Private equity’s value-creation math has changed. Bain’s 2026 Global Private Equity Report describes the new equation bluntly: “12 is the new 5.” Where roughly 5% annual EBITDA growth could once support target returns over a five-year hold, today’s deal environment can require closer to 10% to 12% growth because leverage is lower, borrowing costs are higher, and purchase multiples remain elevated. Bain’s prescription is equally important: value creation needs to move from diligence into execution on Day 1.
For financial services portfolio companies, technology is increasingly part of that execution problem. Core platforms, data architectures, integration layers and regulatory technology can determine how quickly a lender launches a product or how easily a wealth platform absorbs an acquisition. They also influence how much engineering capacity remains available for growth rather than maintenance.
Core Banking Modernization Services can therefore become part of the operating agenda from Day 1, particularly when technology debt is directly limiting growth or the sponsor’s ability to execute its investment thesis.
The more interesting focus is how the sponsor builds the capability to modernize repeatedly without recreating the same cost, talent and execution problem at every portfolio company.
That is where India’s Global Capability Center model deserves a closer look.
The GCC is becoming a PE operating asset
India’s GCC market has reached a scale that changes the economics and the operating conversation. The 2026 Zinnov-Nasscom India GCC Landscape reports 2,117 GCCs, $98.4 billion in revenue and 2.36 million professionals.
More significantly for PE, it identifies 504 PE-backed GCCs.
The Economic Times reported in June 2026 that more than 500 GCCs in India are owned or acquired by PE-backed companies and that PE-backed companies accounted for nearly 31% of new GCC additions between FY2021 and FY2026.
This clearly means, the GCC is becoming an institutional capability for PE firms. A well-designed center can accumulate architectural knowledge, domain expertise, integration patterns, security controls, engineering practices and proprietary tooling. Capabilities that do not disappear when one modernization project ends.
For a sponsor pursuing a buy-and-build strategy, that creates an entirely different economic proposition.
The economics are about reuse, not just labor
The conventional business case for an India GCC starts with the difference between the fully loaded cost of US and Indian technology talent. However, a PE sponsor should go beyond this and evaluate the GCC across four economic layers:
- Run-rate economics: the cost of engineering, architecture, testing, data and platform teams compared with alternative delivery models.
- Fixed-cost absorption: whether a shared capability can support multiple programs or portfolio companies rather than each portfolio building its own team.
- Reuse economics: whether integration frameworks, migration tooling, cloud patterns and security controls can be reused across subsequent acquisitions.
- Time-to-value: whether the capability allows critical initiatives to begin earlier and execute concurrently rather than waiting for scarce specialist talent.
Now, let’s zoom in on the third and fourth layers.
Suppose a sponsor owns several specialty lenders. Each may have a different core, data model, API estate and vendor stack. Buying an engineering team for each company creates duplicated capability. A shared or strategically coordinated GCC can instead build reusable assets around the portfolio’s recurring technology problems.
We are talking about an operating leverage model.
It also changes how Core Banking Modernization Services should be evaluated. The question is not simply what modernization costs at one portfolio company. It is what capabilities created during that modernization can reduce the cost, risk or duration of the next one.
Modernization should follow the investment thesis, not technology fashion
Financial institutions have spent years debating whether to replace their cores. It’s time they shifted to ask which parts should actually be replaced.
Everest Group’s 2026 research describes a shift toward coexistence-driven, modular transformation, with composability and AI readiness becoming increasingly important. Its research also puts the global core banking technology market at approximately $13 billion to $14 billion in 2025, with projected growth to $23 billion to $24 billion by 2030.
For PE-backed companies, that direction means: a five-year investment horizon does not automatically justify a five-year core replacement.
The right architecture may involve selectively extracting capabilities from the legacy platform, introducing APIs around systems of record, modernizing customer and decisioning layers, and replacing components only when the economics and risk justify it.
This makes Core Banking Modernization Services less about a single migration program and more about sequencing.
A sponsor should ask:
- Which technology constraints directly limit revenue growth or acquisition integration?
- Which legacy components create material operational, regulatory or vendor risk?
- Which capabilities can be modernized without disturbing the system of record?
- Which modernization investments will remain strategically useful at exit?
- Which assets can be reused across future acquisitions?
The answer will rarely be ‘replace everything.’
Buy-and-build is where the GCC model becomes especially powerful
Consider the technology implications of a sponsor acquiring three lending businesses.
The commercial thesis may be straightforward: consolidate distribution, cross-sell products, eliminate duplicated functions and increase scale. Technology can quietly become the constraint.
Each acquisition may bring a different loan-origination platform, customer model, data structure, identity framework and integration architecture. The sponsor can spend months reconciling these systems before realizing the operational synergies originally underwritten.
In this context, a GCC can become more than a delivery center.
A dedicated capability can build reusable integration patterns, canonical data models, API frameworks, migration tooling and domain knowledge before the next transaction closes. Instead of imposing one architecture on every business, the objective is to establish a repeatable method for absorbing technology variation.
That makes Core Banking Modernization Services part of the sponsor’s acquisition infrastructure.
A traditional technology program optimizes one company’s architecture. A PE-oriented capability optimizes the sponsor’s ability to execute repeatedly.
The GCC model also changes the make-versus-buy decision
A portfolio company does not necessarily need a fully captive GCC on Day 1.
There is a spectrum:
| Model | Strategic use |
| Specialist outsourcing | Variable capacity and narrowly defined execution |
| GCC-as-a-Service | Rapid capability creation without immediately assuming the full operating burden |
| Captive GCC | Durable engineering ownership and long-term institutional capability |
| Portfolio-level capability | Shared technology assets across multiple portfolio companies |
The right answer depends on scale, expected duration, acquisition cadence and the amount of proprietary capability the sponsor wants to retain.
For a single small portfolio with an uncertain technology roadmap, a captive center may create too much fixed organizational overhead. For a platform with an active acquisition strategy and recurring technology requirements, the economics can be different.
The GCC decision therefore belongs in the value-creation plan, not something that needs to be left to the CIO after close. It should be underwritten alongside the operating model.
Risk architecture has to be designed into the model
Financial services introduces another constraint. A GCC cannot be treated as a generic offshore engineering organization and then wrapped in controls later.
The operating model needs to reflect the portfolio company’s regulatory obligations, data classification, access controls, third-party risk requirements, business continuity arrangements and security architecture from the outset.
This is particularly important as engineering teams increasingly work with AI.
EY’s 2025 India GCC Pulse research found that 58% of GCCs were investing in agentic AI and that 84% continued to operate primarily through in-house models, while GCCs were taking on broader end-to-end responsibilities.
For a financial services portfolio, that means governance cannot sit outside the engineering organization. Model controls, data lineage, software supply-chain security, privileged access and auditability need to be embedded into the technology delivery model.
The objective is not to eliminate offshore risk but to make the risk visible, controlled and auditable.
Measure the GCC like a value-creation capability
The wrong dashboard is dominated by headcount, utilization and cost per engineer.
Those metrics describe a labor supplier.
A PE operating partner should instead connect the GCC to the value-creation plan. Useful measures include:
- Time required to integrate a newly acquired technology environment
- Percentage of engineering capacity devoted to new capability versus maintenance
- Reuse of integration, migration and platform components across portfolio companies
- Reduction in critical vendor dependencies
- Product release velocity for strategically important initiatives
- Progress against defined modernization milestones
- Retention of critical domain and architectural knowledge
- Security and regulatory control performance
The point is to establish a direct line between the capability being built in India and the investment thesis being executed in the United States.
That is also where Core Banking Modernization Services should be measured differently. PE firms must move away from measuring the number of applications migrated to analyzing whether modernization removed a constraint that mattered to the business.
The exit question is different from the entry question
Technology is often evaluated at acquisition as a risk item and at exit as a diligence item. But today, a buyer evaluating a financial services company will want to understand its core architecture, technology debt, engineering organization, cybersecurity posture, vendor dependencies and ability to support growth.
A portfolio company that has built a repeatable technology capability can therefore present a different story from one that simply spent heavily on modernization.
The distinction is between technology spend that’s an expense line and technology capability that can demonstrate that the company has an operating model capable of continuing modernization after the sponsor leaves.
That is why Core Banking Modernization Services can have relevance beyond the immediate EBITDA case. Done correctly, modernization creates evidence of execution capability, not merely a cleaner technology stack.
What PE firms should change in the playbook
The emerging model suggests a different sequence for financial services sponsors:
- Assess technology as part of full-potential diligence, not as a post-close IT workstream.
- Determine which technology capabilities are specific to the portfolio and which could be shared across the portfolio.
- Establish the GCC economics against the investment horizon and acquisition pipeline, not against labor rates alone.
- Build reusable engineering and integration assets deliberately.
- Sequence core modernization around business constraints rather than pursuing wholesale replacement by default.
- Tie GCC leadership to US product, risk and business ownership.
- Treat security, regulatory controls and AI governance as part of the operating architecture.
- Measure the center on value-creation outcomes rather than seat count.
This approach is consistent with the broader direction of PE. Bain’s 2026 research argues that firms need sharper, data-backed value creation and faster execution from Day 1.
For financial services sponsors, an India GCC can provide part of that execution system.
Read More: Why PE Firms Need GCCs: The Definitive Guide to Global Capability Centers in Private Equity
The real opportunity
So what’s the strongest case for an India Global Capability Centers? It’s not that a portfolio company can perform the same engineering work for less money.
It is that the sponsor can build a capability that gets better with every modernization program and potentially more valuable with every acquisition.
The first modernization creates expertise. The second can reuse it. The third can standardize it. Over time, the GCC can become the institutional memory for technology transformation across a portfolio, while US-based product and business leaders retain ownership of commercial priorities and regulatory accountability.
That is a more mature way to think about Core Banking Modernization Services.
It also explains why the model is gaining traction among PE-backed companies in India. The market is already large enough to support specialized talent, domain expertise and sophisticated operating models.
For PE firms, the strategic question is: whether the GCC is designed as a temporary delivery mechanism or as a capability that compounds across the investment lifecycle.
The latter is where the more interesting value creation opportunity lies.
Trigent’s GCC Services
Trigent helps private equity firms and financial services portfolio companies design, launch and scale India-based GCCs aligned to their technology and value-creation priorities. Its capabilities include engineering, cloud, data, AI and Core Banking Modernization Services, with operating models designed to support both rapid launch and long-term capability development. Trigent can also support GCC-as-a-Service models for sponsors and portfolio companies that want to build capability without taking on the full complexity of establishing a captive center from day one.
Frequently Asked Questions
1 Why are private equity firms looking at India GCCs for financial services portfolio companies?
India GCCs can give PE-backed companies access to specialized engineering, data, cloud, AI and financial-services technology capabilities while creating a more durable operating model. For sponsors with multiple transformation initiatives or an active acquisition strategy, the bigger opportunity is building expertise and reusable technology assets that can support successive initiatives rather than sourcing equivalent capabilities repeatedly.
2 How can a GCC support a private equity firm’s value-creation strategy?
A GCC can support the investment thesis by accelerating technology initiatives that affect growth, integration, operating efficiency and scalability. Its impact can extend beyond a single portfolio company when engineering frameworks, domain expertise and technology assets can be reused across acquisitions or transformation programs.
3 Should a PE-backed financial services company replace its legacy core banking platform?
Not necessarily. A full replacement is only one modernization path. Depending on the business case, a company may achieve greater value by progressively separating selected capabilities, introducing modern integration layers, upgrading data and decisioning platforms, or replacing specific components while keeping parts of the existing core intact.
4 When does a captive GCC make more sense than GCC-as-a-Service?
The decision depends on the expected scale and duration of technology requirements, the sponsor’s acquisition pipeline and how much institutional capability the portfolio company wants to own. GCC-as-a-Service can be attractive when speed and flexibility are priorities, while a captive model becomes more compelling when there is sustained demand for specialized technology capabilities.
5 Can an India GCC help with technology integration after a portfolio acquisition?
Yes. A suitably structured center can develop repeatable approaches for connecting different applications, data environments and technology platforms. This can make subsequent integrations more predictable and reduce the need to build new technology capabilities from scratch after every transaction.
6 What should PE firms measure when evaluating the performance of a GCC?
Traditional measures such as team size and utilization are insufficient on their own. More meaningful measures include the speed of technology integration, progress against transformation milestones, reuse of engineering assets, reduction in technology dependencies, product delivery velocity, retention of critical expertise and the effectiveness of security and governance controls.
7 How can core banking modernization contribute to exit readiness?
Modernization can improve a buyer’s understanding of the company’s technology estate, reduce critical dependencies and demonstrate that the business has the engineering and operating capabilities required to support future growth. The objective is not simply to have newer technology at exit, but to demonstrate a technology organization that can continue evolving the platform after the transaction.
