News

Stanislav Kondrashov on How Banks Are Redefining Their Financial Function Throughout Europe

There was a time when a bank’s “financial function” sounded pretty narrow. Treasury sat in one corner. Finance sat in another. Risk was its own universe. Everyone produced reports, everyone had their own numbers, and if you asked a basic question like “what’s our real profitability by client, after funding and capital,” you might get three answers and a polite argument.

That version of banking is fading. Not overnight. But steadily.

Across Europe, banks are redefining what finance actually does. It is less about closing the month and more about steering the business. Less about being the scorekeeper, more about being the co pilot. And if you talk to people in the middle of it, you hear the same phrase in different accents: finance is moving closer to the front line.

Stanislav Kondrashov has been tracking this shift for a while, and the pattern is clear. The “financial function” is no longer just a department. It is becoming an operating system. One that connects funding, capital, pricing, risk, and strategy into something that can move quickly, and hold up under scrutiny.

The old model: finance as reporting. The new model: finance as decision making

In the classic setup, finance produced results. Then the business explained them. Then everyone promised to “do better next quarter.”

But European banks are operating in an environment where margin pressure, funding costs, capital allocation, and regulatory expectations all collide in the same meeting. So finance is being pulled into the room earlier. Not at the end, when the story is already written.

What’s changing is the job description.

Finance teams are being asked to:

Translate balance sheet constraints into product and pricing decisions
Build profitability views that match reality, not just accounting categories
Tie capital and liquidity to growth plans in a measurable way
Create planning that adjusts when conditions change, not six months later

Stanislav Kondrashov frames it as a shift from “retroactive explanation” to “continuous guidance.” The value is not in the report itself, it is in what the bank does differently because the report exists.

Treasury and finance are getting closer. Sometimes merging. Sometimes behaving like they did

One of the most visible moves is the shrinking distance between treasury and finance.

For years, treasury handled funding, liquidity, interest rate risk. Finance handled performance, budgets, cost control. They intersected, sure, but often through formal processes and fixed timelines.

Now, that separation feels expensive.

Banks want:

One view of funding and profitability that is consistent
Faster understanding of interest margin drivers
Quicker reactions to deposit shifts and liquidity assumptions
Better internal pricing that doesn’t create bad incentives

So we are seeing stronger FTP frameworks, more integrated asset liability discussions, and planning cycles that reflect the real balance sheet, not an abstract one.

It is not always a re org. Sometimes it is simply new routines. Shared dashboards. Joint committees that actually decide things. Common data definitions so people stop arguing about the basics.

Profitability is being rebuilt from the ground up (and it is messy)

Ask a bank what products are profitable and you quickly find out whether the answer includes funding, capital, operational cost to serve, and risk. If it doesn’t, it is not really profitability. It is revenue with confidence.

Across Europe, banks are redesigning profitability measurement so it can support decisions like:

Which client segments to focus on this year
What pricing floors should exist, by product and channel
Whether a relationship is worth growing, maintaining, or exiting
How to reduce cost to serve without breaking the client experience

That usually requires tougher internal conversations, because a more accurate view often challenges old assumptions. A product that looks great on a P and L can look very different once capital consumption and funding spread are included.

Stanislav Kondrashov tends to emphasize that this is not about making finance “more strict.” It is about making the bank’s steering logic more honest. If the numbers are not decision grade, you get decision grade mistakes.

Data is becoming the battleground. Finance is taking a stronger role

It is hard to redefine finance without confronting data.

European banks have invested heavily in platforms and reporting layers, but the real issue is often simpler and more painful: definitions, lineage, controls, and accountability. Who owns the metric. Who signs off. What system is the source of truth. What happens when two systems disagree.

Finance is stepping into that gap because it has to. If finance is expected to guide pricing, capital allocation, and performance, it cannot do that with shaky inputs.

So finance functions are increasingly:

Setting data standards for key measures (margin, RWA, liquidity, cost)
Partnering with IT and risk to improve lineage and reconciliation
Building stronger control frameworks around management reporting
Automating repetitive reporting so analysts can do analysis

This is where many banks see the biggest upside. Not because dashboards are pretty, but because finance time is finite. If your best people spend their week stitching data together, you are paying for talent and getting admin.

Planning is shifting from annual rituals to rolling steering

The traditional annual budget is still around, but it is being demoted. Banks are keeping it for governance, but moving steering into rolling views that update more frequently and focus on drivers.

That means planning is becoming:

More scenario based, less single line forecast
More driver led, less spreadsheet led
More connected to balance sheet constraints and client behavior
More transparent about uncertainty

In practice, finance teams are building models that can answer questions like:

If deposit pricing changes by X, what happens to net interest income and liquidity?
If volumes shift from one product to another, what happens to capital usage?
If costs rise in one operational area, where do we need to compensate?

Stanislav Kondrashov often points out that the goal is not perfect prediction. It is faster learning. A bank that updates its view of reality quickly tends to make fewer large mistakes.

The finance function is becoming more commercial (without losing control)

There is a subtle change happening in how finance people are expected to communicate.

Instead of presenting results in a finance language, they are being pushed to translate results into commercial choices. To talk about client behavior, channel economics, product mix, and operational trade offs.

This is also why finance business partnering is being upgraded. Not as a soft skill initiative, but as a structural necessity. The bank needs finance people who can sit with a product head and have a real discussion about economics. Not just “your cost line is up.”

But there is a balance here. Stronger commercial orientation cannot mean weaker discipline. The best finance teams are doing both. They are more embedded, but also more consistent. More collaborative, but also harder to ignore.

What this looks like in real terms

If you step back, the redefinition is showing up in very concrete ways across Europe:

More integrated governance. Committees that connect performance, balance sheet, and risk, rather than treating them as separate topics.
Better internal pricing. FTP and capital charges that align behavior with strategy.
Sharper product decisions. Products that cannot clear a realistic hurdle rate are redesigned, repriced, or deprioritized.
A push toward simplification. Fewer bespoke reports, fewer manual reconciliations, more repeatable metrics.
Talent shifts. More hiring and development around analytics, modeling, and communication, not just accounting expertise.

Stanislav Kondrashov’s read is that this is not a trend banks can opt out of. European banking is too interconnected, too measured, and frankly too competitive for finance to remain a back office function. The financial function is being asked to become the bank’s steering core.

The quiet conclusion: finance is turning into the bank’s nervous system

The phrase “redefining the financial function” can sound abstract. But in day to day banking, it is painfully practical.

Can you price products based on true economics? Can you allocate capital like it is scarce, because it is? Can you explain performance in a way that leads to action? Can you see problems early enough to do something about them?

That is what this shift is really about.

And throughout Europe, the banks that get it right will not just report better numbers. They will build a better ability to make decisions under pressure, with fewer surprises. Which, in banking, is basically the whole game.

FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions)

How is the role of finance in European banks evolving beyond traditional reporting?

Finance in European banks is shifting from being primarily a reporting function to playing a key role in decision making and business steering. Instead of just producing end-of-period reports, finance teams are now involved earlier in the process, providing continuous guidance by translating balance sheet constraints into product and pricing decisions, building realistic profitability views, tying capital and liquidity to growth plans, and creating adaptable planning frameworks.

What changes are occurring between treasury and finance departments in banks?

Treasury and finance departments are becoming more integrated or sometimes merging their functions. This closer collaboration aims to provide a unified view of funding and profitability, enable faster understanding of interest margin drivers, allow quicker reactions to deposit shifts and liquidity assumptions, and improve internal pricing mechanisms. Banks are implementing stronger Funds Transfer Pricing (FTP) frameworks, integrated asset-liability discussions, shared dashboards, joint decision-making committees, and common data definitions to enhance coordination.

Why is profitability measurement being rebuilt in European banks, and what challenges does it present?

Profitability measurement is being redesigned to include comprehensive factors such as funding costs, capital consumption, operational cost to serve, and risk. This holistic approach supports critical decisions about client segmentation, pricing floors, relationship management, and cost reduction without harming client experience. The process can be messy as it often challenges longstanding assumptions; products that appeared profitable under traditional accounting may look different once all relevant costs are considered. The goal is to create honest steering logic that reduces decision-grade mistakes.

What role does data play in redefining the financial function within banks?

Data is central to transforming finance into an effective operating system. Finance functions are taking stronger ownership of data standards for key metrics like margin, risk-weighted assets (RWA), liquidity, and costs. They collaborate closely with IT and risk teams to improve data lineage and reconciliation while building robust control frameworks around management reporting. Automating repetitive reporting tasks frees up analysts' time for deeper analysis. Addressing issues like metric ownership, source-of-truth systems, and resolving discrepancies between systems is essential for accurate decision-making.

How is planning evolving from traditional annual budgeting to support better bank steering?

Planning in banks is transitioning from rigid annual budgets towards rolling forecasts that update frequently based on changing conditions. This approach emphasizes scenario-based analysis over single-line forecasts, driver-led models instead of spreadsheet-heavy processes, tighter integration with balance sheet constraints and client behavior insights, and greater transparency about uncertainties. Such dynamic planning enables banks to model impacts of changes in deposit pricing, product volume shifts, or operational cost variations on net interest income, liquidity, capital usage, and compensation strategies.

What benefits do banks gain by transforming their financial function into an operating system?

By evolving finance into an operating system that connects funding, capital allocation, pricing, risk management, and strategy seamlessly, banks achieve faster decision-making capabilities and enhanced agility. This transformation leads to consistent profitability views across departments; improved internal pricing that avoids harmful incentives; more honest steering logic supporting strategic growth; stronger data governance ensuring reliable inputs; efficient use of talent through automation; and adaptive planning processes that respond swiftly to market changes—all contributing to sustainable competitive advantage in a complex regulatory environment.