2 ms·
Depending on the deal, there's often less integration work than you'd expect. Buyer, or in the rare case target systems are deemed better, accounts & flows get
by steveBK123 4y ago
Depending on the deal, there's often less integration work than you'd expect.
Buyer, or in the rare case target systems are deemed better, accounts & flows get ported over and the other side is simply shut down.
Generally they do not do a micro system-by-system comparison and then try to integrate them into a best-in-class Frankenstein sum of the parts.
On first pass it may seem short sighted and that they may lose good tech, but given the 1000s of systems this exercise would take forever.
Further due to all the dependencies, you really can't pick and choose anyway.
In this particular case it would also be pretty hard to argue CS is better that anything (other than losing money) than UBS anyway. CS has been on deathwatch for the last 10 years, at least..
- pylua 4y agoEven without a Frankenstein solution I imagine it is very difficult, tedious, and cumbersome. Two banking cores will be wildly different and there aren’t very many open banking specifications. Not to mention that there are tons of bespoke business rules and drastic differences in how they are implemented. Also differences in the software will be derived in variances in how each banks lawyers understand the legal regulations. I’d imagine it is probably like merging two spider webs together.
- steveBK123 4y agoYea I know from experience of one 2008 merger where they simply cut over all clients to other firms systems the next quarter and powered down the losers data centers.