To benefit from the improved housing market, lenders need to play offense by finding new ways to efficiently comply with regulations, tighten controls over the lending process and better engage with customers.

1. Remaking IT for New U.S. Mortgage
Rule Compliance
To benefit from the improved housing market, lenders need to play offense
by finding new ways to efficiently comply with regulations, tighten controls
over the lending process and better engage with customers.
• Cognizant Reports
cognizant reports | March 2014

2. cognizant reports 2
Executive Summary
The ongoing recovery in the U.S. housing market
bodes well for the mortgage industry. Loan origi-
nation volume has strengthened, and regulations
from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(CFPB) are beginning to offer some clarity regard-
ing future loan origination standards and new
levels of compliance, control and consistency. The
CFPB’s new Qualified Mortgage (QM) and Ability
to Repay (ATR) rules are not only forcing lenders
to improve their level of underwriting accuracy
and thoroughness, but they are also motivating
them to create processes, infrastructure, technol-
ogy and a reporting framework to ensure ongo-
ing, repeatable and standardized compliance
practices.
Despite improved market conditions, the battles
continue. Lenders face increasing origination
and servicing costs, as well as challenges in
maintaining transparency and providing proof of
compliance to regulators. As such, the mortgage
industry needs solutions that establish greater
process control, consistency and transparency, as
well as improve the customer experience.
A major overhaul of current processes will be
an essential step for building a new, compliant
processingframework.Lendersneedtoreconsider
the use of underwriters and processors for making
assessments and decisions across every step
of the process, as reliance on these employees
results in subjective and manual decision-
making. This can hamper the goal of developing a
compliant, consistent and cost-effective process
model. While deep subject matter expertise is
essential for a highly compliant process, such
solutions need to be leveraged at the right point in
the process, and at the right time, which can only
be achieved if processes are broken down to their
most meaningful level and managed by systems
with robust and well-defined data models.
An appropriately decom-
posed process allows a
multithreaded “divide and
conquer” framework that
enables human resources
to focus on simplified and
repeatable tasks rather than
large, complex decisions. It
also enables decision-mak-
ing to shift from people to
automated systems that can
readily consume the inputs
of the process. When pro-
cesses are decomposed and
architected appropriately,
automation can also enable
deeper transparency into
processdataanddecisionsthataddresstheneedto
present compliance documentation to regulators
and investors.
In addition, expanding customer touchpoints
to include digital channels in an industry that
currently relies heavily on call centers can
help providers improve their level of customer
engagement and intervention. Rather than just
responding to customer needs, lenders need to
begin preventing and even predicting needs. By
embracing a more proactive framework, lenders
can move toward a model in which their top prior-
ities are predicting customer needs and prevent-
ing customer issues, and resorting to traditional
processes only as a last line of defense.
Increasing Net Cost to Originate
Figure 1
Source: Mortgage Bankers Association
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
An appropriately
decomposed
process allows
a multithreaded
“divide and conquer”
framework that
enables human
resources to focus
on simplified and
repeatable tasks
rather than large,
complex decisions.

3. cognizant reports 3
Lenders also need to expand the sales lifecycle
to reflect the reality that customers are never
completely sold until a loan is funded. Custom-
ers need to be engaged and managed differently
as the process lifecycle unfolds, and not every
consumer interacts the same way with people,
technology and processes. Recognizing these
differences and responding to them will allow
lenders to engage with the right customer, at the
right time, through the right engagement channel
during the process lifecycle.
While considering all of these dimensions, lenders
need to drive toward a very clear end-state vision
and solution that is clearly defined, tightly aligned
with strategic goals and designed to enable incre-
mental value as it is implemented and expanded.
Impending CFPB Regulation
The U.S. housing industry is on the rebound. In
2013, new sales increased 29%, while existing
home sales rose 9.1% over the previous year.1
As a result, inventory dropped, and home prices
increased, spiking 12.4% from August 2012 to
July 2013.2
While this is a healthy sign for the
mortgage industry, the net cost to originate loans
is increasing (see Figure 1, previous page), and
the cost of originating purchase loans is projected
to increase 19% between 2012 and 2014.3
The mortgage industry also continues to respond
to new regulations managed by the CFPB, which
was created in 2011 under the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
The CFPB’s mandate is to write rules, supervise
companies and enforce federal consumer finan-
cial protection laws. While the new mortgage
industry regulations have brought some clarity
to the origination process, the breadth of the
Dodd-Frank regulations has resulted in delayed
rule and policy making, as evidenced by the
mortgage industry’s response (see Figure 2). The
uncertainty and delays will require lenders to
keep compliance at the top of their agendas.
Impending CFPB regulations focus primarily on
the ATR/QM rule definitions, as well as servicing
standards. These regulations will affect loan origi-
nations and default servicing, raising the possibil-
ity of ongoing hefty penalties for nonconforming
institutions. (see Figure 3, next page).
Ability to Repay
The most important criterion mandated by the
CFPB is the consumer’s ability to repay the loan
(both the principal and interest in its entirety).
Therefore, loans must be underwritten with
verified financial information based on the
following factors:
1. Current income or reasonably expected
income, or the assets held by the borrower.
2. Employment.
3. Credit history.
4. The amount of the monthly payment.
5. Loans associated with the property and the
monthly payment on those loans.
6. Monthly payments for mortgage-related obli-
gations, such as property taxes and insurance.
Delay in Implementation of Regulations
Figure 2
Source: Davis Polk, Dodd-Frank Progress Report, October 2013; Cognizant Research Center
30
15
5
2
5
34
1
29
4
3 27
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Consumer Protection
Mortgage Reforms
Banking Regulations
Number of required rule-makings
Missed deadline: not proposedFinalized
Future deadline: proposed
Missed deadline: proposed
Future deadline: not proposed

4. cognizant reports 4
7. Additional debt obligations, such as other
loans, alimony and child support.
8. Monthly debt-to-income ratio.
Some of this information can be verified through
reliable third-party sources, such as credit
bureaus; however, lenders are ultimately respon-
sible for verifying compliance with these factors.
An additional lender requirement calls for the
maintenance of compliance records for three
years after a loan is originated. The record of
actions taken regarding the loan must also
be maintained for one year after the loan is
discharged. CFPB mandates the documentation
of all transactions, including communication with
the borrower and the security instrument estab-
lishing the lien securing the mortgage loan.4
New Qualified Mortgage Requirements
The CFPB also defines qualified mortgages.
A loan can be considered a qualified mortgage if
it has the following features:
• Substantially equal periodic payments, subject
to interest rate adjustments.
• Is not a negative amortizing mortgage.
• Does not defer principal.
• Does not have a balloon payment, wherein the
remaining principal is repaid at the end of the
loan period.
• Does not have excessive fees (those exceed-
ing 3% of the total loan amount on a loan
exceeding $100,000).
• Loan term does not exceed 30 years.
• Underwriting is based on the maximum inter-
est rate during the first five years.
• Is based on verified current or reasonably
expected income or assets and current debt
obligations, alimony and child support.
• Monthly debt to income ratio may not
exceed 43%.5
QM loans will have safe harbor6
provided they
meet the QM and ATR guidelines; non-QM loans
will need to meet the ATR guidelines to receive
a rebuttable presumption. However, there is con-
siderable concern among lenders regarding the
effort it will take to meet borrower safe harbor
challenges. The standards to achieve either safe
harbor or rebuttable presumption are so numer-
ous and detailed that proving it in the heat of a
confrontation is going to be a torturous event,
according to Thomas Vartanian, who chairs the
financial institution‘s practice at Dechert LLP.7
Borrowers may challenge whether their loan
is a QM, which will result in the lender having
to provide documentation supporting QM and
ATR guidelines. If the loan is non-QM, the lender
will need to maintain supporting underwriting
documentation proving the loan is compliant
with ATR guidelines. Safe harbor will not apply to
lenders that are unable to evidence compliance
with applicable QM and ATR guidelines. As a
result of these potential safe harbor challenges,
it is incumbent upon the lenders to maintain all
supporting underwriting documentation. The new
provisions are expected to dramatically impact
growth in the mortgage market.
$29M
Bank A
$27M
Bank B
$6M
Bank C
$63M
Total
CFPB Fines Assessed in 2012
Figure 3
Note: This figure depicts the range of fines assessed to large banks in 2012.
Source: http://mcgladrey.com/pdf/3-steps-to-cfpb-compliance.pdf
$0
$10M
$20M
$30M
$40M
$50M
$60M
$70M

5. cognizant reports 5
The Impact of QM Regulations
Generally, the factors with the biggest impact on
mortgage originations are home prices, mort-
gage rates and borrower income. But as Figure 4
indicates, the new QM requirements are sure
to impact loan origination volume. The biggest
expected negative impact (24%) on loan origi-
nations is the stringent debt to income (DTI)
ratio requirement, which will result in fewer new
borrowers able to qualify for a mortgage.
Although loan originations will decline, lending
risk will also likely decrease by more than 90%
(see Figure 5, page 6). Figure 5 also illustrates the
incremental and cumulative effect of each new
QM requirement on mortgage default risk.
The rules are slightly different for small banks
and credit unions, of which there are 9,200 in the
U.S.8
Even if the loan recipient’s debt-to-income
ratio is greater than 43%, small banks and credit
unions can issue loans if they keep the loan in their
portfolios. Mortgage origination with a balloon
payment is allowed for small banks for a period
of two years until the CFPB completes its study
on small bank lending. Mortgage origination at
3.5% above the average prime offer rate remains
in effect for small banks and credit unions.
Compensation to individual loan originator
employees is removed when calculating fees
and points for loans that comply with the ATR/
QM rules.9
Any violation of these regulations will
impact the lender.
Liability for Violations
If ATR/QM provisions are violated, the lender
must pay the actual damages, up to $4,000 per
loan, statutory damages and any associated legal
fees. For larger damages related to noncompli-
ance with these provisions, lenders are required
to cover the sum of all finance charges and the
fees paid by the borrower. This penalty can be
overturned only when the lender can prove that
noncompliance is immaterial. Even a private right
of action10
can be brought, since the law allows
private parties to bring a lawsuit even though no
such remedy is explicitly provided for.11
This can
be done before the end of the three-year period
from the date of the violation.
Consumers can also assert a violation as a claim
in foreclosure whenever it occurs, regardless of
the time period. This defense to the foreclosure
provision is driving lenders to be overly cau-
tious when applying credit standards because
defending a consumer lawsuit can run between
$70,000 and $100,000. The claim for enhanced
damageswouldfurtherincreasethecost.Sincethe
borrower can claim violations at any point during
the lifetime of the loan, the foreclosure timeline
could also potentially lengthen. Such factors are
creating major challenges for lenders.
Taking the Offensive
For lenders, it is time to step up the management
and planning of their lending and compliance
processes. An implementation plan, developed
by a committee headed by senior executives,
creates a hassle-free platform for a compliance
Figure 4
Source: CoreLogic
Impact Per Slice
3%
9%
2%
16%
1%
24%
5%
10% Down Payment
5% Down Payment
>30-Year Term
Low or No Doc
Neg Am/Balloon/IO
Debt-to-Income Ratio
Credit Score
Qualified Mortgage Requirements’ Heavy Impact

6. cognizant reports 6
platform solution. The plan must focus on
develop-ing work streams and setting realistic
timelines to finalize imple-
mentation. Organizations
must also revise business
practices and update poli-
cies and procedures. Legacy
systems must be upgraded
or decommissioned, and
new system requirements
must be quickly developed
to improve underwriting
and compliance measures.
Despite ongoing planning across these dimen-
sions, lending organizations still face additional
servicing and legal costs. For instance, the cost
to service and manage documentation increases
the processing cost of loans that qualify for safe
har-bor. This can be challenged by consumers if
they believe the QM definition is not met.12
Lending companies need a thorough understand-
ing of the QM criteria to properly implement
them, and they must strengthen underwriting
standards for both qualifying and non-qualify-
ing mortgages. In addition to implementing the
requirements, lenders will need to review their
compensation structures for loans.
Mortgage servicers also need to revamp their
exist-ing document handling processes and
underlying systems. This is because mortgage
servicers fre-quently buy and sell the rights to
service a loan, and in the absence of real-time
reporting, lenders find it difficult to monitor the
status of loan servicing.13
Additionally, during this
transfer, paperwork for items such as loss mitiga-
tion is not typically labeled or can be difficult to
locate. In many cases, protocols do not exist for
handling key documents such as trial modifica-
tion agreements.
Need for Automation
With new QM and ATR regulations, lending rules
are clearer, setting the stage for mortgage mar-
ket certainty. An overhaul of the current system is
overdue, including the creation of a clearly defined
framework and automated processes for deter-
mining loan repayment abilities. Under the new
rules, lenders are not only expected to document
compliance, but they are also urged to implement
an efficient processes, infrastructure, technology
and reporting framework to ensure compliance.
The tracking and preservation of documents is
also crucial, as new regulations require storage
of compliance documentation for three years fol-
lowing loan origination. By introducing a robust
automated system, lenders can mitigate non-
compliance risks, such as significant legal costs,
interruption of loan origination activities and
increased scrutiny by regulatory authorities.
Since the mortgage industry is highly docu-
ment-centric, it is extremely critical to ensure
accuracy, consistency, transparency, trust and
control with respect to regulatory compliance. To
ensure proper compliance, lenders need to collect
and apply data from documents and traditional
sources against structured rules and policies. The
associated borrower loan application data would
Qualified Mortgage Requirements Address Default Risk Concerns
3%
15%
1%
9%
0%
36%
28%
10% Down Payment
5% Down Payment
>30-Year Term
Low or No Doc
Neg Am/Balloon/IO
Debt-to-Income Ratio
Credit Score
Serious Delinquency Impact Per Slice
Figure 5
Source: CoreLogic
For lenders, it is
time to step up
the management
and planning
of their lending
and compliance
processes.

7. cognizant reports 7
be processed through a loan origination decision
model, which would assess compliance with exist-
ing underwriting guidelines. This process could
be implemented using the organization’s propri-
etary capabilities or by leveraging outside solu-
tions. Such an assessment can be conducted both
for ATR and QM instruments, using a pay-per-use
model. Doing so would provide true transparency
into critical process decisions and risk, as well as
improved borrower communication, participation
of key stakeholders and collaboration.
Customer experience can
also be a significant com-
petitive differentiator for
loan originators. Minor
improvements in the cus-
tomer experience will win
business, resulting in mas-
sive increases in revenue
due to loan application
pull-through. Insights into
borrower behavior and
sentimentcan be obtained
through analysis of credit
trig-gers, borrower activ-
ity and public records.
Such insights not only help
lenders reduce produc-
tion and support costs by
anticipating – rather than
reacting – to customer issues, but they also lead
to an improved customer experience.
An early understanding of each borrower’s ability
to qualify for a mortgage and/or related under-
writing obstacles will allow the underwriter and
customer to quickly address these challenges
with appropriate resolution. With a compliant
solution, for example, a borrower requesting
a correction to his credit history will either be
allowed to qualify or will be shown a clear and
prompt understanding of why he will not meet
underwriting guidelines.
Looking Forward: An Enhanced
Compliance Process Solution
management systems. However, by transition-
ing to a new compliance process solution with
embedded rules and policies, lenders can per-
form an automated analysis of the captured data,
benefit from consistent and fast decision-mak-
ing and quickly respond to ongoing regulatory
reforms. Such an approach can enable lenders to
embrace new techniques in process control and
automation while leveraging new approaches to
customer engagement, in order to contain costs
and improve compliance.
Creating a consistent, transparent and controlled
process within a framework that provides the
highest levels of customer experience requires a
thoughtful approach. The organization needs to
clearly define the end-state vision, tightly align
the solution with its strategic goals and ensure
it is able to provide incremental value as the
solution is implemented and expanded.
The loan origination framework must also
be constructed with active cooperation of all
parties. The project management and program
management organizations will need to shepherd
key business participants through the software
delivery lifecycle (SDLC) and develop a road-
map to identify the incremental steps within the
loan origination process that can be automated.
Process automation would be achieved by design-
ing a decision tree to address each critical step
within the loan origination process.
These incremental steps can be identified by
breaking down and dissecting the critical steps
within the loan origination process. These steps
will serve as toll gates within the origination
process, and the decision model will be leveraged
to route the mortgage application within the
loan origination cycle. The automation of these
decisions is based on the input of business SMEs
and IT professionals.
The automated decision model will create
consistency across the process, reducing the
somewhat subjective nature of underwriting,
which can expose the lender to potential discrimi-
natory practices. The subjective steps, in which an
individual’s opinion can determine the approval of
an application, will be removed and replaced with
automated rules designed by key organizational
participants. As such, every borrower will be ana-
lyzed against the same decision model criteria
and compared with any suitable loan products
based on the borrower’s needs and qualifications.
Customer
experience can
also be a significant
competitive
differentiator for
loan originators.
Minor improvements
in the customer
experience will win
business, resulting
in massive increases
in revenue due to
loan application
pull-through.
Mortgage lenders commonly believe that ensur-
ing compliance with revised regulations will be
daunting, time-consuming and expensive. Given
the long list of enhanced compliance require-
ments, many companies will face the need
to upgrade their IT infrastructure and data
mining capabilities, as well as improve the
accuracy and consistency of their traditional loan

8. cognizant reports 8
The new process will be consistent, transparent
and objective, resulting in a repeatable process.
For any given mortgage applicant, the framework
produces a compliant process that will stand up to
any regulatory scrutiny.
The decision model must be highly adaptable to
changing mortgage regulations. Given the large
amount of regulatory agencies with various
agendas, the new regulations and rules must be
be addressed by the lender. It is very likely that
changing the decision rules within the model
will be more efficient than retraining an entire
staff of loan processors and loan officers. The
changes can be initiated with new requirements
and executed within the SDLC process. More-
over, they will be well documented and reviewed
by the organizational partici-pants. Additionally,
if new regulations are properly implemented
within the solution, the lender is less likely to face
regulatory compliance issues.
An added benefit of this consistent and auto-
mated framework is the ability to enhance the
customer expe-rience by
identifying key milestones
within the loan process that
can then be communicated
to the borrower. Addition-
ally, exceptions within the
process, such as missing
documents, can be routed
properly and commu-nica-
ted to the lender and the
borrower.
Borrower notifications can be generated based
on borrower preferences, whether by e-mail,
text, mail or customer contact. Each applicant
would receive consistent information rather than
subjective answers based on the understanding
of thecustomer service representative or loan
processor. A consistent and responsive level of
communication and service will enhance the
customer experience.
Quick Take
Four Steps to De-risk Noncompliance
For a better-managed system that offers reduced risk of non compliance, loan processes need to pass
through four phases, including:
• Phase 1: QM validation. This requires data capture and consistency checks against digital and
physical document formats.
• Phase 2: Borrower income validation: The policy and data creation formula should be stored
in a data repository. This also involves deploying reporting capabilities (primarily compliance) as
required by regulatory authorities.
• Phase 3: Process automation, which requires the implementation of decision models
and exception management. This addresses events or items that require remediation before
advancing to the next process step.
• Phase 4: Accommodating future regulatory changes that extend to other business functions.
While the impending CFPB regulations trigger a host of issues for lending companies, they also present
a timely opportunity for companies to strengthen their processes and, ultimately, develop a resilient
compliance- and customer-focused system. While lenders can benefit from an adaptable and compliant
underwriting framework, customers also receive quality service until the loan is closed. For lenders, it is
time to shift gears.
It is very likely
that changing the
decision rules within
the model will be
more efficient
than retraining an
entire staff of loan
processors and loan
officers.

9. cognizant reports 9
Footnotes
1
“U.S. Residential Mortgage Market Update,” Deloitte, April 2013, https://www.deloitte.com/assets/
Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/FSI/US_FSI_Residential%20Mortgage%20
Market%20Update_April%202013_052813.pdf.
2
“Home Prices Steadily Rise in July 2013,” S&P Dow Jones Indices, Sept. 24, 2013, https://www.spice-
indices.com/idpfiles/spice-assets/resources/public/documents/53129_cshomeprice-release-0924.
pdf?force_download=true.
3
Mark Fleming, “Making the Most of 2013,” CoreLogic Market Pulse, Vol 2, Issue 2, Feb. 12, 2013,
http://www.corelogic.com/downloadable-docs/MarketPulse_2013-February.pdf.
4
“Summary of 2013 Mortgage Rules Issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,” Promon-
tory Financial Group LLC, June 14, 2013, http://www.promontory.com/uploadedFiles/Articles/Insights/
CFPB_Mortgage_Whitepaper_Refresh_130614_FINAL.pdf.
5
“List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1026,” http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201301_cfpb_final-rule_
ability-to-repay-amendments.pdf.
6
Protection from lawsuits under safe harbor rules is a legal provision to reduce or eliminate liability as
long as good faith is demonstrated.
7
Rachel Witkowski, “Safe-Harbor QM Loans May Not Protect Banks,“ National Mortgage News, Sept. 6,
2013, http://www.nationalmortgagenews.com/dailybriefing/Safe-Harbor-QM-Loans-May-Not-Protect-
Banks-1038649-1.html.
8
According to the Code of Federal Regulations, small bank means “a bank that, as of December 31 of
either of the prior two calendar years, had assets of less than $1.098 billion and that issue 500 or
fewer mortgages each year, as well as certain nonprofit organizations that originate 200 or fewer
loans per year.“
9
“The Qualified Mortgage and Ability to Repay Rules,” Navigant, 2013, http://www.navigant.com/~/
media/www/site/downloads/corporate%20finance/qualified%20mortgage%20and%20ability%20
to%20repay%20rules.ashx).
10
“Employee’s Private Right to Sue,” Attorney General’s Office, http://www.mass.gov/ago/doing-busi-
ness-in-massachusetts/labor-laws-and-public-construction/wage-and-hour/private-right-to-sue.html.
11
“CFPB ‘Ability to Repay’ Standard,” PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, January 2013, http://www.pwc.
com/en_US/us/financial-services/regulatory-services/publications/assets/pwc-cfpb-ability-to-pay-
standard.pdf.
12
Richard Finger, “Banks Are Not Lending Like They Should, and With Good Reason,” Forbes, May 30,
2013, http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardfinger/2013/05/30/banks-are-not-lending-like-they-should-
and-with-good-reason/.
13
“Automation and Analytics: Two Levers to Revitalize Retail Debt Recovery,” Cognizant Technology
Solutions, June 2013, http://www.cognizant.com/InsightsWhitepapers/Automation-and-Analytics-
Two-Levers-to-Revitalize-Retail-Debt-Recovery.pdf.

10. World Headquarters
500 Frank W. Burr Blvd.
Teaneck, NJ 07666 USA
Phone: +1 201 801 0233
Fax: +1 201 801 0243
Toll Free: +1 888 937 3277
Email: inquiry@cognizant.com
European Headquarters
1 Kingdom Street
Paddington Central
London W2 6BD
Phone: +44 (0) 207 297 7600
Fax: +44 (0) 207 121 0102
Email: infouk@cognizant.com
India Operations Headquarters
#5/535, Old Mahabalipuram Road
Okkiyam Pettai, Thoraipakkam
Chennai, 600 096 India
Phone: +91 (0) 44 4209 6000
Fax: +91 (0) 44 4209 6060
Email: inquiryindia@cognizant.com
­­© Copyright 2014, Cognizant. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the express written permission from Cognizant. The information contained herein is
subject to change without notice. All other trademarks mentioned herein are the property of their respective owners.
About Cognizant
Cognizant (NASDAQ: CTSH) is a leading provider of information technology, consulting, and business process
outsourcing services, dedicated to helping the world’s leading companies build stronger businesses. Headquartered
in Teaneck, New Jersey (U.S.), Cognizant combines a passion for client satisfaction, technology innovation, deep
industry and business process expertise, and a global, collaborative workforce that embodies the future of work.
With over 50 delivery centers worldwide and approximately 171,400 employees as of December 31, 2013, Cognizant
is a member of the NASDAQ-100, the S&P 500, the Forbes Global 2000, and the Fortune 500 and is ranked among
the top performing and fastest growing companies in the world.
Visit us online at www.cognizant.com or follow us on Twitter: Cognizant.
Credits
Author and Analyst
Sanjay Fuloria, Senior Researcher, Cognizant Research Center
Analyst
Krishnakanth Sutrave, Researcher, Cognizant Research Center
Subject Matter Experts
Nathan Longfellow, Senior Director, Cognizant Business Consulting, Banking and Financial Services
John Geertesma, Senior Manager, Cognizant Business Consulting, Banking and Financial Services
Design
Harleen Bhatia, Design Team Lead
Suresh Kumar Chedarada, Designer