IT cost reduction for banks, credit unions, asset managers, and insurance.
Financial services technology spend has scale and structure most other industries don’t. Core systems carry decade-long vendor relationships and contract terms structured around regulatory constraints. Cloud adoption is constrained by data residency, sovereignty, and audit requirements. Cybersecurity spend competes for budget with everything else. Unravyl’s financial services work focuses on the cost categories where vendor-neutral analysis and negotiation produce meaningful results — within the regulatory frameworks that shape what’s possible.
The cost categories that matter most.
Core banking and processing relationships
Core banking platforms (Fiserv, Jack Henry, FIS, and others) carry some of the longest-running vendor relationships in any industry. Contract terms, processing fees, and add-on module pricing accumulate over decades. We help benchmark these relationships against current market structures.
Telecom and connectivity
Financial services environments often have substantial telecom footprints — branches, call centers, ATM networks, dealer networks. Connectivity requirements carry regulatory weight that limits some flexibility but doesn’t eliminate negotiation leverage.
Cloud infrastructure with regulatory constraints
Cloud adoption in financial services operates within data residency, sovereignty, and audit requirements that most industries don’t face. The cost optimization work focuses on what’s negotiable within those constraints.
SaaS for non-regulated functions
Customer-facing and back-office SaaS — CRM, HR, scheduling, business intelligence — runs the same way it does in any industry. These categories often have the most accessible cost reduction opportunities.
IT asset management across branches and offices
Multi-location IT asset management, with the operational complexity of branch networks, call centers, and remote workforce structures.
Vendor contracts across financial services suppliers
Beyond technology, financial services organizations carry significant vendor relationships in compliance services, audit, data providers, and back-office processing. We focus on the technology and recurring operational categories.
Patterns we see across the industry.
Core banking pricing structured around assumptions from contract inception — Per-transaction fees, account fees, and module pricing structured years ago, when business mix and volume were different. Benchmarking against current market structures often surfaces material variance
Branch connectivity at premium pricing — Branch networks frequently have telecom services at pricing structured for the highest-availability tier, regardless of branch role. Smaller branches and limited-service locations often don’t need the same service tier as full-service branches.
Cloud spend without regulatory cost allocation — Cloud workloads tagged by application but not by regulatory classification (production vs. dev/test, regulated vs. non-regulated, US-onshore vs. offshore). The lack of cost allocation prevents structural optimization.
SaaS sprawl from line-of-business procurement — Each line of business — wealth, lending, insurance, investment management — procures its own software stack. Consolidation opportunities exist but require cross-LOB coordination.
Compliance and audit tooling overlap — Multiple tools serving similar GRC functions, accumulated as compliance requirements evolved. Each renews on its own cycle without portfolio review.
Data vendor contract structures — Market data, KYC/AML data, and reference data subscriptions often carry contract terms that don’t reflect current usage patterns. License counts, entitlement structures, and tier pricing all benefit from periodic review.
What’s different about working in financial services.
We work with awareness of the regulatory frameworks that shape financial services technology decisions — GLBA, state privacy regulations, banking regulator guidance, FINRA, and insurance regulatory frameworks. We’re not a regulatory advisory firm and don’t provide regulatory legal advice, but our engagement structure accommodates regulatory constraints rather than working against them.
Typical accommodations include:
- Data handling aligned with your existing vendor management framework
- NDA and confidentiality terms aligned with regulatory expectations
- Engagement deliverables structured to support regulator review when relevant
- Vendor recommendation considerations that account for regulatory due diligence requirements
Where we have engagement experience.
Community and regional banks — single-state and multi-state community banks
Credit unions — small to large-asset credit unions
Asset managers and investment firms — registered investment advisors, asset managers, hedge funds
Insurance — P&C, life, and specialty insurance carriers and brokers
Specialty finance — lending platforms, consumer finance, equipment finance
The methodology is consistent across segments; the specific cost patterns differ significantly.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do you work within our vendor management framework?
Yes. Financial services organizations typically have established vendor management frameworks for due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and contract structure. We operate within those frameworks rather than around them.
Can you help with core banking contract negotiation?
Yes, when the engagement scope requires it. Most cost reduction engagements don’t, but if our scope brings us into systems where PHI is present, we execute BAAs as a standard part of engagement setup.
What about regulatory reporting tooling and data vendors?
Yes, we work on these categories when they create meaningful savings opportunities. Market data, KYC/AML data, regulatory reporting subscriptions — all benefit from periodic structural review.
Do you provide cybersecurity cost reduction?
We work on cybersecurity tooling cost optimization (SaaS license counts, tier rightsizing, contract negotiation) but not on cybersecurity strategy, threat response, or compliance remediation. Those require dedicated security advisors.
How do you handle confidentiality given regulatory sensitivities?
Standard NDAs are executed as a foundational step. Engagement structure can accommodate higher confidentiality requirements when needed. Our default is to work with the data minimum necessary for the engagement, with read-only vendor portal access where applicable.
Will you provide deliverables that support our regulator interactions?
Engagement deliverables are structured for client use, including stakeholder review and internal governance documentation. We can structure deliverables to support regulator review when that’s a known engagement objective, though we don’t act as a representative in regulator interactions.
