Beyond core banking systems: The history of credit software and rise of "many-to-many" lending

Lending has changed. The infrastructure supporting it has not.

For decades, financial institutions have relied on a fragmented, inefficient system to manage credit. Core banking software, spreadsheets, and manual processes have held together an increasingly complex web of loans, borrowers, and investors. This infrastructure was built for a different era — one where banks dominated lending and credit was simpler to manage.

That era is over. According to S&P Global, syndicated loans, structured credit facilities, and private credit markets have fundamentally reshaped lending. Borrowers now secure capital from multiple sources, lenders participate in increasingly complex financing arrangements, and financial institutions must manage a growing set of operational, compliance, and risk challenges.

Yet, most credit operations still run on technology designed for a world where a single bank controlled a loan from origination to repayment. Deloitte research indicates that financial institutions spend up to 60% of their technology budgets maintaining legacy systems rather than innovating. The industry lacks the infrastructure to support the reality of modern credit markets.

This gap has given rise to a new category of technology: Credit Management Systems (CMS). Just as contract lifecycle management (CLM) transformed legal operations, CMS is redefining how financial institutions, fintechs, and investors manage complex credit relationships.

The history of lending technology

To understand why Credit Management Systems represent such a critical evolution, we must first examine how lending technology developed—and why traditional approaches are no longer sufficient in today's complex credit landscape.

Pre-GFC: Banks did the lending

Before the 2008 financial crisis, corporate lending was dominated by banks. A company in need of capital would typically work with a single bank or a small syndicate of lenders. The loan would be underwritten, booked onto the bank's balance sheet, and serviced internally.

This model shaped how lending technology developed. Core banking systems, built in the late 20th century, were designed for this one-to-many structure—one bank lending to multiple borrowers. These systems handled basic payment schedules, interest calculations, deposit management, and loan tracking, but they were not built for multi-lender coordination, complex deal structures, or real-time data sharing across institutions.

The technological landscape during this period was defined by several key characteristics:

Mainframe-based core banking platforms

Major financial institutions invested billions in mainframe-based core banking systems from vendors like Fiserv, FIS, and Jack Henry. These systems excelled at processing high volumes of standardized transactions but lacked flexibility for complex credit structures. According to a Deloitte analysis, most major banks relied on core systems developed before 1990—many of which were never built with cloud infrastructure or modern product agility in mind..

These platforms were optimized for:

High-volume transaction processing
Standardized lending products
Single-institution loan management
Batch processing rather than real-time updates

What they couldn't handle effectively:

Complex multi-lender structures
Customized covenants and terms
Real-time compliance monitoring
External stakeholder access

Fragmented lending systems

Banks maintained multiple specialized systems to handle different aspects of lending. A 2006 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that major banks maintained an average of 8-12 separate systems to manage their lending operations, including:

Origination platforms for application processing and underwriting
Core systems for account management and basic servicing
Treasury systems for interest rate risk management
Collection systems for delinquency management
Reporting systems for regulatory compliance

This fragmentation created significant operational challenges, with data reconciliation consuming substantial resources.

Document-centric processes

Loan documentation remained primarily paper-based, manually extracting key terms and entering into operational systems. The transition to digital document management was slow and incomplete. Even as electronic document management systems became more common in the early 2000s, they primarily served as static repositories rather than active data extraction and analysis tools.

A typical syndicated loan process involved:

Creation of a credit agreement (often 200+ pages)
Manual extraction of key terms into operational systems
Periodic manual review of compliance requirements
Spreadsheet-based tracking of covenant compliance
Email-based communication with borrowers and co-lenders

Syndicated lending existed, but servicing these loans remained a highly manual, back-office process. Banks relied on faxes, emails, and spreadsheets to communicate with co-lenders and track loan obligations. These inefficiencies were tolerated because banks controlled the entire lending process and could pass costs along to borrowers through fees and spreads. Then, the financial crisis reshaped the credit landscape.

Post-GFC: Banks retrenched, private credit filled the void

The 2008 financial crisis fundamentally changed the role of banks in lending. As regulators imposed stricter capital requirements through Basel III and Dodd-Frank, banks were forced to reduce risk and pull back from corporate lending.

The specific regulatory changes had profound effects on bank lending capacity:

Basel III's impact on bank lending

Basel III introduced more stringent capital and liquidity requirements, directly affecting banks' lending capacity:

Increased capital requirements: The Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital ratio was raised to 4.5%, with an additional 2.5% capital conservation buffer. For globally systemically important banks (G-SIBs), additional surcharges of 1-3.5% were imposed.
Risk-weighted asset calculations: More conservative approaches to risk-weighted asset (RWA) calculations effectively increased capital requirements for certain loan types, particularly those for middle-market companies without investment-grade ratings.
Liquidity coverage ratio (LCR): Banks were required to maintain high-quality liquid assets sufficient to cover net cash outflows for a 30-day stress period, reducing the proportion of assets that could be deployed to longer-term loans.
Net stable funding ratio (NSFR): This requirement encouraged banks to maintain stable funding profiles relative to their assets and off-balance-sheet activities, effectively increasing the cost of long-term lending.

It’s estimated that these requirements increased capital costs by 25-40% for certain categories of corporate loans. This regulatory burden made many traditional lending activities economically unattractive for banks.

Stress testing regimes

Beyond Basel III, banks faced new stress testing requirements that further constrained lending:

Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR): The Federal Reserve's stress testing program required banks to demonstrate capital adequacy under adverse economic scenarios.
Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test (DFAST): Similar to CCAR but with different reporting requirements and applicable to a broader range of institutions.
European Banking Authority (EBA) stress tests: European banks faced comparable requirements that influenced their lending activities globally.

These stress tests directly influenced banks' willingness to extend credit, particularly to borrowers whose performance might deteriorate significantly under stress scenarios.

Shifting bank lending priorities

As a result of these regulatory changes, banks significantly adjusted their lending strategies:

Focus on relationship clients: Banks concentrated lending on core clients with broad, profitable relationships.
Preference for investment-grade borrowers: The capital cost differential led banks to prioritize higher-rated borrowers.
Reduced exposure to middle-market companies: With higher capital costs and limited relationship benefits, many banks reduced middle-market lending.
Shortened loan tenors: Banks shortened average loan maturities to manage regulatory costs.

The Federal Reserve's Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey consistently showed tightening credit standards following the crisis. This created a funding gap for companies that relied on traditional bank loans.

The rise of private credit

Private credit filled the void as banks retreated from significant segments of the lending market. Non-bank lenders stepped in to provide financing to underserved borrowers, particularly in the middle market.

The growth has been extraordinary:

In 2010, the private credit market stood at approximately $300 billion globally
By 2023, it had grown to over $1.5 trillion
Projections suggest continued growth to $2.3 trillion by 2027

This growth was driven by several factors:

Institutional investor demand for yield: In a low interest rate environment, private credit offered attractive risk-adjusted returns. Pension funds, endowments, sovereign wealth funds, and insurance companies allocated significant capital to private credit strategies.
Regulatory arbitrage: Non-bank lenders could operate without the capital constraints imposed on banks, allowing them to provide financing where banks had retreated.
Direct lending advantages: Private credit firms could offer borrowers certainty of execution, confidentiality, and customized financing solutions that banks struggled to match.
Fundraising success: Private credit funds raised record amounts of capital.

The private credit ecosystem evolved to include various specialized players:

Direct lending funds focused on providing senior secured loans to middle-market companies
Business Development Companies (BDCs) offered publicly traded vehicles that provided retail investors access to private credit
Mezzanine funds specialized in subordinated debt and preferred equity
Special situations and distressed funds targeted companies in transition or financial distress
Asset-based lenders provided financing secured by specific collateral types
Specialty finance companies focused on particular sectors or asset classes

This shift fundamentally changed the way credit markets operated. Instead of one-to-many lending, the industry moved toward many-to-many relationships, where multiple lenders finance a single borrower, and a single lender participates in multiple deals.

The coming age of "many-to-many" lending

Today's lending landscape is dramatically different from the bank-dominated era for which most credit infrastructure was designed. We've entered an age of many-to-many lending, characterized by:

Complex lending relationships

Modern credit relationships involve multiple parties with different roles and interests:

Borrowers access capital from multiple sources, rather than relying on a single bank
Lenders participate in multiple deals, across different asset classes and structures
Agents coordinate among syndicate members and manage borrower relationships
Investors provide capital to lenders through various fund structures
Service providers handle specialized functions like fund administration and valuation

A typical middle-market credit facility now involves up to 12 lenders on average, compared to 1-3 before the financial crisis.

Heightened structural complexity

Credit facilities themselves have grown more complex, with features designed to accommodate multiple lenders and provide flexibility to borrowers:

Accordion features allow for future increases in facility size
Delayed draw terms provide borrowers with committed capital for future needs
Multiple tranches with different priorities, terms, and lender groups
Capitalization toggle options giving borrowers flexibility in how interest is paid
Complex covenant packages tailored to specific borrower circumstances

According to Deloitte, the complexity of credit agreements has increased significantly, with over 70% of private credit deals now incorporating three or more specialized structural features, compared to less than 50% five years ago.

Increased operational burden

This complexity creates significant operational challenges that legacy systems cannot effectively address:

Data management: Managing middle-market loans involves handling large volumes of borrower financials, loan terms, compliance data, and payment records throughout the loan lifecycle. The complexity of these data points makes efficient data management essential for lenders.
Covenant tracking: Modern credit agreements often contain a number of financial and operational covenants, each requiring regular monitoring.
Multi-party coordination: Each stakeholder requires specific information at different times, creating complex communication needs.
Compliance burden: Regulatory requirements continue to expand, with a particular focus on private credit due to its rapid growth and perceived systemic importance.

But the technology supporting this shift has not kept pace. Core banking systems cannot support modern lending structures, and loan servicing remains fragmented.

Gartner research estimates that 80% of financial institutions are still using legacy loan servicing systems built before 2010, and 62% report dissatisfaction with their current technology.

These outdated systems create significant operational challenges:

Time waste: Loan operations teams spend a significant portion of their time on manual data entry and reconciliation, reducing overall efficiency.
Error rates: Manual processes increase the likelihood of errors in payment calculations and covenant tracking, leading to potential financial and operational risks.
Compliance risk: Inadequate loan monitoring and reporting can expose financial institutions to regulatory scrutiny and potential penalties.
Scalability constraints: Many private credit managers cite operational inefficiencies as a major barrier to scaling their businesses effectively.

This operational burden has become a significant barrier to growth for many lenders.

What is a credit management system?

A Credit Management System (CMS) is an integrated platform that automates and standardizes loan servicing, compliance, and reporting across multiple lending relationships. It provides the infrastructure to manage structured credit efficiently, replacing the manual processes, disconnected data sources, and legacy systems that have long-defined loan administration.

The concept of CMS is new, but the problems it solves are not. The core challenges of credit management—tracking borrower obligations, servicing multi-lender deals, and ensuring compliance—have existed for decades. Historically, banks handled these tasks internally or spread across a combination of core banking systems and spreadsheets. But as credit markets have evolved beyond bank-led lending, these systems have struggled to keep pace.

Key components of a modern CMS

A comprehensive Credit Management System includes several core components:

1. Digital agreement management

At the foundation of any CMS is the ability to digitize and structure credit agreements:

Document digitization: Converting physical and PDF loan agreements into machine-readable formats
Data extraction: Identifying and capturing key terms, conditions, dates, and obligations
Term standardization: Mapping agreement-specific language to standardized data models
Amendment tracking: Managing changes to agreements over time while maintaining version control
Document repository: Providing secure, accessible storage for all credit documentation

This capability transforms static legal documents into dynamic data that can drive operational processes.

2. Automated loan servicing

CMS platforms automate the core operational tasks of loan administration:

Payment scheduling calculates and tracks payment dates, amounts, and allocations.
Interest and fee calculation computes complex interest based on various rate types, floors, and conventions.
Notice generation creates and distributes payment notices, rate change notifications, and other communications.
Payment reconciliation matches expected versus actual payments and handles exceptions.
Borrowing base management calculates availability based on collateral and eligibility criteria.

These automations significantly reduce manual effort and error potential. Research suggests that lenders using advanced servicing automation achieve a 70-85% reduction in manual processing time.

3. Compliance monitoring and covenant tracking

Modern CMS platforms excel at monitoring borrower obligations:

Covenant digitization structures compliance requirements into trackable metrics.
Threshold monitoring compares actual performance against covenant requirements.
Automated data collection facilitates the secure transfer of borrower financial statements and compliance certificates.
Early warning indicators identify potential compliance issues before a formal breach.
Waiver and amendment tracking manages exceptions and modifications to compliance requirements.

These capabilities transform compliance from a periodic, reactive process to a continuous, proactive one. S&P Global reports that lenders with automated covenant monitoring identify potential issues 45-60 days earlier than those using manual methods.

4. Portfolio insights and reporting

CMS platforms provide comprehensive visibility into credit performance:

Portfolio dashboards that provide real-time views of exposure, performance, and risk factors.
Automated generation of reports for various stakeholders.
Comprehensive risk analytics, including portfolio-level metrics.
Scenario analysis modeling the impact of rate changes, defaults, and other events.
Custom reporting with configurable reports for specific business needs.

5. Multi-party collaboration

Modern CMS platforms enable secure information sharing among all parties:

Role-based access control ensures each stakeholder sees only appropriate information.
Secure portals provide borrowers and lenders with self-service access to relevant data.
Workflow routing directing tasks and approvals to appropriate individuals.
Audit trails track all system activities and changes for compliance and governance.

These collaborative features transform what was once a fragmented, email-driven process into a streamlined digital workflow.

The way forward: "Many-to-many" lending and the future of lending technology

The future of lending is increasingly networked, decentralized, and complex. The infrastructure supporting it must evolve accordingly.

A new technological paradigm

Credit Management Systems represent a fundamental shift in how lending technology is designed and deployed:

From bank-centric to network-centric

Traditional lending systems were built for a world where banks controlled the entire lending process. Modern CMS platforms are designed for networked credit markets where multiple parties collaborate on each transaction. These systems support complex relationships between all participants, enable role-based workflows, and control information visibility through permissioned data sharing.

From siloed to integrated

Legacy approaches relied on multiple disconnected systems. CMS provides a unified platform with a consolidated data repository, end-to-end process support, and comprehensive API layers for enterprise integration. This integration eliminates the reconciliation burden that plagues traditional approaches.

From reactive to proactive

Traditional loan monitoring was periodic and backward-looking. Modern CMS platforms enable continuous, forward-looking management through real-time monitoring, predictive analytics, and scenario modeling. This shift allows lenders to identify and address issues before they become problems.

The measurable impact of CMS

The adoption of Credit Management Systems delivers significant benefits across the organization:

For operations and compliance teams

CMS dramatically reduces manual processing time and errors while enabling earlier detection of covenant breaches and streamlining regulatory reporting. Staff can be reallocated from routine data entry to higher-value activities, and audit findings related to loan documentation and compliance are substantially reduced.

For finance and leadership

Financial teams benefit from improved forecast accuracy, accelerated close processes, and enhanced working capital management. Leadership gains increased portfolio capacity without proportional cost increases, faster decision-making, and more efficient investor reporting cycles.

For borrowers and lenders

The borrower experience is transformed through higher satisfaction, greater payment accuracy, faster response times, and reduced administrative burden. Lenders can offer a more professional, technology-enabled experience that strengthens relationships and improves retention.

Future directions in credit technology

As Credit Management Systems mature, emerging technologies are expanding their capabilities:

AI, machine learning and open finance

Artificial intelligence is transforming credit agreement processing through NLP-powered data extraction and predictive covenant monitoring. Meanwhile, the future of credit infrastructure is becoming increasingly interconnected through API ecosystems, common data standards, and direct connections to borrower systems.

Cloud adoption is accelerating across the industry, enabling faster innovation and more flexible deployment models. These technologies will continue to enhance CMS platforms, making them even more powerful tools for managing the complexity of modern lending.

The future belongs to those who modernize

Lending is more complex than ever. The infrastructure supporting it must evolve.

According to Boston Consulting Group, financial institutions investing in technology-driven efficiency improvements can achieve up to 20% cost reductions and significantly improve decision-making speed by automating routine tasks. Additionally, over 50% of banking leaders expect AI to drive productivity gains across operations, customer service, and IT in 2024.

A Deloitte report highlights that financial institutions integrating advanced automation and AI into lending operations have seen:

30-40% faster credit decision-making, reducing time-to-approval for borrowers
20-30% lower operational costs through automation and streamlined workflows
Risk assessment and compliance monitoring improvements.

Just as CRM revolutionized sales and CLM transformed legal operations, CMS is redefining credit management.

Finley is leading that transformation.

Want to learn more about how a Credit Management System can transform your lending operations? Contact Finley to request a demo and see the platform in action.

‍