iSpectrum) credit union system entered the US market in 2009. Until then, it had been sold in Canada and this is where it originated, having been developed for Alterna Savings between 2002 and 2005. In the US, Fiserv marketed it to credit unions with assets over$500million, both existing clients of Fiserv (mainly users of Spectrum) and new-nameones. It was offered on an on site deployment basis or on an ASP model, and was promoted by the vendor as a technologically modern, fully Java-based offering. By the end of 2011, it had gained around ten takers in the US and double that in Canada.
2011 brought five Acumen deals in the US. The smallest
taker was Minnesota-based Trust one Financial Federal Credit Union, with $684 million in assets, and the largest was Suncoast Schools Federal Credit Union in Florida, a $5 billion institution. Suncoast Schools FCU signed for the system in Q4.
Of Spectrum‘converts’, there was Travis Credit Union ($1.9 billion) in California and Navigant Credit Union ($1.2 billion) in Rhode Island. Gary Furtado, CEO of Navigant, said the credit union needed a modern IT platform to compete with top-tier players such as Bank of America and Citizens Bank (which is based in Rhode Island). It went through an extensive selection process and having evaluated five ASP offerings from different vendors, settled for Acumen.
In mid-2011, Texas-based Randolph-Brooks Federal Credit
Union (RBFCU), one of the top25 credit unions in the US with$4.3 billion in assets, became a new-name win for Fiserv. The vendor beat off competition from Open Solutions with its DNA platform (subsequently acquired by Fiserv). Acumen was taken to replace a 35-year old in-house development at RBFCU.
Another notable 2011 taker was the aforementioned Rhode Island-based Navigant Credit Union ($1.2 billion in assets), but unlike RBFCU, Navigant opted for an ASP version of Acumen. This all looked like pretty good progress given the Acumen breakthrough in the US hadn’t come until early 2010, at Christian Community Credit Union. However, as seen below, not everything has gone to plan, to say the least. FIS gives Fiserv a run for its money in the high-end banking sector and in 2011 picked up United Banc shares ($9 billion and 111 branches in five states) for its Integrated Banking Services (IBS). A win at American Chartered Bank ($2.4 billion) was also worthy of note.
Brookline Bank ($4.8 billion) was the standout deal for Jack Henry & Associates that year, the third of the ‘big three’ suppliers (down from four when Metavante was acquired by FIS in 2009). Massachusetts-based Brookline acquired the Silverlake system plus a host of the supplier’s other applications. The deal was largely driven by the need to standardise on one platform following the acquisitions of Ipswich National Bank and Bank RI. The consolidation of
192
systems included CRM and internet banking. Other bank deals for Jack Henry, in the $1-3 billion asset sector, comprised Midland States Bank, Think Mutual Bank, First Community Bank and Uni Bank. Of Jack Henry’s five mid-tier signings for Silverlake in 2011, four opted for an out source model.
While Fiserv seemed to grab the larger credit union deals on
offer, Jack Henry is an important player in this sector as well, with its Symitar division. It has two systems, Episys and Cruise, the latter aimed at the smaller credit unions. One trend during 2011 was a shift of Episys users from in-house deployments to outsourcing (Episys asa Service – EASE, although slightly confusingly, EASE includes Cruise as a service as well). Jack Henry announced that 16 existing in-house credit union users had moved to outsourcing between mid-2010 and the end of 2011 (by way of comparison, only one user moved this way in 2008). However, bucking the trend was Jack Henry’s largest known credit union deal of the year, from Pennsylvania-based Clear view Federal Credit Union, a $730 million institution that decided on an in-house implementation.
Why the shift to outsourcing? The credit union space has
been hit hard by new capital requirements but, due to their mutual status, there is only so much they can do to improve efficiency and moving to outsourcing is one route.
Slightly down the pecking order in 2011 were Open
Solutions (now Fiserv) and Harl and Financial Solutions (now D+H). Open Solutions’ largest known bank and credit unions deals for its DNA flagship platform were Cambridge Savings Bank ($2.1 billion in assets)andAffinity Federal Credit Union ($1.9 billion). First State Bank ($1 billion) and Standford Federal Credit Union ($1.2 billion) were the other known deals within institutions at or above the $1 billion asset mark. The latter was a rather rare Wealth view ‘convert’.
Wealth view was added to Open Solutions’ software
portfolio with the acquisition of Canada-based Fincentric in early 2007 but the users have not rushed to DNA.
Harland’s deals were mainly for its Phoenix solution, with
eight wins, all to banks below the $1 billion mark. There were also a couple of wins for its Sparak system and a small credit union success with its Ultra data system. Harland is seeking to move Ultra data users to Phoenix and three had completed the move by 2011: Dupaco Community Credit Union, Consumers Credit Union and Spokane Teachers’ Credit Union. One of the larger Ultradata users, Langley Federal Credit Union ($1.5 billion) was intending to go the same way. Harland has been adding credit union functionality into Phoenix and suggested that those credit unions that were becoming more commercial should look to head this way. However, Harland said it had no plans to ‘sunset’ Ultradata and that it was still applicable for
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
