Another treasury vendor, Murex, clinched two deals in the US in 2011 for its MX.3 product. Not a bad result considering that Murex’s rival, Calypso, which stems from the US and has a strong domestic presence, gained just three new-namewins here in the course of the year. Two of these were Federal Home Loan Banks, of Des Moines and of Indianapolis. Calypso already had Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco on its user list as, in 2009, the bank took Calypso’s technology to provide an IT platform for debt issuance, hedging and wholesale lending. The supplier reported two more additions to its US clientele in
2015.In 2016, both Murex and Calypso won two customer contract a piece for their treasury systems.
US-based FSS, which also specialised in the TCM space, had
the same number of domestic deals as Calypso in 2011. This included Zions Corporation, plus First Republic Bank and RJ O’Brien Securities, for its Spectrum treasury system. FSS was acquired in early 2013 by Wall Street Systems/Ion Trading, not something that has typically proved to be a boost to sales of the purchased systems.
Calypso and FSS had led the way with five sales each in
2010, followed by Openlink and Wall Street Systems with a couple each. Calypso had only gained three deals in the US in 2009, while FSS had picked up two – Bank of Oklahoma and Signature Bank. It seems that FX is still recognised as a money- winnerso there are moves among small to mid-sized banks to setup services or overhaul existing ones, while others are seeking to extend their instrument coverage. The Federal Home Loan banks still throw up such deals from time to time. Openlink won one of these in 2009, at FHL Bank of Cincinnati. Relatively new kid on the block, Two Four Systems, had one win in 2010 and a couple in 2009.
However, Two Four Systems was the big winner in 2012,
with five wins, which rather suggested a coming of age for this somewhat newer supplier. FSS, in its last year as an autonomous company, had four wins. Misys had a poor year, with a solitary Opics Plus win being its only success across any of its systems. For syndicated lending, the two deals up for grabs both went to FIS with ACBS. Calypso brought in US Bancorp and Openlink had two sales.
Aside from the T24 deals, the 2013 haul was purely for
treasury systems. Two Four again scored well with three, with one each as well for Misys with Summit and Openlink with Findur, constituting a quiet year in the US, all in all.
2014 was an appreciably busier year. While the big roll- out
sat Zions and Discover Financial continued, Temenos gained two more deals at small US banks, one of which was Independent Bankers Bank of Florida. Temenos also beat ERI with Olympic to a deal at Bermuda Commercial Bank (in part, it
190 Canada
Canada has been a relatively active market in the last few years and is rather more open to international vendors than is the case in the US. While the largest banks tend to use in- house systems, there has been a spate of decisions by mid- tier players.
An initial three of these headed for SAP’s lending system and/orretail banking system (Farm Credit Canada in 2006,
Market Dynamics Report 2017 |
www.ibsintelligence.com
is believed, because the bank favoured a Microsoft platform).
Speaking in early 2015, Temenos’ CEO, David Arnott, said Temenos would continue to chase business from the dominant domestic vendors (Fiserv, FIS, Jack Henry and D+H) via its SaaS version of T24 derived from Trinovus.
‘Banks, community banks and credit unions are extremely
upset by under invested products,’ he suggested. The US market experienced between six and seven per cent churn per annum, estimated Arnott. By this stage, Temenos had gained its first live site in the country for T24, Independence National Bank, as it switchedtothenewsystemon1st December 2014.
Temenos continued the scaling up of its resources in theUS
with the acquisition of Philadelphia-based loan origination and collections specialist, Akcelerant. The acquisition came with a $50 million price tag, with a further $5 million due subject to an earn-outover the next three years. Akcelerant brought $15 million in revenues, although it was only expected to be break- evenin 2015. It claimed 600 customers, mostly in the credit union space, and brought 130 staff.
The other supplier with a US focused strategy is Misys.
Incidentally both Misys and Temenos fared relatively better in the lending segment in 2016, although the scale of customer wins is quite different for both. For Temenos, the recently acquired Akcelerant which was renamed to Temenos Life cycle Management System, helped it bag an impressive 13 deals during 2016. It had only one contract for its T24 core banking system which was signed with Commerce Bank. Similarly Misys gained two off the record customers for its Fusion Banking Lending solution, while it won one deal for its capital market solution, Fusion Banking Trade Innovation.
SAP’s two wins in 2014 for its Deposits Management core banking system at mid-tier institutions were also notable. Misys had another couple for Loan IQ while Calypso was the big winner in the treasury and capital markets space, with four wins (Murex had two, Openlink had one). Oracle did have a win for a subset of its OBP system, for online loan origination, at Keybank, but this is outside of our scope, because it is not for core banking. There have been a few other front-end channel- oriented deals in the last few years for international suppliers.
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
