The Amicorp Group (Amicorp) is a financial services company specialized in providing corporate and trust and estate planning

management services, private wealth, asset and project finance structures andbusiness process outsourcing services (BPO Services). Amicorp delivers responsive administrative, legal, corporate and fiduciary structuring services to a broad range of clients.

Clients with international operations and investments benefit from the support of Amicorps proactive and result driven professionals. Working as a global team in 28 countries, over 600 financial services specialists contribute their individual talents to Amicorps broad range of expertise and experience. These professionals include attorneys, Certified Public Accountants, and bankersmany of whom are members of national and international fiscal and legal bar associations. They design and implement creative and innovative strategic corporate solutions to meet the challenges of todays complex international business environment. Amicorp Business Process Outsourcing (BPO Services), the BPO division of the Amicorp Group, is leading the finance outsourcing (BPO Services) initiatives of the company. We offer a broad spectrum of business solutions in Outsourcing of Finance & Accounting (F&A) Processes, Trust Back Office Outsourcing BPO Services, Investment Portfolio Administration, and Compliance and Information Technology (IT) Services. Amicorp is wholly independent and privately owned. This eliminates the risk of any conflicts of interest arising from cross selling of audit, investment, legal and tax advisory services. As a fully integrated corporate group rather than a partnership, Amicorp provides clients a strong central direction and integrated, unbiased teamwork between our worldwide network of offices, located in: Argentina, Barbados, Brazil, the British Virgin Islands, Chile, China, Colombia, Cyprus, Curacao, the United Arab Emirates, Hong Kong, India, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, New Zealand, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

Compliance issues are no longer contained to a jurisdiction and with the increasing and rapid changes in the markets worldwide and with reporting obligations becoming more and more arduous, clients are turning to alternative time saving solutions. We have a team of industry experts and offer advanced skills to support your efforts in all your legal, financial, and administrative processes.

Our outsourcing services offer the flexibility you need to reduce time-to-market across jurisdictions. Our services are designed to relieve clients of time consuming work, so they can focus their time, energy and resources on higher value added activities. Our Bangalore BPO center is the core of our BPO operations. Our services combine our process expertise with strong technology including the latest industry standard software and hardware solutions. With constant implementation of new laws and regulations in jurisdictions around the world, so too are the endless changes in global taxation treaties. Our team of specialist stay up-to-date and are informed on these changes, exploring new markets constantly offering new information and cutting edge solutions to our clients globally.

Four Hot Deal Structures and Pricing Models in Sourcing of BPO and KPO Services
Posted May 21, 2012 by Bierce & Kenerson, P.C. Print This Post CIO Magazine observes that outsourcing service providers are offering innovative pricing models to escape commodity-based pricing pressures: joint ventures, business outcomes-based pricing, revenue sharing and dedicated centers of excellence. Heres an outsourcing lawyers analysis of these pricing models. I have only two questions: is it valid, legal, binding and enforceable? Does it cover the most significant risk-reward scenarios? Classic Pricing Model: Inputs and Outputs. The traditional pricing model has been either an agreed fee per resource used (such as dollars per full-time equivalent) or, if demand and scope are stable, per -user per month. These resource-based pricing models start with a base case of the customers current utilization rates for resources and projects future changes in volume. The provider wants to ensure that demand will exceed a baseline, or that it can exit due to unrealized expectations. In a resource-based pricing model, the customer wants scalability and predictability based on demand levels. This traditional pricing model has resulted in mismatches of supply and demand, cost overruns due to the vendors adding resources to accommodate changed demand or scope, and a focus on input costs, not outputs or business results. Further, this pricing model leaves the customer with little control over management of operations, which achieves the basic goals of delegation of operations but leaves the customer with only the contract to exercise governance and change management. Innovative Alternatives: 1. Joint Ventures. Any joint venture involves an ongoing relationship for a substantial time. It can take the form of a contract or a new legal entity between the customer and service provider. Contract Model: Scope, SLAs, Pricing, Governance. The contract-based model is reflected in the classic outsourcing agreement. The scope of service is defined, and related tasks and responsibilities are allocated, in an exhibit. In early outsourcing contracts, the scope was defined by taking existing processes and re-defining them for sharing between the users and the provider. Currently, it is a well-established best practice to take industry-standard definitions of process workflows (such as by using ITIL or ISO standards for operating a data center, or security management) as the baseline for defining scope. By using industry standards, the parties improve transparency of interactions and workflows, as well as better governance, regulatory compliance and risk management. The classic sourcing agreement also includes service level a greements (SLAs) as key

performance indicators, and pricing discounts for missing the targets. Finally, governance by contract involves establishment of governance bodies, meeting schedules, informal dispute resolution, escalation of issues to senior executives and eventual arbitration. Entity-Type Joint Ventures. The entity-type joint venture offer some advantages over classic sourcing contracts. This assumes the entitys structure contemplates the predictable relationship life cycle starting with tra nsition and steady-state, then progressing to one of three future outcomes: renegotiation (such as restructuring of scope, SLAs or pricing), rebid/or and post-termination insourcing. Such advantages arise from the ownership structure: the entity, not the provider, is delivering the services to the corporate customer. An entity-type joint venture can be structured to look just like a captive shared services center of excellence. The JV entity, not the service provider, receives the customers proprietary process and the service providers personnel. The resulting intellectual property, knowledge management procedures, workforce administration and deliverables are allocated under the entitys internal corporate documents, such as an LLC operating agreem ent, and any licenses, services agreements and other transactional documents to define the roles of the parties. This structure fits industry-specific BPO and KPO services, where knowledge management generates the most value to the customer. Customers may like entity-type joint ventures for two reasons. First, it can control operations by its ownership of equity interests. Ownership can be shared during the term and transferred to either the service provider or the customer upon termination. Second, the JV model has built-in governance models and requires the provider to disclose all cost and process information as co-managers.

Call Option. Under a call option, the customer would have the right to require the service provider to transfer equity ownership to the customer. The customer could convert the entity into a captive by merely taking ownership of all equity. A transfer to the customer might occur if the customer wanted to take control of the people, process rights and internal knowledge base of the joint venture.

Put Option. Under a put option, the customer would have the right to transfer equity ownership to the service provider. This scenario might occur if the customer felt that the entity provided no value to the customer or a new supplier would provide better services, value or seemless integration.

Impact of any Transfer of Ownership. Upon either transfer of ownership rights, there would be a transfer of shares, and no termination of employment or assignment of intellectual property, real estate (or leases) or equipment. The entity has the full bundle of operating rights. However, there could be tax consequences for each party. The lesson of the 2012 Vodaphone decision (of Indias Supreme Court) and the Indian governments General Anti-Abuse Rules suggests that third-country holding companies would be appropriate. However, intercompany pricing between related parties would invite double taxation in the absence of a double-income tax treaty, and such treaties may limit benefits to local nationals.

Service providers may like this model for other reasons. It can simplify governance management. It is an alternative to insourcing. In the end, though, joint-venture based arrangements require careful negotiation on:

allocation of human resources and knowledge management, competitive offerings, and opportunity costs for the service provider and the economic incentives for the service provider to hire, train and then lose skilled personnel who could be lost not by attrition, but by a call option.

Also, joint ventures run the same legal gauntlet as any business. Bankruptcy is possible. Seehttp://www.outsourcing-law.com/2009/10/case-study-farmland-industries-inc/ 2. Business Outcomes-Based Pricing. The resource-based pricing model fails to identify opportunities or opportunity cost of the enterprise customer. An outcomes-based pricing structure will align the customers bottom-line goals with the service providers compensation. In employment law, this kind of incentive compensation represents a bonus for achieving benefits for the employer. As such, incentive-based

compensation can work effectively. However, just as senior executives get paid a base salary, so too would the service provider receive a base compensation relating to the customary financial base case starting point for resource-based pricing. Sophisticated customers familiar with SLA management understand the negative impact of choosing unwisely. If you target one outcome, you will optimize that outcome, potentially at the expense of all others. But if you then add multiple SLAs and multiple optimized metrics, you create conflicts of priorities, and e ach priority will have a pecking order based on the financial reward structure. Thus, for the customer a broad business outcome could be used: shareholder value, cash flow, cost of goods sold, return on equity, return on investment, etc. For the service provider, an outcome-based pricing exposes a raw nerve. The service provider controls its service delivery environment, but not the customers core business operations. The outcome-based pricing method forces the provider to become intimately familiar wi th the customers business and commercial environment and provide consulting services (in addition to IT-enabled BPO or KPO) without additional compensation. And the customer might not accept any provider recommendations for achieving the relevant business outcome. Hence, the service provider will adopt such an approach only if it understands the customers business gaps (to the extent disclosed or discovered in due diligence) up front, and it sees how its efficiencies can improve upon such gaps. But after the provider fixes the customers train wreck processes, future outcomes-based pricing might not be able to achieve such goals. This approach is just another way to address the problem of continuous process improvement vs. specific short-term improvement projects. 3. Revenue Sharing. Revenue sharing focuses on defining revenue sources and increasing gross and/or net revenue. This pricing method assumes the parties will be able to increase revenues by contributing to a quasi-joint venture that measures only revenue, not expenses. Revenue-sharing models resemble traditional build-own-operate-transfer models of project finance. An independent private company builds an infrastructure (such as a toll road, port, airport, bridge or other facility), operates it (and collects revenues), then transfers ownership to the local community (e.g., a government). This model encourages BPO and KPO service providers to invest, collect a share of revenue for a while and then, if mutually agreeable, let go of the investment upon expiration. Revenue sharing models are familiar in other industries, such as the distribution of Hollywood films in the aftermarket. Success depends on the ability of the service provider to streamline the customer interface, build brand equity and manage collections in a transparent, audited manner. Customers may like revenue sharing since it requires no payment without an increase in revenue. The customer might be a non-profit membership organization that wishes to license its membership list and organizational meeting archives for a service provider to manage as a service for promotion and member loyalty. What customers must balance, however, is whether the revenue gains are attributable to the service provider or to the customers own initiatives. Service providers may like this model if they understand the customers business, the needs of its users and how to sell an improved service. Pitfalls for both parties abound. The enterprise customer cannot reasonably expect its service provider to depend on revenue growth if the enterprise customer does not perform its own, mutually agreed efforts for revenue growth. This may involve new product development, patenting, branding, marketing, sales support and customer after-sales support. And, most important, the customer needs to announce upfront that it wants a creative pricing model. 4. Dedicated Center of Excellence. A center of excellence, shared service center, offshore development center and virtual outsourcing all enable a global enterprise to develop, manage, update and retain knowledge processes. A dedicated center

of excellence offers outsourcing benefits of managed services, minimal startup capital investment and a managed workforce, without ownership. It may just be an outsourcing with a call option (in the build -ownoperate-transfer model). Customer organizations might rely on this approach to build a center that would be transferred to a shared services captive over time. The big questions for both parties in such arrangements relate to return on investment by each, as well as key assumptions on supply, demand, opportunity cost and exit costs. HR Management: Having Practical Control without Legal Control. Pricing models rarely address the costs of human capital investment and workforce management. The advent of these innovative pricing models invites a discussion beyond merely whether the key employees can be hired by the customer organization upon expiration or termination. Key topics for agreement include:

Workforce Planning as a Team Sport. The customer having its own project management office anticipate the expiration of particular project phases where key employees might be transitioned away from the customer to another account of the service provider. By anticipating such transitions, and developing additional projects for such key employees to continue for the customer, both parties benefit through continuity, additional revenue and reduced training of replacement workers. Of course, this strains the providers own workforce management and the key employees career path. Unless the key employee is retained for increasingly challenging and complex work, he or she might leave the provider, to the detriment of both provider and customer.

Planning for the Insourcing after the Outsourcing. In the 1990s, outsourcing providers hired the customers production team, extracted and automated business processes, and then tranferrred work to lower cost venues. To the amazement of experienced employment lawyers at the time, enterprise customers were too nave, generous or stupid to demand a headhunters price: one third of the persons first year gross compensation. But when, now, enterprise customers want to re-hire persons who had been working on their business for years, service providers are reluctant to permit it, or seek to obtain a similar headhunters compensation. The topic of investment in human capital now merits a frank exchange on planning, scenarios, costs and benefits.

Conclusion. Sourcing relationship have become more modular. Every element of the relationship has an impact on pricing. Pricing structure, capital investment, ROI, end-game scenarios, tectonic shifts in the service delivery model and human capital management are now part of the process of getting to viable, enforceable agreements.

v.imp sight,link
http://www.epageflip.net/t/23062/10
Infosys BPO Finance and Accounting (F&A) Practice
Where global scale meets domain expertise Where smooth operations meets smart technology Where process metrics meets business value

With 11,300 professionals operating from 19 locations and servicing 64 clients, our Finance and Accounting (F&A) practice can take charge of your most complex processes. Our industry-leading

performance has been acknowledged by analyst firms, including being positioned in the Leaders Quadrant of the Magic Quadrant for Finance and Accounting BPO. Helping today's CFO create balance-sheet potency and build tomorrow's enterprise Committed to go beyond operational outcomes, we deliver measurable business value for chief financial officers (CFOs) across geographies and industries. We support the CFO community by: Rationalizing costs while achieving performance and profitability Mitigating risk and ensuring regulatory compliance Realizing best-in-class operations Identifying investments for future growth

How we deliver business value

We have the capability and commitment to implement an outsourced delivery model that is innovation-focused and takes an end-to-end enterprise view. We help realize your vision of creating a stable F&A function with innovative, compliant, and transparent accounting practices. Our capabilities and services are underpinned by our Business Value Realization (BVR) Framework, which drives a financial structure that is agile, metrics-driven, and connected with your enterprise.

Capital structure of bpo http://www.moneycontrol.com/financials/sp arshbposervices/capital-structure/SBP01

Capital Structure (Sparsh BPO Services) Period From 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 To 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 Equity Share Equity Share Equity Share Equity Share Equity Share Instrument Authorized Capital
(Rs. cr)

Issued Capital
(Rs. cr)

-PAIDUPShares (nos) 16147500 16147500 16147500 16147500 16147500 Face Value 10 10 10 10 10 Capital 16.15 16.15 16.15 16.15 16.15

25 25 25 25 25

16.15 16.15 16.15 16.15 16.15

Source : Dion Global Solutions Limited