The standard advice from law firms and consultants is that you should begin reviewing your core processing contract one year before it expires. This advice is wrong by half. Twelve months is too late.
The math is simple. A core conversion takes nine to twelve months from signed contract to live cutover. If your current agreement expires in twelve months and you have not yet signed with anyone, your incumbent vendor knows you are not going anywhere. The leverage you thought you had is gone.
This is not a hypothetical. Vendors have account managers whose job is to track your contract calendar with more discipline than you track it yourselves. They know exactly when your renewal window opens. They know when it closes. They know how long a deconversion takes. And they price accordingly.
What 24 Months Buys You
Two years of runway changes the conversation in ways that are not obvious until you have lived through it.
First, you can credibly entertain alternative providers. A real RFP, with real responses, presented to your incumbent — not as a threat, but as a fact pattern. Vendors do not respond to bluster. They respond to evidence that you have done the work.
Second, you can negotiate from the position of someone who is not boxed in. The single most expensive sentence in any negotiation is "we have to have this resolved by month X." If month X is six months away, your incumbent will smile politely and hold their pricing. If month X is twenty-two months away, the dynamic inverts.
Third, you have time to do the diligence that actually moves pricing. Comparable terms from peer institutions. Documented evidence of where your incumbent has yielded for banks of your size. A clear picture of what alternative platforms cost on a total-cost-of-ownership basis. None of this happens in twelve weeks. Most of it does not happen in six months.
The Counterargument and Why It's Wrong
The pushback we hear most often: "Our renewal isn't until 2028 — we have years."
You do not. If your contract expires in March 2028, your useful negotiation window opened in March 2026. The runway has to include time for analysis (one to two months), market sounding (two to three months), formal RFP if pursued (three to four months), negotiation and term sheet (three to six months), legal redline (one to two months), and conversion if you switch vendors (nine to twelve months). Add these up honestly and the math forces an early start.
A second pushback: "We don't want to spook our existing vendor by signaling early." This concern is misplaced. Every major core vendor expects sophisticated clients to begin the renewal conversation eighteen to twenty-four months in advance. They are not surprised. They are relieved, in fact, because it gives them time to retain you. The clients who actually surprise vendors are the ones who walk into the renewal meeting twelve months out with no analysis, no alternative, and no leverage.
What to Do at Each Milestone
If your contract expires in twenty-four months, the work breaks down roughly as follows.
Months 24 to 21: Pull your current contract and all amendments. Document every fee schedule, every SLA commitment, every annual escalator. Most banks discover at this stage that they do not have a complete copy of their own contract — schedules and exhibits live in different folders, with different versions, and nobody is sure which is current. Fix that first.
Months 21 to 18: Benchmark. Either internally if you have the data, or with help. The goal is a defensible answer to a single question: "What should we be paying for this set of services?" Without that answer, every subsequent conversation is theater.
Months 18 to 12: Decide whether to entertain alternatives. If yes, run a structured RFP — not a casual outreach, a formal process with consistent scope and apples-to-apples comparison. If no, develop your renewal strategy and target terms.
Months 12 to 6: Negotiate. Multiple rounds. Strategy reviews at each milestone. The vendor will respond differently in month nine than in month fourteen, and again differently in month seven.
Months 6 to 0: Execute, paper, audit, convert. If you've done the earlier work, this phase is mechanical. If you haven't, this phase is where the panic premium gets paid.
The Cost of Starting Late
The institutions we see who start at twelve months — or worse, six — almost universally end up signing renewals that are two to three percentage points above what they could have achieved with proper runway. On a contract worth a million dollars a year over seven years, that is somewhere between $140,000 and $210,000 left on the table. For larger institutions, the number scales linearly.
The vendor knows what twelve months looks like. The vendor knows what twenty-four months looks like. The difference between those two pictures is your money.
If your core contract expires in the next 24 months, the timing matters more than you think.
A 30-minute call. We'll look at where you are in the cycle, what your runway buys you, and whether the work justifies starting now.
Request a CallFrequently Asked Questions
Start now. Twenty-four months is the ideal. Eighteen is workable. Twelve forces compromises. Six means you have minimal leverage and should focus on minimizing damage rather than maximizing savings. Whatever the runway, the first step is the same: get an honest baseline of what you should be paying and what your contract actually says.
Yes. The leverage in any negotiation is the credible alternative — even if you never intend to use it. A vendor who knows you have done the work to evaluate alternatives prices differently from a vendor who knows you have not. The early start is what creates the credibility, regardless of your final intention.
No. Major core vendors have account teams whose job is to manage renewals across pipelines that are eighteen to thirty-six months out. They expect early conversations from sophisticated clients. The risk is not engaging too early. The risk is engaging too late.
At minimum: the CFO, the COO or operations head, and whoever owns the vendor relationship day-to-day. The CEO and board should be briefed at the analysis stage and again before final signature. Bringing the board in only at signature time is a mistake — they have no context for what was negotiated and no basis for asking the right questions.
Some institutions do. The constraint is comparable pricing data. Without knowing what other banks of your size are paying for the same services from the same vendor, you can negotiate hard but you cannot negotiate informed. That comparative database is what outside specialists bring to the table — and it is not something an institution can build from a single contract.
More questions? We're here to help.
Get in Touch