Financial services
Mid-market brokers, asset managers, insurers and advisers rarely build their core platform. They buy it, then spend years making it work with everything else, under a regime where how a change was made matters as much as what it did.
The typical estate
- 01
Core vendor platform
Policy, portfolio or account administration. Configurable at the edges, immovable at the centre.
- 02
Client reporting and portals
Where the firm is judged by its clients, and increasingly by its clients’ advisers.
- 03
Regulatory and management reporting
Assembled from several systems that do not agree with each other by default.
- 04
Documents, signature and records
With retention obligations and an expectation of reproducibility.
- 05
Privileged access and change control
Not infrastructure detail here. Evidence.
Where it strains.
- The firm must be able to show who changed what, when, and on whose authority.
- Client data segregation has to be demonstrable, not merely intended.
- Vendor platform limits shape architecture more than internal preference does.
- Business continuity is a documented obligation with a tested recovery position.
Your supplier is in scope of your regulator
Firms in this sector are accountable for the parties they outsource technology to. That makes how a partner records decisions, controls change and evidences access a direct part of the firm’s own regulatory position. That is precisely why Ferrafox writes decisions down and keeps access in the client’s tenancy.
What Ferrafox would take on.
- Integration between vendor platforms and the systems around them
- Client portals and reporting built on a defensible data position
- Privileged access, change control and the evidence trail both produce
- Infrastructure with a documented, tested recovery position
Tell us what your organization runs on.
The first conversation is about the environment as it stands today: what exists, what it costs to keep running, and where responsibility currently sits.