Share this article
Yes, but migrations are operationally complex. Moving from outsourced to in-house custody requires rebuilding infrastructure and reauditing procedures, while migrating from in-house to outsourced custody involves governance approvals, asset reconciliation, and regulatory notifications. Most banks treat the initial custody model as a long-term decision because switching carries significant operational and regulatory effort.
Banks should look for providers with recognised security and operational certifications such as SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001, which demonstrate mature security, privacy, and operational controls. They should also verify whether the provider complies with relevant regulatory frameworks or holds approvals from authorities such as VARA, FSRA, or other regulators in the jurisdictions where they operate.
White-label custody gives banks dedicated custody infrastructure that can be customised with their own branding, policies, and operational controls while relying on an underlying technology provider. Outsourced custody is a managed service where the provider operates the custody infrastructure on the bank’s behalf. The choice depends on whether the bank prioritises infrastructure control and customisation or faster deployment with lower operational overhead.
Institutional assets should be held in legally segregated custody accounts that remain separate from the provider’s own assets. If a custody provider becomes insolvent, properly segregated client assets remain the property of the institution and cannot be used to satisfy the provider’s liabilities. Banks should verify asset segregation, regulatory compliance, insurance coverage, and the provider’s security certifications before selecting an outsourced custody partner.
