In regulated finance the platform question is rarely whether it can do the work. It is whether you can show, months later, who did what and on what authority. Most estates can, given two weeks and a spreadsheet. That is the problem.
What the work is for
A period close with the reconciliation work sequenced into it, and an audit trail that does not need assembling afterwards.
Matching rules held in the platform, exceptions routed to a person, and the rest cleared without anyone touching it.
Regulatory, management and statutory views drawn from the same ledger rather than three reconciled extracts.
Segregation of duties and approval limits configured and evidenced, rather than described in a policy document.
Client and counterparty data captured once and reused across the systems that need it.
Returns and disclosures generated from the system on the obligation's own calendar.
Sector capability, not a client reference. This page describes work we do in this sector. It names no client and claims no result, because those belong with an engagement. Delivered work carries the 6 engagements we can show you, with the numbers as measured.
Who has to agree
A programme like this is signed off by six or seven people who do not share a definition of success. These are the questions each of them tends to arrive with.
A close that shortens without anyone working a weekend, and numbers that survive review.
Controls that are demonstrable, not asserted, and a change history an examiner can follow.
Exception queues that shrink, and a reconciliation that does not restart from zero each month.
A platform that can be patched on the vendor's cadence without breaking a bespoke control.
Evidence produced by the system rather than gathered by a team ahead of fieldwork.
One client record, so a conversation does not depend on which system the person opened.
How the programme splits
Related
Other sectors
