The regulatory landscape for asset managers is shifting beneath our feet. It’s no longer just about filing forms; it’s about data granularity, frequency, and the speed at which you can deliver it. As we move into 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has made its intentions clear: they want more data, they want it faster, and they want it to be more transparent than ever before.

For financial services executives and compliance professionals, this isn’t just a compliance headache—it’s a data infrastructure challenge. The days of manual spreadsheets and last-minute scrambles are over. The new requirements demand a level of agility and precision that legacy systems simply cannot support. If you’re still relying on manual processes to meet these evolving standards, you’re not just risking non-compliance; you’re risking your firm’s operational resilience.

The Shifting Landscape: More Data, More Often

The theme for 2026 is “more.” More frequent filings, more detailed disclosures, and more scrutiny. The SEC’s push for modernization is driven by a desire to better monitor systemic risk and protect investors, but for asset managers, it translates to a significant operational burden.

Take Form N-PORT, for example. What was once a quarterly obligation with a 60-day lag is transitioning to a monthly filing requirement due within 30 days of month-end. This tripling of filing frequency doesn’t just mean three times the work; it means your data governance and reporting engines must be “always-on,” capable of aggregating and validating portfolio data on a continuous cycle.

The “Big Three” for 2026: Form PF, 13F, and N-PORT

While there are numerous reports to manage, three stand out as critical focus areas for 2026: Form PF, Form 13F, and Form N-PORT. Each has undergone significant changes or is subject to new scrutiny that demands your attention.

Form PF: The Private Fund Data Deep Dive

The amendments to Form PF, adopted in February 2024, represent a sea change for private fund advisers. With a compliance date of October 1, 2026, these changes require more granular reporting on fund structures, exposures, and performance. Large hedge fund advisers must now report within 60 days of quarter-end, and the scope of data required—from detailed asset class breakdowns to counterparty exposures—has expanded significantly. This isn’t just another new report. It’s a comprehensive audit of your fund’s risk profile, delivered quarterly.

Form 13F: The Institutional Standard

For institutional investment managers exercising discretion over $100 million or more in 13(f) securities, Form 13F remains a cornerstone of transparency. Filed quarterly within 45 days of quarter-end, this report now requires the companion filing of Form N-PX to disclose proxy votes on executive compensation. This linkage between holdings and voting records adds a new layer of complexity, requiring firms to seamlessly integrate data from their portfolio management and proxy voting systems.

Form N-PORT: The Monthly Sprint

A shift to monthly N-PORT filings is a game-changer for registered investment companies. The requirement to file within 30 days of month-end means that your month-end close process must be tighter than ever. Any delays in data reconciliation or validation will eat directly into your filing window, leaving little margin for error.

The Operational Burden: Hidden Costs of Manual Processes

It’s easy to underestimate the time and effort required to produce these reports. A “simple” quarterly update can easily consume a week or more of a compliance officer’s time when you factor in data gathering, reconciliation, and review.

For a large hedge fund adviser, we at Perficient have seen a full Form PF filing taking two weeks or more of dedicated effort from multiple teams. When you multiply this across all your reporting obligations, the cost of manual processing becomes staggering. And that’s before you consider the opportunity cost—time your team spends wrangling data is time they aren’t spending on strategic initiatives or risk management.

The Solution: Automation and Cloud Migration

The only viable path forward is automation. To meet the demands of 2026, asset managers must treat regulatory reporting as a data engineering problem, not just a compliance task. This means moving away from siloed spreadsheets and towards a centralized, cloud-native data platform.

By migrating your data infrastructure to the cloud, you gain the scalability and flexibility needed to handle large datasets and complex calculations. Automated data pipelines can ingest, validate, and format your data in real-time, reducing the “production time” from weeks to hours. This isn’t just about efficiency; it’s about accuracy and peace of mind. When your data is governed and your processes are automated, you can file with confidence, knowing that your numbers are right.

Key Regulatory Reports at a Glance

To help you navigate the 2026 reporting calendar, we’ve compiled a summary of the key reports, their purpose, and what it takes to get them across the finish line.

Your Next Move

If your firm would like assistance designing or adopting regulatory reporting processes or migrating your data infrastructure to the cloud with a consulting partner that has deep industry expertise – reach out to us here.

Editor’s Note: We are thrilled to feature this guest post by Tracy Julian, Financial Services Industry Lead & Architect at Perficient. With over 20 years of experience across retail banking, wealth management, and fintech, Tracy is a systems architect who specializes in turning complex data hurdles into high-velocity, future-ready AI solutions.

Executive Summary 

Financial services organizations face mounting pressure to deliver highly personalized client experiences while navigating increasingly complex regulatory requirements. At the same time, relationship managers and advisors spend a significant portion of their week searching for client information across disconnected systems. This administrative burden reduces time available for strategic client engagement and limits the ability to proactively identify cross-sell, retention, and risk management opportunities. 

Agentforce, Salesforce’s enterprise-grade agentic AI platform, addresses these challenges head-on. By automating data aggregation, surfacing real-time insights, and embedding compliance-aware intelligence directly into workflows, Agentforce helps financial services teams operate more efficiently and intelligently. 

This article explores real-world Agentforce financial services use cases and provides a practical implementation roadmap for organizations evaluating AI agent deployment. 

Key Takeaways 

• Agentforce reduces client research time through automated, multi-source data aggregation 

• Four proven Agentforce financial services use cases across banking, wealth, and asset management 

• A 4–6 week implementation timeline is achievable with proper planning 

• Built-in compliance automation aligned with SOC 2 and financial services standards 

The Challenge: Data Fragmentation in Modern Financial Services 

Financial services teams across B2B banking, wealth management, registered investment advisors (RIAs), and workplace services face a shared set of challenges that directly impact revenue, efficiency, and client satisfaction. 

1. Information Silos Create Operational Inefficiency

• Client data is scattered across multiple Salesforce orgs, legacy core banking systems, portfolio management platforms, and document repositories 

• Financial advisors manage information across many different systems 

• There is no single, unified view of client relationships, risk indicators, or cross-sell opportunities 

2. Time-Intensive Meeting Preparation

• Client-facing teams spend disproportionate time on administrative tasks rather than strategic interactions 

• Relationship managers manually compile company summaries, account histories, and risk assessments before each meeting 

• Information retrieval delays slow response times to client inquiries 

3. Escalating Regulatory Complexity

• Increasing regulations around data privacy (GDPR, CCPA, GLBA), personally identifiable information (PII), and record retention 

• Manual compliance reviews create operational bottlenecks and increase the risk of human error 

• Document scanning for sensitive data (SSNs, account numbers, tax IDs) is often reactive rather than preventive 

4. Missed Revenue Opportunities

• Without unified intelligence, leaders struggle to identify upsell, cross-sell, and retention risks in real time 

• Fragmented data limits proactive account planning and relationship management 

• Inconsistent visibility into consultant and intermediary relationships reduces partner channel effectiveness 

Real-World Example: Multi-Org Complexity 

A Perficient financial services client operates 20+ production Salesforce orgs across marketing, sales, and service. This complexity has resulted in: 

• Significant manual effort by relationship managers searching for client information 

• Inconsistent data interpretation across sales and service teams 

• Compliance vulnerabilities caused by manual PII identification processes 

• Delayed opportunity identification due to siloed account intelligence 

This scenario is common across enterprise financial services organizations—and represents one of the most compelling Agentforce financial services use cases. 

How Salesforce Agentforce Helps 

Agentforce is Salesforce’s next-generation AI platform, combining: 

• Natural language processing (NLP) for conversational interfaces 

• Multi-source data aggregation across Salesforce objects, external systems, and documents 

• Workflow automation triggered by agent-driven insights and actions 

• Compliance-aware processing with PII detection and security controls 

• Real-time intelligence generated from both structured and unstructured data 

Unlike traditional chatbots or rule-based automation, Agentforce agents: 

• Understand context and intent from natural language queries 

• Access and synthesize information from multiple data sources simultaneously 

• Generate actionable insights and recommendations—not just raw data 

• Learn from user interactions to improve relevance over time 

• Integrate seamlessly with existing Salesforce workflows and third-party systems 

Agentforce leverages Salesforce Einstein AI, Data 360 for unified data access, and the Hyperforce infrastructure to deliver enterprise-grade security, compliance, and trust for financial services use cases. 

Four High-Impact Agentforce Financial Services Use Cases 

The following Agentforce use cases have been developed specifically for financial services and can typically be implemented within four weeks. 

Client Intelligence Agent: Gain 360-Degree Relationship Insights 

The Client Summary Agent consolidates comprehensive client intelligence in seconds, eliminating manual data gathering. It aggregates: 

• Company & Contact Details: Legal entity structure, key decision-makers, organizational hierarchy 

• Financial Position: Account balances, asset allocation, liabilities, portfolio performance 

• Relationship Health: Engagement scores, activity frequency, NPS data, retention risk indicators 

• Opportunity Pipeline: Active deals, proposal status, estimated close dates, win probability 

• Service History: Open and closed cases, resolution times, satisfaction ratings 

• Interaction Timeline: Meetings, calls, emails, and all historical touchpoints 

Business Outcome
Relationship managers can prepare for meetings faster, personalize conversations, and proactively identify engagement and retention risks. Time previously spent gathering data is redirected to strategic client interactions. This represents one of the foundational Agentforce financial services use cases. 

Account Relationship Agent: Manage Complex Accounts & Client Risk 

For firms that work with consultants, brokers, or intermediaries, the Account Relationship Agent provides a unified view of partner relationships by consolidating: 

• Partner Profile: Firm details, key contacts, AUM/AUA influenced, areas of specialization 

• Referral History: Opportunities sourced, conversion rates, deal size, revenue attribution 

• Engagement Metrics: Meeting cadence, co-marketing activity, webinar participation, content engagement 

• Pipeline Analysis: Active referrals by stage, forecasted revenue, deal aging 

• Collaboration Activity: Shared plans, joint calls, tasks, and communication history 

Business Outcome
Sales teams gain clarity into partner performance and potential, enabling better territory planning, stronger collaboration, and more strategic channel investment. 

Client Prospect Agent: Optimize Sales Intelligence & Next Best Action 

The Client Prospect Agent transforms raw data into actionable sales intelligence by analyzing: 

• Company Intelligence: Industry position, competitive landscape, growth signals, news mentions 

• Buying Signals: Website engagement, content consumption, event attendance, RFP activity 

• Relationship Mapping: Existing connections, decision-makers, organizational structure 

• Whitespace Analysis: Current services versus product catalog, cross-sell and upsell opportunities 

• Next Best Actions: Prioritized recommendations based on engagement and firmographic data 

Business Outcome
Sales teams can prioritize accounts more effectively, uncover whitespace opportunities, and focus on actions that accelerate deal progression. This Agentforce financial services use case is most beneficial for acquisition teams. 

Document Scanning Agent: Automate PII Compliance Safeguards 

Regulatory compliance is non-negotiable in financial services. The Document Scanning Agent provides automated, pre-upload document scanning for: 

• Social Security Numbers (SSNs): Multiple formats (XXX-XX-XXXX, XXXXXXXXX) 

• Tax Identification Numbers (TINs/EINs): Business and individual identifiers 

• Account Numbers: Bank, credit card, and brokerage accounts 

• Passport Numbers: Government-issued identification 

• Custom PII Patterns: Configurable regex for institution-specific data types 

Business Outcome
Organizations reduce human error, strengthen compliance posture, and protect sensitive client data—automatically and proactively. 

Getting Started: Next Steps for Your Organization 

If your organization is evaluating Agentforce, consider the following steps: 

1. Assess Your Current State

• Map data fragmentation across systems and or within the Salesforce org across objects  

• Quantify time spent on manual data gathering 

• Identify high-impact pain points 

• Establish baseline metrics for measuring improvement 

2. Define Success Criteria

• Business outcomes: Efficiency gains, revenue impact, compliance risk reduction 

• Adoption targets: Percentage of users actively engaging with agents 

• Technical performance: Accuracy, response time, data completeness 

• ROI expectations: Payback period and time to value 

3. Prioritize Use Cases

• Identify quick-win Agentforce financial services use cases that deliver value in 30–60 days 

• Assess team readiness and change appetite 

• Evaluate data availability and quality 

• Align use cases to regulatory risk and compliance priorities 

4. Engage Expert Partners

• Schedule a discovery workshop with Perficient 

• Review reference architectures and live demonstrations 

• Develop a phased implementation roadmap 

• Establish governance, KPIs, and success metrics 

AI Agents as a Competitive Advantage in Financial Services 

The financial services industry is at an inflection point. Organizations that successfully deploy Agentforce financial services use cases to augment human expertise will gain durable competitive advantages, including: 

• Superior client experiences through faster, more personalized, and proactive service 

• Improved operational efficiency by shifting effort from administration to relationship management 

• Revenue growth through earlier identification of cross-sell, upsell, and retention opportunities 

• Increased compliance confidence with automated safeguards that reduce regulatory risk 

• Data-driven decision-making powered by unified, real-time intelligence 

Agentforce represents Salesforce’s most significant AI advancement for financial services—combining trusted CRM data with cutting-edge agentic AI capabilities. Organizations that move quickly, but strategically, will establish lasting advantages in client relationships, operational efficiency, and market leadership. 

Meet Your Expert 

Tracy Julian
Financial Services Industry Lead & Architect, Salesforce Practice 

Tracy brings more than 20 years of financial services experience in retail banking, wealth management, capital markets, and fintech, spanning both industry and consulting roles with firms including the Big 4 across the U.S. and EMEA. 

She leads Perficient’s financial services industry efforts within the Salesforce practice, partnering with clients to define the vision and goals behind their transformation. She then uses that foundation to build smarter, future-ready solutions that deliver business first, scalable solutions across strategy, cloud migration, and innovation in marketing, sales, and service. 

A systems architect by trade, Tracy is known for aligning teams around a shared vision and solving complex problems with measurable impact. 

Introduction

Insured domestic financial institutions operating in the United States with total consolidated assets between $10 billion and $100 billion face a complex and multi-layered regulatory reporting landscape. These mid-sized banking organizations occupy a critical position in the financial system—large enough to pose potential systemic risks yet distinct from the very largest global systemically important banks. As a result, federal regulators have established a comprehensive framework of periodic reporting requirements designed to monitor capital adequacy, liquidity positions, credit concentrations, operational risks, and overall financial condition.

This article provides an in-depth examination of the major federal regulatory reports that banks in this asset category must file with the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). Understanding these reporting obligations is essential for Chief Compliance Officers, Chief Financial Officers, and regulatory reporting teams responsible for producing timely and accurate submissions to federal banking agencies.

The Regulatory Framework

Banks with assets exceeding $10 billion but remaining below $100 billion are subject to enhanced prudential standards under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. Section 165 of the Act requires the Federal Reserve Board to establish risk-based capital requirements, leverage limits, liquidity requirements, and stress testing protocols for bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies with total consolidated assets of $10 billion or more. These enhanced standards are implemented through a series of regular reporting requirements that provide regulators with detailed, timely information about each institution’s financial condition, risk exposures, and capital planning processes.

The regulatory reporting regime serves multiple supervisory purposes. First, it enables regulators to monitor individual institutions’ safety and soundness on an ongoing basis, identifying emerging risks before they threaten financial stability. Second, aggregate data from these reports inform broader systemic risk assessments and macroeconomic policy decisions. Third, the information collected supports the Federal Reserve’s supervisory stress testing framework, including the Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test (DFAST) and Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) processes. Finally, certain reporting data are used to calculate regulatory capital ratios, liquidity coverage ratios, and other key prudential metrics that determine whether institutions meet minimum regulatory standards. Providing regulators each of those measures are the following reports:

Major Reporting Requirements

1. Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report)

The cornerstone of bank regulatory reporting is the quarterly Call Report, formally known as the Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income. Every national bank, state member bank, insured state nonmember bank, and savings association must file a consolidated Call Report as of the close of business on the last calendar day of each calendar quarter.

Purpose and Scope

The Call Report collects comprehensive financial data in the form of a balance sheet, income statement, and supporting schedules that detail a bank’s condition and performance. The information is used by the FDIC, OCC, and Federal Reserve for bank supervision and examination, deposit insurance assessment, monetary policy analysis, and public disclosure. Supervisory agencies use Call Report data to monitor individual bank risk profiles, identify troubled institutions, assess the impact of economic and policy changes on the banking system, and prepare reports to Congress and the public.

Banks between $10 and $100 billion in total consolidated assets file one of two primary Call Report forms depending on their office structure. Banks with any foreign offices—including International Banking Facilities (“IBFs”), foreign branches or subsidiaries, or majority-owned Edge or Agreement subsidiaries—must file the FFIEC 031 form quarterly. Bank’s with only domestic offices file the FFIEC 041 form.

Reporting Frequency and Timing

The Call Report is due quarterly as of March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31. While the core report is required quarterly, specific schedules have varying frequencies. Schedule RC-T (Fiduciary and Related Services) is filed quarterly only by banks with more than $250 million in fiduciary assets or with fiduciary income exceeding 10% of total revenue; otherwise it is filed annually on December 31. Several memorandum items are reported semiannually on June 30 and December 31, including data on held-to-maturity securities transfers and purchased credit-impaired loans. Other items such as preferred deposits, reverse mortgage data, internet transaction capability, and captive insurance/reinsurance assets are reported only annually on December 31.

2. Complex Institution Liquidity Monitoring Report (FR 2052a)

The FR 2052a is one of the newer but also one of the most detailed and data-intensive regulatory reports in the banking system. It collects granular, transaction-level information on assets, liabilities, funding activities, and contingent liabilities to enable the Federal Reserve to monitor liquidity risks at large, complex banking organizations. Perficient has previously offered a free guide to the 2052a report available here – Breaking Down the FR 2052a Complex Institution Liquidity Monitoring Report, a Guide / Perficient

Purpose and Scope

The Federal Reserve uses the FR 2052a to monitor the overall liquidity profile of supervised institutions, including detailed information on liquidity risks within different business lines such as securities financing, prime brokerage activities, and derivative exposures. These data points as part of the Board’s supervisory surveillance program in liquidity risk management and provide timely information on firm-specific liquidity risks during periods of stress. Analyses of systemic and idiosyncratic liquidity risk issues inform supervisory processes and the preparation of analytical reports detailing funding vulnerabilities.

The report is used to monitor compliance with the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) and Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) requirements established under Basel III and implemented by U.S. banking agencies. The FR 2052a collects data across ten distinct tables covering 115 product types, 14 counterparty types, 72 asset classes, and 75 maturity buckets extending out to five-plus years.

Reporting Frequency and Timing

U.S. banking organizations that are subject to Category III standards with average weighted short-term wholesale funding of $75 billion or more must submit the FR 2052a on each business day. Daily filers must submit reports by 3:00 p.m. ET each business day. U.S. banking organizations subject to Category III standards with average weighted short-term wholesale funding of less than $75 billion, or subject to Category IV standards, must submit the report monthly.

When a banking organization’s required reporting frequency increases from monthly to daily, it may continue to report monthly until the first day of the second calendar quarter after the change in category becomes effective. Conversely, when frequency decreases from daily to monthly, the reduction takes effect immediately on the first day of the first quarter in which the change is effective.

3. Country Exposure Report (FFIEC 009)

The FFIEC 009 Country Exposure Report provides regulators with detailed information on the geographic distribution of U.S. banks’ claims on foreign residents, enabling assessment of country-specific and transfer risks in bank portfolios.

Purpose and Scope

The report is used to monitor country exposures of banks to determine the degree of country risk and transfer risk in their portfolios and assess the potential impact on U.S. banks of adverse developments in particular countries. The International Lending Supervision Act mandates quarterly reporting to obtain more frequent and timely data on changes in the composition and maturity of banks’ loan portfolios subject to transfer risk.

Data collected includes detailed information on claims by country, sector, and maturity, as well as risk transfers through guarantees and other credit enhancements. The Interagency Country Exposure Review Committee (ICERC) uses this information to conduct periodic reviews of country exposures and assign transfer risk ratings to specific countries.

Reporting Frequency and Timing

The FFIEC 009 must be filed quarterly as of the last business day of March, June, September, and December, with submissions due within 45 calendar days after the reporting date (50 calendar days after the December 31 reporting date).

The report is required of every U.S.-chartered commercial bank that holds aggregate foreign claims of $30 million or more and maintains a foreign branch, international banking facility, majority-owned foreign subsidiary, or similar foreign office. Bank holding companies must also file under certain conditions, and Edge and agreement corporations with foreign claims exceeding $30 million must file unless consolidated under a reporting bank.

4. Weekly Report of Selected Assets and Liabilities (FR 2644)

The FR 2644 provides the Federal Reserve with high-frequency data on selected balance sheet items from a sample of commercial banks, serving as the primary source for weekly banking statistics.

Purpose and Scope

The FR 2644 collects sample data that are used to estimate universe levels for the entire commercial banking sector when combined with quarterly Call Report data. Data from the FR 2644, together with other sources, are used to construct weekly estimates of bank credit, balance sheet data for the U.S. banking industry, sources and uses of banks’ funds, and current banking developments.

These weekly statistics are published in the Federal Reserve’s H.8 statistical release “Assets and Liabilities of Commercial Banks in the United States” and are routinely monitored by Federal Reserve staff, included in materials prepared for the Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee, and incorporated into the semiannual Monetary Policy Report to Congress.

Reporting Frequency and Timing

The FR 2644 is submitted weekly as of the close of business each Wednesday by an authorized stratified sample of approximately 850-875 domestically chartered commercial banks and U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks. This sample accounts for approximately 88% of domestic assets of commercial banks and U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks. Small banks (those with assets less than $5 billion) have an option to report monthly rather than weekly, helping to reduce burden for community banks while maintaining adequate sample coverage.

5. Single-Counterparty Credit Limits (FR 2590)

The FR 2590 report enables the Federal Reserve to monitor compliance with the Single-Counterparty Credit Limits (SCCL) rule, which prohibits covered companies from having aggregate net credit exposure to any unaffiliated counterparty exceeding 25% of Tier 1 Capital.

Purpose and Scope

The SCCL rule, adopted pursuant to Section 165(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act, is designed to limit the exposure of large banking organizations to single counterparties, thereby reducing the risk that the failure of a counterparty could cause significant losses to a covered bank and threaten financial stability. The FR 2590 reporting form collects comprehensive information on a respondent organization’s credit exposures to its counterparties, including detailed data on gross exposures, securities financing transactions, derivative exposures, risk-shifting arrangements, eligible collateral and mitigants, and the presence of relationships requiring aggregation under economic interdependence or control tests.

Reporting Frequency and Timing

Respondents must file the FR 2590 quarterly as of the close of business on March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31. Submissions are due 40 calendar days after the first three quarters and 45 calendar days after the December 31 reporting date.

All U.S. bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies, and foreign banking organizations that are subject to Category I, II, or III standards must file the report. For foreign banking organizations, the requirement applies to those subject to Category II or III standards or those with total global consolidated assets of $250 billion or more. The estimated average hours per response for the FR 2590 is approximately 254 hours per quarterly submission, reflecting the detailed counterparty-level information and complex risk calculations required. The report requires respondents to identify and report data for their top 50 counterparties. Respondents must retain one exact copy of each completed FR 2590 in electronic form for at least three years.

6. Capital Assessments and Stress Testing Report – Annual (FR Y-14A)

The FR Y-14A is the annual component of the Capital Assessments and Stress Testing information collection that supports the Federal Reserve’s supervisory stress testing and capital planning framework.

Purpose and Scope

The FR Y-14A collects detailed quantitative projections of balance sheet assets and liabilities, income, losses, and capital across a range of macroeconomic scenarios, as well as qualitative information on methodologies used to develop internal projections of capital across scenarios. The report comprises Summary, Scenario, Regulatory Capital Instruments, Operational Risk, and Business Plan Changes schedules.

Respondents report projections across supervisory scenarios provided by the Federal Reserve as well as firm-defined scenarios where applicable. The data are used to assess capital adequacy of large firms using forward-looking projections of revenue and losses, to support supervisory stress test models, for continuous monitoring efforts, and to inform the Federal Reserve’s operational decision-making under the Dodd-Frank Act.

Reporting Frequency and Timing

The FR Y-14A is filed annually with an as-of date of December 31. Submissions are due 52 calendar days after the calendar quarter-end (typically early February). The annual submission must be accompanied by an attestation signed by the CFO or equivalent senior officer.

Bank Holding Companies, Intermediate Holding Companies, and Savings and Loan Holding Companies with $100 billion or more in total consolidated assets are required to file. The specific schedules required depend on whether the institution is subject to Category I-III standards or Category IV standards.

The FR Y-14A reporting burden is substantial, reflecting the comprehensive forward-looking projections and detailed scenario analysis required. The current estimated average burden is approximately 1,330 hours per annual response. This includes both the preparation of quantitative projections across multiple scenarios and the development of supporting qualitative documentation describing methodologies and assumptions.

7. Capital Assessments and Stress Testing Report – Quarterly (FR Y-14Q)

The FR Y-14Q collects detailed quarterly data on Bank Holding Companies’, Intermediate Holding Companies’, and Savings and Loan Holding Companies’ various asset classes, capital components, and categories of pre-provision net revenue.

Purpose and Scope

The FR Y-14Q schedules collect firm-specific granular data on positions and exposures used as inputs to supervisory stress test models, to monitor actual versus forecast information on a quarterly basis, and for ongoing supervision. The report comprises Retail, Securities, Regulatory Capital Instruments, Regulatory Capital, Operational Risk, Trading, PPNR, Wholesale, Retail Fair Value Option/Held for Sale, Counterparty, Balances, and Supplemental schedules.

All schedules must be submitted for each reporting period unless materiality thresholds apply. For example, only firms subject to Category I, II, or III standards with aggregate trading assets and liabilities of $50 billion or more, or trading assets and liabilities equal to 10% or more of total consolidated assets, must submit the Trading and Counterparty schedules.

Reporting Frequency and Timing

The FR Y-14Q is filed quarterly as of March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31. Submissions are due 45 calendar days after the end of the first three quarters and 52 calendar days after the December 31 quarter-end. For the fourth quarter Trading and Counterparty schedules, submissions may be due as early as March 15 if the Board selects an earlier as-of date for the global market shock component.

New reporters receive implementation relief, with the filing deadline extended to 90 days after quarter-end for the first two quarterly submissions. This allows institutions crossing the significant $100 billion asset threshold extra time to build necessary reporting infrastructure and processes.

Table: Federal Reporting Requirements Summary

Additional Considerations

Data Governance and Quality Control

The volume, granularity, and frequency of these reporting requirements demand robust data governance frameworks and quality control processes. Financial institutions must establish clear data lineage documentation, implement automated validation checks, maintain comprehensive data dictionaries, and conduct regular reconciliation across reports.

Many of these reports require data at transaction or contract levels (FR 2052a, FR-2590, FR Y-14Q), necessitating direct integration with core banking systems, loan origination platforms, treasury management systems, and risk management applications. Manual data gathering and spreadsheet-based processes for Inured Depository Institutions with greater than $10 billion of assets are insufficient for sustained compliance with these requirements, particularly for daily or weekly filings. At Perficient, we have seen and helped clients implement AI-enhanced reporting capabilities.

Systems and Technology Infrastructure

Implementing and maintaining compliance with these reporting requirements typically requires significant technology investments. Institutions may need to deploy specialized regulatory reporting platforms, develop custom data extraction and transformation tools, implement automated validation and reconciliation systems, and establish secure data transmission capabilities.

The FR 2052a, in particular, has driven substantial technology modernization at many institutions due to its granular cash flow reporting requirements and daily submission frequency for the largest banks. Similarly, the FR Y-14A and Q reports require sophisticated data aggregation capabilities to assemble loan-level detail from disparate systems across the enterprise.

Staffing and Expertise Requirements

Compliance with these reporting requirements necessitates dedicated teams with specialized expertise spanning regulatory reporting, financial accounting, risk management, data management, and systems analysis. Larger institutions typically maintain separate teams for different reporting families, with subject matter experts for capital, liquidity, credit risk, market risk, and operational risk reporting.

The attestation requirements for several reports—including the FR Y-14Q and FR 14A—place direct accountability on senior financial officers, underscoring the importance of robust internal controls, documentation, and review processes.

Coordination with Business Lines

Successful regulatory reporting requires close coordination between centralized reporting functions and business lines across the organization. Trading desks must provide transaction-level derivatives data, retail lending units must supply detailed loan-level information, treasury teams must furnish liquidity and funding details, and international operations must contribute country exposure data.

Establishing clear roles, responsibilities, and service level agreements between reporting teams and data providers is essential to ensure timely, accurate submissions.

Conclusion

Banks with total consolidated assets between $10 billion and $100 billion face a demanding federal regulatory reporting regime that reflects their significance to the financial system and the potential risks they pose. The seven major reporting requirements discussed in this article—Call Reports, FR 2052a, FFIEC 009, FR 2644, FR 2590, FR Y-14A, and FR Y-14Q—collectively require thousands of hours of effort annually and generate vast amounts of detailed financial, risk, and operational data.

Effective management of these reporting obligations requires substantial investments in data infrastructure, technology systems, specialized expertise, and governance processes. Institutions must balance the compliance imperative with considerations of cost, efficiency, and the need to leverage reporting data for internal management purposes. Those institutions that view regulatory reporting not merely as a compliance burden but as an opportunity to enhance data quality, strengthen risk management, and improve decision-making are best positioned to meet these obligations efficiently while deriving maximum value from their reporting investments.

As the regulatory landscape continues to evolve in response to emerging risks and changing market conditions, banking organizations in this asset range must maintain flexibility, invest in scalable reporting infrastructure, and cultivate deep regulatory expertise to navigate future reporting requirements successfully. The complexity and significance of federal bank reporting requirements underscore the critical role of compliance and regulatory reporting functions in maintaining the safety, soundness, and stability of individual institutions and the broader financial system.

Our financial services experts continuously monitor the regulatory landscape and deliver pragmatic, scalable solutions that meet the mandate and more. Reach out to Perficient’s BFSI team here – Contact Us / Perficient – and discover why we’ve been trusted by 18 of the top 20 banks, 16 of the 20 largest wealth and asset management firms, and are regularly recognized by leading analyst firms.

With the possible exception of medical providers, financial institutions handle some of the most sensitive information consumers possess—Social Security numbers, income and employment details, credit histories, account balances, and more. Protecting this data is not only essential to maintaining consumer trust but is also a legal requirement under the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (“GLBA”) and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) Safeguards Rule. Together, these regulations establish a comprehensive framework for how financial institutions must secure, manage, and protect consumer information throughout its lifecycle.

Although the GLBA has been in effect for a couple of decades, and the FTC Safeguarding Rule was put into effect in 2003 and updated for smart phone usage in 2021 with penalties taking effect in 2023, we thought a review would be helpful for executives of financial institutions as well as fintechs. Below, we break down the core requirements of GLBA and the Safeguards Rule, along with practical considerations for financial institutions striving to meet and exceed compliance expectations. While the regulatory language can feel intricate, the intent is clear: organizations must take proactive, documented, and continually improving measures to safeguard customer data from unauthorized access, misuse, and breaches.

The GLBA: Overview and Purpose

Enacted in 1999, GLBA reversed the Glass-Steagall Act, modernizing the financial services industry by allowing greater integration across banking, securities, and insurance markets. But along with this expanded capability came heightened responsibility. Title V of GLBA—the Privacy Rule and the Safeguards Rule—requires financial institutions to:

1. Explain their information‑sharing practices to consumers
2. Protect the security and confidentiality of nonpublic personal information (NPI)
3. Limit data sharing with non‑affiliated third parties unless certain conditions are met

The law defines “financial institution” broadly, extending beyond banks to include mortgage brokers, lenders, payday loan companies, tax preparation firms, investment advisers, fintechs, and various other service providers engaged in financial activities.

The FTC Safeguards Rule: Framework for a Modern Security Program

The FTC Safeguards Rule—originally issued under GLBA and updated significantly in 2021 and 2023—provides the detailed blueprint for how financial institutions must secure customer information. The rule outlines administrative, technical, and physical safeguards that organizations must implement as part of a comprehensive information security program.

Here are the foundational elements required under the rule:

1. Designation of a Qualified Individual

Every financial institution must appoint a Qualified Individual (“QI”) responsible for implementing and overseeing the company’s information security program. This person may be an internal employee or an external service provider, but accountability ultimately remains with the institution’s leadership.

2. Risk Assessment

A written, formal risk assessment must identify reasonably foreseeable internal and external threats to customer information. This includes evaluating:

• Data storage and transmission methods
• Employee access
• Third‑party risks
• System vulnerabilities
• Potential impact of data compromise

The risk assessment must guide the selection and implementation of safeguards and guardrails, ensuring they are appropriate to the institution’s size, complexity, and the sensitivity of the data it handles.

3. Implementation of Safeguards Aligned to Identified Risks

The Safeguards Rule specifies several required protections:

• Access Controls: Ensure only authorized personnel can access sensitive data, requiring under the regulation role‑based permissions and least‑privilege principles.
• Encryption: Encrypt customer data both in transit and at rest.
• Multi‑Factor Authentication (“MFA”): Require MFA for any access to systems containing customer information. This requirement is why you have to constantly check your phone and keep yourself in Wi-Fi every time you use that financial website or app.
• Secure Development Practices: Implement secure coding practices and change‑management procedures.
• Data Inventory and Mapping: Maintain a clear understanding of where data resides, how it flows, and who has access. Data lineage is generally considered a next natural step once data inventory and mapping is completed.
• Monitoring and Logging: Continuously monitor systems for unauthorized activity and maintain detailed event logs.
• Vulnerability Management: Conduct routine scans, penetration testing, and timely patch management.

These safeguards ensure that institutions take a proactive rather than reactive approach to data protection.

4. Employee Training

Human error is among the most common causes of data breaches. The rule mandates that institutions provide regular security awareness training designed to equip employees with the knowledge to identify threats such as phishing, social engineering, or unauthorized data access attempts.

5. Oversight of Service Providers

Many financial institutions rely on third‑party vendors for critical operations, from cloud hosting to data analytics. Under the Safeguards Rule, institutions must:

• Conduct due diligence before engaging vendors
• Ensure contracts contain specific data‑security obligations
• Monitor vendor compliance

This requirement reflects the increasingly interconnected ecosystem of financial technology and the shared responsibility model.

6. Incident Response Planning

The rule requires a written incident response plan that outlines:

• Roles and responsibilities
• Internal and external communication procedures
• Criteria for defining events
• Steps for containment, remediation, and recovery
• Documentation and post‑incident analysis

A well‑designed plan ensures organizations can respond to security events quickly and effectively.

7. Annual Reporting to the Board of Directors

At least once a year, the QI (remember #1 above) must deliver a written report to the board or governing body detailing:

• Program status
• Risk assessment findings
• Security events and responses
• Recommendations for improvement

This ensures executive oversight and board accountability.

Conclusion

As financial data becomes increasingly valuable and cyber threats more advanced, GLBA and the FTC Safeguards Rule provide a structured, strategic framework for protecting consumer information. Institutions that embrace these requirements not as a checkbox exercise but as a guide to building a mature, adaptive security program position themselves for stability, trust, and competitive advantage.

Failure to comply can lead to substantial financial penalties; reputational damage; a significant and perhaps permanent loss of consumer trust; and increased scrutiny form federal regulators.

If your firm would like assistance designing or adopting robust cybersecurity strategies aligned with GLBA and the Safeguards Rule as part of migrating to the cloud with a consulting partner that has deep industry expertise – reach out to us here.

This blog was co-authored by Perficient Project Manager: Alicia Lawrence

As a global organization headquartered in St. Louis, Perficient is committed to supporting current and future clients by monitoring federal and state regulations and alerting them of changes that may impact them.  In 2024, Perficient published a blog highlighting insights gathered through continuous monitoring a of the New York State regulations impacting financial services firms:

NYDFS Part 500 Cybersecurity Amendments – What You Need to Know  

This blog highlights key observations and implications of the latest changes to the NYDFS 500 regulations and builds on the previously published blog to inform financial services executives that the NYDFS Part 504 Transaction Monitoring and Filtering Certification is a significant annual regulatory requirement for any institution regulated under New York’s Banking, Insurance or Financial Services Law. The regulation imposes an annual certification on senior officers and board members that their organization’s transaction monitoring and sanctions filtering programs are designed, maintained, and tested to effectively detect money laundering, terrorist financing, and sanctioned-party transactions.  

What is Part 504 Certification? 

Under 3 NYCRR Part 504, regulated institutions are legally obligated to: 

• Operate an Anti-Money Laundering (“AML”)-compliant Transaction Monitoring Program, tailored to their risk profile. 

• Run a Watchlist/Sanctions Filtering (i.e., Office of Foreign Assets Control “OFAC” compliance) Program. 

• Annually certify, by April 15th, that these programs meet the Part 504 control standards, even if an institution finds and is actively remediating deficiencies.  

The certification itself covers the prior calendar year and is a standalone submission via DFS’ portal. The certification doesn’t require and actually prohibits the submission of supporting documentation. However, institutions must maintain records supporting their certification for potential DFS review. Such documentation includes internal/external audit results, scenario logic, testing strategy and results, and if necessary, documentation of remediation efforts and remediation plans. 

A link to the page is available here: 

Transaction Monitoring Certification (3 NYCRR 504) | Department of Financial Services 

 Who Must Certify? 

Part 504 applies to any institution regulated by NYDFS under its financial services law, including: 

• State-chartered banks 

• Non-bank entities (e.g., money transmitters, Money Services Businesses “MSBs”) 

• Insurance firms offering financial products 

• Other licensed financial service providers 

Why Part 504 Matters 

Part 504 enhances financial integrity by ensuring senior-level accountability, mirroring Sarbanes-Oxley-style executive attestations. Even if an executive or Board member leaves a regulated financial institution, they could still be liable for false certifications made  the institution, should fraud be found after the fact. The NYDFS enacted this after uncovering weaknesses in AML controls across state-supervised banks and nonbanks, underscoring a need for robust governance.  

The regulation aims to: 

• Elevate governance and oversight of AML/OFAC programs. 

• Standardize program controls, including testing, validation, vendor oversight, and qualified staffing.  

• Improve defenses against financial crime and regulatory infractions. 

Key Transaction Monitoring Requirements 

Getting further into the weeds, as required by Section 504.3, an effective program must include the following core components:  

• Risk-Based Design: Align thresholds and detection logic with your institution’s assessed AML and OFAC risks. 
• Periodic Testing & Updates:  
  • Incorporate regular reviews (including model validation and data flows). 

• • Update parameters based on evolving regulatory guidance or business changes.

• Comprehensive Detection Scenarios: Create alert rules targeting suspicious behaviors aligned with your AML risk appetite.
• Full Testing Regimen:  
  • End-to-end testing (pre/post-implementation). 

• • Governance oversight, data quality checks, and scenario validation. 

• Documentation:  
  • Maintain records of detection scenarios, assumptions, thresholds, testing outcomes, and remediation. 

• Alert Handling Protocols:
  • Define investigative workflows, decision points (clear vs escalate), roles, and documentation processes. 

• Ongoing Monitoring:  
  • Continuously review scenario relevance, threshold efficacy, and real-world performance. 

These requirements also extend to sanctions filtering – ensuring timely name screening, alerts, and case management controls are in place. 

Risks of Non–Compliance 

Non-compliance with Part 504 can lead to: 

• DFS enforcement actions, including fines or directives, under Banking Law §37 or Financial Services Law §302.  

• Reputational damage, aka “Headline Risk” if AML or sanctions failures become public. 

• Operational vulnerabilities, including weakened AML controls and potential for financial crime. 

Best Practices for Compliance 

Perficient consultants and compliance SMEs have seen and helped firms build and maintain a rock-solid Part 504 posture by helping design and build the following best practices: 

• Governance Oversight: Including AML leadership and internal/external audit in program reviews. 
• Periodic Program Testing: Conducting fresh scenario validations, testing the design and operation of existing controls, performing data assembly testing, and model verification no less than annually. 
• Issue Remediation: Prioritizing issues for remediation using a risk-based approach and performing issue validation testing.
• Risk Assessment: Execute risk assessments of key business processes and determine inherent and residual risks.
• Staff Training: Ensuring business line staff and compliance leads understand Part 504 requirements and manage alerts effectively. 
• Comprehensive Documentation: Keeping complete audit trails including logs of monitoring system updates, testing reports, governance minutes, and remediation plans. 
• Vendor Oversight: If using third-party monitoring systems, conducting due diligence and regularly reviewing vendor performance. 
• Senior Executive and Board Engagement: Encouraging frequent executive-level reviews, not just during certification preparation aka April 14th. 

Conclusion 

Navigating Part 504 certification isn’t just an annual checkbox. It’s a significant piece of an institution’s AML and OFAC defense. By embedding risk-based monitoring, rigorous testing, and senior-level accountability, regulated institutions in New York not only fulfill their regulatory obligations but also strengthen their ability to deter and detect financial crimes. 

Through consistent governance, meticulous documentation, and leadership engagement, Part 504 becomes more than compliance—it becomes a strategic shield for safeguarding financial integrity. For institutions governed by DFS, this certification confirms that all necessary steps have been taken to comply with Part 504 posture, reputation, and resiliency requirements —all by April 15 each year. 

If you would like to have Perficient SMEs work with you on your Part 504 preparation work – or just have a conversation – reach out to us here. 

Perficient is recognized in Forrester’s Salesforce Consulting Services Landscape, Q4 2025, which notes our North America geographic focus and industry focus in Financial Services, Healthcare, and Manufacturing. Forrester asked each provider included in the Landscape to select the top business scenarios for which clients select them and from there determined which are the extended business scenarios that highlight differentiation among the providers. Perficient is shown in the report for having selected Agentforce, Data 360 (Data Cloud), and Industry Clouds as top reasons clients work with us out of those extended business scenarios. Our proven capabilities across Agentforce, Data 360 (Data Cloud), and Industry Clouds help clients achieve measurable outcomes from their Salesforce investments.

We believe this recognition underscores what leading analysts and buyers already know: the next phase of Salesforce is not about bigger projects—it’s about faster proof of value. The partners that win are the ones who shorten time to outcomes, orchestrate across your stack, and help you spend smarter.

How Perficient Turns Insight into Action: Our Outcomes Playbook

Outcome‑first framing becomes practical when the first milestone is small and meaningful. For revenue teams, that might be a lift in qualified pipeline from cleaner data and guided selling. For service teams, it could be faster resolution through better case routing and knowledge. For operations, it may be a reliable view of performance from harmonized data. Each path is sized to prove value quickly, then expanded as results compound.

“Clients want partners who bring clarity to complexity. We focus on strengthening foundations and preparing people for AI so teams can achieve outcomes that last.”
— Megan Glasow, Vice President, Sales & Services-Salesforce

The Uncomfortable Truth

Most teams already “have Salesforce,” yet value stalls in the maze of customizations, parallel orgs, and integrations that never quite talk to each other. The market itself has moved from first deployments to modernization and multi-cloud expansion, which is why traditional, effort‑heavy engagements are delivering diminishing returns. Buyers are asking for partners who can deliver outcomes in increments, with industry IP and operating‑model rigor, not just more bodies.

What Changed, Practically Speaking

Two forces converged. First, core implementation work is easier to standardize, which drives commoditization. Second, AI is now embedded across the platform, including agentic capabilities that can act on your data and processes. That combination rewards teams that fix foundations, make workflows interoperable, and apply AI with governance and observability. When those pieces are in place, outcomes compound quickly.

Three Moves to Make this Quarter

1) Pick one outcome, not five

Choose a business metric that executives care about and design a sprint around it. Example outcomes: faster case resolution in Service, higher conversion in Sales, or lower cost to serve in Commerce. Anchor on a single use case, then use accelerators and standard patterns to get live in weeks. This approach mirrors how leading buyers evaluate providers today, with incremental value and industry use cases as selection criteria.

Quick start checklist:

• One KPI that is visible to the business
• A standard pattern or accelerator to reduce custom build time
• A simple adoption plan with role clarity and feedback loops

2) Orchestrate, do not bolt on

Real value shows up when workflows span systems. Map an end‑to‑end process across Salesforce and your adjacent platforms, then eliminate the handoffs that slow customers down. Expect your partner to bring reference architectures and integration patterns that make the process portable and resilient. Forrester’s guidance is explicit on this point: buyers want orchestrated workflows across tech stacks for true transformation.

3) Make ROI Repeatable

Set a cadence for license alignment, customization reduction, and tech debt cleanup. Consolidate orgs where the business case is clear. Replace custom objects with native capabilities when possible. Tie every change to operating cost, agility, or customer outcomes.

How to Choose a Partner without a 50‑page RFP

Ask three questions that cut through the noise:

• Can you show the intersection of your skills for my use case?
• What will you deliver first, and how will we measure it?
• What guardrails will be in place on day one?

Perficient’s POV: The Bottom Line

We show the intersection of our skills for your exact use case, deliver a working release tied to a single KPI in the initial increment, and put governance and auditability in place from day one. The result is measurable value, clarity on what to scale next, and confidence that outcomes will keep improving with each iteration.

If your 2026 goals include faster time to value, better orchestration, and disciplined ROI, book a modernization strategy session with our team. We will assess your current org, identify quick wins, and design an incremental plan aligned to your outcomes. Then move from strategy to proof in Outcome Over Effort, Part 2: Build, Govern, Measure, where we walk through a simple operating model to get one agent live, protect accuracy and access, and show measurable lift you can expand.

Next month’s webinar features insights from guest speakers, Forrester’s Kate Leggett and Salesforce’s Kaylin Voss, on outcomes, orchestration, and responsible AI. Bookmark this page and check back next month for details.

Forrester does not endorse any company, product, brand, or service included in its research publications and does not advise any person to select the products or services of any company or brand based on the ratings included in such publications. Information is based on the best available resources. Opinions reflect judgment at the time and are subject to change. For more information, read about Forrester’s objectivity  here .

The financial services industry is undergoing significant transformation, driven by the increasing adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) and data science. As financial institutions strive to stay competitive, they’re leveraging these technologies to improve customer experience, operational efficiency, and risk management. At Data Science Salon NYC, I had the opportunity to join industry experts in discussing the latest trends and innovations shaping our field. Here are four key takeaways from the event: 

AI Adoption Starts with Customer-Centric Use Cases 

Financial institutions are using AI to enhance customer experience through personalized services, and we’re seeing the most immediate impact in areas like call centers and knowledge retrieval. When we talk about saving time and effort, customer experience is an easy space where we can start thinking about answering questions faster.  

By putting the customer at the center and leveraging AI-driven analytics, financial institutions can gain deeper insights into customer behavior and preferences, enabling them to tailor services to meet specific needs. The key is starting with use cases that have clear, measurable impact on customer satisfaction and operational efficiency. 

Data Science Is About Business Outcomes, Not Just Technology 

One of the most important lessons we continue to emphasize: Data science is not just about algorithms and technology; it’s about business value. In our work with financial services and insurance clients, we’re constantly focused on driving tangible business results. 

When measuring success, we need to have open conversations because business leaders have very different definitions of success than technology leaders. Yes, latency is important, but at what point does that latency drive or impact revenue or costs? Ultimately, we need to put a dollar sign in front of it. Success boils down to two key metrics: 

Does it move the bottom line? 

Are people actually using it? 

Success is defined as whether everyone can use that tool and whether it’s simple to follow. In the end, it’s people who are driving the revenue. Financial institutions that invest in data science innovation with this business-first mindset are better positioned to stay ahead of the competition and drive real growth. 

AI Governance Isn’t a Yes or No Decision 

One of the biggest things we’re encouraging any enterprise to do as they think about AI governance is understanding that very few evaluations come down to a “yes” or “no” decision. Rather, we should strive to define the risk mitigations necessary to get a “yes.” Effective AI governance involves establishing clear frameworks that include: 

• Continuous monitoring and auditing of AI systems for bias and performance 

• Transparent AI explainability to build trust among stakeholders and regulators 

• Open dialogue about risk mitigation strategies 

We must make sure we’re building trust beyond the vendor level, but on each individual use case. By implementing thoughtful governance, financial institutions can manage risks while still innovating confidently. 

Adoption and Change Management Are Critical Success Factors 

The adoption question is crucial: Are people actually using it? We need to educate our teams on what we’re doing, why we’re doing these things, and how they can take advantage of it. 

One practice we always recommend is A/B testing. Many organizations don’t always A/B test the efficacy of the AI tool versus not having the AI tool. Instead of giving it to everyone at once, we’ve taken one area, split teams in half, and had one side do the work the traditional way while the other uses the new AI tool. This allows us to measure real impact and build confidence in the technology. 

AI-powered solutions are increasingly being used to detect and prevent financial crimes such as money laundering and fraud through predictive modeling and anomaly detection techniques. By leveraging these technologies thoughtfully (with proper governance, testing, and adoption strategies) financial institutions can reduce risk while improving regulatory compliance. 

Looking Ahead 

The key to success in AI and data science isn’t just adopting the latest technology, it’s ensuring that technology drives measurable business value, is governed responsibly, and is adopted by the people who need to use it. When we get those three elements right, that’s when we see transformational results in financial services. 

To learn more about Perficient’s AI capabilities in the financial services industry, visit https://www.perficient.com/industries/financial-services. For more AI insights, sign up for Perficient’s AI-First Newsletter.

Moments of currency change are where fortunes are made and lost. In January 2026, Bulgaria will enter one of those moments. The country will adopt the euro and officially retire the Bulgarian lev, marking a major euro adoption milestone and reshaping how investors, banks, and global firms manage currency risk in the region. The shift represents one of the most significant macroeconomic transitions in Bulgaria’s modern history and is already drawing attention across FX markets.

To understand how dramatically foreign exchange movements can shift value, consider one of the most famous examples in modern financial history. In September 1992, investor George Soros, “the man who broke the British Bank,” bet against the British pound, anticipating that the UK’s exchange rate policy would collapse. The resulting exchange rate crisis, now known as Black Wednesday, became a defining moment in forex trading and demonstrated how quickly policy decisions can trigger massive market dislocations.

By selling roughly $10 billion worth of pounds, his Quantum Fund earned ~$1 billion in profit when the currency was forced to devalue. The trade earned Soros the nickname “the man who broke the Bank of England” and remains a lasting example of how quickly confidence and capital flows can move entire currency systems.

GBP/USD exchange rate from May 1992 to April 1993, highlighting the dramatic plunge during Black Wednesday. When George Soros famously shorted the pound, forcing the UK out of the ERM and triggering one of the most significant currency crises in modern history

To be clear, Bulgaria is not in crisis. The Soros example simply underscores how consequential currency decisions can be. Even when they unfold calmly and by design, currency transitions reshape the texture of daily life. The significance of Bulgaria’s transition becomes more clear when you consider what the lev has long represented. Safety. Families relied on it through political uncertainty and economic swings, saved it for holidays, passed it down during milestones, and trusted it in moments when little else felt predictable. Over time, the lev became a source of stability as Bulgaria navigated decades of change and gradually aligned itself with the European Union..

Its retirement feels both symbolic and historic. But for global markets, currency traders, banks, and companies engaged in cross border business, the transition is not just symbolic. It introduces real operational changes that require early attention. This article explains what is happening, why it matters, and how organizations can prepare.

Some quick facts help frame the scale of this shift.

Map of Bulgaria

Bulgaria has a population of roughly 6.5 million.

The country’s GDP is about 90 billion U.S. dollars (World Bank, 2024)

Its largest trade partners are EU member states, Turkey, and China.

Why Bulgaria Is Adopting the Euro

​​Although the move from the Lev to the Euro is monumental, many Bulgarians also see it as a natural progression. ​​When Bulgaria joined the European Union in 2007, Euro adoption was always part of the long-term plan. Adopting the Euro gives Bulgaria a stronger foundation for investment, more predictable trade relationships, and smoother participation in Europe’s financial systems. It is the natural next step in a journey the country has been moving toward slowly, intentionally, and with growing confidence. That measured approach fostered public and institutional trust, leading European authorities to approve Bulgaria’s entry into the Eurozone on January 1, 2026 (European Commission, 2023; European Central Bank, 2023).

How Euro Adoption Affects Currency Markets

Bulgaria’s economy includes manufacturing, agriculture, energy, and service sectors. Its exports include refined petroleum, machinery, copper products, and apparel. It imports machinery, fuels, vehicles, and pharmaceuticals (OECD, 2024). The Euro supports smoother trade relationships within these sectors and reduces barriers for European partners.

Once Bulgaria switches to the Euro, the Lev will quietly disappear from global currency screens. Traders will no longer see familiar pairs like USD to BGN or GBP to BGN. Anything involving Bulgaria will now flow through euro-based pairs instead. In practical terms, the Lev simply stops being part of the conversation.

For people working on trading desks or in treasury teams, this creates a shift in how risk is measured day to day. Hedging strategies built around the Lev will transition to euro-based approaches. Models that once accounted for Lev-specific volatility will have to be rewritten. Automated trading programs that reference BGN pricing will need to be updated or retired. Even the market data providers that feed information into these systems will phase out Lev pricing entirely.

And while Bulgaria may be a smaller player in the global economy, the retirement of a national currency is never insignificant. It ripples through the internal workings of trading floors, risk management teams, and the systems that support them . It is a reminder that even quiet changes in one part of the world can require thoughtful adjustments across the financial landscape.

Combined with industry standard year-end code-freezes, Perficient has seen and helped clients stop their Lev trading weeks before year-end.

The Infrastructure Work Behind Adopting the Euro

Adopting the Euro is not just a change people feel sentimental about. Behind the scenes, it touches almost every system that moves money. Every financial institution uses internal currency tables to keep track of existing currencies, conversion rules, and payment routing. When a currency is retired, every system that touches money must be updated to reflect the change.

This includes:

• Core banking and treasury platforms
• Trading systems
• Accounting and ERP software
• Payment networks, including SWIFT and ISO 20022
• Internal data warehouses and regulatory reporting systems

Why Global Firms Should Pay Attention

If the Lev remains active anywhere after the transition, payments can fail, transactions can be misrouted, and reconciliation issues can occur. The Bank for International Settlements notes that currency changes require “significant operational coordination,” because risk moves across systems faster than many institutions expect. 

Beyond the technical updates, the disappearance of the Lev also carries strategic implications for multinational firms. Any organization that operates across borders, whether through supply chains, treasury centers, or shared service hubs, relies on consistent currency identifiers to keep financial data aligned. If even one system, vendor, or regional partner continues using the old code, firms can face cascading issues such as misaligned ledgers, failed hedging positions, delayed settlements, and compliance flags triggered by mismatched reporting. In a world where financial operations are deeply interconnected, a seemingly local currency change can ripple outward and affect global liquidity management and operational continuity.

Many firms have already started their transition work well in advance of the official date in order to minimize risk. In practice, this means reviewing currency tables, updating payment logic, testing cross-border workflows, and making sure SWIFT and ISO 20022 messages recognize the new structure. 

Trade Finance Will Feel the Change

For people working in finance, this shift will change the work they do every day. Tools like Letters of Credit and Banker’s Acceptances are the mechanisms that keep international trade moving, and they depend on accurate currency terms. If any of these agreements are written to settle in Lev, they will need to be updated before January 2026.

That means revising contracts, invoices, shipping documents, and long-term payment schedules. Preparing early gives exporters, importers, and the teams supporting them the chance to keep business running smoothly through the transition.

What Euro Adoption Means for Businesses

Switching to the Euro unlocks several practical benefits that go beyond finance departments.

• Lower currency conversion costs
• More consistent pricing for long-term agreements
• Faster cross-border payments within the European Union
• Improved financial reporting and reduced foreign exchange risk
• Increased investor confidence in a more stable currency environment

Because so much of Bulgaria’s trade already occurs with Eurozone countries, using the Euro simplifies business operations and strengthens economic integration.

How Organizations Can Prepare

The most important steps for institutions include:

1. Auditing systems and documents for references to BGN
2. Updating currency tables and payment rules
3. Revising Letters of Credit and other agreements that list the Lev
4. Communicating the transition timeline to partners and clients
5. Testing updated systems well before January 1, 2026

Early preparation ensures a smooth transition when Bulgaria officially adopts the Euro. Ensure that operationally you’re prepared to accept Lev payments through December 31, 2025, but given settlement timeframes, prepared to reconcile and settle Lev transactions into 2026.a

Final Thoughts

The Bulgarian Lev has accompanied the country through a century of profound change. Its retirement marks the end of an era and the beginning of a new chapter in Bulgaria’s economic story. For the global financial community, Bulgaria’s adoption of the Euro is not only symbolic but operationally significant.

Handled thoughtfully, the transition strengthens financial infrastructure, reduces friction in global business, and supports a more unified European economy.

References 

Bank for International Settlements. (2024). Foreign exchange market developments and global liquidity trends. https://www.bis.org

Eichengreen, B. (1993). European monetary unification. Journal of Economic Literature, 31(3), 1321–1357.

European Central Bank. (2023). Convergence report. https://www.ecb.europa.eu

European Commission. (2023). Economic and monetary union: Euro adoption process. https://ec.europa.eu

Henriques, D. B. (2011). The billionaire was not always so bold. The New York Times.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2024). Economic surveys: Bulgaria. https://www.oecd.org

World Bank. (2024). Bulgaria: Country data and economic indicators. https://data.worldbank.org/country/bulgaria

On December 16^th, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) became the first US regulatory body to utilize the GENIUS Act and create procedures for institutions to issue payment stablecoins. The GENIUS Act was enacted on July 18, 2025, and will become effective on January 18, 2027, so there is still time to determine how your institution will navigate the new regulatory landscape. The FDIC approval marks a significant milestone in the evolving landscape of digital currencies and their integration into the traditional financial system. As the financial sector continues to embrace innovation, the FDIC’s decision provides much-needed clarity and regulatory guidance for institutions looking to venture into the stablecoin market.

For those unfamiliar, stablecoins are digital currencies pegged to the value of a traditional currency and have been gaining traction as a means of facilitating fast and secure transactions. By establishing a clear framework for their issuance, the FDIC is paving the way for FDIC-supervised institutions to explore this emerging market with greater confidence.

At Perficient, we believe that the new procedures will drive innovation in payment systems, enhance financial inclusion, and provide consumers with more choices for conducting transactions. We also believe that the act will allow significant innovation in the Treasury Services space and allow new Treasury entrants to embrace the new state of the art technology and leap to the head of the industry, just as the adoption of smart phones and the Internet allowed new leaders to emerge in those industries.

Key Highlights in the New Regulation

Readers must know that the FDIC approved proposal refers to the subsidiary of an Insured Depository Institution (“IDI”) that has been approved to issue payment stablecoins under the GENIUS Act as a Permitted Payment Stablecoin Issuer, or “PPSI” – an acronym that will soon become widely used in the industry.

The proposal limits PPSI’s activities to:

• issuing and redeeming payment stablecoins,
• managing related reserves,
• providing payment stablecoin and reserve custodial and safekeeping services,
• and engaging in digital asset service provider activities.

The proposal sharply prohibits pledging, rehypothecating, or reusing a PPSI’s reserves assets. The PPSI’s reserves are the digital equivalent to cash in the vault.

What the FDIC Will Require

The FDIC’s proposal outlines specific requirements for stablecoin issuance by PPSIs. To be eligible, the subsidiary must:

• maintain identifiable reserves backing the outstanding payment stablecoins on at least a 1 to 1 basis,
• Maintain reserves comprised of specified categories of high-quality assets,
• Document the ability to relatedly meet the monthly reserve disclosure requirements applicable to a PPSI.
  • The reserve disclosure requirements include disclosing the composition of the PPSI’s reserves on its website and
  • submitting to the FDIC certified reports examined by a public accounting firm regarding the prior month’s reserve composition disclosure.

Additionally, the FDIC is required to consider the ability of the PPSI, based on financial condition and resources, to comply with forthcoming regulations to be issued by the FDIC regarding:

1. capital requirements
2. liquidity requirements
3. reserve asset diversification
4. operational, compliance, and information technology risk management principles-based requirements and standards, including but not limited to:
   1. Bank Secrecy Act
   2. Know Your Customer and
   3. Sanctions Standards

Therefore, while a significant landmark regulation, there are still more regulations to come before January 2027.

If your IDI is ready to start down this road as an applicant to create a state-of-the-art Treasury Payment subsidiary to issue and redeem stablecoins, you will need a partner with decades of background in the financial services industry. Perhaps one that has been trusted by 18 of the top 20 banks, 16 of the 20 largest wealth and asset management firms and are regularly recognized by leading analyst firms. If this sounds like the type of trusted partner you need to help build your Treasury Payment abilities, reach out to Perficient’s Financial Services Managing Director David Weisel to start a conversation.

Perficient is proud to be named a Major Player in the IDC MarketScape: Worldwide Experience Build Services 2025 Vendor Assessment (Doc #US52973125, October 2025) and IDC MarketScape: Worldwide Experience Design Services 2025 Vendor Assessment (Doc #US52973225, October 2025). These IDC MarketScapes assessed providers, offering a comprehensive framework including product and service offerings, capabilities and strategies, and current/future market success factors.

“We believe being recognized by IDC for Experience Design and Experience Build reinforces the impact we have on behalf of clients creating personalized, seamless interactions that accelerate growth. In today’s experience-driven economy, that’s the competitive advantage that matters,” says Erin Rushman, general manager of digital marketing and experience design operations at Perficient.

What This Inclusion Means for Perficient

Being named a Major Player, we believe, underscores our dedication to transforming customer experiences and empowering businesses through personalized, seamless, and impactful interactions. Perficient combines strategy and research with human-centered design to help organizations craft agile, customer-focused solutions that thrive in dynamic markets. By leveraging data-driven insights, personalization, AI, and more, we deliver end-to-end experiences that deepen engagement and drive measurable business impact.

According to the IDC MarketScape for Experience Design Services, “Perficient has strong capabilities in digital offering design and offers leading-edge experience design services backed by a global innovation network.” The report also notes, “In conversations with Perficient’s reference clients, the three areas where experience design services buyers commended the vendor highly were for the quality of its professionals, for its industry specific capabilities, and differentiation as a vendor.”

The IDC MarketScape for Experience Build Services states, “As an independent digital experience agency, Perficient combines business and technology transformation capabilities, including a robust collection of supporting assets and tools, with a focus on the design and build of customer experiences. Perficient has strong personalization capabilities.”

Additionally, Perficient was named a Major Player in the IDC MarketScape for Customer Experience Strategy Consulting Services 2025 Vendor Assessment (Doc #US52973025, September 2025). We believe this inclusion reflects our commitment to delivering AI-first solutions that transform customer experiences through scalable, high-impact innovations. It establishes Perficient as a trusted partner, driving unmatched success in the experience-driven market of tomorrow.

Read the News Release: Perficient Named a Major Player in Three IDC MarketScapes For AI-First Approach to Customer Experience

What This Inclusion Means for Our Clients

Perficient continues to be a leader in experience strategy and design, helping clients align vision, accelerate innovation, and achieve lasting transformation. We enable businesses to embed AI into processes and deliver personalized customer experiences at scale. By expanding and strengthening alliances with partners, we ensure our solutions remain innovative and leading-edge, empowering clients to stay ahead in a dynamic market.

Exceptional CX is essential for growth and loyalty. Our expertise across platforms and global delivery ensures brands can quickly adapt, innovate, and meet rising customer expectations. Explore our expertise to see how we can be a partner in your experience journey.

Financial institutions are at a pivotal moment. As customer expectations evolve and AI reshapes digital engagement, leaders in marketing, CX, and IT must rethink how they deliver value.

Adobe’s report, “State of Customer Experience in Financial Services in an AI-Driven World,” reveals that only 36% of the customer journey is currently personalized, despite 74% of executives acknowledging rising customer expectations. With transformation already underway, financial leaders face five imperatives that demand immediate action to drive relevance, trust, and growth.

1. Make Personalization More Meaningful

Personalization has long been a strategic focus, but today’s consumers expect more than basic segmentation or name-based greetings. They want real-time, omnichannel interactions that align with their financial goals, life stages, and behaviors.

To meet this demand, financial institutions must evolve from reactive personalization to predictive, intent-driven engagement. This means leveraging AI to anticipate needs, orchestrate journeys, and deliver content that resonates with individual context.

Perficient Adobe-consulting principal Ross Monaghan explains, “We are still dealing with disparate data and slow progression into a customer 360 source of truth view to provide effective personalization at scale. What many firms are overlooking is that this isn’t just a data issue. We’re dealing with both a people and process issue where teams need to adjust their operational process of typical campaign waterfall execution to trigger-based and journey personalization.”

His point underscores that personalization challenges go beyond technology. They require cultural and operational shifts to enable real-time, AI-driven engagement.

2. Redesign the Operating Model Around the Customer

Legacy structures often silo marketing, IT, and operations, creating friction in delivering cohesive customer experiences. To compete in a digital-first world, financial institutions must reorient their operating models around the customer, not the org chart.

This shift requires cross-functional collaboration, agile workflows, and shared KPIs that align teams around customer outcomes. It also demands a culture that embraces experimentation and continuous improvement.

Only 3% of financial services firms are structured around the customer journey, though 19% say it should be the ideal.

3. Build Content for AI-Powered Search

As AI-powered search becomes a primary interface for information discovery, the way content is created and structured must change. Traditional SEO strategies are no longer enough.

Customers now expect intelligent, personalized answers over static search results. To stay visible and trusted, financial institutions must create structured, metadata-rich content that performs in AI-powered environments. Content must reflect experience-expertise-authoritativeness-trustworthiness principles and be both machine-readable and human-relevant. Success depends on building discovery journeys that work across AI interfaces while earning customer confidence in moments that matter.

4. Unify Data and Platforms for Scalable Intelligence

Disconnected data and fragmented platforms limit the ability to generate insights and act on them at scale. To unlock the full potential of AI and automation, financial institutions must unify their data ecosystems.

This means integrating customer, behavioral, transactional, and operational data into a single source of truth that’s accessible across teams and systems. It also involves modernizing MarTech and CX platforms to support real-time decisioning and personalization.

But Ross points out, “Many digital experience and marketing platforms still want to own all data, which is just not realistic, both in reality and cost. The firms that develop their customer source of truth (typically cloud-based data platforms) and signal to other experience or service platforms will be the quickest to marketing execution maturity and success.”

His insight emphasizes that success depends not only on technology integration but also on adopting a federated approach that accelerates marketing execution and operational maturity.

5. Embed Guardrails Into GenAI Execution

As financial institutions explore GenAI use cases, from content generation to customer service automation, governance must be built in from the start. Trust is non-negotiable in financial services, and GenAI introduces new risks around accuracy, bias, and compliance.

Embedding guardrails means establishing clear policies, human-in-the-loop review processes, and robust monitoring systems. It also requires collaboration between legal, compliance, marketing, and IT to ensure responsible innovation.

At Perficient, we use our PACE (Policies, Advocacy, Controls, Enablement) Framework to holistically design tailored operational AI programs that empower business and technical stakeholders to innovate with confidence while mitigating risks and upholding ethical standards.

The Time to Lead is Now

The future of financial services will be defined by how intelligently and responsibly institutions engage in real time. These five imperatives offer a blueprint for action, each one grounded in data, urgency, and opportunity. Leaders who move now will be best positioned to earn trust, drive growth, and lead in the AI-powered era.

Learn About Perficient and Adobe’s Partnership

Are you looking for a partner to help you transform and modernize your technology strategy? Perficient and Adobe bring together deep industry expertise and powerful experience technologies to help financial institutions unify data, orchestrate journeys, and deliver customer-centric experiences that build trust and drive growth.

Get in Touch With Our Experts

I think about the early ATMs now and then. No one knew the “right” way to use them. I imagine a customer in the 1970s standing there, card in hand, squinting at this unfamiliar machine and hoping it would give something back; trying to decide if it really dispensed cash…or just ate cards for sport. That quick panic when the machine pulled the card in is an early version of the same confusion customers feel today in digital banking.

People were not afraid of machines. They were afraid of not understanding what the machine was doing with their money.

Banks solved it by teaching people how to trust the process. They added clear instructions, trained staff to guide customers, and repeated the same steps until the unfamiliar felt intuitive. 

However, the stakes and complexity are much higher now, and AI for financial product transparency is becoming essential to an optimized banking UX.

Today’s banking customer must navigate automated underwriting, digital identity checks, algorithmic risk models, hybrid blockchain components, and disclosures written in a language most people never use. Meanwhile, the average person is still struggling with basic money concepts.

FINRA reports that only 37% of U.S. adults can answer four out of five financial literacy questions (FINRA Foundation, 2022).

Pew Research finds that only about half of Americans understand key concepts like inflation and interest (Pew Research Center, 2024).

Financial institutions are starting to realize that clarity is not a content task or a customer service perk. It is structural. It affects conversion, compliance, risk, and trust. It shapes the entire digital experience. And AI is accelerating the pressure to treat clarity as infrastructure.

When customers don’t understand, they don’t convert. When they feel unsure, they abandon the flow. 

How AI is Improving UX in Banking (And Why Institutions Need it Now)

Financial institutions often assume customers will “figure it out.” They will Google a term, reread a disclosure, or call support if something is unclear. In reality, most customers simply exit the flow.

The CFPB shows that lower financial literacy leads to more mistakes, higher confusion, and weaker decision-making (CFPB, 2019). And when that confusion arises during a digital journey, customers quietly leave without resolving their questions.

This means every abandoned application costs money. Every misinterpreted term creates operational drag. Every unclear disclosure becomes a compliance liability. Institutions consistently point to misunderstanding as a major driver of complaints, errors, and churn (Lusardi et al., 2020).

Sometimes it feels like the industry built the digital bank faster than it built the explanation for it.

Where AI Makes the Difference

Many discussions about AI in financial services focus on automation or chatbots, but the real opportunity lies in real-time clarity. Clarity that improves financial product transparency and streamlines customer experience without creating extra steps.

In-context Explanations That Improve Understanding

Research in educational psychology shows people learn best when information appears the moment they need it. Mayer (2019) demonstrates that in-context explanations significantly boost comprehension. Instead of leaving the app to search unfamiliar terms, customers receive a clear, human explanation on the spot.

Consistency Across Channels

Language in banking is surprisingly inconsistent. Apps, websites, advisors, and support teams all use slightly different terms. Capgemini identifies cross-channel inconsistency as a major cause of digital frustration (Capgemini, 2023). A unified AI knowledge layer solves this by standardizing definitions across the system.

Predictive Clarity Powered by Behavioral Insight

Patterns like hesitation, backtracking, rapid clicking, or form abandonment often signal confusion. Behavioral economists note these patterns can predict drop-off before it happens (Loibl et al., 2021). AI can flag these friction points and help institutions fix them.

24/7 Clarity, Not 9–5 Support

Accenture reports that most digital banking interactions now occur outside of business hours (Accenture, 2023). AI allows institutions to provide accurate, transparent explanations anytime, without relying solely on support teams.

At its core, AI doesn’t simplify financial products. It translates them.

What Strong AI-Powered Customer Experience Looks Like

Onboarding that Explains Itself

• Mortgage flows with one-sentence escrow definitions.
• Credit card applications with visual explanations of usage.
  
• Hybrid products that show exactly what blockchain is doing behind the scenes. The CFPB shows that simpler, clearer formats directly improve decision quality (CFPB, 2020).

A Unified Dictionary Across Channels

The Federal Reserve emphasizes the importance of consistent terminology to help consumers make informed decisions (Federal Reserve Board, 2021). Some institutions now maintain a centralized term library that powers their entire ecosystem, creating a cohesive experience instead of fragmented messaging.

Personalization Based on User Behavior

Educational nudges, simplified paths, multilingual explanations. Research shows these interventions boost customer confidence (Kozup & Hogarth, 2008). 

Transparent Explanations for Hybrid or Blockchain-backed Products

Customers adopt new technology faster when they understand the mechanics behind it (University of Cambridge, 2021). AI can make complex automation and decentralized components understandable.

The Urgent Responsibilities That Come With This

GenAI can mislead customers without strong data governance and oversight. Poor training data, inconsistent terminology, or unmonitored AI systems create clarity gaps. That’s a problem because those gaps can become compliance issues. The Financial Stability Oversight Council warns that unmanaged AI introduces systemic risk (FSOC, 2023). The CFPB also emphasizes the need for compliant, accurate AI-generated content (CFPB, 2024).

Customers are also increasingly wary of data usage and privacy. Pew Research shows growing fear around how financial institutions use personal data (Pew Research Center, 2023). Trust requires transparency.

Clarity without governance is not clarity. It’s noise.

And institutions cannot afford noise.

What Institutions Should Build Right Now

To make clarity foundational to customer experience, financial institutions need to invest in:

• Modern data pipelines to improve accuracy
• Consistent terminology and UX layers across channels
• Responsible AI frameworks with human oversight
• Cross-functional collaboration between compliance, design, product, and analytics
• Scalable architecture for automated and decentralized product components
• Human-plus-AI support models that enhance, not replace, advisors

When clarity becomes structural, trust becomes scalable.

Why This Moment Matters

I keep coming back to the ATM because it perfectly shows what happens when technology outruns customer understanding. The machine wasn’t the problem. The knowledge gap was. Financial services are reliving that moment today.

Customers cannot trust what they do not understand.

And institutions cannot scale what customers do not trust.

GenAI gives financial organizations a second chance to rebuild the clarity layer the industry has lacked for decades, and not as marketing. Clarity, in this new landscape, truly is infrastructure.

Related Reading

• The Personalization Gap Is Hurting Financial Services, Here’s How to Close It: A discussion of how personalization shortfalls are holding back financial services from meeting customer expectations. 

• Closing the Gap Between Expectations and Experience in Financial Services: Analysis of rising customer expectations and why legacy systems struggle to keep up. 

• Trust Is the New Currency in Financial Services and Customers Are Setting the Terms: A look at how trust, speed, transparency, and control are reshaping what customers expect from their institutions. 

References 

• Accenture. (2023). Banking top trends 2023. https://www.accenture.com
• Capgemini. (2023). World retail banking report 2023. https://www.capgemini.com
• Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (2019). Financial well-being in America. https://www.consumerfinance.gov
• Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (2020). Improving the clarity of mortgage disclosures. https://www.consumerfinance.gov
• Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (2024). Supervisory highlights: Issue 30. https://www.consumerfinance.gov
• Federal Reserve Board. (2021). Consumers and mobile financial services. https://www.federalreserve.gov
• FINRA Investor Education Foundation. (2022). National financial capability study. https://www.finrafoundation.org
• Financial Stability Oversight Council. (2023). Annual report. https://home.treasury.gov
• Kozup, J., & Hogarth, J. (2008). Financial literacy, public policy, and consumers’ self-protection. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 42(2), 263–270.
• Loibl, C., Grinstein-Weiss, M., & Koeninger, J. (2021). Consumer financial behavior in digital environments. Journal of Economic Psychology, 87, 102438.
• Lusardi, A., Mitchell, O. S., & Oggero, N. (2020). The changing face of financial literacy. University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School.
• Mayer, R. (2019). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press.
• Pew Research Center. (2023). Americans and data privacy. https://www.pewresearch.org
• Pew Research Center. (2024). Americans and financial knowledge. https://www.pewresearch.org
• University of Cambridge. (2021). Global blockchain benchmarking study. https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk