【正文】 er hand, a riskaverse manager might also prefer looser alliance alternatives. In the third paper (Korhonen et al. [2020]), our aim was to find the best financial alliance promise structure between the executives of the banks and insurance panies and the bank and insurance supervisory authorities in First, we searched for the best alliance structure from the point of view of supervisory authorities. Together with leaders and experts of the supervisory authorities, we introduced eight criteria for the evaluation of the previously defined six alternative alliance structures. The evaluation was carried out by an expert panel consisting of the representatives of the supervisory authorities. The alliance alternatives based on plain crossselling agreements received the highest ranks in the evaluation of supervisory authorities. Under certain conditions, the financial conglomerate might be an acceptable promise alternative for the supervisory authorities as well. In this paper, we have approached our problem from the point of view of importance of this perspective has been emphazised by . Belth [2020]. Customer perspective to mergers is taken in Bank Marketing International [2020]. We did not take a sample from the population of customers, because most customers are not familiar with the problem at all. We were interested in the opinions of “advanced or well informed” represent those customers, we used leaders and experts of Finnish customerorganizations and labour market organizations (see, Acknowledgements at the end of the paper). As before, each customer representative was interviewed individually. Based on the interviews, we initially introduced seven relevant criteria. The final evaluation was carried out with four criteria. In the evaluation meeting, three out of those seven criteria turned out to be insignificant. We have also studied how well the customer representatives know the alliance problem from the point of view of the bank and insurance executives and that of the supervisory authorities. We asked them to play the role of executives and supervisory authorities and to make the evaluations by using their most important criteria. We also asked them which they would think were the most important executive and supervisory criteria. This provided us with interesting information about the knowledge of the problem of the customer representatives from the perspectives of the other parties. The analysis revealed us which aspects are not yet well known to the customer representatives. Finally, we pare the prioritizations of all three decision maker groups considered in this and the earlier papers. The paper is organized as follows. Section B. reviews our main previous results. In Section C., we provide a brief introduction to the theory of the AHP. The decision criteria from the customer point of view are given in Section D., and in Section E., the results are given and discussed. In Section F., we present the results obtained when asking the experts to assume the roles of executives and supervisors. In section G., we pare the criteria and the prioritizations of all three decision maker groups. Finally, in Section H., we conclude the paper with general remarks. B. Review of our earlier research on alliance structures Since this paper is founded on our earlier research on alliance structures, we summarize here our key results. I. Structuring the problem Voutilainen [2020] studied alliances between banks and insurance panies. His perspective was that of the top management of a financial enterprise in the retail structures were classified into three main categories depending on the degree of coop