Post on 20-Aug-2015
Change amidst uncertainty: how banks are adapting to the emerging regulatory landscapeThoughts
Written by the Economist Intelligence Unit
3
The second, related observation is that some bank
leaders may not fully understand the exposure created
by inadequate governance of trading operations within
the new environment. Laws in the United States and
the UK now impose stronger fiduciary and oversight
requirements on a firm’s board members and executives,
requirements that extend to maintaining robust
compliance around all trading operations and banking.
Whether or not their front-office moves are part
of broader corporate strategy, firms can become
exposed to significant fiduciary and reputation risks by
executing new business strategies without adequate
controls, communications strategies and change
management in place. On the up-side, reorganizing
quickly and purposefully, and creating compliance
programs that meet the test of global regulators, can
position banks to increase market share and margin,
both in existing and emerging markets.
We hope the findings of this report help you chart
a course to new opportunities, leveraging solid
governance. Please let me know if you would like to
discuss the results or have any questions.
Capco is pleased to present this
report, which explores how capital
markets firms are dealing with
the dramatic changes that are
underway in the financial services
industry. Based on research
conducted by the Economist
Intelligence Unit in March 2011,
the report provides insight into seven critical questions
regarding banks’ readiness for regulatory reform, which
were the subject of a recent Capco white paper.*
Among the many insights the survey provides, two
are especially noteworthy, and potentially reasons
for caution.
First, it is clear that the traders are driving change.
Trading operations are taking the lead in implementing
business models and processes to operate in the
newly regulated environment. In some cases, they
are quickly executing on geographic strategies, in
jurisdictions where regulations may be more favorable.
In doing so, trading operations appear to be outpacing
their back-office and compliance functions by a
wide margin. In fact, more than half of the trading
operations surveyed could be conducting business
in an environment without the necessary obligations
support – capabilities that simply may not exist in the
local back office yet, or that regulators may not have
even fully defined.
Change amidst uncertainty: how banks are adapting to the emerging regulatory landscape
Sean Culbert
Partner and Co-lead of Finance, Risk and Compliance
sean.culbert@capco.com
* For further discussion of these questions please see the Capco Thoughts white paper, Regulatory Reform: 7 Critical Questions for Financial Services Firms, available on capco.com.
4
About this report
Change amidst uncertainty: how banks are adapting
to the emerging regulatory landscape is a Capco
report, written by the Economist Intelligence Unit.
It examines how, in light of continuing regulatory
uncertainty, financial institutions are reshaping their
capital markets businesses to operate effectively in
the new environment, and focuses particularly on the
likely effect of regulation on overall structure as well
as front, middle and back office operations.
The research is based on three components:
• A survey of 60 senior executives at financial
institutions, half operating in the UK and half in
the US. All firms had annual global revenues of
more than US$5bn and all respondents work in
operations, risk, trading or regulation.
• Interviews with a range of industry participants
and experts, as well as a follow-up qualitative
questioning of survey respondents. Because of
the sensitivity of the topic, interviewees spoke off-
the-record.
• Desk research, including a review of financial
institutions’ regulatory filings.
The author of the report is Geraldine Lambe and the
editor is Monica Woodley.
5
Executive summary
As the scale and intensity of the financial crisis
became clear, industry participants knew that a tough
regulatory response would follow. Those expectations
have now been met. While the final rules remain
uncertain in many areas, a raft of regulatory change is
in process.
The regulations create new capital requirements,
address liquidity and counterparty risk, and push trading
of more products onto exchange and into central
clearing. They put in place new consumer protections
and seek to reduce systemic risk in order to avoid the
need for future government intervention. The cumulative
effect is forcing the financial industry to fundamentally
reassess business models and operating practices.
This assessment is driving significant change in
financial institutions. Banks are already exiting some
businesses and are likely to shrink or exit others as
new capital rules make them less profitable. The
location of new or expanding businesses will be
rethought as firms assess the relative impact of each
jurisdiction’s regulatory constraints. New systems and
processes are being put in place to meet demanding
data capture, data management and stress testing
requirements. Communications with clients and
counterparties are being revamped, and new
reporting lines put in place. Connectivity will have
to be developed and new processes established to
connect to a swathe of new entities that will spring up
in the clearing and settlement space.
In this changing environment, the Economist
Intelligence Unit conducted research, on behalf
of Capco, to find out where banks are in terms of
preparation for new regulations and what impact
these are having on operations. This research
is based on a survey of senior executives at 60
banks, half based in the US and half in the UK,
working in operations, risk, trading or regulation.
The survey results have been supplemented with
in-depth interviews with industry participants and
experts. Because of the sensitivity around this topic,
interviewees preferred to speak off-the-record.
Key findings from the research include:
Banks see more opportunities than threats in
the new regulatory environment. Almost a third of
respondents believe that new regulations will provide
opportunities to take market share as other banks
retrench or rethink their business models. Almost
two-thirds see regulatory change as an opportunity
to transform their business at a systems and process
level. Some see this as a way to gain competitive
edge. However, they are unsure whether the greater
transparency required by regulation will have a
positive or negative impact on competitiveness.
While preparations are well underway, the impact
of regulations on bank structures is unclear.
More than half of respondents say they are at
implementation stage. The US is further behind than
the UK, however, as the industry waits for many
elements of the Dodd-Frank Act to be translated into
regulations. Almost three-quarters have identified
where changes to systems need to be made in order
to handle the new, higher levels of data required. A
similar number say they have a strategy in place to
communicate the impact of regulatory changes to
clients and counterparties.
However, the industry remains uncertain about
how to adapt business entities and operations to
new regulations. More than half of respondents are
keen to retain existing organizational structures and
operating models. However, in 13 out of the 17 areas
of operation covered by the survey, the majority of
respondents do not know if their firms will relocate or
outsource business functions, or create a shared utility.
Boards and senior management believe they
have a good understanding of regulatory impact.
The crisis has been a wake-up call for board
members and senior management. With regulators
and policy-makers taking an increasingly tough line,
boards and executive management will be more
accountable for a firm’s decisions. According to
the majority of respondents, they have risen to this
challenge and have a good understanding of the
implications increased data transparency will have at
their own businesses as well as across the industry.
Once changes to data infrastructure are adopted,
respondents are confident that management will be
able to prove they have better control over information,
as required by regulators.
6
Introduction
In its 10-K regulatory filing to the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) for the fiscal year ending
in March 2011, Goldman Sachs revealed the impact
that US regulations have already had on the bank’s
operations. “In light of the Dodd-Frank Act, during
2010, we liquidated substantially all of the positions
that had been held within Principal Strategies in our
former Equities operating segment, as this was a
proprietary trading business. In addition, during the
first quarter of 2011, we commenced the liquidation of
the positions that had been held by the global macro
proprietary trading desk in our former Fixed Income,
Currency and Commodities operating segment.”
US regulations are shaping European institutions’
strategy too. Deutsche Bank announced in March that
it would deregister its US subsidiary so that it would no
longer be a bank holding company. Deutsche hopes
that by changing the status of Taunus Corp – a part of
which is highly leveraged and under new rules would
need recapitalizing – it will take Taunus out of the
scope of the Dodd-Frank Act and avoid having to raise
billions of dollars in new capital.
Compliance is diverting management, IT and legal
resources from day-to-day operations as IT races to
keep pace with front office transformations. Some
firms have recruited additional expertise in specific
areas. The impact assessment itself is a major
task. The Dodd-Frank Act, for example, is long and
complex at 2,307 pages, 16 titles and 540 sections. It
is expected that regulators will create 243 new rules,
conduct 67 studies and issue 22 periodic reports.
Hundreds of new rules will require consultation
with the industry before they can be implemented.
One bank’s response to the Markets in Financial
Instruments Directive (MiFID) consultation alone takes
up 66 pages. The bank says its legal and compliance
department has doubled in size in the last two years.
So, while much of Dodd-Frank, the Financial Services
Act 2010 and other regulations still need to be
defined, it is clear that banks’ strategy and front
office operations are already moving forward, while
governance and compliance are lagging.
7
Assessment, understanding and implementation
The sales and trading functions of financial services
firms seem to have moved quickly to determine which
regulations are relevant to their businesses, consider
what the regulatory impact will be and even to move
forward with implementing changes based on their
impact assessments. More than half of respondents
to the survey say they are at the implementation
stage. Looking at responses by geography, the UK
is slightly ahead of the US, with 58% compared with
53%, respectively, already implementing changes.
Industry participants say that this is explained by
the fact that there is more still to be defined in US
regulation than there is in Europe, meaning that firms
in Europe have a head start. UK firms are also more
likely than those in the US to align the implementation
of their country’s main regulatory reforms with those
of Basel III and IFRS. (See Figures 1 and 2.)
The UK operations of a European bank are
already advanced in several areas, including those
surrounding internal transfer pricing models. These
are central to complying with the UK’s liquidity
buffers, which were implemented in June 2010, as
well as Basel III’s liquidity coverage ratios. The bank’s
CEO says the bank’s decentralized business model
has given it a head start in such areas.
“We introduced transfer pricing for liquidity risk to all
our branches in June 2009,” he says. “Each branch
has to match-fund itself. The reason we have been
able to move so quickly is because we operate a
devolved model, where each branch is responsible for
setting the appropriate prices for its own market. For
this kind of decentralized pricing model to work, it’s
critical for branches to be charged the correct internal
cost for liquidity, so we already had the processes in
place to enable us to implement this regulation.”
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
32%30%
58%53%
10%
17%
Figure 1. Q1, geographic split. At what stage is your company in preparing for changes required by regulatory reform?
We have identified the regulatory changes relevant to our business
We have assessed how regulatorychanges will impact our business
We have begun implementing changes to our business based on our impact assessments
U.K.U.S.
Figure 1. At what stage is your company in preparing for changes required by regulatory reform?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
68%
50%
23%27%
97%
80%
Figure 2. Q2, geographic split. Have you or do you plan to align the implementation of your country’s main regulatory reform with that
of any of the following regulations? Select all that apply.
IFRS Basel III FACTA
U.K.U.S.
Figure 2. Have you or do you plan to align the implementation of your country’s main regulatory reform with that of any of the following regulations? Select all that apply.
8
Trading is running out in front
According to the survey, by function, trading is way
out in front in terms of preparation, with almost
three-quarters (73%) saying they are already at
implementation stage. Interestingly, the regulatory
function, which may be expected to be most
advanced, is the least prepared. Only 20% say they
are at implementation, although a significant 60%
have completed the impact assessment. (See Figure 3.)
On reflection, it is unsurprising that the trading space
is the most advanced in terms of preparation; they
are already positioning for the higher capital charges
for various products contained in Basel III and for the
proprietary trading ban in the Volker Rule.
“If you look at the changes to the trading book
treatments, they are so substantial that people have
had to think through urgently what is the shape of
the business going forward, because the current
business won’t be profitable,” says the head of
prudential advisory at a consulting firm. “And those
trading book requirements hit much earlier [than
some other changes], so in the trading area it has
become critical to move quickly. The treatment of
counterparty risks in trading books and of bank-to-
bank exposures has gone up three to four times in
total, and the treatment of securitization books has
gone up enormously, so people have already taken
action, moving things out of trading books and into
banking books.”
There are concerns, however, that implementation
may be piecemeal. While many firms have created
working groups or task forces, these are typically
organized at a national level, and therefore do not
address change at a global, enterprise-wide level.
In addition, some have suggested that the amount
of new regulations flooding into the market may lead
banks to focus on the trees but lose sight of the
forest – a criticism which has been leveled at banks,
regulators, ratings agencies and politicians, and
held at least partly to blame for the financial crisis. If
regulators are aware of this danger, the feeling that
the sense of urgency for change is already dissipating
means that they want to press on while there is still a
chance of getting new regulations passed.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
27%
19% 20%
46%
73%67%
20%
46%
0%
14%
60%
8%
TradingRegulation
RiskOperations
Figure 3. Q1, job function splitAt what stage is your company in preparing for
changes required by regulatory reform?
We have identified the regulatory changes relevant to our business
We have assessed how regulatorychanges will impact our business
We have begun implementing changes to our business based on our impact assessments
Figure 3. At what stage is your company in preparing for changes required by regulatory reform?
9
A financial services partner at a consulting firm agrees
that the amount of new regulation is clearly an issue.
“The message from our research is that the sheer
volume of change is proving very challenging for
firms. And it gets more difficult as you move down
from global statements of principal into regional
rule-making, and then further down into national
interpretation. We don’t see many institutions that
have an overarching view of the impact on their firm.
They may well be doing things on a local or regional
level – but they do not have a consolidated view of the
overarching impact.” Given the new uniform fiduciary
standard obligations for advisers and broker dealers,
that could prove problematic for US executives.
Threat or opportunity?
If banks see the challenges posed by regulation, they
also see the opportunity. This is particularly true in
the UK, where almost a third (32%) of respondents
strongly agree that the new regulatory environment
is an opportunity to gain market share. Bankers in
the US, however, are less optimistic, with only 20%
clearly positive about the potential for opportunity.
(See Figure 4.)
At first sight, this looks to be accounted for by the
banning of proprietary trading and constraints on
principal investment – two of the most profitable
areas of investment banking in recent years – that
have been imposed on US banks by way of the
Volker rule. But looking into the survey results by
function reveals that 82% of traders agreed with the
potential to gain market share, and none of them
disagreed. It is the operations and risk functions
which see more danger than promise in the new
regulatory environment. (See Figure 5.)
However, it will not be easy for banks to pick a
winning model – or to make it successful in a
crowded market. “The question is, what is the shape
of the business that will be profitable? And I think
the answer to that is unknown,” says the head of
prudential advisory at a consulting firm. “Moreover,
if multiple banks change their business in the same
way, how many banks can be profitable with the
same type of business? How many banks can be
major flow players, for example?”
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
32%
20%
36%
30%
7%
17%
0%
10%
26%23%
Figure 4. Q3a, Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? We are looking at the new regulatory
environment as an opportunity to gain market share
1 2 3 4 5Strongly agree Strongly disagree
U.K.U.S.
Figure 4. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? We are looking at the new regulatory environment as an opportunity to gain market share.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
21%
33%
18%
40%
17%
10%
64%
40% 42%
33%
18%20%
8%
24%
13%
0%0% 0%0%0%
TradingRegulation
RiskOperations
Figure 5. Q3a, functional splitDo you agree or disagree with the following statements?
We are looking at the new regulatory environment as an opportunity to gain market share
1 2 3 4 5Strongly agree Strongly disagree
Figure 5. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? We are looking at the new regulatory environment as an opportunity to gain market share.
10
There is also a worry that the changes in Basel III
are so big, if any provision unwittingly creates an
unlevel playing field it could proffer huge advantages
to certain players. Unequal treatment in just a single
area of Basel III could have far-reaching effects.
“For example, there has been a worry that the
treatment of deferred tax assets (DTAs) might be more
beneficial for US banks than for European banks and,
depending on how it’s implemented, that would have a
number of consequences. Firstly, it would immediately
make their capital levels higher and their costs lower.
Secondly, it would make it easier for an American
bank to buy a bank in difficulty than for a European
bank; banks in difficulty have hitherto been bought on
the basis of the benefits of the DTAs, because some
of that tax can be clawed back. Seemingly small
inequalities could have large ripple effects.”
New regulations as an opportunity for transformation
Part of the optimism surrounding the chance to
win market share or gain some form of competitive
advantage is tied to the potential of new regulations
to have a transformative effect on the business. This
has clearly been picked up by survey respondents,
with more than half (57%) agreeing with this proposal
and the UK, again, markedly more optimistic than the
US. (See Figure 6.)
However, more than half (54%) of respondents were
keen to maintain their current operation models and
structures. But this is not as counterintuitive as it may
seem, as it relates to where bankers see the greatest
opportunity for transformation – and this is in systems
and processes rather than at the organizational level.
“Banks have grown as groups of discrete business
silos, with each silo capturing data, interrogating
data and leveraging that data,” says the head of
IT at a large European bank operating in London.
“The industry may have gone a long way towards
achieving overall efficiency, but we have never
achieved information efficiency. New regulations –
while onerous and costly – offer us an opportunity
to take a fresh look at how we manage these and
other processes, and to retool operations in a way
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
26%23%
29%
17%
7%
20%
0%
13%
39%
27%
Figure 6. Q3b, geographic splitDo you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Scale of 1 to 5. We are looking at the new regulatory environment as an opportunity to transform our business model/structure
1 2 3 4 5Strongly agree Strongly disagree
U.K.U.S.
Figure 6. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Scale of 1 to 5.
We are looking at the new regulatory environment as an opportunity to transform our business model/structure.
11
that benefits the group, rather than how it suits the
individual business. If we can break down silos, there
are clearly opportunities to generate competitive
advantage from that.
“There is an element of ‘pre-crisis’, and ‘post-crisis’
thinking here, with new regulations as the catalyst
for change,” he adds. “Historically, the cost-benefit
of streamlining systems and processes relative to
the cost of doing nothing meant it was not worth the
hassle or the tax cost. Going forward, that cost-
benefit may change. Living Wills or other resolution
mechanisms, for example, will force banks to think
through a more streamlined structure, and this is
helpful in the new Basel III world.”
Will transparency help or hurt bank competitiveness?
A common motif of the emerging regulatory
environment is the aim of shedding new light on every
area of banks and financial markets. For example,
Dodd-Frank aims for greater transparency into risk
exposure across the financial system, and several
key components of the law require financial services
institutions to collect and report on risk exposure
in their business. The Financial Stability Oversight
Council, in its role as systemic risk monitor, will
collect risk data from various sources including
federal and state financial regulatory agencies and
the newly created Office of Financial Research (OFR);
among other things, the OFR will be responsible for
collecting data from financial services companies.
Similarly, the UK’s Financial Services Act and Basel
III both impose a high degree of transparency on key
metrics, including bank capital, liquidity, collateral and
counterparty risk, requiring such data to be reported
to bank boards and regulators. The European Market
Infrastructure Regulation, meanwhile, will try to bring
transparency to the over-the-counter markets and
impose data reporting requirements for transactions
to new trade repositories. A central plank of the
review into the Markets in Financial Instruments
Directive, currently underway, is to increase
transparency in post-trade reporting.
12
Banks are uncertain about the effect of these
transparency requirements on their competitiveness,
although some have expressed concern that
sensitive data about capital, liquidity and exposures
could easily leak out into the marketplace. Although
some of the regulations specifically aim to increase
transparency in the trading arena, the trading function
is the least concerned about the impact. (See Figure 7.)
From data deficit to information advantage?
All new regulations mandate significant additional
data and reporting requirements. These present
collection, integration and management challenges
for banks’ information architecture.
Basel III, for example, aims to eliminate the kind of
regulatory arbitrage where a bank moves assets from
the banking book into the trading book in order to get
better capital treatment. It therefore requires banks to
consolidate positions from all of their trading desks
and to make their trading book compatible with their
banking book. This requires data to be both accurate
and clean, and will be a challenge for any US banks
which have not been applying Basel rules up to now.
To meet the UK’s liquidity rules, banks will be required
to identify, measure, monitor and stress test liquidity
risk in a much more detailed way, and to process and
deliver the data to the Financial Services Authority
(FSA) on a regular basis.
Basel III also requires a unified view of counterparties
and counterparty credit risk, and the capacity to
measure and process the data. In addition, the move
to centralized collateral management, as well as the
introduction of the net stable funding ratio and the
liquidity coverage ratio, will require new data models.
To fulfill many of the requirements, banks need to
collect more detailed information from the trading
partners and their clients. Respondents to the
survey highlighted several areas where they needed
additional data from counterparties, led by collateral
and transaction data. By function, there were some
noticeable spikes in data requirements. (See Figures 8
and 9 on page 13.)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
8%10%
0%
20%
25%24%
27%
0%
38%
24%
18%
40%
25%
38%
4%
46%
20%
5%9%
20%
TradingRegulation
RiskOperations
Figure 7. Q10d, functional splitDo you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Rate 1 to 5. We are concerned that the increased transparency required by new regulations will be a threat to our competitiveness
1 2 3 4 5Strongly agree Strongly disagree
Figure 7. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Rate 1 to 5.
We are concerned that the increased transparency required by new regulations will be a threat to our competitiveness.
13
For some banks, data projects are about creating
value as well as compliance. “We identified information
architecture as the lynchpin in meeting new regulations
early on, so we are quite a long way down the road in
terms of where we need to be in order to change our
information systems,” says the head of IT at a large
US bank. “Because we also identified that this is an
area where we could create value for the business, we
prioritized this over some other IT projects.”
There is a high cost associated with meeting new
requirements, however. “There is a huge impact on
data systems across multiple product and business
lines,” says the head of compliance at a large
European bank operating in London. “Estimates
suggest that it will cost large banks around $100m
each to put the systems and processes in place to
comply with Basel III. We will have to find ways of
calculating the newly introduced net stable funding
ratio and the liquidity coverage ratio, and have the
capability to stress test our calculations and report
to our board and to regulators. Because the Basel
Senior Supervisors Group favors a standardized
centralized risk data set – the so-called single source
of truth – on the IT side, this means banks will have
to integrate data sources and adopt new data
modeling techniques.”
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
48%
42%
36%33%
17%20%
60%
43%
64%
54%
62%
46%
100%
33%
10%9%
0%
21%
62%
55%
40% 42%
33%
20%18%
42%
60%
36%
Figure 16. Q6, “don’t know list”Due to regulatory change, which business functions do you anticipate
having to relocate or outsource, partly or completely?
Col
late
ral
Lice
nsin
g
Cor
pora
te
stru
ctur
e
Tran
sact
iona
l da
ta
Com
petit
ion
issue
s
Cap
ital
allo
catio
n
TradingRegulation
RiskOperations
Clie
nt
com
mun
icat
ions
Figure 9. In what areas do you need additional or more detailed information from counterparties, due to recent regulatory reform?
Figure 8. In what areas do you need additional or more detailed information from counterparties, due to recent regulatory reform?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
53%54%
26%
18%
33%
43%44%
Figure 8. Q5, overallIn what areas do you need additional or more detailed
information from counterparties, due to recent regulatory reform?
Tran
sact
iona
lda
taC
olla
tera
lC
orpo
rate
stru
ctur
e
Cap
ital
allo
catio
n
Clie
nt
com
mun
icat
ions
Lice
nsin
gC
ompe
titio
niss
ues
14
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
38%36%
2%
8%
16%
Figure 10. Q10a, overallDo you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Scale 1-5. We have a company-wide strategy for identifying the systems that will require modification/upgrade to handle the
new, higher levels required by new regulation.
1 2 3 4 5Strongly agree Strongly disagree
Figure 10. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Scale 1-5.
We have a company-wide strategy for identifying the systems that will require modification/upgrade to handle the new, higher levels required by new regulation.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
38%33%
46%
20%25%
52%
46%
0%
25%20%
5%
60%
8%10%
4%9%
0%0% 0%0%
TradingRegulation
RiskOperations
Figure 7. Q10d, functional splitDo you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Rate 1 to 5. We are concerned that the increased transparency required by new regulations will be a threat to our competitiveness
1 2 3 4 5Strongly agree Strongly disagree
Figure 11. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Scale 1-5.
We have a company-wide strategy for identifying the systems that will require modification/upgrade to handle the new, higher levels required by new regulation.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
44%
28%
2%
10%
16%
Figure 12. Q10b, overallDo you agree or disagree with the following statements? Scale 1-5.
We have a company-wide strategy for identifying the systems that will require modification/upgrade to handle the new, higher levels required by new regulation
1 2 3 4 5Strongly agree Strongly disagree
Figure 12. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Scale 1-5.
We have already identified the systems that will require modification/upgrade to handle the new, higher levels of data required by new regulation.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
25%
36%33%
54%
38%36%
0%4%
40%
19%18%
60%
13% 10%
4%9%
0%0% 0%0%
TradingRegulation
RiskOperations
Figure 13. Q10b, functionalDo you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Scale 1 to 5. We have already identified the systems that will require modification/upgrade to handle the new,
higher levels of data required by new regulation
1 2 3 4 5Strongly agree Strongly disagree
Figure 13. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Scale 1 to 5.
We have already identified the systems that will require modification/upgrade to handle the new, higher levels of data required by new regulation.
15
Banks are acutely aware of new data requirements
The survey revealed that almost three-quarters of
banks have a strategy in place in order to identify
where changes to systems need to be made, or
have already identified the systems which will need
modification. Three of the four business functions
surveyed are well advanced in terms of preparation,
led by operations, with only the regulatory function
lagging. (See Figures 10 through 13 on page 14.)
Banks have a strategy for communicating the impact
of regulatory changes to clients and counterparties.
About three-quarters (74%) agree or strongly agree
that they have a strategy to communicate changes to
clients and counterparties.
Most banks are confident that once they have adopted
planned changes to their data infrastructure, their
management will be able to prove they have better
control of information, as required by regulators.
However, UK banks are much more confident than
their US counterparts. (See Figure 14 and 15.)
The shape of things to come
Some banks have already taken steps to refine the
shape of their organizations to minimize the impact
of regulations. In February, for example, the UK’s
Barclays disclosed that in November 2010 it had
deregistered its US bank-holding company. The bank
said this was to better align the business with the
appropriate capital regimes; in doing so, the bank
avoided having to inject as much as $12bn to make
up a capital shortfall in the US.
As a result of the change, Barclays folded a credit-
card operation into a new US entity that is a direct
subsidiary of the British parent company. The
credit-card bank is regulated by the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation and needs no additional
injection of capital. Before the move, Barclays
Capital, the group’s investment bank, was held within
Barclays Group US Inc., which was subject to federal
capital requirements. It will now be subject to SEC
regulation instead.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
36%
30%
7%8%
20%
Figure 14.Q3d, overallDo you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5. Once we have adopted changes to our data infrastructure, management will be able to
prove they have better control of information, as required by regulators
1 2 3 4 5Strongly agree Strongly disagree
Figure 14. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5.
Once we have adopted changes to our data infrastructure, management will be able to prove they have better control of information, as required by regulators.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
39%
20%
10%
30%
3%
13%
3%
10%
45%
27%
Figure 15. Q3d, geographicDo you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5. Once we have adopted changes to our data infrastructure, management will be able to prove they have better
control of information, as required by regulators
1 2 3 4 5Strongly agree Strongly disagree
U.K.U.S.
Figure 15. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5.
Once we have adopted changes to our data infrastructure, management will be able to prove they have better control of information, as required by regulators.
16
While the restructuring of Barclays and other banks
suggest that senior management is swiftly taking steps
to reshape business entities, survey respondents across
most areas of business were undecided about whether
new regulations would lead firms to relocate or outsource
any business functions, or create a shared utility. In 13
of the 17 areas of operation, the majority of respondents
said they did not know what the impact of regulation
would be on organizational structure. (See Figure 16.)
However, over a third (36%) of UK and almost half
(47%) of US respondents agreed or strongly agreed
that they anticipate working with new back office
providers due to regulatory change, compared to about
a quarter of UK and over a third of US respondents who
anticipate working with a new middle office provider.
There are four areas (operations, risk management,
financial control and IT) where new strategies are
clearly being contemplated. In operations, more than
a quarter (26%) of US respondents and a third of
UK respondents said they anticipated the creation
of shared utilities. Operations professionals were
even more enthusiastic, with almost 48% suggesting
this was a possible route. Similarly, the creation of
a shared utility was seen as a likely choice for risk
management, with a third of all respondents and 43%
of risk professionals suggesting this option.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
60%61%61%63%65%66%66%68%
50% 50% 48% 47%43%
39%
53%58%58%
Figure 16. Q6, “don’t know list”Due to regulatory change, which business functions do you anticipate
having to relocate or outsource, partly or completely?
GTS
Mar
ket-m
akin
gC
lient
inve
stm
ent
man
agem
ent
Sale
sPr
ivate
ban
king
Cor
pora
te tr
easu
ryIR
/mar
ketin
g/
com
mun
icat
ions
Cor
pora
te
finan
cePr
oprie
tary
trad
ing
Trad
ing
Com
plia
nce
Cle
arin
gFi
nanc
ial c
ontro
lRe
sear
chRi
sk m
anag
emen
t
ITO
pera
tions
Figure 16. Due to regulatory change, which business functions do you anticipate having to relocate or outsource, partly or completely?
17
By function, traders see the greatest potential for
regulations to shape operations strategy: 40% of
traders thought new regulations would lead to trading
operations being relocated; 30% thought that market-
making and prop trading will be relocated; 40%
thought that a shared utility may be created for client
investment management; and a third thought that IT
may be outsourced.
Shared services such as regional data centers are
already common practice at many global financial
institutions, particularly at retail banks, which rely heavily
on gathering, processing and analyzing customer
information in order to tailor services. The CEO of the
EMEA consumer division of a major US bank says
shared services offer big advantages for bank and
customer. But he notes that there are already forces in
play which may put pressure on this business model.
“Customers execute business with us through
applications hosted in our data centers. One
example is the fraud analysis we do on credit cards.
Another is the risk analysis we perform under the
new requirements of various jurisdictions. Using
regional data centers is an advantage for several
reasons. The facilities are state of the art, present
a closed circuit and have no major single points of
failure within the core infrastructure. Our data centers
enhance the bank’s risk management, allowing us
to mitigate or accept risks based on a composite
impact analysis rather than through isolated and
market-specific analyses. Such centers allow us to
maintain consistent processes across regions. We
have an ‘end-to-end’ view of the data, which improves
the quality and timeliness of services provided. It
also allows us to better comply with legal/regulatory
requirements. Several jurisdictions are looking to
require local data processing, however. The intentions
are understandable, but as outlined above, would
undermine several of the same public policy goals.”
The impact of resolution regimes on structures
The push towards bank resolution regimes, or Living
Wills, will also have a material impact on strategies
in this area because the patchwork nature of many
banking groups do not lend themselves to drawing
clean lines between businesses.
Global banks are complex entities that have typically
evolved to satisfy a variety of drivers from growth,
to cost cutting, to tax benefits. Often, they do not
develop as standalone entities but share functions
with other parts of the group. Business done in
one country may be transferred somewhere else
for management. Likewise, income generated in
one location may be paid away somewhere else.
The result is sprawling global institutions, often
comprising hundreds of different entities, vehicles
and participations, which have been made more
efficient through the use of cross-agreements for the
provision of services, people and funding.
Up to now, banks have been indifferent to how these
structures looked. But in the world of Living Wills and
resolution regimes, if a crisis means a bank must ring-
fence a particular business, write it down or sell it, the
parent needs to know exactly how it interrelates with
all the other parts of the jigsaw. Regulators will want
reassurance that, if firms have transferred positions
from one jurisdiction to another, there is enough capital
and risk management capacity to contain the risks in
the transferred positions. If the business has paid away
income, regulators will ask how that affects profitability
and risk management of the entity that is paying
away. Untangling this spaghetti to create an enterprise
map will prove extremely difficult for some. And the
existence of shared services may make it more difficult.
“The detail is challenging,” says the head of prudential
advisory at a consulting firm. “Banks have to ask
themselves if a business could be broken up and sold
off, and what they would do about critical elements
that they would have to pass on to someone else?
Is it standalone or is it dependent on other parts of
the organization? If it’s not standalone, what needs
to be done to make it saleable as a standalone
operation? Could they provide the right information
to the authorities so that they can maintain critical
functions such as current accounts? All of this is
actually extremely difficult to achieve. In that sense,
shared services could become an obstacle to a viable
resolution plan. If you wanted to sell a business that is
dependent on a shared service, how standalone is it?
Can someone else buy it, or does the shared service
affect the viability of the business?”
18
Conclusion
As financial institutions operating in the US and UK
continue to ask themselves questions such as these,
attempting to determine how best to reshape their
businesses in light of new regulatory requirements, they
also await clarification from regulators on both sides
of the pond. The interim report of the Independent
Banking Commission in the UK was released mid-
April, but the final report is not out until September.
However, the recommendations of the Commission,
such as ring-fencing retail operations and improving
capital buffers, are just that – recommendations, which
must be accepted by the government and implemented
before banks have absolute clarity on the detail of new
regulation. In the US, the SEC and other regulators are
working towards a July deadline for implementation of
Dodd-Frank but already there is talk of a delay of up
to 18 months for some parts of the Act. These delays
may give gives banks more opportunity to work with
regulators to find solutions that make the financial
system safer while maintaining competitiveness –
or they may just drag out the uncertainty.
19
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
89%
59%
25%
Figure Q2. Have you or do you plan to align the implementation of your country’s main regulatory reform with that of any of the following regulations? Select all that apply
Basel III
IFRS
FACTA
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
31%
13%
56%
Figure A-1. At what stage is your company in preparing for changes required by regulatory reform?
We have identified the regulatorychanges relevant to our business
We have assessed how regulatory changes will impact our business
We have begun implementing changes to our business based
on our impact assessments
Figure 1. At what stage is your company in preparing for changes required by regulatory reform?
Figure 2. Have you or do you plan to align the implementation of your country’s main regulatory reform with that of any of the following regulations? Select all that apply.
Appendix
20
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
25% 33% 11% 5%26%
23% 13% 7%33%25%
18% 23% 5%43%11%
20% 8% 7%36%30%
15% 7% 5%43%31%
Figure Q3. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is strongly agree and 5 is strongly disagree.
*Figures do not add to 100% due to rounding.
We are looking at the newregulatoryenvironment
as an opportunityto gain market share
We are looking at the newregulatory environment as an
opportunity to transformour business model/structure
We aim to maintain our currentoperational model/structure as much
as possible, only making changeswhere explicitly required by new regulation
Once we have adopted changes to ourdata infrastructure, management will be
able to prove they have better controlof information, as required by regulators
We have a strategy for communicatingthe impact of regulatory changes to
our clients and counterparties
Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly disagree
Figure 3. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is strongly agree and 5 is strongly disagree.
Figures do not add to 100% due to rounding.
21
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
80%
39%
38%
23%
23%
Figure Q4. In what areas do you need additional or more detailed information from clients, due to recent regulatory reform? Select all that apply.
Risk tolerance
Areas willing to invest in/areas to avoid
Willingness to lend securities
Demographic information
Household/individualbalance sheet
Figure 4. In what areas do you need additional or more detailed information from clients, due to recent regulatory reform? Select all that apply.
22
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
44%
53%
54%
43%
33%
26%
18%
Figure Q5. In what areas do you need additional or more detailed information from clients, due to recent regulatory reform? Select all that apply.
Transactional data
Collateral
Corporate structure
Capital allocation
Client communications
Licensing
Competition issues
Figure 5. In what areas do you need additional or more detailed information from counterparties, due to recent regulatory reform? Select all that apply.
23
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
30% 39%16%16%
19% 58%5%19%
17% 66%5%12%
17% 58%9%17%
18% 65%5%12%
22% 66%7%5%
19% 50%21%10%
14% 68%5%12%
18% 63%7%12%
21% 60%11%9%
33% 47%9%11%
26% 53%10%10%
31% 50%7%12%
23% 61%2%14%
17% 43%28%12%
21% 61%16%2%
22% 48%21%9%
Figure Q6. Due to regulatory change, which business functions do you anticipate having to relocate or outsource, partly or completely? Select all that apply.
*Figures do not add to 100% due to rounding.
Operations
Trading
Market-making
Proprietary trading
Sales
Client investment management
Clearing
GTS
Private banking
Corporate finance
Risk management
Compliance
Financial control
Corporate treasury
IT
IR/marketing/communications
Research
Relocate Outsource Create shared utility Don’t know
Figure 6. Due to regulatory change, which business functions do you anticipate having to relocate or outsource, partly or completely? Select all that apply.
Figures do not add to 100% due to rounding.
24
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
33%
33%
34%
33%
31%
25%
18%
Figure Q7. What impact will relocation and/or outsourcing decisions have on attracting and retaining talent? Select all that apply.
The ability to hire qualifiedstaff is a top criterion whenselecting where to relocatespecific business funtions
We are confident that our outsourcing arrangements
will help us retain staff
We are concerned thatwe are likely to lose staff
due to outsourcing
We are concerned that we are likely to lose staff
due to relocation
We are concerned that we will have difficulty hiring qualified
staff in the areas we are considering for relocation
We are confident thatour relocation arrangements
will help us retain staff
We have a retention strategy to lock in key staff when
outsourcing, relocating or creating a shared utility
Figure 7. What impact will relocation and/or outsourcing decisions have on attracting and retaining talent? Select all that apply.
25
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
30% 44% 12% 7%8%
36% 18% 8%33%5%
41% 20% 8%23%8%
36% 18% 5%30%12%
51% 16% 8%16%8%
Figure Q8. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is strongly agree and 5 is strongly disagree.
Moving utilities to other providers will save us money in the long run
Our plans to outsource certain business functions will create
significant complications for our liquidation plan
We anticipate working with new middle office providers
due to regulatory change
We anticipate working with new back office providers due to regulatory change
The way in which we will have to transform our legal and financial
structure in order to comply with global liquidation requirements will have a
significant negative effect on revenues
Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly disagree
Figure 8. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is strongly agree and 5 is strongly disagree.
Figures do not add to 100% due to rounding.
26
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
44% 16% 10% 2%28%
38% 16% 8% 2%36%
18% 10% 3%34%34%
29% 30% 7%23%8%
30% 5% 5%43%20%
25% 7% 3%51%15%
Figure Q9. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is strongly agree and 5 is strongly disagree.
*Figures do not add to 100% due to rounding.
We have already identified the systems that will require modification/upgrade
to handle the new, higher levels of data required by new regulation
We have a company-wide strategy for identifying the systems that will require
modification/upgrade to handle the new, higher levels of data required by new regulation
The board and senior management have a good understanding of the changes to systems needed to handle the increased levels of
transparency required by new regulations
We are concerned that the increased transparency required by new regulations
will be a threat to our competitiveness
The board and senior management have a good understanding of the implications
increased data transparency will have across the business
The board and senior management have a good understanding of the implications
increased data transparency will have across the industry
Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly disagree
Figure 9. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is strongly agree and 5 is strongly disagree.
Figures do not add to 100% due to rounding.
About CapcoCapco, a global business and technology consultancy dedicated solely to the financial services
industry. We work in this sector only. We recognize and understand the opportunities and the
challenges our clients face. We apply focus, insight and determination to consulting, technology
and transformation. We overcome complexity. We remove obstacles. We help our clients realize
their potential for increasing success. The value we create, the insights we contribute and
the skills of our people mean we are more than consultants. We are a true participant
in the industry. Together with our clients we are forming the future of finance. We serve
our clients from offices in leading financial centers across North America and Europe.
Worldwide officesAmsterdam • Antwerp • Bangalore • Chicago • Frankfurt • Geneva • Johannesburg
London • New York • Paris • San Francisco • Toronto • Washington DC • Zürich
To learn more, contact us at +1 212 284 8600 (+44 20 7426 1500
from outside the United States or Canada), or visit our website at CAPCO.COM
© 2011 The Capital Market Company NV. All rights reserved. T1054A-01-GL/A4