For financial services

TPRM built for the regulatory load you're under.

DORA, NIS2, FCA outsourcing rules, APRA CPS 230 — and a vendor stack that's grown faster than your risk headcount. The Agency is the team you can't hire, built for the framework load you can't escape.

What does third-party risk management involve in financial services?

Financial services carries the heaviest third-party risk obligations of any sector, because regulators treat a firm's dependence on its suppliers as a question of operational resilience rather than procurement hygiene. The principle is consistent across jurisdictions: you can outsource the activity, but not the accountability for it.

In the EU, DORA has applied since January 2025, requiring a register of every ICT contractual arrangement, specified contract terms, concentration risk assessment and exit strategies — with direct oversight of critical ICT providers at European level. NIS2 reaches banking and financial market infrastructure as essential entities. In the UK, the FCA and PRA operational resilience rules require firms to identify important business services, set impact tolerances and test against them. In Australia, APRA CPS 230 does much the same for regulated entities. In the US, the 2023 interagency guidance from the Federal Reserve, FDIC and OCC sets expectations across the third-party relationship lifecycle — see our US financial services page.

What these regimes have in common is more demanding than any of them individually: they expect continuous knowledge of supplier posture, evidence that can be produced on request rather than assembled quarterly, and a credible answer to what happens when a critical provider fails — including concentration risk, where many firms depend on the same handful of providers.

The numbers your team already knows.

Financial services TPRM teams are running the most regulated vendor stack in the market with the smallest headcount they've ever had. The gap closes one of two ways — more humans you can't hire, or a workforce you can't tire.

5+
Major regulatory frameworks per FS organisation
DORA, NIS2, FCA, PRA, APRA, BIS
~2,000
Vendors per top-50 bank
Industry estimate
24 hrs
DORA initial-notification window for major ICT incidents
DORA Article 19

TARA, VANCE, REX — your regulatory backbone.

Three of The Agency's leads do the heavy lifting for FS — continuous compliance assessment, regulator-formatted reporting, and the outside-in monitoring that keeps DORA and NIS2 from being a quarterly fire drill.

TARA avatar
TARA
Compliance & Remediation

DORA gap analysis on a rolling basis, not a quarterly slog. TARA continuously assesses every vendor's posture against the five DORA pillars, NIS2, ISO 27001, APRA CPS 230 — and assigns SLA-bound remediation when posture drifts.

What you get
  • DORA five-pillar gap analysis, continuous
  • NIS2, ISO 27001, APRA CPS 230 covered concurrently
  • SLA-driven remediation, escalations on miss
VANCE avatar
VANCE
Regulatory Reporting

Reports the regulator can read, generated from live data. VANCE composes DORA Article 28 packs, NIS2 incident reports, FCA outsourcing evidence and board-pack summaries — formatted for the body that's reading it.

What you get
  • DORA Article 28 reports composed from current evidence
  • NIS2 / FCA / APRA outputs from one evidence layer
  • Tamper-evident audit trail per output
REX avatar
REX
Outside-In Intelligence

Continuous monitoring across the entire vendor portfolio. REX tracks the time-series of every vendor's posture nightly — material change, new breaches and concentration risk surface in hours, not at the next audit.

What you get
  • Continuous monitoring across 5M+ companies
  • Concentration risk visible across the portfolio
  • Breach signal in hours, not quarters

Four shifts you'll feel at the next regulatory cycle.

Concrete differences in how DORA, NIS2 and the rest of the framework load actually get done — measured in hours of analyst time, not in compliance posters.

DORA reports compose from live data

Article 28 packs and material-incident reports generate from current evidence — no quarter-end assembly, no last-minute panics.

Vendor concentration risk visible

See exposure to systemically important third parties across your portfolio. The DORA-driven question your board will ask, already answered.

Same evidence trail serves multiple regulators

DORA, NIS2, FCA, APRA — one evidence layer, multiple regulator-formatted outputs. You stop re-assembling the same pack four times.

Material incidents detected in hours

REX surfaces breach signal and posture drift continuously. The 24-hour DORA notification window stops being a fire drill.

DORA reporting that used to take a quarter now takes a morning. VANCE produced our first board pack in under an hour.

DK
Operational Risk Director
European Asset Manager

What financial services teams ask us first.

The questions that come up in every conversation with a bank, insurer or asset manager.

Which regulations drive third-party risk in financial services?
It depends on where you are regulated, and most groups are caught by several at once. EU: DORA and NIS2. UK: FCA and PRA operational resilience rules and the outsourcing requirements in SYSC. Australia: APRA CPS 230. US: the 2023 interagency guidance on third-party relationships, plus FFIEC examination expectations, GLBA Safeguards and, in New York, NYDFS Part 500. Add ISO 27001 and SOC 2 as the evidence formats vendors actually supply, and the practical task is running one evidence set that can answer to all of them.
What is concentration risk, and why do regulators keep asking about it?
Concentration risk is exposure to a single point of failure shared across the portfolio — often a cloud provider, core banking platform or market data vendor that many of your critical services depend on, sometimes without anyone having mapped that they do. It also runs across firms: if most of a sector depends on the same provider, that provider's outage is a systemic event, which is exactly why DORA created direct oversight of critical ICT providers. Answering it requires knowing your fourth parties, not just your contracted suppliers.
How often do we need to assess a critical vendor?
No major regime states a fixed interval, and that is the point — they ask for assessment proportionate to risk and kept current, which an annual questionnaire does not satisfy for a critical provider. The practical standard examiners now apply is whether you would know about a material change in a critical vendor's posture before they told you, or before it appeared in the press. That implies continuous monitoring for the critical tier and periodic reassessment for the rest.
Do we have to assess our vendors' vendors?
For critical services, in substance yes. DORA requires subcontracting arrangements supporting critical or important functions to be identified and assessed. CPS 230 expects understanding of fourth-party dependencies behind material service providers. The UK operational resilience rules require you to map the full chain supporting an important business service. You are rarely required to assess a fourth party directly; you are required to know who they are, whether your provider manages them, and what happens if one fails.

See it on your vendors.

Book a 30-minute call and we'll have NOVA, ARIA and REX produce a complete posture report on one of your live vendors inside 24 hours.