4 Banking Consultant Interview Questions and Answers

Introduction

Junior banking consultants often support credit portfolio reviews after economic shifts. This question tests your ability to apply credit risk frameworks, perform data-driven analysis, and communicate recommendations to bank stakeholders — skills vital for consulting engagements in Italy's banking sector (e.g., regional banks, branch networks).

How to answer

• Outline a clear, step-by-step plan (scope, data needs, timeline).
• Identify key data sources: loan-level data, repayment history, collateral details, PD/LGD models, macro indicators for the affected region (e.g., unemployment, industry performance).
• Describe quantitative analysis you would perform: cohort default rates, vintage analysis, stress testing scenarios, concentration risk by sector/geography, and overlays for model limitations.
• Explain qualitative assessment: underwriting quality, covenant erosion, collateral valuation practices, and credit policy adherence at branch level.
• Explain regulatory and accounting considerations relevant in Italy/EU: IFRS 9 expected credit loss approach, Basel capital impacts, and reporting to Banca d'Italia where applicable.
• Propose actionable remediation: tightening underwriting, targeted collections, restructuring options, provisioning changes, and monitoring triggers.
• State how you'd present findings to stakeholders: clear executive summary, risk heatmaps, prioritized recommendations with estimated P&L/capital impact, and an implementation roadmap.

What not to say

• Giving only high-level statements without a practical stepwise plan or data requirements.
• Relying solely on qualitative judgement without describing specific analyses or metrics.
• Ignoring accounting/regulatory frameworks (e.g., IFRS 9) that materially affect provisioning and capital.
• Promising definitive forecasts rather than presenting scenarios and uncertainties.

Example answer

“First, I'd define scope with the bank: focus on SME loans in the impacted region and the past 24 months of performance. I would request loan-level files, collateral valuations, origination criteria, and any existing PD/LGD models. Quantitatively, I'd run vintage and cohort analyses to detect deterioration, calculate stressed PD/LGD under at least three macro scenarios, and identify sector/geographic concentrations. Qualitatively, I'd review underwriting exceptions and speak with regional credit managers to understand evolving borrower behavior. I would check IFRS 9 staging implications and estimate additional expected credit losses and potential capital impact under Basel rules. Finally, I would deliver an executive summary with risk heatmaps, prioritized remediation actions (e.g., targeted restructurings, tightened covenants, enhanced monitoring), and a 90/180/365-day implementation plan, including estimated P&L and capital effects to help the bank decide next steps.”

Introduction

Understanding IFRS 9 is essential for consultants working with banks in Italy and the EU, since it affects provisioning, financial statements, and capital planning. This technical question assesses knowledge of accounting standards, implementation steps, and operational impacts on processes and systems.

How to answer

• Begin by contrasting the conceptual difference: IFRS 9 requires forward-looking expected credit losses from initial recognition, whereas the incurred loss model recognized losses only after a trigger event.
• Explain the three-stage approach under IFRS 9: Stage 1 (12-month ECL), Stage 2 (lifetime ECL for significant increase in credit risk), Stage 3 (credit-impaired), and how lifetime vs 12-month ECL are measured.
• Describe practical implementation steps: gap analysis, data and systems upgrades to capture forward-looking information (macroeconomic scenarios), model development/validation for PD/LGD/EAD, threshold rules for staging/significant increase in credit risk, and governance and controls.
• Highlight operational impacts: changes to pricing, provisioning volatility, MIS/reporting changes, accounting and tax implications, and embedding the new workflow into credit operations.
• Mention stakeholder alignment: engage finance, risk, IT, and business units; train credit officers; and plan parallel runs before go-live.
• Reference relevant local considerations: coordination with Banca d'Italia guidance and alignment with EU supervisory expectations.

What not to say

• Confusing IFRS 9 with regulatory capital rules (Basel) — they are related but distinct.
• Giving only a conceptual answer without describing concrete implementation activities (data, models, governance).
• Saying it's a purely accounting change without mentioning business/process impacts.
• Claiming immediate perfect accuracy for forward-looking ECL estimates rather than acknowledging model uncertainty and scenario analysis.

Example answer

“IFRS 9 shifts from recognizing credit losses after a loss event to recognizing expected credit losses from initial loan recognition, using a three-stage model: 12-month ECL for performing assets, lifetime ECL when credit risk increases significantly, and lifetime ECL for credit-impaired assets. Practically, a bank should start with a detailed gap analysis, upgrade data warehouses to store lifetime cash flow histories and forward-looking macro inputs, and develop PD/LGD/EAD models capable of producing 12-month and lifetime estimates. The bank must define objective staging criteria and build governance for model validation and approval. Operationally, IFRS 9 affects MIS, increases provisioning volatility, and may change pricing and capital planning, so a parallel run and close coordination with finance, risk, IT, and local supervisors (e.g., Banca d'Italia) are critical before full adoption.”

Introduction

As a junior banking consultant in Italy you'll frequently interact with non-technical stakeholders — local bank managers, clients, or senior executives. This behavioral question evaluates your communication, empathy, and client-management skills.

How to answer

• Use the STAR method: briefly set the Situation and Task, describe the Actions you took, and end with measurable Results.
• Highlight how you adapted language and visuals to the stakeholder's level (avoiding jargon, using analogies).
• Describe any tools you used: charts, simple models, one-page summaries, or scenario comparisons.
• Explain how you checked for understanding (asking open questions, having them paraphrase decisions) and how you addressed concerns or objections.
• Mention follow-up steps you offered: documentation, further meetings, or training sessions to ensure ongoing comfort.

What not to say

• Claiming you always use technical detail because it's more accurate — this may alienate non-experts.
• Failing to show empathy for stakeholder constraints or time pressures.
• Not describing any verification of understanding or follow-up support.
• Taking all credit and not acknowledging team contributions in preparing the materials.

Example answer

“At an internship with a regional bank in Milan, I needed to explain a proposed loan restructuring to a branch manager unfamiliar with the bank's central recovery model. I prepared a one-page visual that compared the borrower’s cashflow scenarios pre- and post-restructure, used plain-language analogies (comparing the restructure to 'rescheduling a mortgage'), and avoided technical acronyms. During the meeting I asked the manager to summarize the key points back to me to confirm understanding and addressed his concerns about customer relations and branch targets. As a result, he felt comfortable implementing the restructure for two clients, both of which subsequently returned to regular payments; we documented the process so other branches could replicate it.”

Introduction

Banking consultants are routinely asked to diagnose financial performance drivers and propose practical interventions. This question evaluates your analytical framework, sector knowledge (balance sheet dynamics, rates, fee income), and ability to translate analysis into prioritized recommendations for management.

How to answer

• Begin with a structured diagnostic framework: analyze revenue (interest and non-interest), funding costs, asset yields, credit mix, and balance sheet mix trends.
• Sketch the data you would request (yield curves, loan/deposit mix by segment, repricing schedules, deposit betas, fee income by product, provisioning trends, competitor benchmarks).
• Explain key analyses you would run: gap analysis for re-pricing, deposit sensitivity to rate changes, product-level contribution margins, cost-of-funds breakdown, and stress scenarios under different rate paths.
• Translate findings into prioritized recommendations (e.g., repricing strategy, deposit mix shifts, hedging or ALM actions, pricing and product changes, cost optimization, targeted fee growth opportunities).
• Discuss implementation considerations: governance, timeline, required systems or data changes, stakeholder engagement (Treasury, CFO, commercial teams), and quick wins vs. long-term initiatives.
• Quantify impact where possible (e.g., estimated NIM improvement, ROI, capital or liquidity implications) and outline monitoring metrics post-implementation.

What not to say

• Giving only high-level suggestions without a clear diagnostic method or data needs.
• Proposing complex treasury hedges or product changes without discussing execution risk or costing.
• Ignoring regulatory or balance sheet constraints (capital, liquidity coverage ratios).
• Overpromising immediate large NIM improvements without realistic timelines or trade-offs.

Example answer

“I'd start with a rapid diagnostic using the bank's P&L, ALM reports, and repricing schedules. My first step is to decompose NIM into asset yields, funding costs, and mix effects across retail, commercial and securities. I'd run a repricing gap and deposit beta analysis to see how rising rates (or falls) are impacting margins. If I find funding costs rising faster than asset yields, I'd recommend short-term actions like targeted deposit promotions to stabilize low-cost core deposits, rebalancing new lending mix toward higher-yielding but credit-approved segments, and implementing forward-looking hedges with Treasury. Mid-term, I'd push for pricing optimization (segmented by profitability), cross-sell initiatives to grow non-interest income, and an ALM governance upgrade to improve rate-scenario planning. I would estimate these combined actions could improve NIM by X–Y bps in 12 months, while monitoring impacts on liquidity and capital ratios.”

Introduction

This situational/leadership question tests crisis management, regulatory understanding, stakeholder communication, and your ability to deliver compliant, sustainable control improvements under pressure—critical skills for a banking consultant advising U.S. banks.

How to answer

• Outline immediate triage actions: contain the incident, preserve evidence, notify required parties (BSA officer, legal, regulators) per timelines, and stabilize customer-facing communications.
• Describe how you'd assess root causes: review KYC/onboarding workflows, system logs, staff training and oversight, exception handling, and transaction monitoring gaps.
• Explain remediation design: quick fixes (e.g., enhanced manual review rules, temporary limits), mid-term control automation (identity verification tech, enhanced fraud scoring), and governance changes (roles, KPIs, audit cadence).
• Show how you'd coordinate with regulators: transparent briefings, remediation timelines, evidence of corrective actions, and proposed monitoring/reporting commitments.
• Detail stakeholder communications strategy: messaging for customers, community leaders, board updates, employee briefings, and media if needed—balancing transparency and legal considerations.
• Include metrics and monitoring: reduced fraud rates, time-to-detect, onboarding failure rates, audit results, and board-level dashboards to track progress.

What not to say

• Saying you would downplay the issue or delay regulator notification to avoid scrutiny.
• Proposing only technical fixes without addressing governance, culture, and training.
• Failing to mention legal or compliance coordination when fraud and reputational risk are involved.
• Promising a complete fix immediately without a staged remediation plan.

Example answer

“My first priority would be containment and compliance: ensure the fraud vector is blocked, preserve evidence, and notify regulators and the bank’s BSA/Compliance team within required timelines. Concurrently I’d set up an incident steering committee (including legal, compliance, operations, and communications) and run a rapid root-cause review of onboarding controls and staff practices. For immediate remediation, I’d implement heightened manual reviews for high-risk onboarding, tighten acceptance criteria, and issue temporary transaction limits. For medium-term remediation, I'd design enhanced identity verification, automated fraud scoring, and a revised escalation workflow tied to training and clear accountability. I would proactively engage the regulator with a concise remediation plan and timelines, and work with the CEO and communications team on transparent messaging to customers and the community. Finally, I’d deliver a board dashboard with KPIs (fraud incidence, detection time, onboarding failure rates) to demonstrate progress and rebuild trust.”

Introduction

Consultants must lead multi-disciplinary programs across technology, operations, risk and business lines. This behavioral question evaluates leadership, program management, change management, and ability to measure outcomes—critical for successful transformations in U.S. banks.

How to answer

• Use the STAR (Situation, Task, Action, Result) structure to keep your answer organized.
• Start by describing the scale and context (type of bank, objective of transformation, timeline, team composition).
• Emphasize your role: stakeholder alignment, program governance, vendor management, and decision points you owned.
• Detail specific actions: how you managed scope, risks, change management (training, communications), and ensured data/system integration.
• Quantify outcomes: cost or time savings, customer or employee adoption metrics, reduction in error rates or compliance findings.
• Reflect on lessons learned: what you'd do differently, how you sustained benefits, and how you measured success.

What not to say

• Focusing only on your technical contributions without demonstrating leadership or cross-functional coordination.
• Claiming sole credit for team achievements.
• Providing vague outcomes with no metrics or tangible impact.
• Omitting challenges faced or how you navigated setbacks.

Example answer

“At a mid-sized U.S. regional bank, I led a 9-month program to implement a new digital onboarding platform to reduce account opening times and improve compliance. I served as engagement lead and program manager, aligning stakeholders across retail, compliance, IT, and our vendor. We established a weekly governance forum, clear RACI, and a prioritized backlog. I drove integration of the vendor’s ID verification APIs with the bank’s core and CRM, managed data migration risks, and led the change plan—training branch staff and rolling out phased pilot locations. Post-launch we reduced average onboarding time from 48 hours to under 2 hours, increased completed digital applications by 60% in three months, and lowered manual KYC exceptions by 70%. Key lessons were the importance of early end-user testing and embedding compliance sign-offs into sprint reviews to avoid late rework.”

Introduction

Senior banking consultants in Germany must balance digital innovation with strict regulatory requirements. This question assesses your ability to drive transformation, manage risk and compliance, and coordinate stakeholders in a regulated environment.

How to answer

• Start with context: describe the bank size, product scope (retail, corporate, payments) and the drivers for transformation (cost, customer experience, competition).
• Explain the governance you established: compliance checkpoints, cross-functional steering committee, and the role of legal/risk teams.
• Detail concrete actions you took to meet regulatory requirements (e.g., DPIAs for GDPR, strong customer authentication for PSD2, reporting to BaFin) and how these were embedded into delivery sprints.
• Describe how you managed stakeholder communication and training (executive sponsors, IT, compliance, operations, business units).
• Quantify results where possible (reduced time-to-market, compliance audit findings, cost savings, customer adoption) and note lessons learned about trade-offs between speed and control.

What not to say

• Focusing only on technical features without addressing regulatory obligations and controls.
• Claiming legal/compliance was handled completely by others—senior consultants must show oversight and coordination.
• Being vague about results or failing to mention measurable outcomes.
• Underestimating cultural or change-management challenges within the bank.

Example answer

“At a mid-sized German retail bank, I led a two-year programme to modernize our online payments and mobile onboarding. I set up a steering committee including CIO, head of compliance and a BaFin-experienced external advisor. We mapped requirements for PSD2 (SCA and XS2A) and GDPR, ran DPIAs and integrated privacy-by-design in our architecture. Delivery used 3-month release trains with compliance acceptance criteria built into each sprint. We also ran targeted training for front-office and operations. As a result, we launched the new mobile app in nine months, achieved PSD2 readiness ahead of regulatory deadlines, reduced customer onboarding time from seven to two days, and passed a follow-up internal audit with no major findings. The key lesson was engaging compliance early and turning regulatory requirements into testable user stories so they didn’t become a late-stage blocker.”

Introduction

This situational question evaluates consulting skills: problem structuring, market analysis, pragmatic strategy development and implementation planning—critical when advising German banks facing fintech competition.

How to answer

• Outline a clear diagnostic approach: review customer segments, core processes (credit decisioning, onboarding), technology stack, data quality, pricing and distribution channels.
• Mention key analyses you would run: process-mapping, time-to-decision benchmark against fintechs, cost-to-serve, credit risk metrics and customer journey mapping.
• Propose a five-step plan that balances short-term wins and longer-term capability building (e.g., quick automation of decision rules, API enablement, data and scoring improvements, partnerships with fintechs, cultural/operational changes).
• Describe how you would prioritize initiatives using impact vs effort (RICE or similar) and propose KPIs to track success (time-to-decision, approval accuracy, NPS, default rates).
• Address practical constraints in the German market (data privacy, BaFin oversight, existing legacy core banking) and explain mitigation strategies.

What not to say

• Offering high-level generic strategies without diagnostic steps or measurable KPIs.
• Proposing rapid, large-scale core replacements as the first step without considering cost/time and regulatory implications.
• Ignoring data protection/GDPR or BaFin constraints when suggesting data-driven solutions.
• Failing to include how to measure and pilot proposed changes before full rollout.

Example answer

“First, I’d run a focused diagnostic: measure current end-to-end time-to-decision, map decision rules, assess data sources and tech constraints, and interview front-line relationship managers and customers. Based on that, my five-step plan would be: (1) implement quick automation for low-risk credit approvals using existing rule engines to cut decision times; (2) create an API layer for faster data ingestion and integration with credit bureaus; (3) enhance data and scoring models (including alternative data) to improve acceptance rates without materially increasing risk; (4) pilot a fintech partnership for credit origination to learn faster while protecting core systems; (5) launch a change program with training and new KPIs (time-to-decision, approval rate, default rate, customer satisfaction). I’d prioritize actions using impact/effort scoring and run a 3-month pilot for steps 1–3 to demonstrate ROI before scaling. Throughout, we’d ensure GDPR-compliant data handling and consult with the bank’s compliance team to satisfy BaFin expectations.”

Introduction

Consultants often face tense negotiations over scope, fees or recommendations. For senior consultants in German banking, the ability to negotiate commercially while preserving trust and compliance is essential.

How to answer

• Use the STAR format: Situation, Task, Action, Result to structure your story.
• Clearly explain the negotiation context (scope creep, fee dispute, conflicting stakeholder expectations) and why it mattered to both parties.
• Detail the actions you took: listening, reframing value, proposing alternatives (e.g., phased scope, outcome-based fees), involving senior sponsors, and ensuring regulatory/procurement compliance.
• Show how you preserved the relationship: transparency, documenting agreements, follow-up commitments and delivering quick wins.
• Quantify the outcome (retained contract value, satisfaction scores, subsequent work) and reflect on what you learned about negotiating in a regulated banking environment.

What not to say

• Claiming you always get what you want—negotiation requires compromise.
• Admitting to bypassing procurement or compliance approvals to close a deal.
• Focusing solely on winning the negotiation rather than long-term relationship and value delivery.
• Being vague about your concrete role in resolving the dispute.

Example answer

“I worked with a regional German bank where mid-project the client requested significant additional analytics without additional budget. The procurement team also raised contract compliance questions. I convened a meeting with the bank’s project sponsor and procurement, listened to their concerns, then reframed our value: we proposed a phased approach—deliver the originally agreed scope on time while adding a second paid phase for the additional analytics with clearer deliverables and ROI targets. To address procurement concerns, we provided a compliant amendment with transparent pricing and milestone-based payments. We also agreed on a small pilot of the new analytics to show value quickly. The client accepted the amendment, we secured the additional scope worth 25% of the original contract, and the pilot led to further work. The episode taught me the importance of early, transparent communications and structuring commercially sensible, compliant options.”

Introduction

Lead banking consultants must deliver large-scale change that satisfies regulators while meeting business objectives and time pressures. This question assesses your ability to manage stakeholders, interpret regulation practically, and deliver under constraint.

How to answer

• Use the STAR structure: Situation, Task, Action, Result to keep the story clear.
• Start by describing the regulatory driver (e.g., FCA guidance, PRA rule change, PSD2/Open Banking) and the business goal or deadline.
• Explain your role: scope ownership, teams you led, and key stakeholders (risk, compliance, operations, IT, senior execs).
• Detail concrete actions: how you translated regulation into requirements, risk assessments you commissioned, the governance and prioritisation framework you established, and trade-offs agreed with the board.
• Quantify outcomes where possible: timelines met, reduction in regulatory findings, cost impact, customer experience metrics, or business KPIs.
• Reflect briefly on what you learned and how you would apply that in future programmes.

What not to say

• Focusing only on high-level strategy without specifics about regulatory interpretation or how you ensured compliance.
• Claiming sole credit for a complex programme without acknowledging cross-functional teams.
• Saying you ignored compliance constraints to meet commercial targets.
• Providing vague or unverifiable metrics (e.g., 'we improved things a lot' without numbers).

Example answer

“At a mid-sized UK retail bank, I led a 9-month transformation to implement PRA operational resilience requirements while launching a new SME lending product. The situation required us to meet a firm regulatory milestone and hit a Q4 revenue target. I formed a cross-functional steering group including risk, legal, IT, and product; ran a risk-and-impact assessment to map critical services; and created a prioritised delivery backlog balancing resilience gaps with product features. We introduced a two-track delivery where minimum regulatory controls were hardened first, and product enhancements were phased in. Through weekly governance and a clear RACI, we met the PRA milestone with no findings and launched the product one week after target—achieving 85% of initial uptake forecasts while reducing incident frequency by 40% in the first quarter. The experience reinforced the value of transparent trade-offs and strong governance when balancing regulatory and commercial pressures.”

Introduction

Technical consultancy in banking requires practical solutions that address legacy constraints, regulatory requirements (data residency, GDPR), and operational risk. This question evaluates technical design thinking, risk mitigation planning, and regulatory awareness.

How to answer

• Start by outlining assessment steps: current-state analysis (applications, data flows, dependencies), regulatory constraints (data residency, GDPR, contractual obligations), and business drivers.
• Describe high-level architecture choices: cloud model (public/private/hybrid), vendor selection criteria (security, resilience, certification like ISO 27001), and data partitioning strategies for UK residency.
• Explain migration approach: phased vs big-bang, strangler pattern for legacy decommissioning, pilot scope, and rollback strategies.
• Detail operational risk controls: data validation checks, dual-running, reconciliation, incident response, DR testing, and service-level agreements.
• Cover compliance controls: data mapping, encryption, access controls, audit trails, and engagement with DPO/Legal and the regulator where necessary.
• Mention governance and change management: migration governance board, runbooks, run-the-bank vs change-the-bank resource split, and training plans.
• Conclude with measurable success criteria: cutover success rate, RTO/RPO targets, performance baselines, and regulatory sign-off milestones.

What not to say

• Proposing a simple lift-and-shift without addressing data residency or regulatory controls.
• Ignoring legacy integration or the cost/effort of re-platforming core banking processes.
• Neglecting rollback/contingency plans and operational runbooks.
• Overlooking the need to engage compliance or not planning independent validation and testing.

Example answer

“I would begin with a comprehensive discovery to map systems, data ownership and flows, regulatory constraints (UK data residency, GDPR), and SLAs. For architecture, I'd favour a hybrid cloud approach using UK-region public cloud services combined with secure private connectivity for sensitive components, ensuring encryption at rest and in transit and role-based access controls. Migration would follow a phased strangler approach: identify non-critical functions to re-platform first, run them in parallel with legacy for reconciliation, then progressively migrate higher-risk components. Key controls would include end-to-end data reconciliation, automated validation suites, dual-running for core transaction processing, and documented rollback procedures for each cutover window. Compliance would be ensured by data classification, mapping PII, involving the DPO for DPIAs, and documenting audit trails for regulators. Governance would be via a migration board with weekly checkpoints and daily stand-ups during cutovers. Success metrics would be zero regulatory breaches, meeting RTO/RPO targets, and no critical incidents during a three-month post-migration window. This approach minimises operational risk while meeting UK compliance requirements and delivering cloud benefits incrementally.”

Introduction

This situational question checks your ability to quickly scope regulatory, commercial, and operational feasibility in a time-boxed advisory engagement — a common requirement for lead consultants advising banks expanding internationally.

How to answer

• Begin with a high-level framework: regulatory assessment, commercial viability, operational readiness, and go-to-market strategy.
• Outline an immediate 90-day plan broken into phases: discovery (weeks 1–2), regulatory & commercial analysis (weeks 3–5), operational & capital modelling (weeks 6–8), and recommendations & roadmap (weeks 9–12).
• Specify deliverables for each phase: stakeholder map, licensing requirements matrix, capital and liquidity impact model, target operating model, cost estimate, and a phased market-entry roadmap with gated decision points.
• Explain stakeholder engagement: involve local counsel, regulator liaison, finance, treasury, risk, and business heads; identify decision-makers and sign-off criteria.
• Address practical considerations: passporting limitations post-Brexit, local entity vs branch model, outsourcing restrictions, AML/KYC local requirements, and tax implications.
• Include risk mitigations: conditional dependencies, contingency plans, and KPIs to monitor during the pilot phase.
• Close by describing how you'd present findings and next steps to the board, including an objective recommendation and options with trade-offs.

What not to say

• Giving a high-level opinion without a clear timeboxed plan or concrete deliverables.
• Assuming EU regulatory harmonisation without checking local nuances.
• Overlooking capital or tax implications and how they affect go/no-go decisions.
• Failing to include local experts (legal/regulatory) in the plan.

Example answer

“I would propose a focused 90-day engagement with clear milestones. Weeks 1–2: discovery — interview executives, map target customer segments, and identify initial markets (e.g., Ireland, Netherlands). Deliverable: stakeholder map and hypothesis assessment. Weeks 3–5: regulatory and licensing analysis — engage local counsel to document licensing routes (branch vs local entity), prudential requirements, and AML/KYC rules; produce a licensing requirements matrix. Weeks 6–8: commercial and capital modelling — build a P&L/capital model showing initial capex, operating costs, and required capital buffers under local rules; draft target operating model (distribution, compliance, treasury). Weeks 9–12: recommendations and roadmap — present options (e.g., start via an EU subsidiary in Ireland vs partnership model), each with timelines, costs, impact on capital ratios, and recommended pilot KPIs. I would ensure early engagement with finance for capital impacts, compliance for licensing risk, and local counsel for regulatory sign-off. The output would be a board-ready paper with a recommended route-to-market and a risk-mitigated pilot plan. This staged approach allows the bank to make an informed decision quickly while minimising regulatory and capital surprises.”