AllProfits
AllProfits became a Fidelity system with the Alltel acquisition. The system is now positioned as a ‘bank-in-a-box’ that is relatively easy to set up and can run up to 50,000 accounts. It has far fewer parameters than FIS’s top-end systems, but will perform basic banking tasks and the vendor says it is suitable for a lot of green-field banks. FIS claims that implementing the whole suite will take around 100 man days and that its fastest implementation took just six weeks. There is no customisation of the system as the AllProfits team is too small to maintain independent pieces of code and different versions. As a result, all banks using the system will have the same functionality. The benefit of this to FIS is that when it brings out a new release of the system it does not need to retrofit customisation. The Windows version, AllProfits/CS, was launched after a long delay in 2000, having been promised in 1996. It runs on Windows servers and an SQL database. A conversion to Java was announced in 2001; the migration took longer than expected but clients are now live on the system. The vendor says that the deciding factor between AllProfits and its other systems comes down to the matter of budget
Profile
Another system which is pertinent is Profile. This was acquired in early 2004, with long-standing supplier, Sanchez. It is a broad retail offering. It is not one of the newest as it started out in the early 1980s on DEC VMS and was written in the Mumps language. However, the system has been significantly broadened down the years and had always resided within a focused, one product company. In addition, other applications were developed or bought which added value around the core. These included a Windows-based branch platform. More than virtually anyone else in the back office space, Sanchez succeeded with an ASP model of delivery, centred around its e-Profile subsidiary.
Sanchez was set up by two brothers and successfully moved out
from its domestic roots at an early stage, initially working with DEC and then with a wider number of partners, including IBM. It also worked with local companies in overseas markets. It sometimes gained clutches of users in a particular market. Poland was such an example. A Unix version was added in the mid-1990s. In 2000, Sanchez launched a spate of new products. These included
106
and needs. The vendor claims a five year cost of ownership, including hardware, of under $1 million. AllProfits has development centres in Manila and Hong Kong. The technical work is done in the Philippines and the business analysts are in Hong Kong. As such, it is Hong Kong that sets out the strategy. The operating model of AllProfits is different from those of Systematics or Profile. Although it can run multiple branches, the database will not scale to run multiple banks on the same system. It is not part of FIS’s Xpress product strategy (see below) and does not compete with any of the vendor’s other systems. 80 per cent of the AllProfits business is in Asia. There are still some users in the US and one in Tanzania. While the user base has shrunk, particularly in Asia Pacific, mainly through branch closures and centralisation projects, the supplier has continued to add new clients at a reasonable rate, at least up to the last couple of years. A notable deal came in the first half of 2004 for the international operations of Bank of Baroda. More recently, in 2007, Bank of the Orient took the system for its operations in China; the following year, Commonwealth Finance in Hong Kong was gained, along with National Bank of Pakistan. The system recorded no known wins since 2008.
a securities offering plus a transactional middleware component, with the latter being used as the basis for applications covering internet banking, call centre management and teller support. The use of Java for the new components meant that they were platform and database-independent. The middleware layer was called Xpress and is now being used across the FIS product set (see below). In mid-2001, the supplier announced a long-overdue migration of Profile onto the mainframe. This was initially achieved by porting a Linux version of the system, so did not use the native MVS environment, but a fully-blown migration followed. On the IBM eServer z900 Enterprise Server, benchmarks apparently showed initial accrual processing throughput of 5841 accounts per second on a ten million account database. The system was traditionally based on the Mumps-derived GT.M database but, in early 2002, Sanchez announced that it was working on DB2 and Oracle versions of Profile. One of a number of corporate twists came in September 2005 when it was announced that FIS was to merge with Florida-based card and cheque processing vendor, Certegy. Among other things, this gave the company a means by which it could go public. Clearly, FIS has a large number of back office systems, many of which
Islamic Report
www.ibsintelligence.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224 |
Page 225 |
Page 226 |
Page 227 |
Page 228 |
Page 229 |
Page 230 |
Page 231 |
Page 232 |
Page 233 |
Page 234 |
Page 235 |
Page 236 |
Page 237 |
Page 238 |
Page 239 |
Page 240 |
Page 241 |
Page 242 |
Page 243 |
Page 244 |
Page 245 |
Page 246 |
Page 247 |
Page 248 |
Page 249 |
Page 250 |
Page 251 |
Page 252 |
Page 253 |
Page 254 |
Page 255 |
Page 256 |
Page 257 |
Page 258 |
Page 259 |
Page 260 |
Page 261 |
Page 262 |
Page 263 |
Page 264 |
Page 265 |
Page 266
