The full implementation of Basel III in July 2025 is now placing increased pressure on banks’ balance sheets. Capital and liquidity requirements are higher
across the board, which means every discretionary cost is under review. And rightly so.
While lending portfolios and risk models have been overhauled to meet the new standards, one critical area continues to escape scrutiny: credit bureau
data.
It’s an oversight with a
big financial impact. Despite being fundamental to credit risk decisioning, bureau contracts remain among the
least transparent costs in the industry. Analysis shows that institutions with identical data footprints can pay between 25 and 50% more than their peers, sometimes to the same provider. Under the Basel III regime, that kind of inefficiency increases costs
and weakens capital effectiveness.
For banks now required to demonstrate cost discipline and evidential value for money, bureau data pricing has become one of the simplest and fastest ways
to make a measurable difference.
The post-Basel reality: capital constraints meet cost discipline
Higher capital buffers and stricter liquidity ratios have tightened flexibility across the balance sheet. What once felt like theoretical reform has quickly
become a practical constraint. Every significant line of spend now competes for justification and data contracts are no exception.
This renewed discipline has changed internal conversations. Risk, finance and procurement teams are working together to assess not just how data supports
lending decisions, but how it affects capital use. In many banks, that scrutiny is exposing long-held assumptions about bureau pricing and value.
Across the institutions we’ve observed, several issues:
-
Capital has a cost again. The higher the buffer, the greater the pressure to release tied-up funds elsewhere. Reducing operational
leakage, including data overspend, directly supports capital optimisation. -
Efficiency is expected. Under Basel III, prudent cost management now sits alongside credit governance and model validation as a recognised
measure of control. -
Credit data procurement is now a lever for financial performance. What was once a routine renewal has become a tangible opportunity
to demonstrate value and strengthen margins.
Credit bureau costs fit squarely into this new definition of efficiency. They remain essential to risk management, but their value is often unclear. For
leadership teams looking for quick, low-risk efficiency gains, benchmarking bureau pricing offers a practical route to savings without changing risk appetite or reducing capability.
What Basel III highlights with bureau data value
The reforms have changed how banks manage capital, but they’ve also exposed how unevenly data costs are valued and controlled. Credit bureau contracts,
often treated as an operational detail, are now being recognised as something far more significant: they influence how efficiently capital is deployed.
Here’s some things we’ve noticed through our work:
-
Pricing remains uneven. Even with greater oversight, differences of 25–50% for identical products are still common. In most cases,
that isn’t down to what’s being bought, but when and how the contract was negotiated. -
Old terms persist. Multi-year commitments and minimum-spend clauses often survive well beyond their relevance, keeping pricing detached
from usage and market reality. -
Governance hasn’t caught up. Procurement and risk teams don’t always have a shared framework for measuring bureau value, which means
millions in spend can still go unchallenged.
And the issue isn’t with procurement alone. It’s governance. Bureau costs now form part of how a bank demonstrates financial control and capital discipline.
Encouragingly, many institutions are already adapting. They’re building benchmarking into their financial governance routines, using evidence to reset
pricing, match spend to actual usage and show clear oversight to boards and regulators. Some have gone further, replacing fixed commitments with usage-based models that reflect how data consumption — and capital discipline — actually work today.
3 ways credit data benchmarking supports capital efficiency under Basel III
Under Basel III, efficiency has taken on a different meaning. The pressure to protect capital is prompting banks to scrutinise every major cost and be
ready to explain how each decision supports efficiency. Credit bureau costs, once seen as fixed, are now recognised as open to negotiation. Benchmarking gives institutions the evidence to prove it.
When real pricing data is brought into supplier discussions, the conversation changes. Negotiations become quicker, more focused and grounded in fact rather
than assumption. Banks have completed renewals in weeks instead of months, achieved significant savings without changing provider, and strengthened their governance evidence in the process.
And the benefits reach beyond cost alone:
-
Benchmarking signals maturity. Institutions that track market rates and review contracts regularly are showing the same financial
discipline regulators now expect around capital and liquidity. -
It strengthens oversight. Benchmarking reports provide clear, auditable evidence that pricing and supplier management are properly
controlled, supporting operational resilience standards. -
It builds confidence. The financial saving is the immediate benefit, but the real progress is the shift in mindset. Teams gain the
assurance that bureau pricing can be tested, evidenced and improved.
Several banks have already formalised this approach, building benchmarking into their annual governance cycle alongside credit modelling and vendor assurance.
It reflects a more advanced understanding of cost control, where efficiency is proven through evidence, rather than assumption.
Why timing will define bureau negotiations in 2026
The next renewal cycle will arrive faster than many expect. A large proportion of multi-year bureau contracts fall due between Q2 and Q4 2026, leaving
procurement and finance teams only a short window to gather the evidence they’ll need to negotiate from a position of strength. Waiting until renewal papers arrive leaves little time for validation or benchmarking.
Experience shows a clear difference between banks that prepare early and those that don’t. The ones that begin benchmarking months ahead of renewal consistently
achieve stronger results. They have time to review usage, test alternative pricing structures and align internal stakeholders before negotiations start. They also create the audit trail needed to evidence control to internal and external reviewers.
Starting early delivers three clear advantages:
-
Negotiation readiness. Early market insight provides target pricing and leverage before the bureau sets the agenda.
-
Governance assurance. Boards want to see cost control addressed well before renewal; leaving it late risks looking reactive under
Basel III. -
Commercial flexibility. Getting ahead of schedule allows room to evaluate alternative data sources or multi-bureau options without
operational risk.
The most forward-looking institutions now manage bureau contracts as an ongoing commercial process rather than a set renewal event. They maintain live
benchmarks, track market changes and review usage regularly. This approach shows control and consistency — qualities that regulators and shareholders value just as much as capital strength. Efficiency, in that sense, has become part of capital governance itself.
