followed by ATB Financial and Home Trust in 2008). Although the projects at ATB and Home Trust seriously overran, other Canadian banks have followed (including National Bank of Canada, then TD Bank). As such, this market represents something of a stronghold for the German supplier when it comes to banking software although with the projects continuing, it hasn’t added new takers in the last couple of years. An important cut over came at ATB in September 2011. This was for the bank’s 170 branches within a ‘big-bang’ migration. Home Trust went live a couple of months earlier, also with a ‘big bang’, at head office and five branches.
Particularly notable in Canada has been the activity in the higher end of the credit union sector and here the clear winner has been Temenos. In 2009, T24 was selected by Coast Capital Savings Credit Union, following on from a sale in 2006 at North Shore Credit Union that culminated in a successful cut over. Coast Capital signed to replace FIS’s Profile and went live in February 2013.
In 2010, the third largest domestic credit union, Servus
Credit Union, signed for T24 (although the project was subsequently abandoned), followed by a long-anticipated win at the largest, Vancity. Given Coast Capital is the second largest, this gave Temenos an impressive set, ahead of Servus CU falling by the wayside. Temenos claims to have a ‘Model Bank’ version of T24 for the Canadian credit union market and there has been no progress in the country for Oracle FSS, beyond an earlier win at Caisse Centrale des Jardins.
Temenos gained two more wins in 2012, Canadian Western Bank and Caisse Financial (also known as Manitoba Caisse). There was a solitary off-the-record T24 win in 2013 but that was the sum total of new-namedealsfor any supplier in 2013 in Canada. Temenos added two more wins in 2014, one of which was at First Ontario Credit Union. Calypso also had a couple of wins, at a large domestic bank and at an investment advisor.
Going further back, there was an interesting lending deal in
2010 for Indian supplier, Nucleus, at University of British Columbia. The other deals in 2010 were treasury- related and went to FSS (Jameson Bank), Murex (which had previously signed Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and RBC Investor Services in 2008) and Wall Street Systems. In 2011, the TCM deals saw FSS gaining Questrade and Calypso winning BMO Financial Group. In 2012, there were just two TCM deals again, one being foreign currency specialist, Calforex, signing with Two Four, and the other going Murex’s way (an off-the- recorddeal). There was relatively more calm in 2015, with just 2 deals being reported, one for the Temenos T24 product, and the other for MX.3 by Murex. Treasury system deals dominated the market in 2016, with Murex winning two deals and Calypso winning one. The sole core banking deal during the year was for Laurentian Bank which was awarded to Temenos.
US – Domestic Suppliers
Turning to the domestic US suppliers, after three moribund years, the US banking systems sector has gradually picked up since the start of 2010. Nevertheless, the heady days of large numbers of ‘de novo’ start-upsare long gone, so the US core systems market is, by definition, almost exclusively one of replacements. Indeed, the US banking software market has witnessed a diminishing number of potential customers.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation showed the
actual number of institutions had fallen to6450 by early 2015, compared with 6891 at the end of Q3 2013 and 7181 at the end of Q3 2012. However, the value of assets had grown, to $15,650 billion in early 2015, compared with $14,596 billion in Q3 2012 $14,223 billion in Q3 2013.
As well as all of the usual reasons for replacing a core system,
a number of systems are now at the end of their lives, in part due to the consolidation among suppliers in the US.
Banks seem perfectly willing to move from one supplier to
another if they perceive a better proposition and so many have not merely taken the replacement route that has been proposed by the incumbent supplier. This has ‘unlocked’ some user bases. FIS’s Miser system, Fiserv’s Source One and the Tri Synsystem, now residing with In for, arguably fall into this category. As mentioned, Zions Bancorporation has gone beyond the tried-and-tested and is replacing TriSyn with Bancs. The other half dozen or so users of this old system (including BB&T) are seemingly watching the situation.
We put the estimated number of US deals in 2009 at 300,
rising to 340 in 2010 and 380 in 2011, with a similar likely gradual increase in 2012, 2013 and 2014.
2011
After a modest but discernible pick-up in the US market in 2010, the momentum was maintained in 2011, including among higher-end banks and credit unions. Among the more sizeable deals of the year was the acquisition of Fiserv’s Signature (ICBS, as was) and a range of other software by Fulton Financial Corporation, with $16 billion assets and 273 branches across five states.
Fiserv appeared to scoop the largest deals on offer in 2011.
It gained City National Bank of Florida ($4 billion assets), following on from 2010’s Signature win in the same state from Bank United ($11.1 billion). It retained 1st Mariner Bank as a customer after this bank did a full selection to replace Fiserv’s Source One core system, which is at the end of its life. The bank opted for Premier, with FIS beaten at the shortlist.
In the credit union space, Fiserv’s Acumen (pre-2009, Market Dynamics Report 2017 |
www.ibsintelligence.com 191
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
