MIDDLE-OFFICE STRUCTURES The way the middle office exists in its present form plays into strategic decisions. However, on top of those fundamental business metrics banks are deciding:
• Whether to align teams by product or adopt transversal, function-based groups;
• Whether to operate globally or regionally; and • How to blend onshore, offshore and outsourced delivery.
Transversal vs. Product-aligned Models The most common form of middle-office structure is siloed by asset class or by transversal, function- based teams. Each approach offers distinct advantages and trade-offs, and the optimal structure often depends on the bank’s business model, scale and technology platform.
A siloed middle-office allows faster issue resolution, nuanced support and a strong understanding of product-specific risks and lifecycle events. However, as each asset class builds its individual support infrastructure, firms may face duplicated efforts, inconsistent workflows across business lines and challenges in delivering a unified client experience.
The transversal model makes common processes across asset classes the responsibility of horizontal teams; promoting standardisation, scalability and efficient use of technology. Centralised teams drive the use of consistent control frameworks, simplify oversight and enable streamlined onboarding of new products or regions. However, the lack of product- focused teams, reduces the asset class-specific knowledge needed to handle some trade lifecycle specifics when exceptions occur.
Regional vs. Global Models Banks must consider whether to organise their middle office globally or regionally. A global model allows for standardised processes, 24-hour, follow- the-sun coverage and centralised technology. It can, however, create challenges where there are regional business differences, specific market conventions and divergent regulatory regimes. In contrast, a regional model positions local middle-office teams nearer to local front office, lowering response times, and providing deeper familiarity with local regulations. However, it can result in duplicated infrastructure and business practices across geographies that increasingly diverge over time. Many institutions prefer to adopt a hybrid approach, centralizing for efficiency, while maintaining regional or asset-class- specific teams where local expertise and front-office intimacy are essential. Some of the complexities of middle office organisational structuring are illustrated in Figure 2.
Source: GreySpark analysis
Hybrid Onshore / Offshore Model A hybrid onshore / offshore model blends the efficiency of outsourced operations with the control and responsiveness of in-house teams and strikes a balance between scalability and oversight. Banks increasingly delegate routine, high-volume, repetitive and data-intensive middle-office processes to third-party offshore service providers, in areas where standardisation allows for efficiency without compromising control, whilst retaining strategic or complex processes in-house to ensure business critical processes are kept close to the business.
This hybrid model offers several clear benefits including cost optimisation, improved quality and oversight, access to global talent, and improved scalability. A hybrid model provides a flexible framework for banks to modernise their middle office operating model without sacrificing control, compliance or client service.
Figure 2: Determinants of the Shape of the Traditional Middle Office
A HYBRID ONSHORE/OFFSHORE MODEL ENABLES BANKS TO OPTIMIZE COSTS, ENHANCE OVERSIGHT, ACCESS GLOBAL TALENT, AND MODERNIZE THEIR MIDDLE OFFICE WHILE MAINTAINING CONTROL AND COMPLIANCE.
23 | ADMISI - The Ghost In The Machine | Q4 Edition 2025
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
