accenture 2015 global structural reform study …...3 accenture’s 2015 global structural reform...
TRANSCRIPT
Accenture 2015 Global Structural Reform Study
Unlocking the Potential of Global Structural Reform
2
The financial crisis of 2007-2008 highlighted the dangers of a financial system that was improperly aligned with the goals of systemic risk management. Since the crisis, global regulators have sought to re-shape institutions to be more resilient through a series of structural reform regulations. Today, Global Structural Reform (GSR) is presenting an even more complex ecosystem for financial institutions and, as such, constitutes a key agenda point for senior management driving the future strategy of their post-crisis institutions.
3
Accenture’s 2015 Global Structural Reform Study – based on a survey of 131 banking, insurance and capital markets institutions across regions – confirms that, while institutions are investing in their response to GSR, their plans still appear focused on meeting regulatory demands alone, rather than accounting for the more strategic implications of structural reform. Our study concluded:
GSR is re-writing the financial services landscapePublication of regulations related to structural reform continues at a relentless pace, with rules often developed at a jurisdictional level without clear convergence. In our view, it seems inevitable that the financial services landscape will be re-written given the cumulative impact of GSR, especially for internationally active banks, meaning that reliance on traditional ways of working will no longer be viable. As a result, institutions will be faced with hard choices about their post-crisis business model.
Investment is clear, but strategy less soThe sheer volume of GSR regulations and the complexity of changes they demand is driving significant investment in talent and technology as institutions organize their responses. Our experience suggests a need to validate whether strategic planning will fully account for the strategic implications of GSR, going beyond mere compliance and delivering long-term value for the institution.
Unlock the potential of GSRGSR regulations are adding further complexity to a landscape already beset with macroeconomic and industry disruptions. Institutions cannot continue to solve for point regulations without considering other competing or complementary forces. There is no one solution for responding to this challenge; however, our experience suggests three principles to help extract greater value from the investment made:
1. Organize a long-term responseInstitutions need to think end-to-end across regulations, businesses and geographies, and be holistic in assessing and communicating impacts across the operating model to make smart investments and avoid multiple, competing projects.
2. Unlock potential in a new ecosystemRemaining competitive and viable in the long term will require institutions to identify and capture the potential for innovation and improved financial performance provided by the new ecosystem.
3. Demonstrate value to key stakeholders The value of GSR can only be realized if planning is effectively adopted throughout the business. As firms move past initial compliance, further tuning of the new operating model will be needed to help retain engagement and support from internal and external stakeholders.
Time for bold, strategic thinkingGSR is much more than another set of regulatory requirements. To help their institutions remain competitive and viable for the long term, senior management should approach structural reform with the same bold, strategic thinking as they are using for other industry challenges.
4
5
GSR is Re-writing the Financial Services LandscapeRule-making in recent years has been prolific, as regulators in individual jurisdictions have sought to re-shape financial institutions to add greater resilience to their operations. As a result, rules have often been developed at a jurisdictional level without clear convergence.
This persistent wave of GSR regulations does not appear to be abating, and, with its cumulative impact, reliance on traditional ways of working — and on the infrastructure to support such ways — will no longer be viable. This, we expect, should leave institutions facing some hard choices about their post-crisis business model. Previous industry commentary from Accenture, for example, has indicated that capital allocation across different business lines will be more heavily scrutinized with a particular focus on cross-entity flows.1 Seventy-one percent of the 2015 Global Structural Reform Study respondents agree that smaller institutions may fall out of the market as they fail to keep pace with these new market drivers. The pressure will also be felt by larger institutions. Accenture’s recent Banking 2020 report highlighted the possibility that full-service banks may collectively face losses of as much as 35 percent of their market share by 2020 if they fail to adjust to industry disruptors.2
Institutions are starting to tailor their responses, with three trends beginning to define how the industry could be affected by GSR.
GeographyDeveloping tailored propositions by geographic market to help drive efficiency in the use of scarce capital. Deutsche Bank AG3 recently announced its plans to capture more market share in the United States and the Royal Bank of Canada also announcing plans to expand its US Wealth presence through the recent acquisition of City National Corporation.4
ProductsDeveloping a more targeted set of offerings that allocate capital to those business lines able to generate appropriate returns on equity, with other products potentially discontinued. Barclays PLC’s recent Group Strategy update highlighted similar themes, for example, the stated aim of re-allocating capital towards growth businesses.5
Client mixTargeting more profitable client segments and exiting relationships requiring higher costs to serve. Last year according to news articles, Bank of America Corporation parted ways with a large number of hedge fund clients in an effort to reduce costs.6
Figure 1. Projects in place to address regulatory requirementsDoes your organization currently have a project in place to address the regulatory requirements listed below? (Select all that apply)
Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR)
Risk planning
Implement standards, process and procedures to avoid conflicts of interest
Implement new technology units
Ensure compliance of information and restrict/unrestrict advice
Submit implementation plan
Implement operational process and margining, for all bilateral over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives
Liquidity Coverage Ratio
Capital planning
Enhance client protections
Formation of Intermediate Holding Company (IHC)
Implement new risk management standards
Implement new governance model
Legal entity restructuring
Implement product governance standards to ensure Treating Customers Fairly (TCF)
Living will/safeguard client assets
Report derivative trades
Implement conduct risk domestic/local rules
Implement a process to clear via a Central Counterpart Clearing House (CCP)
Sequestration
63%
50%
47%
42%
40%
40%
39%
39%
37%
34%
34%
34%
32%
31%
29%
28%
28%
26%
25%
23%
Source: Accenture 2015 Global Structural Reform Study
6
Figure 2. Forecasted technology and non-technology spendWhat is your organization’s anticipated technology and non-technology spend (in USD) for FY14, in order to address the global regulatory change requirement?
Source: Accenture 2015 Global Structural Reform Study
16% 13%
16%
18%
16%
10%
27%
20%
4%
20%
17%
23%
>$500m
$250m - $500m
$100m - $250m
$10m - $100m
$1m - $10m
$0m - $1m
TechnologySpend
Non-Technology Spend
Investment is Clear, but Strategy Less So
The sheer volume of GSR regulations and the complexity of changes they demand is driving significant investment as institutions organize their responses. Over half of financial institutions surveyed as part of the Accenture 2015 Global Structural Reform Study are forecasting investment of over $100 million for technology, and over $100 million in non-technology-related spend (Figure 2).
Such investment seems warranted when one considers that fewer than one-quarter of survey respondents are today compliant with key GSR regulations such as Dodd-Frank Section 165 or Basel III (Figure 3). This investment is prompted, in part, by a forecasted increase in headcount by surveyed institutions, either as contingent staff to deliver required change activity or as new, permanent staff that will run a much-changed business (Figure 4).
7
Figure 2. Forecasted technology and non-technology spendWhat is your organization’s anticipated technology and non-technology spend (in USD) for FY14, in order to address the global regulatory change requirement?
Note: Due to rounding, total may not equal 100 percent
Source: Accenture 2015 Global Structural Reform Study
Figure 3. Levels of compliance across key regulatory requirementsAt what stage is your company currently in with regards to becoming compliant with these regulations? (Select one for each)
Reviewed the regulation 10% 22% 31% 14% 24%
24%
24%
24% 24%
24%
22%
22%
22%
21%
21%
11%
7%
7%
7%
7%
7%
8%
8%
8%
18%
18%
16%
16%
16%
35%
34%
37%
31% 25%
11%
29%
29%
15%
15%
15%
24%5% 24% 22% 26%
26%
6%
6% 20% 28% 25% 21%
23%
23%
22%
17%30%
30%
34%
34%
28%
28%
18%11% 15% 30% 26%
26%
4% 19% 23% 32% 21%
18%26%6% 30% 21%
20%9% 20% 29% 24%Assessed the impact on business
Projects rolled out
Identified projects
Identified projects
Reviewed the regulation
Assessed the impact on business
Projects rolled out
Reviewed the regulation
Identified projects
Assessed the impact on business
Projects rolled out
Reviewed the regulation
Projects rolled out
Identified projects
Assessed the impact on business
Ring Fencing/Liikanen
Markets in FinancialInstruments Directive (MiFID)
II/Markets in FinancialInstruments Regulation
(MiFIR)
Alternative InvestmentFund Managers Directive
(AIFMD)
Undertakings for theCollective Investment inTransferable Securities
(UCITS) IV
19%
17%
17%
17%17%
17%
48%
29%
30%26%Reviewed the regulation
Identified projects
Projects rolled out
Assessed the impact on business
Dodd-FrankSection 165/6
Not yet stated Planning Implementing CompliantAssurance/validating project functionality (QA process)
21%
19%2%
4%
4%
14%
14%
8
Note: Due to rounding, total may not equal 100 percentSource: Accenture 2015 Global Structural Reform Study
This reported investment is significant and raises the stakes for senior management to help provide responses that are appropriate and focused. Our experience suggests there is a need to further validate whether plans would fully account for the strategic implications of GSR.
Delivering long-term value for the financial institution will require a shift beyond a point-regulation approach to one that considers other competing regulations or broader forces in the market place. In our view, GSR regulations are adding further
complexity to a landscape already beset with macroeconomic disruptions. Pressure on margins, which have halved from pre-crisis levels for European investment banks;7 customers expecting resources to be “fingertip-ready”;8 and industry disruptions from the rise of digital technology and new entrants present a volatile landscape. Making this landscape harder to navigate with ongoing GSR regulations creates a conundrum that institutions need to solve to be viable in the long term, and to facilitate creating value from investments made.
Figure 4. Forecasted spend on full-time employeesHow many full-time employees (FTEs) will your organization dedicate to business (non-technology and technology) change for FY14, in order to address the global regulatory change requirements?
20%
15%
10%
4%
18%
25%
8%
25%
17%
11%
22%
3%5%
TechnologyFTEs
Non-Technology FTEs
16%
>300
250 - 300
150 - 250
100 - 150
50 - 100
25 - 50
1 - 25
9
10
11
In our view, institutions cannot afford to adopt a wait-and-see approach in their response to the challenges presented by GSR. They should act quickly to seize the opportunity and not lose time strategically repositioning the organization, while remaining focused on solving for the ongoing pressures of regulatory compliance.
There is no one solution for responding to this challenge, and each institution’s response should be unique to its strengths and weaknesses as well as its future business expectations. However, our experience suggests the following three steps should be considered:
1. Organize a long-term response Institutions need to think end-to-end across regulations and geographies, and be holistic in assessing and communicating impacts across the business and operating model, both to streamline the change response and to identify smart investments. Ninety-six percent of the 2015 Global Structural Reform Study respondents cite the definition of a clear strategy and objectives as important to driving an effective response.
Accenture sees seven major pillars of structural reform that are forcing change across each jurisdiction in which financial institutions operate. These can provide a framework for developing a longer-term plan. The chart that follows identifies the pillars and highlights some of the key regulatory requirements these structural reforms help address.
Unlock the Potential of GSR
12
Scrutiny from Domestic Regulations
Governance of Legal Entities
Stricter Stress Testing
Capital and Liquidity Adequacy
Recovery and Resolution Planning
Separation or Cessation of Activities
Geography Focused Finance
Description Institutions have less jurisdictional flexibility and need to solve for each set of requirements within the countries in which they operate. This is critical for addressing the bespoke expectations of each regulator. Institutions need to address and manage these requirements both today and in a sustainable manner going forward.
Institutions need to think about how legal entities will be governed in the jurisdictions they continue to operate in, potentially requiring a shift in ultimate responsibility for daily operations of the business between an institution’s global parent and the geographic legal entity structure.
Institutions face an increase in the requirements to evidence comprehensive and effective risk management, as confirmed by recent feedback from the Federal Reserve’s 2015 stress testing at the legal entity level.9 Regulators are increasingly focused on comprehensive risk reporting by legal entity, in turn placing emphasis on the quality and completeness of institutions’ data architecture.
Local and global regulations are forcing institutions to operate within a more capital restrained environment. Institutions need to provide sufficient capital and liquidity to enable the business to compete effectively in the products they opt to continue offering in the marketplace. Enterprise-wide capital planning will be a key support in allocating capital as well as evidencing capital and liquidity adequacy to regulators.
Regulators are ensuring stability of banking operations, for example making provision for state takeover in the event an institution becomes insolvent. Institutions need to invest time in developing and communicating a roadmap to facilitate recovery or orderly wind-down.
Certain regulations are mandating ring-fencing of assets, for example between retail deposits and investment banking activities. These rules are enabling greater resilience to allow one legal entity or business line to potentially fail without causing systemic failure across the enterprise.
Institutions are needing to consider re-orientation of their financial ledgers, performance management, and reporting to enable financial operations at the jurisdiction level.
Example of Regulatory
Requirements
• Securities and Exchange Commission 15a-6 requires a revised control framework.
• The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council call reporting.
• Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive creates regulations on alternative investment funds.
• Markets in Financial Instruments Directive syncs European Union (EU) investment services regulations.
• Office of the Comptroller of the Currency-12 (Code of Federal Regulations) CFR 30 and 170 establishes a new framework for risk governance.
• Dodd-Frank (DF) Section 165 mandates that Foreign Banking Organizations (FBO) establish senior management governance, US chief risk officer, and US risk committee.
• Demand for enhanced governance and oversight by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI).
• With DF Section 165 FBOs subject to the same stress testing requirements as a domestic US banking entity.
• European Banking Authority Stress Test provides an EU-wide stress test methodology and scenarios.
• Domestic and foreign entities utilize Basel III to calculate minimum capital requirements (FBO home country standards).
• Collins Amendment sets a capital requirement floor at 10%.
• Capital Requirements Directive IV delivers capital requirements that reflect Basel III rules.
• Basel III standards adopted by OSFI’s Capital Adequacy Requirements Guideline.
• New Liquidity Coverage Ratio.
• Provisions made in DF Section 166 for domestic US banks, and in DF Section 165 for Foreign Banking Organizations Banking Act 2009 (UK) requires resolvability, recovery planning and provides for bank nationalization.
• European Banking Authority issued a Recovery and Resolution directive on crisis prevention to enhance stability, protect depositors, and reduce moral hazard.
• Volcker Rule seeks to cease proprietary trading.
• The Independent Commission on Banking recommends separating retail deposits from investment banking activities.
• Liikanen in the EU seeks to separate proprietary trading and strengthen governance regulations.
• US Enhanced Prudential Standards requires FBOs to maintain a debt-to-equity ratio of no more than 15:1.
• In the US, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and the Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information (GATCA) developed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
• COREP/FINREP as part of the European Banking Authority’s Capital Requirements Directive (CRD) IV.
Seven Pillars of Structural Reform
13
Scrutiny from Domestic Regulations
Governance of Legal Entities
Stricter Stress Testing
Capital and Liquidity Adequacy
Recovery and Resolution Planning
Separation or Cessation of Activities
Geography Focused Finance
Description Institutions have less jurisdictional flexibility and need to solve for each set of requirements within the countries in which they operate. This is critical for addressing the bespoke expectations of each regulator. Institutions need to address and manage these requirements both today and in a sustainable manner going forward.
Institutions need to think about how legal entities will be governed in the jurisdictions they continue to operate in, potentially requiring a shift in ultimate responsibility for daily operations of the business between an institution’s global parent and the geographic legal entity structure.
Institutions face an increase in the requirements to evidence comprehensive and effective risk management, as confirmed by recent feedback from the Federal Reserve’s 2015 stress testing at the legal entity level.9 Regulators are increasingly focused on comprehensive risk reporting by legal entity, in turn placing emphasis on the quality and completeness of institutions’ data architecture.
Local and global regulations are forcing institutions to operate within a more capital restrained environment. Institutions need to provide sufficient capital and liquidity to enable the business to compete effectively in the products they opt to continue offering in the marketplace. Enterprise-wide capital planning will be a key support in allocating capital as well as evidencing capital and liquidity adequacy to regulators.
Regulators are ensuring stability of banking operations, for example making provision for state takeover in the event an institution becomes insolvent. Institutions need to invest time in developing and communicating a roadmap to facilitate recovery or orderly wind-down.
Certain regulations are mandating ring-fencing of assets, for example between retail deposits and investment banking activities. These rules are enabling greater resilience to allow one legal entity or business line to potentially fail without causing systemic failure across the enterprise.
Institutions are needing to consider re-orientation of their financial ledgers, performance management, and reporting to enable financial operations at the jurisdiction level.
Example of Regulatory
Requirements
• Securities and Exchange Commission 15a-6 requires a revised control framework.
• The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council call reporting.
• Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive creates regulations on alternative investment funds.
• Markets in Financial Instruments Directive syncs European Union (EU) investment services regulations.
• Office of the Comptroller of the Currency-12 (Code of Federal Regulations) CFR 30 and 170 establishes a new framework for risk governance.
• Dodd-Frank (DF) Section 165 mandates that Foreign Banking Organizations (FBO) establish senior management governance, US chief risk officer, and US risk committee.
• Demand for enhanced governance and oversight by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI).
• With DF Section 165 FBOs subject to the same stress testing requirements as a domestic US banking entity.
• European Banking Authority Stress Test provides an EU-wide stress test methodology and scenarios.
• Domestic and foreign entities utilize Basel III to calculate minimum capital requirements (FBO home country standards).
• Collins Amendment sets a capital requirement floor at 10%.
• Capital Requirements Directive IV delivers capital requirements that reflect Basel III rules.
• Basel III standards adopted by OSFI’s Capital Adequacy Requirements Guideline.
• New Liquidity Coverage Ratio.
• Provisions made in DF Section 166 for domestic US banks, and in DF Section 165 for Foreign Banking Organizations Banking Act 2009 (UK) requires resolvability, recovery planning and provides for bank nationalization.
• European Banking Authority issued a Recovery and Resolution directive on crisis prevention to enhance stability, protect depositors, and reduce moral hazard.
• Volcker Rule seeks to cease proprietary trading.
• The Independent Commission on Banking recommends separating retail deposits from investment banking activities.
• Liikanen in the EU seeks to separate proprietary trading and strengthen governance regulations.
• US Enhanced Prudential Standards requires FBOs to maintain a debt-to-equity ratio of no more than 15:1.
• In the US, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and the Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information (GATCA) developed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
• COREP/FINREP as part of the European Banking Authority’s Capital Requirements Directive (CRD) IV.
Source: Accenture analysis based upon publicly available documents, April 2015
14
15
2. Unlock potential in a new ecosystemOnce regulatory needs and solutions are organized, institutions will need to think immediately about unlocking the potential value in changes and investments. In the case of major investments in change, institutions will need to closely consider the businesses they want to be in within this new financial services ecosystem.
It will be too late to react when regulatory changes have been implemented. If institutions want to remain competitive and viable for the long term, the time to act is now. Our experience would indicate the following areas may help financial institutions unlock new opportunities for sustainment and competitive growth.
• Think local, not global. Institutions need to consider the type of business they want to conduct in each of their locations and the practical operations required to sustain these businesses while best managing capital and costs. For multinational institutions, this would require aligning global capabilities with local capabilities in the jurisdictions in which they operate. This is a live discussion for many of our 2015 Global Structural Reform Study respondents, with 57 percent indicating they will tailor their geographic footprint in the next two years and half
divesting geographic units, relocating their headquarters, or business units (Figures 5 and 6). This shift in focus may lead to considering new technologies to help improve efficiency and effectiveness, or new operational models that are not as cost, risk and capital-intensive. For example, we are seeing increased usage among our clients of managed services for know your customer (KYC) and post-trade processing utilities.
• Aim for market-driven specialization. Institutions can address competitive challenges by focusing resources and attention on certain customer, product, or geographic market segments. Such specialization can be performed upon the basis of a common core of capabilities, and 48 percent of 2015 Global Structural Reform Study respondents indicate that they are indeed doubling down over the next two years on core competencies in response to regulatory change. We believe the benefit of focusing on core competencies is greater local market recognition and competitive advantage.
• Focus on compliance and efficiency. Reputational risk could be a competitive advantage in the future, with clients and customers drawn to firms with strong ethical reputations that are also efficient in meeting their needs. To prepare for this possible opportunity, institutions should continue to integrate compliance into
their core processes. Expectations from regulators should continue to increase in this area, with the Federal Reserve recently announcing the first examination of US banks regarding their level of compliance with the Volcker Rule.10
• Think with an innovation mindset. Institutions should keep pace or even outpace niche providers in accessing the revenue streams that reflect the needs of today’s customers or clients. In our experience, digital-driven payments and portfolio management companies are capturing greater market share, and may become material threats to the longer-term viability of institutions’ business if sufficient planning is not in place. Sixty-two percent of our 2015 Global Structural Reform Study respondents are addressing this concern by planning to launch new products or services within the next two years.
Launch new geographic units
Focus more on core competencies
Implement cost reductions
Launch new products or service lines
Merge or acquire other companies
Increase headcount via utilizing contractors
Divest geographic units
Change pricing structure
Increase headcount via outsourcing
Relocate headquarters or business units
Shutdown product or service line
Change technology target operating model
Decrease headcount
6 5
6
6
6
7
8
10 27
28
26
25 25
25
30
22
22
21
21
14 14
45 18 30 30
3029
29
36
36
25 29 29
3626
26 31
35 35
35
39
37
37
35
28
27 27
34
34
45
8
11
10
14
31
31
40
40
20
3119 19
19
18
17
31
23
23 38
19
39
8
8
10
15
13
16
8
25
32
29
35
26
32
40
33
30
43
35
34
35
29
29
41
30
25
27
21
24
26
15
17
16
9
7
9
13
19
6
9
7
19
17
21
8
23
37
56
27
42
39
50
51
46
37
41
47
42
40
20
13
35
25
26
35
28
30
28
28
17
37
23
33
24
29
21
17
9
11
17
17
15
15
13
15
7
7
9
11
10
16
16
16
16
23
25
7
25
36
42
24
18
36
27
37
36
18
28
27
38
27
30
26
42
45
33
40
28
31
51
40
25
33
34
27
26
24
25
Increase headcount via home o�ce support 527 2610 36 31 33 31 12 54 21 13 16 27 36 22
Implement change management programs 28 26 2414 2932 3216 13 37 28 22 18 30 34 18
21
Increase headcount by hiring permanent sta� 2728 2413 1335 40 21 20 35 24 20 7 42 36 16
Tighten risk management 249 3433 13 25 41 22 11 41 30 19 9 39 32 20
18
19
18
16
9
23
22
14
Global (%) (%) (%) (%)
Banking Capital Markets Insurance
Currently not planned Currently in discussion OngoingPlanned within the next 2 years
16
Figure 5. Industry response to regulatory changesWhat specific strategic changes will your organization implement in response to regulatory changes? (Select one)
Note: Due to rounding, total may not equal 100 percentSource: Accenture 2015 Global Structural Reform Study
Global Asia Pacific Latin America North America Europe
6
6
7
8
10 27
28
26
25
22
22
21
21
14
45 18 30
29
36
36
25 29 29
3626
26 31
35
35
39
37
37
35
28
27
34
8
11
10
14
31
40
40
20
3119 19
19
18
17
31
23
3
9
13
13
13
6
14
13
6
18
20
3
20
32
41
25
33
30
52
31
27
32
43
37
30
23
35
9
31
30
27
39
41
33
52
21
17
47
37
29
41
31
23
30
3
14
27
10
18
27
20
20
3
11
13
13
13
8
14
13
21
11
26
11
21
39
53
18
24
50
32
43
47
18
42
47
39
39
21
24
45
32
24
37
24
29
42
34
16
34
32
37
13
24
32
13
24
19
11
18
13
11
16
8
10
7
7
10
7
3
7
10
23
24
3
34
24
48
30
23
21
30
33
37
23
13
21
38
21
41
14
37
50
41
30
27
40
40
37
34
41
21
24
31
33
20
28
33
37
17
27
27
21
17
24
10
3
7
18
11
14
7
19
29
11
7
26
48
36
34
30
29
25
46
36
33
21
41
34
30
7
25
31
30
21
36
21
21
22
29
26
38
26
34
39
31
33
27 2610 36 10 43 30 17 5 41 41 14 10 33 20 37 18 25 14 43
28 2614 32 6 32 39 23 26 26 24 24 10 37 23 30 11 33 26 30
32
28 2413 35 6 39 26 29 13 55 29 3 7 17 37 40 25 21 21 32
249 3433 10 39 23 29 13 42 34 11 10 17 47 27 4 32 32 32
29
18
36
26
21
22
21
19
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
17
Figure 6. Regional response to regulatory changesWhat specific strategic changes will your organization implement in response to regulatory changes? (Select one)
Note: Due to rounding, total may not equal 100 percent
Source: Accenture 2015 Global Structural Reform Study
18
3. Demonstrate value to key stakeholdersThe value of GSR can only be realized, in our view if planning is effectively instituted and adopted throughout the institution’s business. Broad, comprehensive stakeholder engagement is a key principle in mobilizing any response and for encouraging stakeholders to focus their energy on the strategic decisions required rather than lose confidence through a lack of understanding. As firms move past initial compliance, we also expect to see further tuning of the new operating model to promote this engagement and support from internal and external stakeholders (Figure 7).
Establish compliance and communicate future strategy and operating model
Develop foundationalenhancements to addressnew structural reforms
Establish revised steady stategovernance, processes, technology,and talent management
Deliver ongoingenhancements
Design and Early Implementation Embedding and Tuning
New Operating ModelInitial Compliance
Source: Accenture, June 2015
Figure 7. Demonstrating value to key stakeholders
19
GSR is much more than another set of regulatory requirements. Institutions should embrace structural reform with the bold thinking demanded by the creation of a new ecosystem within the financial services industry. Institutions will need to move beyond solutions for point regulations to a more strategic mindset that accounts for other competing or complementary forces.
The Accenture 2015 Global Structural Reform Study results indicate that financial institutions still have work to do to account for the full implications of GSR in their planning activity. Our current experience with clients facing the strategic challenges of GSR is that there is still time for effective decision making and action that can help position institutions to remain competitive and viable in the longer term.
Time for Bold, Strategic Thinking
References1. “How Banks Can Find Opportunity in a
Flood of Regulations,” American Banker, November 10, 2014. Accessed at: http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/how-banks-can-find-opportunity-in-a-flood-of-regulations-1071090-1.html
2. “Banking 2020: As the Storm Abates, North American Banks Must Chart a New Course to Capture Emerging Opportunities,” Accenture, October 2013. Accessed at: http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF/Accenture-Banking-2020-POV.pdf
3. “RPT-Deutsche Bank bets big on U.S. for investment bank growth,” Reuters, March 2, 2015. Accessed at: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/02/deutschebank-outlook-idUSL5N0W41S320150302
4. RBC to acquire City National Corporation, a premier U.S. private and commercial bank,” Royal Bank of Canada news release, January 22, 2015. Accessed at: http://www.rbc.com/newsroom/news/2015/20150122-rbc-nr.html
5. “Barclays PLC: Group Strategy Update – Building Barclays as the ‘Go-To’ bank,” Barclays, May 8, 2014. Accessed at: http://www.barclays.com/content/dam/barclayspublic/docs/InvestorRelations/IRNewsPresentations/2014Presentations/15-may-barclays-group-strategy-update.pdf
6. “BofA Said to Oust 150 Hedge Fund Clients Under New Rules,” BloombergBusiness, January 13, 2015. Accessed at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-13/bofa-said-to-oust-150-hedge-fund-clients-under-new-rules
7. “Shrinking margins and higher costs drive down investment banks’ returns”, Financial Times, November 4, 2014. Accessed at: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1ebb3d1c-4e43-11e4-adfe-00144feab7de.html#axzz3VtU6lJPD (access required)
8. “The Everyday Bank – How Digital is Revolutionizing Banking and the Customer Ecosystem,” Accenture, January 2014. Accessed at: http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/financial-services/accenture-everyday-bank.PDF
9. “Big Banks Struggle to Pass Fed’s ‘Stress Tests’,” Wall Street Journal, March 11, 2015. Accessed at: http://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-reserve-rejects-2-banks-capital-plans-in-annual-stress-tests-1426105804 (access required)
10. “Volcker rule exam will look into banks’ structural data,” SmartBrief on Risk and Compliance, March 10, 2015. Access at: https://www2.smartbrief.com/servlet/ArchiveServlet?issueid=25AC25BB-87AB-420E-8DC3-5FD50869CE72&lmid=archives
About the AuthorsSamantha Regan is a Managing Director in Accenture’s Finance & Risk Services. She has 17 years of global experience working with C-suite executives and their businesses in compliance and regulatory initiatives. Samantha is the North America Lead for the Regulatory Remediation & Compliance Transformation group within Accenture’s Finance & Risk Services practice.
Venetia Woo is a Senior Manager in Accenture’s Finance & Risk Services, and serves as the offerings lead for both Global Structural Reform and Prudential Standards. She has extensive experience in leading restructuring, M&A and joint ventures formation activities for financial institutions. Venetia also specializes in advising large institutions in credit risk, counterparty and capital adequacy functions and is the co-author of “The Effectiveness of Regulatory Stress Testing Disclosures.”
Ben Shorten is a Senior Manager in Accenture’s Finance & Risk Services, and serves as the Strategy and Target Operating Model offering lead for Regulatory Remediation & Compliance Transformation in North America. He has extensive experience working with C-Suite executives and their executive committees in Tier I investment banks and leading retail banking institutions in both the UK and the US to define and mobilize complex change delivery in response to government and regulatory mandate to change.
Chris Beck is a Manager in Accenture’s Finance & Risk Services. Specialized in strategy planning, surveillance, operational risk management and compliance risk management, Chris brings his solid experience and skills in these areas to help financial institutions define and implement their governance and risk management structures.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Craig Unterseher, Laura Bishop, Haralds Robeznieks and Evan Goldsmith for their contribution to this document.
About AccentureAccenture is a global management consulting, technology services and outsourcing company, with more than 323,000 people serving clients in more than 120 countries. Combining unparalleled experience, comprehensive capabilities across all industries and business functions, and extensive research on the world’s most successful companies, Accenture collaborates with clients to help them become high-performance businesses and governments. The company generated net revenues of US$30.0 billion for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2014. Its home page is www.accenture.com.
Disclaimer: This document is intended for general informational purposes only and does not take into account the reader’s specific circumstances, and may not reflect the most current developments. Accenture disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, any and all liability for the accuracy and completeness of the information in this document and for any acts or omissions made based on such information. Accenture does not provide legal, regulatory, audit, or tax advice. Readers are responsible for obtaining such advice from their own legal counsel or other licensed professionals.
Stay ConnectedAccenture Finance & Risk Services: http://www.accenture.com/microsites/financeandrisk/pages/index.aspx
Connect With Us https://www.linkedin.com/ groups?gid=3753715
Join Us https://www.facebook.com/ accenturestrategy
https://www.facebook.com/ accenture
Follow Us http://twitter.com/accenture
Watch Us www.youtube.com/accenture
15-1120Copyright © 2015 Accenture All rights reserved.
Accenture, its logo, and High Performance Delivered are trademarks of Accenture.