Gearing Up For Basel IIIStringent data reporting and risk management requirements will compel banks to significantly overhaul their IT infrastructure to not only comply with sweeping regulatory change but also to power new operational efficiencies and create market differentiation.

Executive SummaryIn its depth and scope, Basel III is unlike anything the banking business has seen. A combination of micro- and macro-prudential norms, the global regulatory mandate (which rolls out this year through 2018) 1 requires banks to increase their quality of capital by focusing on liquidity and common equity; improve supervision of firm-wide risk management; and provide detailed report -ing on regulatory capital and the calculation of capital ratios. It mandates adherence to ratios such as liquidity coverage and net stable funding, which are aimed at strengthening banks’ short and long-term liquidity. Most prominently, Basel III is transforming risk management into a function that fortifies banks’ sound functioning.

These changes will necessitate a fundamental review of each bank’s operating model. Many banks will need to decide which businesses and geographies to focus on and which to exit. Almost all banks will need to invest in technology capabilities to meet Basel III’s stringent data reporting and risk management requirements.

While these investments will strain bank bal -ance sheets, they will also create opportunities to extract additional efficiencies from day-to-day

operations. Given the pressure on margins, we believe that banks need to go beyond the standard applications of the new technologies. By building strong capabilities in the areas that are the focus of these regulations, banks can differentiate themselves from their competitors. Key imperatives for banks as they prepare for Basel III include:

• Undertake a fundamental analysis of individ-ual businesses to identify growth drivers.

• Strengthen data management practices to create a single source of truth for all functions.

• Embed key functions such as liquidity and risk management into related processes across the organization.

• Invest in technologies that can free up resources to focus on core activities.

• Improve project management capabilities to realize greater benefits from IT investments.

Overall ImpactThe impact of Basel III on banks is manifold, ranging from capital (see Figure 1, next page) and liquidity requirements to technology and strategy implications. The new key capital ratio is set at 4.5%, more than double the current 2%. In addition, there is a new buffer of 2.5%;

cognizant reports | march 2013

• Cognizant Reports

cognizant reports 2

banks with capital within the buffer zone will face restrictions on dividend payments and dis-cretionary bonuses. According to an estimate by McKinsey & Co., the capital requirements under Basel III could reduce return on equity (RoE) for banks by about 4% in Europe and 3% in the U.S.2

Basel III’s liquidity ratios constitute a “first of its kind” attempt at regulating bank liquidity. Its liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) will require banks to maintain cash-like assets in the short term; the net stable funding ratio (NSFR) will determine a one-year-horizon liquidity buffer. For banks that are unaccustomed to holding high-quality capital in the short term, adjusting to these requirements will entail significant costs, which may be further inflated by the increased market demand for such capital.

Basel III will also create technological challenges. For one, the proposed rules require banks to report their liquidity metrics on a daily basis. Banks will, therefore, need to begin collecting data points, which could run into several thousands, across the organization. The mandated enhance-ments to banks’ risk management infrastructures will also pressure their technology infrastructure. Basel III also includes a credit value adjustment (CVA) charge that must be calculated over and above the default counterparty risk charge that was proposed in Basel II.3 This calculation needs to be carried out on a real-time basis; it involves analyzing various trades and determining which

counterparty is likely to default. Surveys have found that several banks are not in a position to calculate CVA instantaneously.4

Global systemically important financial institutions (G-SIFI) will incur a 1% to 2.5% capital surcharge. These banks will need to meet the enhanced capital requirements by using retained earnings, rais-ing fresh equity or reducing their risk-weighted assets (RWAs), as the risk weight-age for certain assets will rise under the new regime. One estimate suggests that G-SIFIs will need to raise another $566 billion to meet Basel III’s capital requirements. One outcome of this has been a shedding of non-core assets by banks globally, particularly in Europe (see Figure 2, next page). For example, Citigroup’s non-core assets declined from 34% in 2009 to 10% of total assets as of June 2012.5

Banks operating in multiple countries will also have to deal with other regulations, such as the Dodd-Frank Act in the U.S. (for more on this regulation, read “Implications of Dodd-Frank for the U.S. Banking and Financial Services Indus-try”), European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) and the Markets in Financial Instrument Directive (MiFID) in the EU.

Basel III Capital Requirements Present the Biggest Challenge

Figure 1

Source: “The Road to Basel III Implications for Credit, Derivatives & the Economy,” Deutsche Bank, 2012.

6%

4%

2%

0%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

Common Equity

4.5%

7.0%

9.5%

13.0%

Tier 1

6.0%

8.5%

11.0%

14.5%

Total Capital

8.0%

10.5%

13.0%

16.5%

Minimal Capital Requirement

Countercyclical Buffer: 0.0% — 2.5%

Conservation Buffer: 2.5%

G-SIBs Buffer: 1.0% — 3.5%

One estimate suggests that G-SIFIs will need to raise another $566 billion to meet Basel III’s capital requirements.

cognizant reports 3

Investment BanksThe financial crisis exacted a heavy toll on the investment banking business, effectively ending an era of record profits. Five years later, it remains a rollercoaster ride for these orga-nizations (see Figure 3, page 4). In the face of declining revenues and risk-averse investors, sev-eral large banks have responded by slashing their investment banking business. Regulations such as the Volcker Rule — a part of the Dodd-Frank Act in the U.S. that restricts proprietary trading by banks — have added to the pressure on invest-ment banks (for more on the Volcker Rule, read “Volcker Rule Compliance: Preparing for the Long Haul”). Similar laws are likely to be enacted by European countries.6

As Basel III dawns on the investment banking landscape, it is expected to usher in additional challenges. The trading business, for one, is expected to be impacted significantly. Basel III’s market risk and securitization framework will force banks trading in OTC derivatives to hold more capital (2% of total exposure to counter-parties7) for market and counterparty risk provi-sioning. Banks will be forced to shed lower-rated assets, which will impact their trading businesses.

These factors are forcing a rethink of the role of investment banking in organizations with diversi-fied business models. This reassessment comes as many large banks undertake across-the-board reductions in variable costs. Some wholesale banks have made a move into businesses such

as corporate lending, private banking and retail stock brokerage.8 While such moves are feasible for large banks, the combination of a weak econ-omy and stringent regulations make it difficult for mid-size and smaller banks to juggle all these initiatives.

Corporate BankingBasel III’s impact on non-capital market entities is expected to be milder, but it will nevertheless alter corporate banks’ lending practices. Higher capital ratios and liquidity requirements could increase lending costs and force banks to reduce their lending to large corporations and/or stop lending to certain heavy industries altogether. Several signs indicate that this may be already happening. France’s Société Générale and BNP Paribas announced plans to scale back their aircraft and shipping financing operations. The Royal Bank of Scotland sold its aircraft leasing business in January 2012.9 There are rumblings of similar moves in the U.S., as well. Meeting Basel III’s capital requirements is expected to be tough for banks with assets of less than $500 million.10 The rules are expected to adversely impact mort-gage and real estate lending.11

Such moves could, however, open opportunities for banks from relatively better-off regions, such as Asia, to expand into new markets. For example, Société Générale exited the Egyptian market after selling 77% of its stake to Qatar National Bank, allowing the state-backed lender to expand into new markets.

Growing Non-Core Asset Market in the EU

Figure 2

Source: “A Growing Non-Core Asset Market,” PricewaterhouseCoopers, July 2012.

France, ¤11.1 bn

Germany, ¤4.3 bn

UK, ¤7.5 bnUK, ¤8.8 bn

UK, ¤3.6 bn

Switzerland, ¤2.1 bnSpain, ¤4.0 bn

Spain, ¤3.7 bnIreland, ¤15.0 bn

Portugal, ¤4.2 bn

Italy, ¤1.9 bn

Other, ¤1.2 bn

Other, ¤4.0 bn

Other, ¤2.0 bn

€10.8 bn

€36.0 bn

€26.6 bn

2010 2011 June 2012

Non-core asset transactions have increased by more than three-fold between 2010 and 2011 and have made a strong start in 2012.

cognizant reports 4

Hedge FundsFor hedge funds, Basel III — combined with the Volcker Rule, the EMIR and MiFID – will create considerable challenges. The additional CVA charge under Basel III is expected to increase the cost of trades and affect trade volumes. Mandatory trading of OTC derivatives through exchanges will also increase the cost of OTC derivatives trading.12

Additionally, LCR and NSFR are expected to inflate costs for hedge fund clients. As a result, some banks are separating their hedge funds operations into standalone entities13 or winding down operations to focus on core businesses.14 Given that most of these regulations are still in flux, the prolonged uncertainty is believed to be hampering many firms’ decision-making.

Retail BanksThe impact on retail banks will be similar to that on corporate banks. Nevertheless, compliance will mean allocation of resources and planning for the short term. The requirement to maintain greater capital reserves will hamper lending.

In the U.S., several community and small banks have expressed concerns that Basel III capi-tal norms could undermine their ability to issue mortgages.15 Banks with substantial retail deposits will no doubt find it easier to comply with the higher capital requirements. For others, building a larger deposit base could entail higher costs. Also, the ensuing competition for deposits, which have grown only modestly as saving rates

have declined, would make these accounts more expensive for retail banks to maintain.16

Custodian BanksFor custodian banks, the unfolding regulations present an opportunity to play a larger role for buy-side clients. Basel III, the U.S. Dodd-Frank Act and the EMIR are expected to boost demand for higher quality collateral. According to the Tabb Group, the clearing mandate would require between $1.6 trillion and $2 trillion in additional collateral.17

As institutions that hold billions of dollars in collateral, custodians are in a position to capitalize on the growing demand.18 In fact, orga-nizations such as BNY Mellon, BNP Paribas and the U.S. Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) have launched initiatives that enable a smooth flow of collateral across borders.19

Dealing with Basel IIIThe double whammy of stringent regulations and weak economic growth is forcing banks to review every aspect of their businesses. While compliance remains the top priority, banks are continuously seeking to enhance efficiencies in their day-to-day operations to prepare for a prolonged period of tight margins and high costs.

As regulatory capital increases its presence on banks’ balance sheets, the focus is likely to shift toward initiatives to increase return on equity. RWAs are set to increase under Basel III’s new regulatory regime, prompting banks to reduce

Tough Times Not Over Yet for Investment Banks

Figure 3

Pretax profits12 months to Q2 2012 vs.12 months to Q2 2011

Source: “Institutions are Struggling to Find a Sustainably Profitable Model‚” Financial News, August 13, 2012.

-202%-179%

-130%-80%

-77%-76%

-73%-73%

-65%-60%-57%

-30%-27%-24%

-18%

NomuraUBSSociété GénéraleCredit SuisseMorgan StanleyBofA Merrill LynchBNP ParibasDeutsche BankRBSGoldman SachsAverageBarclaysJPMorganCitiHSBC

cognizant reports 5

such assets. Banks with strong internal ratings-based models for rating assets could apply them to quickly and effectively reduce RWAs.

Industry estimates suggest that several banks are falling short of the required levels of capital.20 Few banks have issued fresh capital to fill this gap, suggesting that the markets might not respond positively to attempts to raise capital. Banks are, therefore, left with no choice but to take a hard look at

their businesses and scale back in areas that can-not contribute to the maintenance of the required levels of RWAs and deliver return on equity.

It is also becoming imperative for banks to extend operational efficiencies wherever possible. This could be achieved through a combination of strategies, such as partnering with third-party experts, pursuing M&As or creating shared ser-vices platforms. Banks that have invested heavily in creating IT infrastructure to support processes such as counterparty risk management internally could even provide these platforms as a service to other players in the industry.

Nonetheless, compliance with Basel III will drive many banking processes from silos into a more integrated, collaborative and efficient operat-ing model. Functions such as risk management, which have hitherto been comparatively isolated, will now have a say in nearly all bank decisions. Banks may also choose to invest in advanced data analytics to find and implement ways to optimize high-value business processes. Risk analytics, for example, can be deployed on data collected from various execution environments to enhance risk-related processes, such as credit risk model-ing and calculating risk indicators.

Expanding Role of Risk Management Banks’ enterprise risk management capabilities were found lacking in areas such as liquidity risk in the days leading up to the global financial cri-sis. Basel III is perhaps the largest effort under-taken by global regulators to make banks more secure. In today’s globally connected markets, risk has also become global. Banks are exposed to multiple risk types, and an overhaul of risk man-agement practices is crucial if they are to survive future shocks.

Among Basel III’s efforts to mitigate risk are various micro-prudential regulations, including capital, liquidity and leverage control through various ratios; CVA charges; rigorous data report-ing requirements; and restrictions on leverage and counterparty exposures. These are supple-mented by macro-prudential regulations, such as mandates to enhance firm-wide supervision and governance of risk management practices and regular stress testing. In anticipation of the impending regulations, banks have already begun assessing their approaches to various functions and processes, such as collateral management and calculation of counterparty risks.

Basel III also requires banks to fundamentally review their trading books. The first step in this direction is the requirement for banks to hold sig-nificantly more capital against risky instruments such as securitized and structured products. More recently, regulators have proposed changes to the boundary between banks’ trading and banking books. The proposed changes include:

• Linking the inclusion of an instrument in a trading book to its tradability, followed by daily valuation and quarterly reporting of the instrument.

• Basing capital requirements on risks that threaten banks’ solvency.

By any measure, these regulations are significant and, when implemented, will change the way risk management is perceived and practiced by banks. The need for a firm-wide view of risk will mean that banks will have to embed the risk function into all of their processes, which will require technology to collect and analyze data on a daily basis to monitor various levels of exposure and arrive at more informed decisions.

While Basel III compli-ance means higher costs in the form of technology investment and process reorganization, it also pres-ents banks with an opportunity to assess their operations and look for opportunities to create efficiencies. In the long run, it will influence banks to move to a culture of risk and evidence-based

Banks are exposed to multiple risk

types, and an overhaul of risk

management practices is crucial if

they are to survive future shocks.

While Basel III compliance means higher costs in the form of technology investment and process reorganization, it also presents banks with an opportunity to assess their operations and look for opportunities to create efficiencies.

cognizant reports 6

Quick Take

decision-making. Research firm Celent expects organizations across the capital market spectrum to spend $35 billion in 2012 on risk management and risk-related compliance. Meanwhile, a survey by American Banker Executive Forum found that a growing number of small banks (with less than $100 million of assets) wish to implement enterprise risk management in 2012.21

Technology Implications Almost all the regulations under Basel III have a direct or indirect technology implication for banks. Most of the subsequent technology enhancements will be focused on improving data management practices. Many activities/

processes that banks will be required to under-take will revolve around aggregating, standard-izing and analyzing data to derive high-quality insights for internal and regulatory consumption. Regulatory data reporting has become stringent, and in some cases, ad hoc reports will be required to respond to random checks by regulators. The quality of the underlying data, therefore, will become highly important from the bank, regula-tor and market perspectives. Inconsistencies in data could attract further regulatory scrutiny and also affect a bank’s credibility.

Take for example, collateral management under Basel III. Banks that use internal models for

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Leverage Ratio

Supervisory Monitoring

Parallel Run Jan. 1, 2013 - Jan. 1, 2017

Disclosure starts Jan. 1, 2015

Migration to Pillar 1

Minimum Common Equity Capital Ratio

3.50% 4% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50%

Capital Conservation Buffer

0.63% 1.25% 1.88% 2.50%

Minimum Common Equity plus Capital Conservation Buffer

3.50% 4% 4.50% 5.13% 5.75% 6.38% 7%

Phase-in of deductions from CET1 (including amounts exceeding the limit for DTAs, MSRs and financials)

20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 100%

Minimum Tier 1 Capital 4.50% 5.50% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00%

Minimum Total Capital 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.00%

Minimum Total Capital plus Conservation Buffer

8.00% 8.00% 8.00% 8.63% 9.25% 9.88% 10.50%

Capital instruments that no longer qualify as non-core Tier 1 capital or Tier 2 Capital

Phased out over a 10-year horizon, beginning in 2013

Liquidity Coverage Ratio

Obser-vation period begins

Introduce minimum standard

Net Stable Funding Ratio

Obser-vation period begins

Introduce minimum standard

Source: Basel III New Capital and Liquidity Standards, FAQs, Moody’s Analytics Shading indicates transition periods. All dates are as of January 1 of the given year.

Basel III Implementation Timeline

cognizant reports 7

calculating collateral will need to set up a collateral management unit. This unit will be responsible for calculating and making margin calls, managing disputes and reporting margins on a daily basis. For this, banks will need to source data from different functional areas across product and exposure types and eliminate dis-crepancies to ensure data integrity. Moreover, the bank, or a unit therein, will need to report the data to senior management and conduct annual reviews to mitigate margin disputes. If discovered by regulators, this would incur financial penalties. Clearly, in addition to the investment involved, creating such a process will require organization-wide buy-in and cooperation.

However, the reality at several banks is that data continues to be managed in silos. Bank depart-

ments use systems that suit department-specific needs and store data in varying, incompatible formats. Inte-grating these disparate sys-tems will be a time-consum-ing and costly undertaking, especially since the amount of data generated by banks has exploded in the past decade. According to a 2011

report by the Tower Group, mid-tier banks’ data output grew 150 times over the previous seven to eight years.

Eliminating data silos will be central to achiev-ing compliance. This, in turn, will require banks to rebuild their aging infrastructures. Stopgap or minimal efforts might work in the short run, but they will have adverse consequences over time as individual regulations come into effect. Banks need to draw up blueprints on the basis of their current levels of preparedness and the time-line for Basel III implementation. In the case of collateral management, foresight and planning will allow banks to utilize their assets optimally and manage collateral schedules more efficiently.

Moreover, banks that achieve the integrated data management levels required under Basel III will be able to deploy advanced analytics to mine insights that can drive efficiencies in various processes. Cloud-based solutions under the pay-per-use model can help banks turn Cap-Ex to Op-Ex and create savings through server and software virtualization.

As the impacts of Basel III fully take shape, banks face a paradox: They need to make technology investments for regulatory compliance, even as margins are squeezed and budgets constrained. In such a scenario, banks need to find ways to extract more from their IT investments. Basel III and the other upcoming regulations offer banks an opportunity to review and enhance their business processes and change management programs. As they invest in technologies man-dated by the regulations, banks can identify ways to use them for purposes beyond compliance.

The first step would be to create enterprise-wide views of key factors such as liquidity, risk and data by eliminating silos across the organization. This could help banks identify processes and systems that have similar underlying technology to introduce operational efficiencies and enhance decision-making.

Liquidity and Capital Strong liquidity management, for example, will not only help senior management better understand the bank’s liquidity position and prepare for adverse liquidity situations, but it would also offer insights into related process optimization initiatives, such as portfolio

Banks that succeed in the highly regulated future will be those that not only ensure their systems meet regulatory requirements but also, in doing so, unlock opportunities to drive down costs and create technology-led differentiators.

Banks are aware of the imperative to improve data management. Many have set in motion organizational changes to realign their businesses with emerging regulations. A survey22 by the Professional Risk Managers’ International Association and SunGard found that banks are slowly but surely moving away from the exploratory phase to implementing systems to improve risk manage-ment. However, banks that succeed in the highly regu-lated future will be those that not only ensure their systems meet regulatory requirements but also, in doing so, unlock opportuni-ties to drive down costs and create technology-led differ-entiators.

Benefiting from Technology Investment

According to a 2011 report by the Tower

Group, mid-tier banks’ data output

grew 150 times over the previous seven

to eight years.

cognizant reports 8

management and loan origination. Embedding a liquidity perspective into processes such as product management can help banks enhance their offerings and exploit niche market opportu-nities. Similarly, embedding their capital require-ments into their pricing engines can allow banks to allocate capital optimally.

Merge Similar Risk TypesConverging different risk management systems that share common underlying processes onto a single platform can help banks increase oper-

ational efficiencies. For example, anti-fraud and anti-money-laundering sys-tems can be merged. By consolidating these data sources, banks will also be able to deploy analytics more efficiently and cost-effectively and improve data reporting.

Leverage In-house Capabilities For banks that have built capabilities to sup-port in-house operations (in areas such as risk management), the stringent regulatory environment offers a chance to capitalize on these investments by offering them as a service to smaller and emerging market players.23

Stress Testing Banks that have invested in stress-testing technology can use these methods to improve their crisis management techniques.

Big Data for Big EfficienciesCollating and consolidating large chunks of data across data types (such as documents, images, video, etc.), as well as applying meta data manage-ment and predictive analytics, can help improve

decision-making. Such a system will not only be able to present a consolidated view of histori-cal activities, but it will also forecast impending scenarios within a set of parameters. The ability to predict future scenarios will aid in regulatory reporting, as well as other areas. For example, by analyzing customer data related to credit cards and deposits, banks can deduce ways to improve various offers and marketing initiatives.

The Road AheadBanks face the daunting task of meeting stake-holder, regulator and customer expectations while complying with stringent new regulatory requirements that are gradually taking effect, compliments of Basel III. This will force them to seek more innovative ways of creating opera-tional efficiencies and market differentiation.

Each bank will need to undertake a deep-dive analysis of its businesses and extract benefits to satisfy all stakeholders. Top management will be under pressure to make prudent IT investments. Clearly, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Existing business models will dictate the approach that banks adopt. The optimal solution could well lie in a combination of strategic decisions that revolve around creating operational efficien-cies and collaborative work environments that optimize cross-functional processes.

Moreover, industry participants can find additional avenues for complying with Basel III by partnering with third-party experts, delivering cloud-powered services to smaller and emergent players, divesting businesses that drag down capital or merging with synergistic institutions. Such measures can help organiza-tions succeed in a risk-averse marketplace that is increasingly driven by complex global regulations.

Each bank will need to undertake a

deep-dive analysis of its businesses

and extract benefits to satisfy all

stakeholders.

cognizant reports 9

Footnotes1 Basel III will be implemented between 2013 and 2018, with key milestones revolving around capital

requirements, leverage ratios and liquidity requirements. The conservation buffer is expected to be implemented by 2019.

2 “Basel III and European Banking: Its Impact, How Banks Might Respond, and the Challenges of Implementation,” McKinsey & Co., 2011.

3 Basel II was the second of the Basel Accords issued by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in 2004.

4 Brooke Masters, “Few Banks Able to Calculate CVA Swiftly,” Financial Times, July 22, 2012.

5 “Fitch Affirms Citigroup Inc.’s Ratings; Outlook Stable,” BusinessWire, July 18, 2012.

6 Leigh Thomas and Lionel Laurent, “France Pledges Crackdown on Banks’ Proprietary Trading,” Reuters, November 15, 2012.

7 Brooke Masters, “Banks to Hold More Capital Under Basel III,” Financial Times, July 25, 2012.

8 “Dream Turns to Nightmare,” The Economist, Sept. 15, 2012.

9 Michael Watt, “Basel III Blamed for Aircraft Financing Drought,” Risk.net, May 9, 2012.

10 Richard Suttmeier, “Changing Basel and FDIC Rules Present Challenges for U.S. Banks,” The Street, June 13, 2012.

11 Ted Carter, “Strong Reaction from Community Banks Cited for Basel III Delay,” Mississippi Business Journal, Nov. 16, 2012.

12 Ben Gunnee, “Soapbox: Preparing for Basel III,” The Actuary, Aug. 1, 2012.

13 Kelly Bit, “Barclays Said to Plan Spinoff of Arbitrage Team as Hedge Fund in January,” Bloomberg, Nov. 23, 2011.

14 Katharina Bart, “UBS to Cut 10,000 Jobs in Fixed Income Retreat,” Reuters, Oct. 30, 2012.

15 Ted Carter, “Strong Reaction from Community Banks Cited for Basel III Delay,” Mississippi Business Journal, Nov. 16, 2012.

16 “Liquidity: A Bigger Challenge than Capital,” KPMG, May 2012.

17 Michelle Price, “Industry Looks to Ease Collateral Crunch,” Financial News, Dec. 17, 2012.

18 Dominic Hobson, “Custodians Are Afraid to Exploit the Looming Collateral Shortage,” Thomas Murray, Aug. 14, 2012.

19 Michelle Price, “Industry Looks to Ease Collateral Crunch,” Financial News, Dec, 17, 2012.

20 Brooke Masters, “Banks Face €350 bn Basel III Shortfall,” Financial Times, Dec. 15, 2011.

21 Penny Crosman, “Nine Trends Reshaping Risk Software,” American Banker, January 2012.

22 “SunGard/PRMIA Survey Finds Basel III is Driving Focus on Risk, But Implementation Is Limited,” Sungard, June 6, 2011.

23 Nina Mehta, “UBS Starts Unit Providing Services for Quantitative Hedge Funds,” Bloomberg, Aug. 20, 2012.

About Cognizant

Cognizant (NASDAQ: CTSH) is a leading provider of information technology, consulting, and business process outsourcing services, dedicated to helping the world’s leading companies build stronger businesses. Headquartered in Teaneck, New Jersey (U.S.), Cognizant combines a passion for client satisfaction, technology innovation, deep in-dustry and business process expertise, and a global, collaborative workforce that embodies the future of work. With over 50 delivery centers worldwide and approximately 156,700 employees as of December 31, 2012, Cognizant is a member of the NASDAQ-100, the S&P 500, the Forbes Global 2000, and the Fortune 500 and is ranked among the top performing and fastest growing companies in the world.

Visit us online at www.cognizant.com for more information.

World Headquarters

500 Frank W. Burr Blvd.Teaneck, NJ 07666 USAPhone: +1 201 801 0233Fax: +1 201 801 0243Toll Free: +1 888 937 3277Email: inquiry@cognizant.com

European Headquarters

1 Kingdom StreetPaddington CentralLondon W2 6BDPhone: +44 (0) 207 297 7600Fax: +44 (0) 207 121 0102Email: infouk@cognizant.com

India Operations Headquarters

#5/535, Old Mahabalipuram RoadOkkiyam Pettai, ThoraipakkamChennai, 600 096 IndiaPhone: +91 (0) 44 4209 6000Fax: +91 (0) 44 4209 6060Email: inquiryindia@cognizant.com

© Copyright 2013, Cognizant. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the express written permission from Cognizant. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice. All other trademarks mentioned herein are the property of their respective owners.

Credits

Author and AnalystAkhil Tandulwadikar, Senior Research Associate, Cognizant Research Center

Subject Matter ExpertAnshuman Choudhary, Director, Cognizant Business Consulting, Banking and Financial Services

DesignHarleen Bhatia, Creative DirectorSuresh Sambandhan, Designer

References

• “Progress Report on Basel III Implementation,” Bank for International Settlements, October 2012.

• “The Road to Basel III: Implications for Credit, Derivatives and the Economy,” Deutsche Bank, January 2012.

• “The Markets in 2012: Foresight with Insight,” Deutsche Bank, Dec. 6, 2011.

• “Wholesale & Investment Banking Outlook: Reshaping the Model,” Morgan Stanley, Oliver Wyman, March 23, 2011.

• Philipp Härle, Matthias Heuser, Sonja Pfetsch, Thomas Poppensieker, “Basel III: What the Draft Proposals Might Mean for European Banking,” McKinsey & Co., April 2010.

• “Basel III Proposals Could Strengthen Banks’ Liquidity, But May Have Unintended Consequences,” Standard & Poor’s, April 15, 2010.

• “Principles for Sound Liquidity Risk Management and Supervision,” Bank for International Settlements, September 2008.