Many banks feel safe with the notion of being contractually bound with a ‘Large Company’. The irony is that, in reality there are some very real downsides to large vendors which never seem to escape us as individuals, but more often than not escape us when we are wearing our "Project Director" hat. For instance:

A large vendor has shareholders, few of whom know anything about Basel, fewer still, who know anything about your bank, all of whom insist on a return on their investment in the software vendor.

A large vendor has a vested interest in determining the optimal moment to diminish support of the product you have purchased and re-direct its financial and intellectual capital towards the next emerging market.

A large vendor has a vested interest in promising the Earth in a pre-sales negotiation and playing the ‘expectations management game’ in a post-sales world.

A large vendor has the ability to defend itself successfully in protracted litigation.

Moreover, most banks who have dealt with large software vendors will recognise that, in fact, they are dealing with a product which was created by a small team, possibly ‘acquired’ by the large vendor, and most such acquisitions entail ‘golden handcuffs’ which have an expiry date. Where this is the case, you may not expect that any of the original creative genius or duty of care will remain beyond that date.

But…there may just be a solution on the horizon where the company’s employees are the only shareholders. The company was founded on the premise that there would be no IPOs, no silent partners, no Angel Investors, no Venture Capital. Everyone involved in the overall solution has significant skin in the game. We intend to do one thing, do it well, and do it long term… Why not talk to us at RegCap?