By Cassandra Dumay and Irie Sentner, Politico
Click here to read the entire article.
Federal Housing Director Bill Pulte on Friday signaled that the Trump administration is moving past his widely criticized idea for 50-year mortgages in its broader effort to address housing affordability.
“I think we have other priorities,” Pulte told reporters, when asked if 50-year mortgages are still on the table.
President Trump rolled out other policy proposals earlier this week aimed at addressing the cost of home-buying, and said he’d share more affordability measures during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, later this month. The administration is drafting an executive order targeted at affordability issues that are high on voters’ minds heading into a midterm election year.
Pulte’s comment indicates that the proposal for 50-year mortgages, which was panned by officials in the White House as well as industry experts, will not be among the actions in Trump’s order. POLITICO reported that Pulte had originally brought that proposal to the president.
Pulte on Friday said the president is reviewing a list of 30 to 50 home-cost solutions from himself and other top administration officials — including Vice President JD Vance, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett.
Pulte also said Fannie and Freddie, the government-sponsored mortgage entities which his agency oversees, have started carrying out Trump’s direction Thursday to purchase $200 billion in mortgage bonds in an effort to lower home loan rates, starting with a $3 billion buy.
Mortgage bonds are comprised of home loans that government-controlled Fannie and Freddie, as well as private financial institutions, purchase and package into securities that are bought and sold by investors.
Click here to continue reading.
National Consumer Law Center
Click here to read the entire article.
New Report Exposes the Unfair, Deceptive and Abusive Practices of Earned Wage Payday Lenders
Financial exploitation is unfortunately nothing new, but the methods used to extract money from people struggling paycheck to paycheck are constantly changing. A new report from the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) delves into the latest face of payday loans – so-called “earned wage access” products.
Picking Workers’ Pockets: Unfair, Deceptive and Abusive Practices by Earned Wage Payday Lenders explores the tactics that earned wage payday lenders use to collect disproportionately high fees and trap consumers in a cycle of borrowing – just as traditional payday lenders do. While most of the debate around this new form of payday loan app has centered on whether the products are loans (they are), unfair, deceptive and abusive practices are unlawful no matter what kind of label they carry.
“Earned wage payday loans exploit low-income workers and are designed to extract high fees from those who can least afford them,” said Patrick Crotty, senior attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. “The earned wage payday loan industry is rife with unfair, deceptive and abusive practices. Enforcement authorities should address those practices, and legislators should reject exemptions from interest rate caps and other consumer protection laws.”
- Recent public enforcement actions by state attorneys general, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and the City of Baltimore cited practices of earned wage payday lenders that are allegedly in violation of laws against unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices (UDAP). These practices include:
- Disclosing 0% APR, “no interest” or “interest free” for costly loans when up to 90% of users pay fees that frequently add up to $300 or more a year and as much as $1400 over two years;
Promoting “instant” or “fast loans” while hiding high “expedite” fees that far exceed the cost of instant delivery and that almost all borrowers pay; and - Dark patterns that are unfair or abusive tricks to coerce purportedly voluntary “tips” and “donations,” including adding “tips” automatically with complicated, obscure and time-consuming interfaces to remove them, repeat requests for “tips,” and implied threats of consequences for borrowers who do not tip.
Click here to continue reading.
By CU Today
Click here to read the entire article.
The Senate Banking Committee on Wednesday postponed a planned discussion of draft legislation that would establish a regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies, hours after Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong publicly opposed the bill, according to Reuters.
The legislation, unveiled Monday, would define when crypto tokens are treated as securities or commodities and would give the Commodity Futures Trading Commission authority over spot crypto markets. The markup had been scheduled for Thursday.
Committee Chairman Tim Scott said lawmakers and industry stakeholders remain engaged despite the delay. “Everyone remains at the table working in good faith,” Scott said in a statement announcing the postponement.
Reuters noted that earlier Wednesday, Armstrong said on X that Coinbase could not support the bill in its current form, arguing it had “too many issues,” including what he described as a de facto ban on tokenized equities, an erosion of CFTC authority, and draft provisions that would “kill rewards on stablecoins.”
Without Coinbase’s backing, it is unclear whether the markup can move forward. The company has been a major stakeholder in the negotiations and donated millions of dollars to political action committees backing pro-crypto candidates in 2024, Reuters said.
Click here to continue reading.
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.