FinTech Solutions

Far more than accepting a card. The scope that surprises teams is everything after authorisation: capture and settlement timing, refunds and partial refunds, chargebacks and the evidence workflow that goes with them, multi-currency handling and FX, payout scheduling to merchants or users, and reconciliation against the processor's settlement files. The checkout is perhaps fifteen percent of the work. If a proposal treats it as the whole thing, the estimate is wrong.

Yes — origination workflows, decisioning engines, servicing, collections and the reporting around them. The engineering questions are usually about the decision layer: keeping the credit policy configurable so it can change without a deployment, recording exactly which rules and data produced each decision for audit and adverse-action purposes, and integrating bureau or alternative data sources. Where the model touches protected characteristics, fairness testing is a requirement rather than an enhancement.

We do, most commonly portfolio and position-keeping systems, valuation and performance reporting, rebalancing and client-facing dashboards. Being straight about scope: ultra-low-latency execution infrastructure is a specialist field with its own engineering culture, and we would tell you if that is what you need rather than take the work. Most wealth products are not latency problems — they are correctness, reconciliation and reporting problems, and those we are well suited to.

By keeping every amount stored with its currency and never mixing units, holding balances per currency rather than converting eagerly, and recording the rate and timestamp used for any conversion so a figure can always be explained later. Rounding rules are agreed explicitly and applied in one place. The common failure is converting early for display convenience and losing the ability to reconcile against a provider who did the conversion differently.

A licence or an agent relationship in most jurisdictions, an aggregation provider unless you have strong reason to connect to banks directly, and consent management that is genuinely auditable — including expiry and revocation, which teams routinely underestimate. The engineering reality is that bank connections break, data arrives inconsistently categorised, and coverage varies by institution, so the product needs to degrade gracefully rather than assume a reliable feed.

A focused product on top of an existing provider typically reaches a usable first release in four to six months. Anything involving a licence application, a banking partner or core system integration is realistically nine to eighteen months, and the constraint is rarely engineering — partner onboarding, compliance sign-off and certification cycles dominate the timeline. We map those in discovery so the plan reflects them.

Yes, and it is common. The usual approach is an API layer in front of the core that isolates the rest of the system from its constraints, which also makes eventual replacement feasible. Older cores impose real limits — batch windows, restricted transaction types, overnight processing gaps — and those need surfacing early because they shape what the product can promise customers.

You own the code and the data, and both should be exportable in a standard format without our involvement. Cloud accounts, repositories and processor relationships belong in your organisation's name from the start. We treat the ability to leave as a design requirement — in financial services, concentration risk in a technology partner is something your own risk function will ask about, and it should.