Kyc.com Signs Bank of Montreal
Firm is latest to join KYC utility service
Kyc.com, the joint venture between IHS Markit and Genpact, has announced that Bank of Montreal has signed on to the service to streamline the collection and management of know-your-customer information.
Kyc.com standardizes and centralizes operations around client onboarding and due diligence. Ten of the top Group of 14 dealers are subscribers of the service and more than 2,000 buy-side firms and corporations, representing 83,000 legal entities, are now using kyc.com.
Michele Trogni, executive vice-president of consolidated markets and solutions for IHS Markit, says: "Since we launched in 2014, there have been a number of new entrants vying for market share. We are delighted to add Bank of Montreal and we attribute this win to the agility of our service that addresses multiple challenges across KYC, AML, tax, regulation and legal and credit agreements."
Kyc.com was originally founded in 2014 and designed in partnership with Citi, Deutsche Bank, HSBC and Morgan Stanley. Additional G14 institutions on the service include BNP Paribas and UBS, with Standard Chartered in the process of signing up.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@waterstechnology.com or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.waterstechnology.com/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
More on Trading Tech
Doubts raised over new FX platform disclosures
New disclosure sheet template will require platforms to outline how they charge for data
Expanded oversight for tech or a rollback? 2025 set to be big for regulators
From GenAI oversight to DORA and the CAT to off-channel communication, the last 12 months set the stage for larger regulatory conversations in 2025.
DORA flood pitches banks against vendors
Firms ask vendors for late addendums sometimes unrelated to resiliency, requiring renegotiation
IPC’s C-suite shuffle signals bigger changes for trader voice tech
Waters Wrap: After a series of personnel changes at the legacy provider, WatersTechnology examines what these moves might mean for the future of turrets and trader voice.
WatersTechnology latest edition
Check out our latest edition, plus more than 12 years of our best content.
From no chance to no brainer: Inside outsourced trading’s buy-side charm offensive
Previously regarded with hesitancy and suspicion by the buy side, four asset managers explain their reasons for embracing outsourced trading.
Band-aids vs build-outs: Best practices for exchange software migrations
Heetesh Rawal writes that legacy exchange systems are under pressure to scale to support new asset classes and greater volumes, leaving exchange operators with a stark choice: patch up outdated systems and hope for the best or embark on risky but rewarding replacement projects.
Portfolio trading vs RFQ: Understanding transaction costs in US investment-grade bonds
The MarketAxess research team explores how such factors as order size, liquidity profiles and associated costs determine whether a portfolio trade or an RFQ list trade is the optimal choice.
