Reviewing Recent Bank Guidance on Third-Party Risk

Written by

Financial institutions are increasingly ramping up partnerships with third-party organizations that offer technologies that promulgate efficiencies or add new banking products to drive revenues.

As these partnerships increase, the risk to the banking system is also increasing. In June, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency released finalized interagency guidance over third-party risk management practices that financial institutions must consider when entering into business arrangements with third parties.

Two notable differences from the guidance initially proposed in 2021 are the need for financial institutions to establish a complete inventory of all third-party relationships and a call out of relationships with fintech organizations that interact directly with an institution’s customers.

The principles-based guidance allows institutions to look at their third-party relationships using a risk-based approach. Higher-risk activities, including critical activities, should receive more comprehensive and diligent oversight from management. Smaller community and regional banks will likely have more work to do to follow this guidance, which will be particularly relevant for institutions with significant fintech relationships.

The guidance provides five key points that institutions should integrate into their risk management procedures over the entire life cycle of a business arrangement with a third party.

1. Planning: Before conducting business with a third party, banks must create a plan to determine the type of risk and related complexities involved. Once the institution identifies such risks, it can design and establish necessary mitigation techniques.

The guidance specified that to understand the risks associated with a third party, an institution should carefully consider the following in the planning process:

  • The strategic purpose of the arrangement.
  • Benefits and risks of the relationship.
  • The volume of transactions involved.
  • Related direct and indirect costs.
  • The impact of the relationship on employees and customers.
  • The physical and information security implications.
  • Monitoring the third party’s compliance with laws and regulations.
  • Ongoing oversight of the relationship.
  • Potential contingency plans.

Once an institution fully evaluates all factors, it can build a risk matrix to visualize whether the exposure involved in the relationship would be within the institution’s risk tolerance levels.

2. Due diligence: The new guidance states that the level of due diligence an institution needs to perform on a third party should be proportionate to the risk associated with the potential relationship. Where the arrangement points to greater complexities or higher risk to the bank, the bank should deploy more thorough due diligence procedures. No matter the arrangement, institutions need to evaluate their ability to identify, assess, monitor and mitigate risks that arise.

If a financial institution is unable to perform the appropriate due diligence on a prospective third party without proper alternatives identified to support the relationship, the bank may likely need to forego the relationship.

3. Contract negotiation: Important to any third-party relationship is negotiating a contract that allows the bank to perform continuous and effective risk management practices. If there is difficulty in negotiating these aspects with the third party, the institution needs to analyze the related risk and weigh whether it is acceptable to enter into a relationship.

Importantly, the board of directors should be aware of negotiations to dispel its oversight responsibilities, whether through direct involvement or updates from an approved negotiating delegate.

4. Ongoing monitoring: Ongoing monitoring is imperative as institutions navigate a rapidly changing banking environment. Establishing different techniques or mechanisms to track the risk landscape and determine the emerging risks are just as important to monitoring as a cadence of regular reviews over current risks.

The agencies did not outline “any specific approach to ongoing monitoring. Rather, the guidance continues to state that a banking organization’s ongoing monitoring, like other third-party risk management processes, should be appropriate for the risks associated with each third-party relationship, commensurate with the banking organization’s size, complexity, and risk profile and with the nature of its third-party relationships.”

5. Termination: Lastly, if an institution has decided the relationship has run its course, an efficient and timely termination is beneficial. The institution should consider transitioning any service provided through the relationship to another third party or bringing it in-house.

Governance
The regulators also highlighted three critical governance practices for such relationships.

  • Oversight and accountability: The board of directors is ultimately responsible for the oversight of third-party risk management. This includes providing management with guidance on the risk appetite to enter into third-party relationships, as well as approving management policies and procedures.
  • Independent reviews: The guidance calls out the need for independent, periodic reviews that assess the adequacy of the risk management process, as well as management’s processes, procedures and controls for adequacy and effective operation.
  • Documentation and reporting: Institutions will need to thoroughly document their third-party risk management processes, procedures and outcomes of related independent reviews.

Risk management necessitates perpetual enhancement. As institutions continue to partner with third parties to offer new capabilities, remaining vigilant by incorporating the five key points from the guidance is essential. These techniques help safeguard the stability, trust and sustainability of the financial services industry.

A version of this article originally appeared on RSM US.

What Boards Should Know About the Bank Secrecy Act

Written by

All financial institutions are subject to the Bank Secrecy Act, the primary anti-money laundering law in the U.S., but compliance programs vary widely depending on a particular bank’s size and complexity. Boards in particular are responsible for overseeing their bank’s BSA/AML compliance program and ensuring a culture of compliance throughout the organization, says Ashley Farrell, director in the risk advisory practice at Baker Tilly. And weak compliance can have serious implications for a bank.

To learn more, see Unit 33: BSA/AML Compliance Primer in Bank Director’s Online Training Series.

Why Blockchain Is Redefining Payments for Midsize, Community Banks

Written by

In the weeks following Silicon Valley Bank’s downfall, the 25 largest U.S. banks experienced a $120 billion increase in deposits, according to the Federal Reserve. Meanwhile, the nation’s midsize and community banks saw deposits fall by over $108 billion during the same time period. This represented the largest weekly decline of non-megabank deposits in history and set a perilous precedent for the health of the nation’s economic engine.

Unlike megabanks, midsize and community banks are people-centric and largely focus on empowering their local communities. The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank has left pressing questions for businesses everywhere: Are community and regional banks in danger of becoming obsolete? Will the future be dominated by a handful of global institutions that are unresponsive to the needs of America’s entrepreneurs and small business community?

Smaller banking’s decline is not just limited to March: Community banks’ share in total lending and assets fell by 40% between 1994 and 2015, according to a 2015 paper; the country has lost over 9,000 smaller banks since 1993. For local communities, losing a community bank often means losing access to credit for that first-time small business or aspiring entrepreneur.

In times of crisis, it is often the community and regional banks, not the megabanks, that serve the vast majority of American businesses. During the coronavirus pandemic, community banks supplied a disproportionate share of Paycheck Protection Program loans, despite having budgets that pale in comparison to those held by the largest financial institutions. Additionally, they provide pivotal working capital to American businesses: community banks are responsible for 60% of all small-business loans and more than 80% of farm loans.

While America’s largest banks continue to dominate the market, the country’s smaller banking institutions are left with few options to compete with gargantuan research and development  budgets at megabanks.

While community banks are spending more to build out technological capabilities — as evidenced by cybersecurity and contactless digital payments growing by a median increase of 11% in 2021 — there is still a key technology that can transform their commercial banking capabilities and provide them with a competitive advantage versus the megabanks: private permissioned blockchain.

Private permissioned blockchain solutions operate in sharp contrast to traditional payments platforms, which are limited by high transfer fees, transaction size limits, 9-to-5 hours of operation and lengthy time delays. Payments made using private blockchain, on the other hand, enable community banks to offer their corporate clients secure, instantaneous transactions around the clock and at a fraction of the cost. This technology also enables banks to provide customized payments and financial services for every industry and for businesses of all sizes.

Fraud and regulatory efficiency are also key factors for banks to consider. Fraud losses cost banks billions of dollars every year, with a multiple of that figure spent preventing, investigating and remediating fraud. These costs are growing rapidly, and community banks lack the resources of the megabanks to address this growing issue.

In contrast, private permissioned blockchains are only accessible to authorized users, resulting in a dramatic reduction in fraud incidence, which correspondingly reduces the costs to prevent and respond to fraud cases. Critically important for smaller banks, private blockchain are also not expensive to implement and can be installed swiftly and efficiently on existing legacy core banking platforms.

Offering corporate clients a secure, efficient and customized payments and financial solutions 24 hours a day using private permissioned blockchain gives community banks the ability to capitalize on their key competitive advantage: close proximity to small businesses.

Business-to-business, or B2B, payments continue to hold a wealth of promise for community banks. Experts estimate that over 40% of all B2B payments are still conducted through paper checks, creating glaring inefficiencies and security issues plaguing community banks already struggling to compete.

One solution to close the gap between large banks and community banks is implementing emerging technologies that level the playing field without investing enormous amounts of capital to overhaul their entire tech stacks.

We are at a crossroads in U.S. financial history; the future of the country’s midsize and community banks hangs in the balance. Technology has proven to be the great equalizer, especially during periods of economic distress and financial uncertainty. Private permissioned blockchain adoption offers a lifeline that community banks desperately need in order to survive and prosper.

Tailoring Payments for Small Business Clients

Written by

Financial service firms tend to focus their products and services on large companies, ignoring the small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) that make up 99.9% of all businesses in the US.

These businesses are significant players in the economy, driving growth and operating across all industries. While their impact is huge, the financial needs of SMBs are different from big businesses. There is a growing demand for financial institutions to deliver customized and cost-effective digital solutions for these businesses and their customers. A financial institution that succeeds in meeting SMB needs will increase customer retention, attract new clients and strengthen their reputation.

Many financial institutions serve SMB customers through business banking, savings accounts or business loans. Partnering with a vendor to offer payment processing solutions is a low-risk way that banks can provide added value for their business customers, without incurring additional costs. A payment solutions partner can provide end-to-end service — from sales to account management — while the financial institution focuses on its core business. When a customer has multiple services from one institution, that relationship elevates from a transactional one to a trusted, long-term partnership.

Additionally, a merchant services partner may enhance a financial institution’s reputation in areas such as digital technology or diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). For example, a financial institution may highlight its own interest in supporting diverse businesses by choosing a merchant services processor with similar values, attracting new clients seeking a more progressive approach.

One of the biggest challenges faced by SMBs is keeping up with rapid technological changes to meet their own customers’ demands. This is especially true in the payment space, where many customers prefer contactless payment methods. Contactless transactions in the U.S. increased by 150% between 2019 and 2020 and is only expected to grow. Customers want convenience, speed, and choice when they buy. Even as a consumer or business client of an SMB, they are still used to the level of service they get from large companies. Barriers at the checkout level can impact customer satisfaction and loyalty. SMBs risk losing clients if there is an easier way to do business just down the street or on a competitor’s website. Customers may also expect merchants to accept mobile wallets, offer buy now, pay later or point-of-sale lending options and accept cryptocurrency as payment. Unfortunately, SMBs often lack the resources — such as capital, infrastructure, technology and staff — to offer the latest payment options to their customers and run their operations in the most efficient manner.

But a payment partnership allows banks to offer a slew of services to help business customers optimize their time, save money and improve customer satisfaction. For example, SMBs can benefit from an all-in-one, point-of-sale system that accepts multiple payment types, such as contactless, and includes features such as digital invoicing, inventory management, online ordering, gift cards, staffing, reporting and more. It can also give business customers access to real-time payments, seven days a week, that can improve their cash flow efficiency and avoid cash-flow lags — a major concern for many SMBs.

Small and medium businesses represent an untapped market for many financial institutions. If a financial institution starts to offer tailored payment solutions and services that help SMBs overcome their unique challenges, they can unlock significant, new opportunities in the small business segment.

How Tech Hinders the Ability to Hire

Written by

In my role as a CEO of an up-and-coming fintech startup, I spend a lot of time talking to bank executives. In recent months, those conversations have often focused on a common pain point they are all feeling: hiring.

Many executives are struggling with hiring resources and adequate staffing. While the focus is often on salaries, I think the underlying problem is that a culture lacking an innovative spirit, evidenced by outdated technology, deters the new generation of applicants. Banks are not delivering a culture that fosters innovation, nor are they using or employing technology that applicants want in their daily job. Ultimately this leads to insufficient numbers of applicants; filling open positions is an ongoing struggle.

In contrast, open positions at our company typically get hundreds, if not thousands, of applicants for any opening. The question then is: Why is there more interest in a position at a “risky” startup than in an established financial institution?

Unlocking Satisfaction
Ultimately it comes down to one thing: employee satisfaction. Higher satisfaction is often correlated with successful and long-lasting teams; the lack thereof spells doom and high turnover. As millennial employees become the majority of the workforce, their preferences and desires are becoming a more prominent factor in evolving impressions of employee satisfaction. Ultimately it comes down to a few elements:

  • Having a clear mission and ability to affect decisions that influence progress toward fulfilling the mission.
  • Delivering a collaborative and innovative culture.
  • Providing flexible work schedules and remote work possibilities.
  • Encouraging and supporting personal development.

While banks incorporate some of the elements above, they often overlook the impact of technology and business models. Banks often use an outdated technology stack that, while painful for experienced employees, is perceived as utterly terrifying for younger generations who grew up using customer-centric apps and highly customizable digital experiences. In addition, the procedures for handling customers at these institutions are often highly scripted and regimented, allowing little room for variation and a personal touch. These factors can contribute to lower employee satisfaction and an annual turnover among frontline staff that has surged to 23.4% — its highest level since 2019, according to a 2022 compensation and benefits survey from Crowe LLP.

Nonetheless, bank executives rarely consider the impact the technology they make employees use has on that employee’s satisfaction at the company. This is something that definitely deserves more attention from the board and management, and should be one of the major factors when evaluating new technology.

Creating Employee Engagement
There are several elements that make new technologies more desirable to younger employees and that may increase their satisfaction. Improving these could lower your institution’s annual churn and benefit the bottom line.

  • The user interface and user experience of your technology should be similar to that of popular consumer-facing apps. Familiarity requires less time training on how to use the technology and will increase affinity from the get-go.
  • Basic capability features should also be similar to what consumer-facing apps offer. For example, communication and messaging apps should have features like the ability for customers and employees to seamlessly transfer and move between text to video.
  • The technology should allow employees to access feedback and training in the same platform. This increases the platform’s transparency and timeliness of any feedback.
  • The technology should allow for gradual deployment and a test/iterate approach. This collects feedback from a wider number of employees and can generate a greater sense of contribution.

Incorporating the employee’s experience to an already complicated technology acquisition process might sound daunting, but it’s important to remember that this change does not need to be comprehensive and instantaneous. Instead, it can be deployed in stages, allowing your employees and the whole organization time to deploy, observe and adopt. Gradual but consistent change will yield better long-term results for both your customer and employee satisfaction.

Institutions that embrace technology their employees want to use and allow for a culture of innovation and bottom-up input will lay the groundwork for higher employee satisfaction in the future, leading to less turnover and a better bottom line. Those banks that don’t will continue to struggle to attract and retain staff, while relying on pay hikes to close the gaps.

Are Bank Directors Worried Enough About Fair Lending?

Written by

Bank directors and executives, be warned: Federal regulators are focusing their lasers on fair lending. 

If your bank has not modernized its fairness practices, the old ways of doing fair lending compliance may no longer keep you safe. Here are three factors that make this moment in time uniquely risky for lenders when it comes to fairness.

1. The Regulatory Spotlight is Shining on Fair Lending.
Fair lending adherence tops the agendas for federal regulators. The Department of Justice is in the midst of a litigation surge to combat redlining. Meanwhile, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has published extensively on unfair lending practices, including a revision of its exam procedures to intensify reviews of discriminatory practices.

Collections is one area of fair lending risk that warrants more attention from banks. Given the current economic uncertainty, collections activities at your institution could increase; expect the CFPB and other regulators to closely examine the fairness of your collections programs. The CFPB issued an advisory opinion in May reminding lenders that “the Equal Credit Opportunity Act continues to protect borrowers after they have applied for and received credit,” which includes collections. The CFPB’s new exam procedures also call out the risk of “collection practices that lead to differential treatment or disproportionately adverse impacts on a discriminatory basis.”

2. Rising Interest Rates Have Increased Fair Lending Risks.
After years of interest rate stability, the Federal Reserve Board has issued several rate increases over the last three months to tamp down inflation, with more likely to come.

Why should banks worry about this? Interest rates are negatively correlated with fair lending risks. FairPlay recently did an analysis of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act database, which contains loan level data for every loan application in a given year going back to 1990. The database is massive: In 2021, HMDA logged over 23 million loan applications.

Our analysis found that fairness decreases markedly when interest rates rise. The charts below show Adverse Impact Ratios (AIRs) in different interest rate environments.

Under the AIR methodology, the loan approval rate of a specific protected status group is compared to that of a control group, typically white applicants. Any ratio below 0.80 is a cause for concern for banks. The charts above show that Black Americans have around an .80 AIR in a 3% interest rate environment, which plummets as interest rates increase. The downward slope of fairness for rising interest rates also holds true for American Indian or Alaska Natives. Bottom line: Interest rate increases can threaten fairness.

What does this result mean for your bank’s portfolio? Even if you conducted a fair lending risk analysis a few months ago, the interest rate rise has rendered your analysis out-of-date. Your bank may be presiding over a host of unfair decisions that you have yet to discover.

3. Penalties for Violations are Growing More Severe.
If your institution commits a fair lending violation, the consequences could be more severe than ever. It could derail a merger or acquisition and cause a serious reputational issue for your organization. Regulators may even hold bank leaders personally liable.

In a recent lecture, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra noted that senior leaders at financial institutions — including directors — can now be held personally accountable for egregious violations:

“Where individuals play a role in repeat offenses and order violations, it may be appropriate for regulatory agencies and law enforcers to charge these individuals and disqualify them. Dismissal of senior management and board directors, and lifetime occupational bans should also be more frequently deployed in enforcement actions involving large firms.”

He’s wasting no time in keeping this promise: the CFPB has since filed a lawsuit against a senior executive at credit bureau TransUnion, cementing this new form of enforcement.

How can banks manage the current era of fair lending and minimize their institutional and personal exposure? Start by recognizing that the surface area of fair lending risks has expanded. Executives need to evaluate more decisions for fairness, including marketing, fraud and loss mitigation decisions. Staff conducting largely manual reviews of underwriting and pricing won’t give company leadership the visibility it needs into fair lending risks. Instead, lenders should explore adopting technologies that evaluate and imbed fairness considerations at key parts of the customer journey and generate reporting that boards, executive teams, and regulators can understand and rely on. Commitments to initiatives like special purpose credit programs can also effectively demonstrate that your institution is committed to responsibly extending credit in communities where it is dearly needed.

No matter what actions you take, a winning strategy will be proactive, not reactive. The time to modernize is now, before the old systems fail your institution.

Eyes Wide Open: Building Fintech Partnerships That Work

Written by

With rising cost of funds and increased operating costs exerting new pressures on banks’ mortgage, consumer and commercial lending businesses, management teams are sharpening their focus on low-cost funding and noninterest revenue streams. These include debit card interchange fees, treasury management services, banking as a service (BaaS) revenue sharing and fees for commercial depository services, such as wire transfers and automated clearinghouse (ACH) transactions. Often, however, the revenue streams of some businesses barely offset the associated costs. Most depository service fees, for example, typically are offered as a modest convenience fee rather than a source of profitability. Moreover, noninterest income can be subject to disruption.

Responding to both competitive pressures and signals of increased regulatory scrutiny, many banks are eliminating or further reducing overdraft and nonsufficient fund (NSF) fees, which in some cases make up a substantial portion of their fee income. While some banks offset the loss of NSF fees with higher monthly service charges or other account maintenance fees, others opt for more customer-friendly alternatives, such as optional overdraft protection using automatic transfers from a linked account.

In rethinking overdraft strategies, a more innovative response might be to replace punitive NSF fees with a more positive buy now, pay later (BNPL) program that allows qualified customers to make purchases that exceed their account balances, using a short-term extended payment option for a nominal fee.

Partnering with a fintech can provide a bank quick access to the technology it needs to implement such a strategy. It also can open up other potential revenue streams. Unfortunately, a deeper dive into the terms of a fintech relationship sometimes reveals that the bank’s reward is not always commensurate with the associated risks.

Risky Business
As the banking industry adapts to new economic and competitive pressures, a growing number of organizations are turning to bank-fintech partnerships and various BaaS offerings to help improve financial performance, access new markets, and offset diminishing returns from traditional deposit and lending activities. In many instances, however, these new relationships are not producing the financial results banks had hoped to achieve.

And as bank leaders develop a better understanding of the opportunities, risks, and nuances of fintech relationships, some discover they are not as well-prepared for the relationship as they thought. This is particularly true for BaaS platforms and targeted online service offerings, in which banks either install fintech-developed software and customer interfaces or allow fintech partners to interact directly with the bank’s customers.

Often, the fintech partner commands a large share of the income stream — or the bank might receive no share in the income at all — despite, as a chartered institution, bearing an inordinate share of the risks in terms of regulatory compliance, security, privacy, and transaction costs. Traditionally, banks have sought to offset this imbalance through earnings on the fintech-related account balances, overlooking the fact that deposits obtained through fintechs are not yet fully equivalent to a bank’s core deposits.

Moreover, when funds from fintech depository accounts appear on the balance sheet, the bank’s growing assets can put stress on its capital ratio. Unless the bank receives adequate income from the relationship, it could find it must raise additional capital, which is often an expensive undertaking.

Such risks do not mean fintech partnerships should be avoided. On the contrary, they can offer many benefits. But as existing fintech contracts come up for renewal and as banks consider future opportunities, they should enter such relationships cautiously, with an eye toward unexpected consequences.

Among other precautions, banks should be wary of exclusivity clauses. Most fintechs understandably want the option to work with multiple banks on various products. Banks should expect comparable rights and should not lock themselves into a one-way arrangement that limits their ability to work with other fintechs or market new services of their own. It also is wise to opt for shorter contract terms that allow the bank to re-evaluate and renegotiate terms early in the relationship. The contract also should clarify the rights each party has to customer relationships and accounts upon contractual termination.

Above all, management should confirm that the bank’s share of future revenue streams will be commensurate with the associated risks and costs to adequately offset the potential capital pressures the relationship might trigger.

The rewards of a fintech collaboration can be substantial, provided everyone enters the relationship with eyes wide open.

Using Embedded Finance to Grow Customers, Loans

Written by

Embedded finance is all around us, whether you know it or not.

Embedded finance is a type of transaction that a customer conducts without even realizing it — without any disruptions to their customer experience. Companies like Uber Technologies, Amazon.com, and Apple all leverage embedded finance in innovative ways to create impactful customer engagements. Today’s consumers are increasingly used to using embedded financial products to pay for a ride, buy large items and fill in cash-flow gaps.

But the explosion of embedded finance means that financial transactions that used to be the main focus of customer experiences are moving into the background in favor of more intuitive transactions. This is the whole point of embedded lending: creating a seamless customer experience centered around ease-of use, convenience and efficiency to enable other non-financial experiences.

Embedded lending extends embedded finance a step further. Embedded lending’s invisibility occurs through contextual placements within a product or platform that small to medium-sized businesses (SMBs) already use and trust. Because of embedded experiences, SMBs can get easier, faster access to capital.

All of this could put banks at a disadvantage when it comes to increasing their reach and identifying more and more qualified, high-intent SMBs seeking capital. But banks still have compelling options to capitalize on this innovative trend, such as:

  • Joining embedded lending marketplaces. Banks can capitalize on embedded lending’s ability to open up new distribution channels across their product lines. Banks can not only protect their services but grow core products, like payments and loans, by finding distribution opportunities through embedded lending partners that match businesses looking for credit products and lenders on a marketplace.

Banks can take advantage of this strategy and generate sustained growth by using platforms, like Lendflow, that bring untapped distribution opportunities into the fold. This allows them to easily reach qualified, high-intent businesses seeking capital. Even better, their applications for credit occur at their point of need, which increases the likelihood they’ll qualify and accept the loan.

  • Doubling down on traditional distribution channels. Another viable growth strategy for banks is to double down on providing better financial services and advice through traditional channels. Banks possess the inherent advantage of being in a position to not only supply products and services, but also provide ongoing advice as a trusted financial partner. Incorporating additional data points, such as payroll and cash flow data or social scoring, into their underwriting processes allows banks to leverage their unique position to develop more personalized products, improve customer experience and better support customers.

Embedded lending platforms can aggregate and normalize traditional and alternative data to help banks improve their credit decisioning workflows and innovate their underwriting processes.

  • Reverse engineering on digital banking platforms. Banks can replicate this approach by embedding fintech products into their existing mobile app or digital banking platforms. Consider a bank that decides to provide shopping access through their online portals. In a case like this, a customer may apply for a car loan through the digital bank portal. The bank can then connect that customer to a local car dealership with whom they have a partnership — and potentially maintain revenue share arrangements with — to complete the transaction.

Lenders’ Crossroads Choice
Embedded finance’s effective invisibility of its services and products poses the biggest threat — or opportunity — to banks and traditional lenders. The convenience and ease of access of embedded financial products through platforms that customers already know and trust is an ongoing challenge traditional financial services providers. Yet embedded lending doesn’t have to be a threat for banks. Instead, banks should think of embedded lending as an opportunity to innovate their product lines and expand their reach to identify underserved small and medium-sized businesses in highly profitable industries.

Embedded lending opens a new world of underwriting possibilities because it relies on smarter data use. Platforms can pull data from multiple third-party sources, so lenders can efficiently determine whether or not a customer is qualified. With better data and smarter data use, fewer qualified customers get turned away, saving lenders time, cutting down underwriting costs and increasing conversion rates.

Opportunities — and Questions — Abound With Blockchain

Written by

Blockchain technology could add almost $2 trillion in gross domestic product to the global economy — and $407 billion in the U.S. — by the end of the decade, according to a 2020 PwC study. The digital ledger’s potential to build efficiencies, speed and trust isn’t limited to the banking industry, with PwC identifying five broad areas for transformation across various sectors, including improvements to supply chains, identity management to counteract fraud and faster, more efficient payments.

An increasing number of banks, large and small, are exploring opportunities for their institutions in a blockchain-based world. I focused on how two banks are using blockchain to build a payments niche in the third quarter 2022 issue of Bank Director magazine. New York-based Signature Bank launched a blockchain-based payments platform, Signet, in 2019. The $116 billion bank collaborated with Tassat Group on the initiative. Now, Tassat works with banks such as $19 billion Customers Bancorp, in Reading, Pennsylvania, to deliver payments services to commercial clients via a private blockchain. 

Another group of banks has taken a more collaborative approach, launching the USDF Consortium in January 2022. The five founding banks include $7 billion NBH Bank, the Greenwood Village, Colorado-based subsidiary of National Bank Holdings Corp., and $57 billion Synovus Financial Corp. in Columbus, Georgia, along with the blockchain technology company Figure Technologies and the investment fund JAM FINTOP. The group wants to make the industry more competitive with an interoperable, bank-minted stablecoin, a digital currency that’s pegged, one-to-one, to fiat currency or another physical asset.

Rob Morgan, who recently took the helm at USDF after leading innovation and strategy at the American Bankers Association, says that the banks are working together to answer key, competitive questions. These include philosophical ones, such as: “What is a bank’s role in a digital, tokenized economy?” They’re also answering questions specific to blockchain, including how can banks use a technology that has fueled the rise of cryptocurrency and apply it to traditional financial products? 

Creating a more efficient, faster payments system looks like the logical first step for these organizations, but other use cases could run the gamut from building better loan and identity verification processes to conform with know your customer and anti-money laundering rules. 

Given the nascency of blockchain applications, bank regulators are still getting up to speed. “From a legal and regulatory standpoint, [we are] working with the regulators to get them comfortable with this technology,” says Morgan. “Broadly, we have seen a changing posture toward cryptocurrencies for the regulatory agencies,” citing communications from the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. that underscore expectations that banks work with their regulators before engaging in activity related to digital assets, including stablecoins. “We’re working really closely with the regulatory agencies,” says Morgan, to “make sure that they are totally comfortable with what we’re doing before moving forward and making these products live.”

For banks considering blockchain initiatives, Rachael Craven, counsel at Hunton Andrews Kurth, emphasizes the need for robust business continuity and incident response plans, as well as recovery protocols. “As with any emerging technology, operational failures, cyberattacks … should definitely be things that stay top of mind for banks,” she says. And working with a third party doesn’t let a bank off the hook for a compliance snafu. “Banks ultimately own the risks associated with any regulatory or compliance failures,” she says.

One potential murky area tied to blockchain centers around the technology’s immutability: Once the transaction data — or block — is added, it can’t be amended or reversed. Erin Fonté, who co-chairs Hunton’s financial institutions corporate and regulatory practice, sees potential conflicts with consumer protections under Regulation E, which governs electronic transfers of money via debit card, ATM or other means. “There’s nothing in Regulation E that exempts cryptocurrency transactions,” says Fonté. “You cannot forget the applicability of existing regulations to potential crypto or blockchain transactions.” 

Sara Krople, a partner at Crowe LLP, recommends that banks consider their current competitive strengths and strategic goals when discussing potential opportunities and risks with blockchain. Signature Bank started its Signet platform after consulting with its commercial client base; Customers Bancorp was pursuing a competitive moat with its niche serving companies in the digital assets sector. “Make sure it makes sense for you strategically and that you’ve thought through the risks,” Krople says. Many banks will partner with blockchain vendors, as Signature and Customers did. Banks should examine the controls and processes they’ll need, and determine whether they’re comfortable with the risk. 

Krople adds that banks should also identify one or more internal stakeholders who can take ownership for blockchain and bring the organization up to speed on its potential. Before Customers Bancorp launched its Customers Bank Instant Token [CBIT] platform, it formed an employee-level committee that spent months reviewing the associated risks. That resulted in a “best in class BSA review process” that provides speedy onboarding for clients while also ensuring the safety of the bank, according to Chris Smalley, the bank’s managing director of digital banking. 

Legal, risk and compliance processes should meet the needs of the emerging technology, says Krople. Among the questions banks should consider, she says: “Who’s going to monitor it for security? How do you know the transactions are process[ed] the way they’re supposed to? Who’s reading the smart contracts for you? You need somebody to be able to do those things.” 

A bank’s needs will differ by use case, Krople adds. “There’s a huge amount of opportunity, but you need to make sure people have thought through all the steps you need to implement a process.”

How to Find the Right Title Service Provider

Written by

In a highly competitive market, bank title service providers can have a tangible impact on business outcomes. Below are several considerations for selecting a title provider who can help institutions navigate today’s challenging market.

Stability
It’s important to know that the title provider your bank selects remains consistent, whether the market is up or down. Decades of experience, minimal claims and strong financial backing all contribute to the stability of a settlement service provider. “There’s an element of risk lenders can avoid by working with a title partner that has a history of producing instant title with minimal claims. How long have they been doing it?” says Jim Gladden, senior vice president of origination strategy at ServiceLink. “What does their track record look like?”

Service
Each file matters. After all, a home is likely your borrower’s biggest investment; making sure a purchase, refinance or home equity transaction goes smoothly is critical. For that reason, it’s important to ensure that title service providers take the unique needs of the bank’s team and borrowers into account, and prioritizes each transaction.

One way to do that is to work with a firm that dedicates individuals to working with the same lenders and loan officers, so they can understand the unique expectations each of them has, according to Kristy Folino, senior vice president of origination services at ServiceLink.

Prioritizing the Borrower Experience
The real estate lending industry is increasingly competitive; attracting and retaining borrowers is critical. Investigate how different title providers think about your borrowers, and whether their service ethos and technology prioritize the borrower throughout the transaction.

Check out the 2022 ServiceLink State of Homebuying Report to learn more about today’s borrowers. Dave Steinmetz, president of origination services at ServiceLink, says the study suggests a growing number of buyers embrace technology.

“Many are open to new pathways to achieve homeownership. This indicates there is an opportunity for lenders to provide more targeted resources and guidance to buyers throughout their home buying journey.”

Operational Efficiency
In leaner times, banks need to maximize margins on each transaction. Consider where your title service provider has automated their processes, and how that shows up in your bottom line. For example, instant title technology speeds decisioning and enables shorter rate lock periods by quickly clearing the way to the closing table. In fact, many lenders are surprised at how many of their loans qualify for fast-tracking through the instant title process.

Integrating technology and approaches like instant title into your processes could allow you to improve your workflows. Using instant title complexity decisions can help prioritize clear-to-close files, getting them to the closing table faster.

Scalability
In the past few years, the mortgage industry has seen how quickly volumes can change. In this volatile environment, it’s critical to partner with settlement service providers who can flex up or down with their financial institution partner as the market necessitates. The size of a provider’s signing agent panel impacts their scalability — as does their ability to allocate vendors to your operations at critical times, like month’s end.

Geographic Footprint
Being able to use one provider for transactions in all 50 states can simplify bank operations. Partnering with a title service provider with national scope ensures that a bank and its borrowers have a consistent experience, wherever they’re located. Gladden pointed out that national coverage is especially important for lenders with portfolios that are geographically diverse.

Security
Strict adherence to local, state and federal guidelines is critical to ensuring compliant transactions. Security around data must be airtight to protect lenders and their customers from potential breaches or other security incidents.

“Each title provider uses a platform that is aggregating both public and nonpublic consumer information. It’s important to know how that information is protected,” says Gladden.

Data quality
It’s important to look at the sources of title service providers’ data. While speed is essential, assurances from your title providers about data quality is paramount, particularly when it comes to instant title.

“The product is only as good as the data source, so the quality and depth of the data is the biggest factor to look out for. Instant title providers may all be racing toward the same goal, but the methodologies we’re using to get there — whether technologies, processes or the decisions we’re making — differ significantly,” says Sandeepa Sasimohan, vice president of title automation at ServiceLink.

Breadth of product offering
When you’re considering adding to your slate of providers, consider what value can be gained by onboarding a particular vendor. Banks that partner with organizations that offer a comprehensive suite of services — including uninsured and insured title products, flood and valuations — can benefit from increased efficiencies.

These considerations ladder up to one critical theme: partnership. Your title service provider should be a strategic ally who works alongside you to navigate market conditions.