By Rex Richardson, Quavo Fraud & Disputes/CUInsight
Click here to read the entire article.
As the holiday decorations come down and statements post, many of your members are finally getting a clear look at holiday season costs.
They are scrolling back through weeks of transactions, checking for refunds, and reconciling payments. That is often when they spot something that does not look right: an unfamiliar merchant, a duplicate charge, a return that never hit, or a card purchase they are sure they did not make.
This makes January a critical moment in the member relationship. Your team is catching its breath after the rush, budgets are resetting, and back‑office workloads are heavy. At the same time, as dispute volumes spike, member satisfaction can quickly drop. How you handle those first‑of‑the‑year disputes can have an outsized impact on member trust, card usage, and long‑term loyalty.
January is when members reassess trust
The start of the year is often when people make new financial decisions, including what card they use and which one earns the top spot in their physical and digital wallet. Industry analysts estimate that average annual member attrition for credit unions sits in the low double digits, and research shows credit union members are more likely to switch institutions than their bank‑customer counterparts.
These moments of risk are also an opportunity. When members reach out because something has gone wrong, they are not just asking you to fix a transaction; they are asking if you are on their side. If the answer feels slow, opaque, or bureaucratic, the goodwill you built through the holiday season can evaporate quickly. A clunky dispute experience—long hold times, repetitive questions, confusing timelines—can become the final push that sends a member to a competitor promising faster, more digital support.
On the other hand, a clear, empathetic, efficient resolution process can turn a stressful experience into proof that their credit union truly acts as an advocate.
What the data shows about disputes and loyalty
New research from Cornerstone Advisors highlights how tightly dispute resolution is linked to member engagement and growth. Members who experience effective dispute resolution do not just walk away satisfied; they deepen their relationship…
Click here to continue reading.
By Aaron Passman, Callahan/CreditUnions.com
Click here to read the entire article.
After an anxious 2025, CFOs and observers across the industry are preparing for the year ahead — for better or for worse.
2025 was a whirlwind year, but from a balance sheet perspective, it could’ve been a whole lot worse.
That’s the consensus from a variety of credit union leaders who braved a year of economic anxiety and come out intact on the other side. The task ahead? Maintain that momentum as they head into another year of uncertainty.
“I feel like there’s more certainty this year compared to [at the end of 2024],” says Seth Rudd, chief financial officer at Leaders Credit Union ($1.3B, Jackson, TN). “Saying that, the way we approach every year, regardless of what’s going on, is we’re going to reach our goals. We take economic indicators into account, but for the most part we know what we need to accomplish next year.”
Lending Landscape
Leaders isn’t expecting any major balance sheet changes in the year ahead. Rudd says he believes it’s unlikely mortgage business will pick up significantly, but he expects another strong year. He also expects auto lending rates to remain steady. Although he bases his prognostication on rate forecasts for the Fed, local forecasting also plays a major role.
“We mostly pay attention to our local market and what we’re seeing,” he says. “We’re not seeing bankruptcies increase significantly. It’s in line with where we’ve been the past 12 to 24 months.”
Rudd says Leaders intends to stay “laser-focused” on its current product mix, blending 65% auto lending with 25% real estate and consumer lending rounding out the remainder.
“We’re committed to our model,” the CFO says. “We don’t expect a change.”
EFCU Financial ($1.2B, Baton Rouge, LA) is taking a similarly optimistic approach, understanding that it could need to pivot quickly if things go south.
“We’re positioned to handle any economic uncertainty within reason,” says Tom Kuslikis, president and CEO. “If there’s something catastrophic, we’d feel pain because of that. Now that we’re going into a declining rate environment, we’ll be keeping a close eye on our expenses and managing appropriately.”
More than 40% of EFCU’s loan portfolio is auto loans, which Kuslikis says still has room to reprice. Margins have increased a lot and financials are strong, and with a lower rate environment expected in 2026, it’s likely the credit union will begin to see some margin compression, he says.
If rates go down as expected, notes William Hunt, director of industry analytics at Callahan & Associates, it could spark mortgage activity as purchase activity picks up from consumers looking for cheaper housing options.
At Leaders, third quarter credit card growth stood at 11.49%, about half of where it was three years ago, and Rudd says delinquencies and charge-offs are picking up in lower credit tiers.
That’s in line with the K-shaped recovery many Americans have been feeling but also reflects a resilient consumer, Hunt says.
Click here to continue reading.
By Lu-Hai Liang, Biometric Update
Click here to read the entire article
New analysis from AMLTRIX shows booming trade in stolen and fabricated identities on the dark web, which the anti‑money‑laundering firm believes is exposing weaknesses in biometric verification systems.
Researchers examined 25 widely accessible dark web markets and forums and found that the cost of assembling a package capable of defeating standard KYC checks has fallen to as low as $30. What once required specialist skill has become a cheap, industrialized service.
For the price of a takeout, criminals can now buy a high‑resolution ID scan along with a matching selfie and package of personal data designed to override first‑line checks at banks, fintechs and cryptocurrency platforms. Systems that need live video verification are now being spoofed using ever more advanced camera‑emulation tools.
Gabrielius Erikas Bilkštys, co‑founder of AMLTRIX, said the illicit market has become both abundant and automated. “A full identity pack with ID scan and selfie is now cheap enough and accessible for criminals to buy in bulk,” he said.
Once an identity enters the underground economy, it can be reused repeatedly to open bank accounts, payment profiles or crypto wallets, and victims unaware until debt collectors or law enforcement get in touch.
Unlike stolen card details, which quickly lose value, a “Full Identity Package” can underpin mule accounts capable of laundering significant sums before detection. Prices vary by jurisdiction. U.S. profiles typically sell for $45–$100, UK identities for $30–$35, and Australian, Russian or French profiles for $20–$30. High‑priced listings for ID such as Irish or UK passports, which can exceed $2,500, are often scams targeting other criminals.
A striking shift is the rising premium on pre‑verified accounts. Verified crypto accounts now sell for $200–$400, almost ten times costlier than raw identity data. The markup is indicative of the high failure rate among criminals attempting to bypass biometric verification themselves, according to AMLTRIX. In effect, criminals are forking out a $270 risk premium to outsource the difficulty of defeating live verification systems.
Click here to continue reading.
By Wesley Grant, Payments Journal
Click here to read the entire article.
When the latest iteration of the settlement involving Visa, Mastercard, and various merchants was proposed in November, there was speculation that the deal could reshape the credit card rewards model. However, a group of retailers led by Walmart argued that the settlement doesn’t go far enough to create a meaningful impact for merchants.
Under the proposed deal, Visa and Mastercard would lower the credit card interchange fees that merchants have increasingly criticized, reducing fees from roughly 2%-2.5% to about 0.1% over several years.
Perhaps the more impactful part of the settlement is that merchants would gain the ability to decline certain credit cards—particularly high-fee rewards cards—that they were previously required to accept. Still, Walmart and other retailers emphasized that this latest settlement doesn’t sufficiently address the ongoing challenges merchants face.
“What’s being offered to merchants is not really a practical solution, allowing them to not accept higher-cost rewards cards,” said Don Apgar, Director of Merchant Payments at Javelin Strategy & Research. “That defeats the purpose of having a shared acceptance mark like Visa or Mastercard—that was the whole power of the brands when they started. For a store to say, ‘We accept some Visa cards, here’s a list of Visa cards we do and do not accept,’ is ridiculous.”
“Retailers don’t want to be put in a position of instituting fragmented payment policies that disadvantage consumers and add friction to the shopping experience,” he said. “Merchants, for the most part, acknowledge that card payments are fast and convenient, but the rising cost of interchange and network fees has damaged the value proposition for merchants.”
Perks with Payment
One of the factors driving calls for change is that rewards cards have shifted from being the exception to the rule. Once the domain of luxury credit cards—such as those issued by American Express—more card issuers have added benefits to attract cardholders.
As consumers have come to expect perks with their payments, rewards programs have become an integral part of the credit card landscape. However, even as consumers enjoy cash back and discounts, credit card companies pass a portion of these costs to merchants. This has intensified merchants’ calls for a reduction in interchange fees.
Click here to continue reading the entire article.
By Priya, CyberPress
Click here to read the entire article.
A recent phishing campaign disguised as a purchase order PDF is targeting business users with well-crafted lures designed to harvest corporate credentials and system data.
The malicious file, titled “NEW Purchase Order #52177236.pdf”, was first flagged after Malwarebytes blocked access to a suspicious link embedded within the document.
Malicious PDF Targets Business Emails
The PDF appeared to contain a purchase order button labeled “View Document”, adding a sense of legitimacy. However, hovering over the button revealed a long, deceptive URL hosted on the ionoscloud.com subdomain, a legitimate European cloud service provider.
Attackers are increasingly abusing reputable infrastructure such as IONOS Cloud, AWS, and Azure because domains from trusted providers are less likely to be automatically blocked by security software.
When the victim clicks the button, the link redirects to a fake PDF viewer hosted on a compromised website, which pre-fills the recipient’s email address in a login form. The page prompts users to log in with a “business email login,” tricking them into providing corporate credentials.
This broad prompt is meant to capture credentials that could unlock valuable enterprise accounts, such as Microsoft Outlook, Google Workspace, VPNs, or file-sharing systems.
Click here to continue reading the entire article.
By David Evans, The Financial Brand
Click here to read the entire article.
Credit unions, faced with mounting pressures from rising deposit costs, intensifying competition, and evolving member expectations, must fundamentally rethink their growth strategies, according to “Next-Level Growth: Credit Union Opportunities in a Changing Market”, a recent report from Cornerstone Advisors.
According to the report, nearly two-thirds of credit union executives now identify new member growth, operational efficiency, and deposit gathering as top concerns, with these “growth anxieties” escalating sharply over recent years. Traditional approaches, including branch expansion, broad marketing campaigns, and incremental product updates, are proving insufficient against competition from fintechs and megabanks who are capturing younger demographics with speed and personalization.
Need to Know:
- 62% of credit union executives ranked new member growth among their top three concerns in 2025, up from 41% in 2022, a 51% increase over three years.
- 74% deployment rate characterizes credit unions’ technology projects, meaning one in
- Credit unions face an existential growth challenge transcending simple member acquisition. “Community” no longer defines itself geographically but through affinity, lifestyle, and values. Meanwhile, Gen Z and millennials demand digital experiences their parents never expected.
The old tools aren’t working. Traditional levers including branch expansion, broad marketing, and small product adjustments are proving insufficient to meet the demands of these new realities. Growth must originate not just from new members but from deeper engagement with existing relationships.
Click here to continue reading the entire article.
By David Evans, The Financial Brand
Click here to read the entire article.
American banking customers are sending a clear message about what drives satisfaction and loyalty in 2025, with digital-first neobanks commanding significantly higher satisfaction scores than their traditional counterparts.
True, YouGov’s annual bank rankings show that Navy Federal Credit Union leads overall customer satisfaction with a net score of 70.4, while Bank of America dominates consideration among new account openers at 35.4%.
However, the most striking finding is the widening satisfaction gap between digital and traditional institutions: The top five neobanks all exceed Chase’s 47.4 score, the highest among legacy banks.
Digital-only banks dominate satisfaction rankings, with five neobanks — Revolut, Cash App, Chime, Ally, and SoFi — all outperforming Chase, the highest-rated traditional bank, and demonstrating a systematic satisfaction advantage for digital-first business models.
Need to Know:
- Revolut leads neobanks with a 59.4 satisfaction score while posting a 1.5-point year-over-year consideration gain among new account openers, the second-largest increase after Bank of America’s 1.9-point improvement.
- Neobank customers demonstrate daily online banking use, almost 40% more than the general population.
- New neobank account openers are intensely interested in cryptocurrency, with 50% believing crypto represents the future of online financial transactions compared to just 26% of the general population.
- Low or no maintenance fees are the decisive factor in banking choice for neobank customers, followed by digital banking capabilities and excellent customer service.
Click here to continue reading the entire article.
By Dan Ennis, Published in Banking Dive
Click here to read the entire article.
The agency stopped short of detailing specific instances but pointed to policy statements from 2020 through 2022 in a preliminary report issued Wednesday.
Nine banks supervised by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency “made inappropriate distinctions among customers” because they kept policies that restricted banking services to clients with ties to certain industries, the agency said in a preliminary report Wednesday.
The report stopped short of detailing specific instances when particular banks held named customers at arm’s length over specific policies. It did, however, cite the banks’ environmental, social and governance policies or corporate responsibility and policy statements from 2020 to 2022 as source material.
The banks are JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citi, Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank, PNC, Capital One, TD and BMO.
The OCC expressed concern that, between 2020 and 2025, the banks restricted access or required “escalated reviews and approvals before providing … access” to certain customers with connections to oil and gas, coal, firearms, private prisons, tobacco, payday lending, adult entertainment, digital assets or political action committees and political parties.
It’s that last part that, presumably, spurred President Donald Trump in January to accuse Bank of America – while its CEO was on stage at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland – of debanking conservatives.
Click here to continue reading the entire article.
By Dylan Tokar, Wall Street Journal
Click here to read the entire article
Bessent wants department to be ‘a gatekeeper’ on rules that force banks to monitor for illicit transactions and money laundering
The Trump administration is preparing a shake-up of anti-money-laundering rules, in an effort to overhaul a system for catching illicit transactions by drug traffickers, terrorists and other criminals that banks complain is costly and ineffective.
In a draft term sheet circulated to the nation’s banking regulators, the Treasury Department has proposed taking a more central role in the enforcement of anti-money-laundering rules.
The current system provides law-enforcement officials with some insight into the murky world of illicit finance, but it isn’t necessarily effective at stopping money laundering before it happens. The Wall Street Journal earlier this year reported how one money-laundering group in Los Angeles County was able to launder more than $50 million for the Sinaloa cartel, including by making six-figure deposits at JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America branches.
Banks have pressed for changes like the ones in the proposal and criticized regulators for being too focused on technical compliance and not the spirit of the money-laundering laws. The industry broadly has been cheering the administration’s efforts to cut regulations on everything from how much capital they hold to how much they can lend, while also reining in federal watchdogs. The Trump administration, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, think the restrictions on banks have inhibited economic growth.
Click here to continue reading the entire article.
Published by K&L Gates; Key contacts: Varu Chilakamarri, J. Timothy Hobbs, Craig E. Leen, Timothy J. Furdyna, and Neeki Memarzadeh
Click here to read the entire article.
Since returning to office in January 2025, President Trump has made broad assertions of executive authority, including the power to fire independent agency heads at will. For almost a century, these officials have been protected by law from such “without cause” removals, enjoying insulation from direct presidential control. That status quo—rooted in the Supreme Court’s 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States—is on the verge of transformation.
This term, the Supreme Court will reconsider Humphrey’s Executor and decide whether Congress may insulate independent agency heads from the president’s control. The practical implications are significant, including increased presidential oversight of regulatory decisions made across independent agencies such as the Federal Reserve System, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and many others. Depending on how the Supreme Court rules in the pending cases, businesses may have to reassess how they interact with these agencies in the regulatory process.
Humphrey’s Executor and Removal Authority
Although the president has clear constitutional authority to remove executive agency heads (such as the Secretary of State), Congress has long sought to restrict the removal power as it relates to leaders of “independent” boards and commissions—those agencies that Congress has structured to be more insulated from presidential control.
To that end, Congress has often imposed “for cause” restrictions on the president’s ability to remove the heads of these independent agencies. The Supreme Court validated this approach in Humphrey’s Executor, where it upheld a law that prevented the president from removing FTC members except in cases of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” That decision—which was seen as a check on President Roosevelt—established that Congress could limit the president’s removal authority for independent agencies, which function as quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial bodies.
Click here to continue reading the entire article.
By Robin Hess, CUInsight
Click here to read the entire article
For nearly a century, credit unions have enjoyed a federal tax exemption designed to support their mission: serving people of modest means through a cooperative, not-for-profit model. Today, as credit unions grow larger and more bank-like, the question of whether this exemption still makes sense has resurfaced. Recent studies, surveys, and policy proposals reveal a heated debate with significant implications for consumers, communities, and the financial industry.
The economic impact argument
Research by economists Robert Feinberg and Douglas Meade suggests that removing tax exemption could have severe consequences:
- GDP loss: $266 billion over 10 years
- Jobs lost: 822,000
- Consumer cost increase: $234.6 billion due to higher loan rates and lower deposit yields
Goal: Demonstrate that taxing credit unions would harm consumers and the economy.
Debate: Critics argue these studies are industry-funded and overstate benefits, while banks claim the exemption creates an uneven playing field.
The fairness & competitive balance argument
Reports from the Tax Foundation and banking associations highlight that credit unions now hold $2.2 trillion in assets and avoid roughly $4 billion in annual federal taxes. They argue:
- Large credit unions compete directly with banks but pay no taxes.
- Bank acquisitions by credit unions reduce state tax revenues.
Goal: Push for tax parity between banks and credit unions.
Debate: Credit unions counter that banks enjoy their own tax breaks (e.g., Subchapter S status) and that their cooperative model still fulfills a public-service mission.
Policy proposals
Industry groups like ICBA (Independent Community Bankers of America) advocate ending exemptions for credit unions with assets over $1 billion or all federal credit unions, estimating $30 billion in revenue over 10 years.
Click here to continue reading the entire article.
By Bill Toulas, Bleeping Computer
Click here to read the entire article
An ongoing phishing campaign impersonates popular brands, such as Unilever, Disney, MasterCard, LVMH, and Uber, in Calendly-themed lures to steal Google Workspace and Facebook business account credentials.
Although threat actors targeting business ad manager accounts isn’t new, the campaign discovered by Push Security is highly targeted, with professionally crafted lures that create conditions for high success rates.
Access to marketing accounts gives threat actors a springboard to launch malvertising campaigns for AiTM phishing, malware distribution, and ClickFix attacks. Also, ad platforms allow geo-targeting, domain filtering, and device-specific targeting, enabling “watering-hole” styled attacks.
Ultimately, compromised marketing accounts can be resold to cybercriminals, so direct monetization is always a valid option. Google Workspace accounts also often extend to enterprise environments and business data, especially via SSO and permissive IdP configurations.
Calendly phishing
Calendly is a legitimate online scheduling platform where the organizer of a meeting sends a link to the other party, allowing recipients to pick an available time slot. The service has been abused in the past for phishing attacks, but the use of well-known brands to exploit trust and familiarity is what elevated this campaign.
The attack starts with the threat actor impersonating a recruiter for a well-known brand and then sending a fake meeting invitation to the target. The recruiters are legitimate employees who are also impersonated on the phishing landing pages.