2008 and decided to adopt this bank’s CSC Hogan system to replace its own legacy systems. Clearly, there is something of a Hogan base in Australasia and Westpac set about upgrading, including taking some new components, with these branded by CSC as Celeriti.
Small to mid-tier banks in Australia have occasionally come
onto the market for systems, but the consolidation in this market of late means there is a lot of integration to be done within some of the banking groups. TCS’s Bancs is one of the incumbent systems, by virtue of having started in the hands of Australian company, Financial Network Services (acquired by TCS in late 2005). TCS gained three wins in 2007 (following on from a couple in 2006), comprising Breez Finance, Tiger Home Loans and The Rock Building Society. Its one win in 2009 was a securities-related deal, so was largely centred on what was the Quartz system, which now makes up part of TCS’s overall Bancs platform. One of the country’s smaller banks made a selection in 2012, with mid-sized community bank, Members Equity Bank (ME Bank), taking Temenos’ T24.
The main arrival at the low-end of the market, jostling with a
number of existing bureaux and one low-end domestic supplier, Ultra data, has been an entity called Rubik Financial. This company has a bureau based on Temenos’ T24. Rubik’s first taker was Maleny and District Community Credit Union, which signed in late 2008 and went live over the last weekend in January 2010, replacing an old Foxpro- based in-house system. Around T24 are the Australian partner’s internet and mobile banking platform, cheque management system and collections system, the latter derived from a domestic company, Admerex (now called CB Australia). Maleny and District was cited as an attractive first customer for Rubik because it wasn’t too large (around 5500 customers) but had most of the products used within the supplier’s target credit union segment.
Rubik gained a second taker for T24 during 2009, finance
broking company, First Chartered Capital Corporation (FCCC). This was a larger player than Maleny and District, but signed for the same functionality. However, shortly after the announcement of this deal, FCCC was taken over by another entity, Firstfolio (a mortgages and financial services distribution business). According to Rubik, this happened before all the approvals came through to kick off the implementation and ‘the project was shelved indefinitely’.
Temenos did have a corporate focused T24 order during
2009 from QTC Loans and Deposits, part of Queensland Treasury Corporation. In fact, this supplier had not had a good time of things before then and also suffered a failure at QTC. Past problems in the country had seen high-profile failed projects at
118
Bank of Queensland and RAMS Home Loans (the former resulting in a court case). A 2007 signing, Investec, then cut over in the first quarter of 2009 and the supplier had also managed a live site at Rabobank. At QTC, Temenos provided IBS with this statement in early 2012:
‘Following a strategic review of the project’s objectives,
which identified a desired change in the project’s direction, QTC and Temenos have agreed that T24 will no longer be a part of QTC’s systems strategy.’
One company that has, surprisingly perhaps, made inroads
at the lowest end of the Australian market is Cyprus- based Probanx. A fair number of users of this supplier’s Core Plus are on an ASP basis and one or two are in Australasia. In 2009, the supplier added another, the investment and private banking operations of Sydney Financial Advisors. Probanx also won the only deal in New Zealand in 2009, from an entity called Pacific One International. Domestic supplier, NTBS, won nothing that was in the scope of the analysis during 2009 with its system, which was originally developed for AMP in Australia. It had experienced a rush of deals in 2008 in New Zealand and one in Australia in 2006, Provident Capital, a fixed income investment specialist.
There were a couple of lending system deals in Australia in
2009, with a co-operative bank signing for SAP’s Loans Management, and Lloyds International taking FIS’s ACBS syndicated lending offering. Thomson Reuters (now Misys) brought in two treasury deals for KTP, and CCK won an order firmly in its own backyard, as it came from Perth Mint Treasury & Depository (CCK might have been disappointed if anyone else had won this – Perth is the supplier’s home city). This meant it was a relatively quiet year on the treasury side. Murex has some large sites and has had some long projects in the country but made no further progress in 2009 or 2010, after a win in 2008 at NAB. Sungard’s Ambit Treasury Management started life in the country as Quantum but has only had two banking deals in the last few years, the first of which was 2008’s win at Bendigo Bank, not long after this institution merged with Adelaide Bank.
While Misys has not made progress in recent years with
Opics and Summit, it won one of the three deals in 2010, with its Loan IQ syndicated lending system taken by Macquarie Bank, with the system already used at Westpac and NAB. Wall Street Systems had success in the same year at CBA. The significant slowdown in progress elsewhere in 2010 was notable, so that Rubik did not press on with its T24 plans and no one else really gained ground either.
Aside from the Suncorp selection in 2011, there were a
couple of low-end treasury deals (one for Sungard with Quantum – now Ambit Treasury Management). By mid-2011,
Market Dynamics Report 2017 |
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
