Big Leagues Table 2012: Global Core Banking Sales Ranking
A core banking system forms the central unit of a financial institution, and banks around the world have realized the importance of a specialized system in improving their processes, productivity, and profitability.
Competition within core banking has become increasingly intense as major players look to capitalize on the developments in banking technology across the globe, especially with regard to emerging geographies. Over the last few years, the turmoil of the financial crisis has spurred a number of mergers and acquisitions across the sector, prompting demand for core platform standardization across global branches and subsidiaries.
In a new report, Big Leagues Table 2012: Global Core Banking Sales Ranking, Celent provides a detailed look at the core banking deals and measures the number of new name banking deals that vendors won in the 12 months ending June 2011 in core banking. Celent has developed a scoring methodology to rank the core banking vendors to score them on their deals during the time period from July 2010 to June 2011. The Celent Big Leagues Table assesses the success of a core banking vendor based on a proxy for value of the deals won, rather than the number.
“In general, total core banking deals across all vendors have decreased since Celent’s 2010 study,” says Stephen Greer, Analyst with Celent’s Banking Group and coauthor of the report. “Core replacements are generally decreasing in developed regions like North America and Western Europe, while developing countries in Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe are in various stages of banking technology transformations.”
“Existing sales league tables don’t take the size of the bank or the extensiveness of the deployment into account,” adds Bart Narter, Senior Vice President of Celent’s Banking Group and coauthor of the report. “Selling to twenty banks with $200 million in assets isn’t the same as selling to twenty banks with $50 billion in assets. Celent’s Big League table reflects this complexity.”