- We have Payzur and it is not as popular as what we had. When we were with Digital Insight we used POP Money from Fiserv and we had gained a lot of traction with POP Money with the customer base. Now that we are with Q2 Software and switched to Payzur, we have experienced a drastic fall-off in usage and adoption. The selling point from Q2 on Payzur was that the bank would benefit from the added interchange, since Payzur drives on the debit card rails. However, the biggest complaint we get is that customers no longer have the ability to schedule recurring P2P via Payzur since a debit card PIN is required for every transaction. This kills the recurring transactions (key it and forget it). With POP Money, they could--and did. We are realizing that our customers are now using alternative methods for P2P that are more convenient, with less friction--and of course once they are gone or are using alternative methods, they most likely will not be back. I do not even use our Payzur P2P product due to the inability to schedule recurring transfers.
The bonus of additional debit card interchange has turned out to be bogus in our case.
- The reconciliation process is not fun when there is a large volume of transactions. It is very manual.
I am finalizing my due diligence and contract review for a mortgage firm to originate our mortgages for us and grant us first right of refusal.
I have language in the agreement that requires them to follow all applicable rules and regulations. It dawned on me that I might want to see their SAFE Act audit results every year so I inserted language that they need to provide the report to me annually upon my request. They are balking and want to see specific language that NCUA requires me to do this. NCUA guidance (as far as I can find) really only says we need to have appropriate controls in place.
Does anyone have a similar arrangement in place? Can anyone suggest contract language that might be more acceptable? Can anyone point me to more specific NCUA or FFIEC language I can use to bolster my argument? Thanks in advance.
Try the vendor management perspective: (https://ithandbook.ffiec.gov/it-booklets/outsourcing-technology-services/risk-management/service-provider-selection/due-diligence.aspx)
A financial institution should perform due diligence on the service provider's response to an RFP as well as the service provider itself. Due diligence should serve as a verification and analysis tool, providing assurance that the service provider meets the institution's needs. Due diligence should confirm and assess the following information regarding the service provider:
•Existence and corporate history;
•Qualifications, backgrounds, and reputations of company principals, including criminal background checks where appropriate;
•Other companies using similar services from the provider that may be contacted for reference;
•Financial status, including reviews of audited financial statements;
•Strategy and reputation;
•Service delivery capability, status, and effectiveness;
•Technology and systems architecture;
•Internal controls environment, security history, and audit coverage;
•Legal and regulatory compliance including any complaints, litigation, or regulatory actions;
•Reliance on and success in dealing with third party service providers;
•Insurance coverage; and
•Ability to meet disaster recovery and business continuity requirements.
I believe if you perform what Heather put forth you should be good. I wouldn't worry about 3rd party employee
SAFE Act information. That is for the company to police. I would make sure the 3rd party has a valid NMLS number
May I ask who you went with ?? I have just started this research to find outsourcing mortgages based on our current pipeline.
- I'm not sure if this will help since I don't think that audit results would ever be published, but there is a lot of NMLS information about your vendor available at https://www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org/.
Does the contract already have a clause regarding SSAE 18 or any other similar reports? For me, that would suffice if I could validate that they maintain the NMLS numbers of their employees through the public site.
- We are converting to CSI Nupoint in January; we began preparing in October, 2017. Our due diligence has included conferences plus calls and visits to other banks. We feel very confident in the decision we've made; CSI is 53 yrs old with a history of great customer service along with the interests of community banks. We have been with FIS Bankway for many years.
- We have been a CSI customer for 45 years. I have only been with the bank for 15; I think CSI does a good job of making sure smaller community banks can offer what the larger banks offer. Our current 10 year contract expires in 2021, so as always we will do our due diligence - but in the past, we have always stayed.
The customer service is very good. Our account rep visits the bank monthly and we are able to call many employees directly. They have a Customer Resource Center as well and you may submit tickets with questions or problems and they typically respond within 1-2 hours. You may also call the CRC if something needs to be handled urgently.
Products - The core products work well and integrate well for the most part. The one thing I don't care for is the Deposit Platform FORMS (not the system - the system itself is great), the fill in the blanks is not always smooth and doesn't flow well. But do customers really look at this - mostly no. CSI integrates with LaserPro for loans; but CSI never plans to roll out a loan form system (too many compliance changes). Not all fields carry over but majority do.
Compliance - They have a great knowledgeable compliance staff who stays up to date on changes and ensure any changes to the core are made before the deadline. They provide a quarterly compliance update on all issues and guide you to what the bank needs to do as well as what they are doing.
Downsides - I would have to say product enhancements - sometimes they will roll out an update and it may not still work 100% or there may be some issues. They should probably have spent more time in beta testing.
Pricing - This is the largest expense for the bank - but it is also your core operating system, so it isn't going to be cheap - I think they do their own homework and know what competition charges and stay competitive.
Financial - When you review the financial reports for CSI, you will see they are very stable and make a profit and have always been.
I am more than happy to answer any questions about them. I hope this was helpful.
- If you are just starting the process, you may want to hire a consulting company to help you with evaluation and negotiating the contract in the future if you do decide to switch.
- We have been with CSI for the past 4 years. We migrated from JHA 20/10 to CSI NuPoint. We used a consulting firm to assist with this project to allow a fresh set of eyes to make sure that we were asking the right questions, etc.
We have not regretted our decision to go with CSI at all. We have been pleased that they actually do listen to what the bank wants and needs and try and roll this out sometimes sooner than later.
We felt that CSI offered better customer facing products then the other vendors that we met with and we also wanted to be treated like a customer by name and not just another number when it came to our support.
Feel free to reach out to me if you have any specific questions. I might not know them but I will try my best and get you a response.
- Real time processing is important to us and one of the main reasons we use FIS Miser core. Miser is a solid core and true real-time processing. We have no core down time per year. None. Miser has been our in-house core processor since 2003. We completed due diligence this year and stayed with Miser.
Miser clients range from small banks like us to billion dollar credit unions. Miser supports both service bureau and in-house. As an in-house client, we always have the option of migrating to service bureau.
We are very pleased with the front-end automation called Desktop. Miser also integrates well with a couple third party companies we use and with other FIS services. Examples: CFM changes made in Miser update directly to FIS e-banking channels. Customer e-banking transfers are real time.
Small FIs such as us fall under an FIS category called Main Street banks. We frequently benefit from special considerations for institutions that struggle with the cost associated with add-on services such as e-statements, external transfers, message delivery, and RDC. It is a nice perk for the small FI working with a Fortune 500 company.
Negative comments: We have no negative comments about the Miser core. However, FIs may find they outgrow Miser when they specialize in commercial lending or extensive municipal services.
FIS as a whole has given us some heartburn during implementation phases.
- We have been with CSI for 4 years and have not regretted the move. They really are a great company with wonderful customer service. The conversion team that was with us were amazing and they make sure that you are comfortable with everything before they leave you.
- We are looking at IBT Apps. Does anyone have pros or cons to this core provider?
- I'm surprised to see so many people happy with their core companies, I always thought it was necessary to despise your core. ;) Jokes aside, I'm not a fan of Fiserv with my limited experience with it, but it has made me appreciate Jack Henry, which I never thought I would. Jack Henry had all the products that talked to each other, and you were able to set up account parameters very easily with limited maintenance. A lot of compliance areas were integrated into the system (Reg CC, TIS, etc.) where Fiserv doesn't seem to function well in that area without additional programming.
I was talking with a banker yesterday who asked in a peer group how other bankers captured CIP fields of new accounts without using an account application form. I explained that usually core systems could require fields and then the banker just input them in rather than a customer filling out a form, and asked if her core could do that - it didn't sound like CSI had that capability. For these CSI users, are you all using forms or have you figured it out?