operating costs vs. vendor rates Totall annual fully loaded captive operating cost per FTE and comparison with vendor rates 2014; US$ in 000s 0 10 20 30 40 50 • Captive cost • Service provider rates Transactional F&A A steady accretion of complexity has taken place over many years within investment banks, masked by pre-financial crisis revenues and profitability. Indeed, certain investment banks’ captive offshoring functions have achieved lower operating costs compared to vendor rates. However, the smaller range in third-party vendor costs reflects competitiveness borne of standardisation. The potential to develop in reduced cost, “greenfield” environments provides scope for the outsourcing of non- differentiating functions – meeting the dual objectives of cutting costs and competing only in spaces where the bank is differentiated (see Fig.3 and Fig.4). In the case of decommissioning, these reduced cost profiles create the possibility of moving assets from the bank’s balance sheet, achieving effective wind-down in a way conducive to increasingly stringent capital compliance ratios. They also offer the chance to reduce the burden of non-differentiating, fixed cost functions for those aspiring to full service offerings. A steady accretion of complexity has taken place over many years within investment banks, masked by pre-financial crisis revenues and profitability. Post-crisis, the powerful imperatives of regulation, cost reduction and client expectation are forcing banks to address this complexity by clearly defining their offerings, simplifying their operating structures, and rationalising common processes and technology across a more focused organisation. This is no simple undertaking, and the challenge – in the face of complex legacy operating systems and governance models – is for banks to build effectively around what they need, not simply superimpose on what they already have. Figure. 3: The use of captive vs. third-party providers Source: Accenture Research
  6. 6. About Accenture Accenture is a global management consulting, technology services and outsourcing company, with more than 305,000 people serving clients in more than 120 countries. Combining unparalleled experience, comprehensive capabilities across all industries and business functions, and extensive research on the world’s most successful companies, Accenture collaborates with clients to help them become high-performance businesses and governments. The company generated net revenues of US$30.0 billion for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2014. Its home page is Accenture Experts To discuss any of the ideas presented in this paper please contact: Wei Min Chin Managing Director Accenture Capital Markets, Asia Pacific +86 21 2305 3832 Tomasz Walkowicz Capital Markets Research, London +44 207 844 5542 Disclaimer This report has been prepared by and is distributed by Accenture. This document is for information purposes. No part of this document may be reproduced in any manner without the written permission of Accenture. While we take precautions to ensure that the source and the information we base our judgments on is reliable, we do not represent that this information is accurate or complete and it should not be relied upon as such. It is provided with the understanding that Accenture is not acting in a fiduciary capacity. Opinions expressed herein are subject to change without notice. Copyright © 2014 Accenture All rights reserved. Accenture, its logo, and High Performance Delivered are trademarks of Accenture.