Banks are reassessing how treasury and risk functions operate as regulatory scrutiny intensifies and balance sheet management becomes more complex. MORS Software CEO Iina Mustakallio discusses why some institutions are moving towards unified systems.
Banks have invested heavily in treasury and risk infrastructure over the past decade. Yet for many, the issue is no longer capability, but coordination. “The biggest problem for banks today is not a lack of tools, but too many disconnected ones,” says Iina Mustakallio, CEO of MORS Software
She argues that the traditional separation between treasury management and asset-liability management (ALM) can cause friction and delays, as banks are expected to show consistency in how risk is measured and used. “When those functions sit in separate systems, banks lose time reconciling data and aligning assumptions,” she says.
MORS Software’s approach is to bring treasury and ALM together on a single platform, using the same data and assumptions across both functions. The aim is to remove the need for reconciliation between teams and systems.
From efficiency to supervisory pressure
Integration is no longer just about efficiency. Supervisors are placing greater emphasis on transparency—how risk figures are produced, how data flows through systems, and whether results are consistent across the organisation.
Guidance from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision continues to stress the importance of reliable data aggregation and internal reporting, particularly in periods of stress. “A unified approach makes it easier to connect risk measurement with execution and demonstrate consistent decision-making,” Mustakallio says.
In practice, this means bringing liquidity management, funding, interest rate risk and balance sheet planning into closer alignment. For smaller and mid-sized institutions, this can reduce operational complexity. For larger banks, the focus is increasingly on governance and control.
Challenger banks prioritise speed and clarity
The model has gained traction among neobanks and challenger institutions, which operate under full regulatory requirements but without legacy systems. “These banks do not have time for multi-year implementation programmes,” Mustakallio says.
Instead, they prioritise systems that can be deployed quickly and expanded over time. A modular approach allows them to introduce specific capabilities without overhauling their entire technology stack. “They want to understand how their numbers are produced and be able to explain them clearly to supervisors,” she adds.
Where implementation projects stall
Implementation remains a consistent challenge across treasury and risk functions. “The biggest challenges are scope drift, unclear ownership and lack of timely, high-quality data,” Mustakallio says.
Projects often expand beyond their original remit, while internal decision-making slows progress. In many cases, delays are driven less by technology than by governance within the bank. Analysis from McKinsey & Company points to organisational complexity and shifting requirements as common causes of delays in large-scale banking technology programmes.
MORS’ approach is to define scope and responsibilities early, supported by standardised configurations rather than bespoke builds. “Banks do not benefit from reinventing fundamentals,” she says.
This also underpins a fixed-price implementation model, which contrasts with the variable cost structures often associated with large-scale programmes. “Fixed price only works if the scope is clear and the delivery model is predictable,” she notes.
Real-time risk and regulatory alignment
Another area of focus is the timeliness of risk reporting. “Risk figures are always based on the latest available data”, Mustakallio says. Traditional setups rely on multiple systems and delayed processing, often requiring reconciliation before results can be used. A unified approach removes that dependency, allowing risk metrics to reflect current positions and assumptions.
Research from PwC suggests many institutions are still working to reduce manual processes and improve integration across treasury and risk functions. “When regulatory logic is embedded directly into processes, it becomes easier to demonstrate consistency and governance,” she adds.
Deployment choices and modular adoption
Banks’ preferences for deployment models continue to vary. Larger institutions may prioritise on-premises systems due to data residency and control requirements, while smaller or newer banks often favour cloud or SaaS models.“The starting point is the bank’s regulatory context and internal capabilities,” Mustakallio says.
Not all institutions adopt a full platform from the outset. Some choose individual modules to address specific gaps, while maintaining parts of their existing infrastructure. “The architecture should allow for expansion without adding complexity,” she says.
A delivery model shaped by pragmatism
MORS Software is headquartered in Helsinki, outside traditional financial centres. For Mustakallio, this has limited impact on client delivery. “Treasury and ALM projects are about expertise and execution, not geography,” she says.
She points instead to the influence of Finland’s engineering culture—pragmatic and focused on reliability. “We prioritise clarity and robustness over complexity.”
As regulatory expectations tighten, that emphasis on transparency and execution is becoming less a differentiator and more a baseline expectation.
