Institutional Banking & Treasury Optimisation · Data Sheet
Institutional Banking & Treasury Results
Quantified results, commercial status and operating outcomes from a multi-bank estate review — with each figure labelled by what kind of result it is.
Publication basis
Anonymised, percentage-led, engagement-period evidence. Where a figure describes a proposed structure rather than a completed negotiation, it is labelled as modelled throughout.
1 · Result classification
Every workstream, with its status
Scroll table sideways →
| Workstream | Status | Quantified result |
|---|---|---|
| Primary-bank transaction repricing | Negotiated / documented | Seven completed pricing phases; 31 accounts; approximately 14.9% annual reduction against the modelled pre-negotiation charge base. |
| Account rationalisation | Future-state model | Primary-bank estate modelled from 68 to approximately 13 purpose-based accounts: 80.9% reduction in account count, subject to implementation. |
| Monthly account fees | Future-state model | The modelled 13-account structure reduces monthly maintenance-fee exposure by approximately 80.7% against the legacy structure. |
| Cash-deposit pricing | Negotiated | Variable rate standardised to 1.02% in the tested business-account structure; the reduction varied by legacy deposit tier. |
| Treasury sweep / interest | Negotiated structure | The existing sweep destination carried 0% interest; the engagement-period proposal moved surplus cash to an interest-bearing destination at 6%. |
| Internet / transaction banking | Commercial remediation | Platform and product fees isolated, challenged and folded into the redesigned structure. |
| Merchant acquiring | Modelled alternative | 17 locations reviewed; 43.2% annual terminal-rental saving plus removal of the minimum monthly commission produced a 55.4% reduction across targeted fixed and minimum-cost components. |
| Secondary-bank accounts | Reviewed, selectively retained | Assessed individually. Some products were re-designated or repriced; accounts carrying no charge or serving a valid specialist purpose were kept. |
2 · Primary-bank repricing
The attained result, and its population
Scroll table sideways →
| Measure | Pre-negotiation index | Negotiated index | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annualised bank-charge base | 100.0 | 85.1 | −14.9% |
| Completed pricing phases | 7 | 7 | All seven quantified |
| Accounts in completed phases | 31 | 31 | Account-by-account repricing |
Two further accounts appeared in a later workstream without a completed saving result in the supplied phase summary, and are excluded from the percentage. The 14.9% reflects the completed account population, not the whole banking estate.
Method
Why this is not a discount applied to a total
Each phase model reconstructed the account's actual activity, applied the relevant product and transaction tariffs to it, and then recalculated that same activity using the negotiated rate schedule. The difference between those two runs is the saving.
That matters because a global percentage applied to an aggregate charge base assumes every account behaves like the average. In a dispersed estate with 68 accounts and widely differing transaction patterns, it does not.
3 · Account-structure economics
Legacy against the modelled future state
Scroll table sideways →
| Metric | Legacy | Future-state model | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary-bank accounts | 68 | ~13 | 80.9% fewer accounts |
| Cheque / current-type accounts | 40 | ~8 | Purpose-based centralisation |
| Savings / entry-level business accounts | 28 | ~5 | Purpose-based centralisation |
| Monthly maintenance-fee index | 100.0 | 19.3 | 80.7% lower modelled exposure |
| Low-use accounts identified | 7 | Closure / consolidation candidates | Fewer than 5 transactions a month in the review evidence |
Status distinction: the charge repricing above is a documented negotiated result. The 68-to-13 structure is a rationalisation model and should not be described as implemented unless later evidence confirms the closures and migrations.
4 · Cash-deposit pricing
Where the benefit actually fell
Scroll table sideways →
| Deposit tier | Modelled standard rate | Negotiated rate | Rate reduction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower tier | 2.50% | 1.02% | 59.2% |
| Mid tier | 1.60% | 1.02% | 36.3% |
| Higher tier | 1.10% | 1.02% | 7.3% |
Cash handling was treated as a transaction-pricing problem, not only an account-fee problem. The benefit depends on the actual deposit distribution by account and value band, which is why deposits were counted by band rather than assumed at a blanket rate.
5 · Merchant acquiring
Fixed costs separated from variable commission
Scroll table sideways →
| Measure | Baseline evidence | Alternative model | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Locations / terminals | 17 reviewed | Alternative terminal structure | Estate-level comparison |
| Annual terminal-rental index | 100.0 | 56.8 | 43.2% saving |
| Minimum monthly commission | Recurring where the turnover threshold was not met | Removed in the alternative model | This fee layer removed entirely |
| Targeted fixed + minimum cost index | 100.0 | 44.6 | 55.4% modelled reduction |
| Ordinary transaction commission | Separate variable cost | Assessed separately | Deliberately not conflated with the fixed-fee saving |
6 · Treasury and operating control
What the review found, and what was designed
Scroll table sideways →
| Area | Baseline finding | Designed or negotiated outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Sweep destination | Surplus cash swept into a non-interest-bearing current account | A preferential interest-bearing destination built into the engagement-period structure. |
| Interest rate | 0% on the reviewed sweep destination | 6% engagement-period negotiated rate — a 6 percentage-point improvement. |
| Segregation of duties | Dispersed user and account structure | A centralised profile with differentiated view, capture, authorise and payment rights. |
| Signatory and FICA administration | Multiple accounts and legacy structures increased the maintenance burden | Centralised architecture intended to simplify ownership, signatory governance and onboarding. |
| Auditability | More accounts increased reconciliation and audit effort | A purpose-based structure designed to cut duplicate administration and improve visibility. |
Interpretation
The financial result is not one number. It consists of documented negotiated charge reductions, a future-state account-rationalisation model, a negotiated treasury structure and a modelled merchant-acquiring alternative — four different kinds of claim.
The merchant-acquiring result derives from actual terminal rental, turnover and minimum-commission data, but it describes an alternative provider's offer. It should not be presented as realised unless implementation evidence exists.
The 6% treasury rate is engagement-period historical evidence of the negotiated structure, not a current market rate.