They Want Your (Member’s) Data

By John Beauchamp, CUAnswers/CUSO Magazine
Click here to read the entire article.

Your team has been talking to a vendor who has a solution that is going to make your life amazing. The vendor even said integration with your core is FREE. All you must do is pay the recurring fees going forward and be willing to be their beta test…and of course, provide them your data to develop with. What a bargain.

Not so fast.

While this solution might be a bargain for your organization, without the proper due diligence, this seemingly wonderful integration could be a formula for disaster. Too often, organizations see only the promises of a cool, new solution without understanding the risks and implications of turning over member data. Risks include the possibility of violating privacy laws if information is turned over without members’ consent. You can also be on the hook for data breaches, whether by the vendor or a downstream organization that receives access to the data.

Top questions to ask before signing on the dotted line
Consider the following before quickly agreeing to send your data to a third-party vendor:

What/how much data is your vendor requesting?
Is the vendor only asking for the data required to accomplish the task you are engaging them for, or is the vendor broadly requesting data that is unnecessary for your purposes? You may be exposing your organization to a massive data breach by sending data unneeded to reach your goals. In addition, your vendor may want volumes of data for such purposes as training their Artificial Intelligence (AI) models, at your risk.

Are you compliant with privacy laws?
Many states require consent from a person before their information can be sent to a third party. While there are federal carve-outs in state privacy laws for data sent to third parties to provide members with a financial product or service, many states grant their residents much broader protection regarding notification and the right to opt out. Do not assume an all-encompassing right to send data without first ensuring that your members do not have notification, consent, and opt-out rights regarding the data you are sending.

Have you reviewed the vendor’s data security policy?
Anytime you send member data to a third party, you are required to ensure that the third party is adequately safeguarding the data. Depending on the data sent, ensure the vendor can demonstrate safety and data protection, including physical safeguards, employee training, and compensating controls for you to follow.

Click here to continue reading.

By Kurt Woock, NerdWallet
Click here to read the entire article.

Changing priorities and shifting income cause spending habits to morph as people age.

American households spent an average of $539 on bakery products and $131 on postage and stationery in 2024. Those are a few of the quirkier spending habits tracked and categorized in the Consumer Expenditure Surveys, a nationwide survey of more than 30,000 people. The federal government has conducted detailed expenditure surveys since 1888.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics releases this data, which includes spending details on hundreds of items for different generations, in one-year batches. While it may seem outdated by the time it’s released — particularly last year, when the 2024 data release was delayed until December due to the federal government shutdown — the tradeoff is specificity: We can put the spending patterns of specific groups of Americans under a magnifying glass.

Overall spending trends, by generation
The average dollar amount spent isn’t the best way to understand this data. Varying incomes can distort the meaning behind raw dollar amounts. For example, a younger household may spend a smaller dollar amount at restaurants than an older household, but if the younger household has a lower income, they may still be devoting a larger percentage of their income to eating out.

Instead, comparing the share of spending to the average income for each demographic reveals how much income each expense category eats up. Income reported in this survey is pre-tax.

Housing, transportation and food make up the core of American budgets. These three expenses used, on average, 48% of a household’s income in 2024. (The BLS measures spending by household, or what they call a “consumer unit.” That term includes families and other groups who pool their income and expenditure decisions. Roommates, on the other hand, are distinct consumer units.)

Click here to continue reading.

By Jim Tyson, CFO Dive
Click here to read the entire article.

Before the war with Iran, 8% of adults said their family sometimes or often lacked enough food, the Federal Reserve said, citing survey results.

Dive Brief:

  • Roughly three out of four U.S. adults (73%) said they are “doing okay financially” or “living comfortably” even as their view of the economy has dimmed, with 42% of survey respondents voicing concern about finding or keeping a job, the Federal Reserve said.
  • More than 90% of adults identified inflation as a concern, the central bank said in a report on an annual survey, noting that price pressures persisted as their most common financial worry.
  • “Fifty-eight percent [of households] said that changes in the prices they paid compared with the prior year had eroded their financial standing,” the Fed said, with 14% saying inflation had made their situation much worse.

Dive Insight:
The economic outlook has dimmed since the Fed gathered results for the survey in October, with the Iran war increasing price pressures and prompting downgrades of forecasts for growth.

“The Middle East war is expected to exert a modest but meaningful drag on near-term growth through renewed supply chain disruptions, higher shipping costs and increased uncertainty around energy and trade flows,” LPL Financial Chief Economist Jeffrey Roach said Monday.

The war will likely slow growth by 0.2 percentage point in the second quarter and by 0.3 percentage point in Q3, he said in a note. Economists see 35% odds of a recession in the next 12 months, an increase from 32% in February and March, according to a Wolters Kluwer survey.

Inflation is casting a shadow on the outlook. A war-induced surge in energy prices last month pushed up the rate of price gains to a three-year high, with the consumer price index climbing 3.8% on an annual basis. The cost of energy jumped 17.9% during the past year, spurred by a 28.4% increase in the price of gasoline and 54.3% gain in the price of fuel oil, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said Tuesday.

Price pressures, and declining affordability, have eroded consumer sentiments to record lows in recent months. In turn, retail sales growth slowed to 0.5% last month from 1.6% in March as a war-induced surge in price pressures exceeded wage gains and put the price of some goods out of reach for low-income consumers. On an annual basis, sales increased 4.9%, the Census Bureau said Thursday.

Before the Iran war, 8% of adults said their family sometimes or often lacked enough food and 16% failed to pay all their bills the prior month, the Fed said, citing survey results. Although most households said they are financially stable, some “demographic groups — including low-income, young, and Black adults — saw meaningful declines” in their financial well-being from 2024 to 2025, the central bank said.

Click here to continue reading.

By Michael Wayland, CNBC
Click here to read the entire article.

Key Points

  • The head of Capital One Auto, one of the nation’s largest auto finance lenders, told CNBC he isn’t overly concerned about rising consumer automotive debt and inflated used car prices leading to so-called “forever loans.”
  • While median monthly car payments have jumped from $390 to $525 since 2019, data provided by Capital One Auto suggests vehicle costs have been stable compared with income.
  • The lender found 80% of car purchasers who finance a vehicle are below the generally recognized payment to income threshold of 15%, even though they’re taking out longer loans to get to that goal.

The head of one of the nation’s largest auto finance lenders isn’t overly concerned about rising consumer automotive debt and inflated used car prices leading to longer loans on vehicle purchases.

His main reasoning? The percentage of income consumers are spending on their vehicles has remained relatively flat compared with 2019, before the coronavirus pandemic led to inflated pricing as demand surged but inventories stayed low.

“If I just told you, ‘Car prices going up, interest rates going up, insurance prices going up,’ you would say, ‘You know what, consumers must be paying more as a ratio to the income,’” Capital One
Auto President Sanjiv Yajnik told CNBC. “However, if you look at every quintile of salary and earnings of people, the payment-to-income ratio has remained fairly flat.”

While Capital One reports median monthly car ownership payments have jumped from $390 to $525 since 2019, data provided exclusively to CNBC from its automotive unit suggest that vehicle costs have stayed relatively stable compared with income. That’s because, overall, the payment-to-income ratio has remained flat at approximately 10% since 2019, according to the automotive arm of the American bank.

Capital One Auto found 80% of car purchasers who finance a vehicle are below the generally recognized payment to income threshold of 15%.

“The consumer is being cautious. They’re being responsible. This is a much healthier way to do things than the alternative, because it’s not a discretionary spend,” said Yajnik, referring to consumers prioritizing vehicle payments for transportation, including work.

To get to that goal, however, more consumers are taking on longer loans to keep payments affordable.

Click here to continue reading.

By Lori Sommerfield, Chris Willis, Taylor Gess & Lane Page; Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor, Troutman Pepper Locke
Click here to read the entire article.

On May 5, Craig Trainor, Assistant Secretary for the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), used the American Bankers Association’s Risk and Compliance Conference to send a clear message about how the Trump administration plans to enforce the Fair Housing Act (FHA) going forward, including with respect to how it will treat special purpose credit programs (SPCPs).

Trainor stated that the FHEO is “returning to the beating heart” of FHA enforcement by prioritizing cases with “strong evidence of disparate treatment,” and that it “will no longer chase phantom discrimination based upon statistical disparities without evidence of intentional unlawful treatment.” In other words, HUD is signaling a focus on intentional discrimination claims, and a corresponding retreat from large‑scale disparate impact cases built primarily on statistical disparities.

At the same time, Trainor underscored that the FHEO is closely scrutinizing SPCPs. He specifically referenced a program offered by the Washington State Housing Finance Commission that was “created to address disparities resulting from past discrimination against racial groups.” As summarized below, earlier this year the FHEO launched an investigation into that program. Trainor warned that SPCPs “that do not comply with the statutory text of the [FHA] continue to be subject to enforcement,” and he cautioned that lenders “found engaging in illegal discrimination will be held accountable.”

Trainor also encouraged institutions that may have offered programs with race‑based eligibility criteria to take “immediate remedial actions” and indicated that “meaningful” remedial efforts will be viewed favorably in deciding whether and how to pursue enforcement.

Click here to continue reading.

By Walter Donway, The Daily Economy
Click here to read the entire article.

Organizations often mistake measurable activity for meaningful achievement. AI productivity metrics confuse computation costs with added value.

A recent Wall Street Journal report on a workplace trend called “tokenmaxxing” offers a revealing glimpse into some of the confusion attending America’s AI boom.

Some companies, the Journal reports, are experimenting with measuring an employee’s engagement with AI by tracking “tokens”—the units into which the system converts text typed into prompts. Now, in some workplaces, it seems token consumption has become a badge of an AI user’s engagement, experimentation, or productivity.

This is a striking moment. During what often feels like a national celebration—or national heart attack—over the transformative productive potential of artificial intelligence, we are publicly debating if an employee’s value might be measured by the volume of text sent to and from a chatbot.

The controversy deserves more attention than its odd jargon suggests. It exposes a central uncertainty in the AI revolution: what, exactly, does productive use of AI mean?

Reporting in Built-In, Ellen Glover reports that tokenmaxxing “is taking much of the tech industry by storm… individuals are ranked on leaderboards based on how much they use AI, with generous perks and incentives encouraging them to push these tools to their limits… The assumption is that the more you use AI, the more productive you must be. Those who lean in the hardest will come out on top.”

She adds that some employees take advantage of the fact that now “systems use AI agents to work autonomously for hours on end, reviewing and editing large codebases and writing entire programs while their human users are out living their lives.”

Tokens are real enough. Large language models do not “read” language as humans do. They convert words, punctuation, fragments of words, and other text elements into tokens—standardized units processed mathematically. The more tokens used, generally, the more computing resources consumed. AI providers often charge by token volume. Tokens therefore matter to engineers, accountants, and software managers.

When tokens migrate from a technical unit used in billing into a measure of employee performance, however, we risk confusing the cost of computation with the creation of value.

Click here to continue reading.

Financial Health Network

Glen speaks with Andrew Warren about the Financial Health Network’s new report which makes the case for modernizing the definition of underbanked consumers. Also- X Money makes its long-promised debut, and the OCC potentially rides to the rescue of interchange (and workable payment processes).

Links related to this episode:

If CU Unplugged’s style of hands-on problem solving sounds like your cup of collaborative tea, check out our Innovation Club. This group of forward thinkers meets virtually each month, and our twice-annual in-person session is coming up in May. Reach out about a guest pass: https://www.big-fintech.com/innovation-club/

By PMNTS.com
Click here to read the entire article.

Subprime consumers are often viewed through a narrow credit-risk lens. PYMNTS Intelligence’s “Who Is the Subprime Consumer? A Behavioral Profile” shows a different picture: a large, steady and measurable part of the U.S. consumer economy that is changing how it uses credit, installment products and one-time cash events to manage daily financial pressure.

The report finds that 17% of U.S. consumers, or roughly 44 million adults, fall into the subprime credit range. That share has held within a narrow band across 47 monthly survey waves from March 2022 through January 2026. In other words, this is a durable segment with distinct behaviors, needs and product opportunities.

The data also shows that subprime consumers aren’t just heavy credit card revolvers. In fact, the share of subprime consumers who always or usually revolve their balances has fallen from about 50% in mid-2023 to 38% in January 2026. At the same time, 35% of subprime consumers have no credit or store cards at all, creating a gap for issuers, merchants and installment providers that can serve this group with products built around cash flow rather than traditional prime-card assumptions.

That shift is especially visible in BNPL and healthcare. Subprime consumers use BNPL at higher rates than the overall population, but they concentrate this usage among specific providers. Younger subprime consumers also report delaying care, skipping prescriptions and borrowing from family or friends to manage healthcare costs. Tax refunds and one-time government payments play a similar role: Subprime consumers often use these to cover bills, repay debt or stabilize household finances.

For banks, card issuers, merchants, BNPL providers and healthcare finance firms, the message is clear. Subprime consumers are not outside the credit economy. They are navigating it differently, and the companies that understand those behaviors may put themselves in a better position to build lasting relationships with this 44 million-consumer market.

In “Who Is the Subprime Consumer? A Behavioral Profile,” learn how:

  • Subprime consumers are moving across credit products. Always-or-usually revolving has declined, while BNPL and installment products are taking on a larger role in how these consumers manage purchases.
  • Healthcare costs are creating new financing needs. Young subprime consumers are delaying care, negotiating bills and using installment options at rates that point to unmet demand at the provider office, pharmacy and telehealth checkout.
  • Cash flow timing can shape product strategy. These consumers often use refunds and one-time payments to cover bills or repay debt, giving issuers and lenders clearer moments to reach them with relevant offers.

Click here to continue reading.

By Celonis, published in Banking Dive
Click here to read the entire article.

The notion that the best way for banks to modernize their core systems is to rip them out and replace them with new ones is not only outdated—it’s also inefficient.

Consider a study by IBM that found 94% of banking overhauls exceed their deadlines, resulting in delays that negatively affect the project’s ROI.

Fortunately, the rise of AI means that there are other paths to transformation. In this new era, leading financial institutions are focusing less on decommissioning outdated software and more on how new technology can help them extract data and create value from existing systems. It’s a savvy move that enables organizations to leverage what they have, while still modernizing for the future.

“We’ve been so focused on moving from legacy systems to newer systems, when the real opportunity is in how we use the data and improve the process,” says Jaymini Hirani, Financial Services Lead at Celonis.

Data is everywhere, but where’s the intelligence?
Modern banks rely on hundreds of systems and applications. For example, a single payment may come in contact with 200 different systems as it traverses from initiation and authorization to clearing and settlement.

Some of those systems represent the latest technology. But others are likely legacy software, core banking systems, or even Excel spreadsheets managed by specific employees. As a result, the related data is siloed within systems and applications, making it difficult to access.

In this environment, interactions and handoffs between teams become increasingly complex, and the risk of errors increases, resulting in delays and manual workarounds. The fragmented nature of the data also limits transparency, which can impede productivity and, more importantly, lead to regulatory concerns.

Click here to continue reading.

By Emily Cisek, The Financial Brand
Click here to read the entire article.

Here is a bank customer I think about all the time: someone sitting at the kitchen table a week after the funeral of a loved one, surrounded by the pieces of a life they’re now responsible for untangling.

A drawer of old statements. A phone they can’t unlock. And (believe it or not) no idea where the will is, or whether one exists at all.

This person is walking into a branch, or calling their bank for guidance, every single day in this country. And in most cases, the bank that was trusted for decades never had a chance to help them prepare for the one transition that was always going to come.

This intersection is precisely where many community banks are looking to as a once-in-a-generation opportunity looms:

Need to Know:

  • 56% of Americans lack an estate plan, and $124 trillion in wealth will change hands by 2048.
  • Community banks are recognizing legacy planning as a strategic opportunity to deepen customer relationships, retain assets across generations, and differentiate in a crowded market.
  • A recent $2.5M investment from 22nd State Banking Company signals growing conviction in the category.
  • According to the 2025 Caring.com Wills and Estate Planning Study, 56 percent of American adults have no estate planning documents at all. No will. No trust. No power of attorney. Over 50 percent of respondents reported not having even thought about starting the process.

The report shows that will ownership is at roughly one in four adults, and the number has declined since 2022. The top reason people give for not having one is disarmingly honest: they just haven’t gotten around to it.

Meanwhile, Cerulli Associates projects that $124 trillion in U.S. household wealth will change hands by 2048, estimating $105 trillion of that flowing directly to heirs. U.S. states already return nearly $5 billion annually in unclaimed assets from forgotten accounts and abandoned pensions.

Why this matters: As the gap between will ownership and wealth transfer accelerates, more estates will move through probate without clear documentation — creating legal costs, tax inefficiencies, and delays that can quietly erode generational wealth.

For financial institutions, this is where the opportunity sharpens. Every family that gets organized ahead of time is a household whose deposits, lending relationships, and generational loyalty stay connected to the institution that helped them prepare.

What’s at stake? The scale of what is coming is extraordinary. The banks recognizing this are not just solving a customer problem, they are building the kind of multigenerational relevance that defines the next era of community banking.

Click here to continue reading.

By Melissa Koide, Payments Dive
Click here to read the entire article.

“Affordability is not just about the cost of credit,” a former Treasury official writes. “It is about whether credit is available at all.”

A 10% cap on credit card interest rates has drawn some bipartisan support in Congress.

At a moment when families are stretched and costs keep rising, the appeal is easy to understand. But good intentions and good policy are not always the same thing, particularly in credit markets where the consequences of blunt policy tools tend to fall hardest on the borrowers who can least afford it.

Credit is not an abstraction for most American families. It is the tool that makes financial resilience and economic mobility possible in practice. Credit history is crucial to renting an apartment or getting access to a mobile phone, and eventually to opening the door to a mortgage.

Credit cards also play a critical role in covering emergency expenses like an unexpected car repair or a medical bill without wiping out savings or turning to a payday lender. For the millions of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, access to responsible credit is often the difference between a setback and a crisis.

Affordability is not just about the cost of credit. It is about whether credit is available at all. This is where the evidence matters. Over the past decade, lenders have developed a far more sophisticated ability to assess creditworthiness than was possible on a credit score alone.

With a consumer’s permission, bank transaction data can reveal income stability and payment patterns that a score may not capture, especially for younger borrowers, those new to credit, and those rebuilding after a financial setback. When paired with machine-learning, this information can identify lower-risk borrowers whose credit application may have been declined using traditional underwriting.

Click here to continue reading.

By Clara Kim, Greg Baer, and Paige Pidano Paridon; Bank Policy Institute
Click here to read the entire article.

For decades, our government has counted primarily on the nation’s banks to identify suspicious activity and assist law enforcement and national security agencies in fighting criminals and terrorists. Executing that responsibility requires tens of thousands of bank employees and countless man-hours.

But cryptocurrencies and stablecoins are increasingly becoming the coin of the realm for money launderers and terrorist financers. And unlike banks, crypto companies do not have the same obligations under current law to protect the financial system from those abusing it. Congress has an opportunity to fix this disparity via market structure legislation, and it is imperative that it seize this opportunity to protect crucial U.S. national security interests.

According to Chainalysis’s 2026 Annual Report, illicit crypto addresses received $154 billion in 2025, a 162 percent increase year-over-year, primarily driven by a 694 percent increase in the value received by sanctioned entities.

Those numbers reflect a worrying trend. As the report explains, “The on-chain money laundering ecosystem — a portion of the overall illicit crypto ecosystem that reflects the laundering of funds rather than the underlying inflows associated with illicit activity — has grown dramatically in recent years, increasing from $10 billion in 2020 to over $82 billion in 2025.” Crypto is funding the worst crimes: “The intersection of cryptocurrency and suspected human trafficking intensified in 2025, with total transaction volume reaching hundreds of millions of dollars across identified services, an 85% year-over-year increase.” Crypto also continues to fund fraud and exploitation schemes. The FBI’s 2025 Internet Crime Report notes that the agency’s Internet Crime Complaint Center received 181,565 complaints last year with a nexus to crypto, an increase of 21 percent from 2024, totaling $11.366 billion in losses, an increase of 22 percent.

Not only does the use of crypto and stablecoins by criminals continue to rise, but hostile nation-states are embracing these “currencies.” China is front and center in every aspect of this ugly business – from illicit sales of fentanyl to scams against ordinary Americans. Chinese-language money laundering networks now account for 20 percent of known on-chain illicit money laundering activity.

Ari Redbord, the Global Head of Policy at TRM Labs, reaffirmed these unfortunate trends in a recent House Homeland Security Hearing (Online Scams, Crypto Fraud, and Digital Extortion: An Examination of How Transnational Criminal Networks Target Americans), warning:

The numbers underscore the urgency. TRM’s 2026 crypto crime report documented $158 billion in illicit crypto flows in 2025 — that’s a 145 percent increase over 2024. Fraud and scams alone drove $35 billion, and with only about 15 percent of victims reporting, true global losses exceed $200 billion. These flows run through one interconnected ecosystem. Pig butchering compounds in Southeast Asia, many staffed by trafficked workers, generate fraud proceeds. Mexican cartels buy fentanyl precursors from Chinese suppliers with cryptocurrency. North Korea stole about $2 billion in cryptocurrency last year to fund weapons proliferation and destabilizing activity. Every one of those streams moves through the same plumbing — Chinese underground banking networks that processed over $103 billion last year alone.

China is far from alone in leveraging crypto. The Islamic Republican Guard Corps’ on-chain activity has been growing steadily, and represented approximately 50 percent of Iran’s total crypto ecosystem by Q4 2025. The volume of funds received by IRGC-associated addresses reached over $2 billion in 2024 and spiked to more than $3 billion in 2025 – and even this estimate likely understates the actual figure, as it excludes volumes from entities such as the UK-registered exchanges Zedcex and Zedxion, which were not designated as U.S.-sanctioned firms until January 2026. The U.S. Treasury revealed that those exchanges had processed tens of billions of dollars’ worth of transactions tied to Iran-aligned actors. This is also the payment method of choice for Iran, which has been demanding payment in Bitcoin or stablecoins for transit through the Strait of Hormuz. In short, crypto significantly diminishes the power of economic sanctions, thwarting the geopolitical goals motivating their imposition in the first place.

Click here to continue reading.