PayThink

U.S. regulators and law enforcement officials expect risk-based anti-laundering and sanctions programs — no small feat for digital-currency firms, which generally do not know their customers' counterparties.

The Dodd-Frank stress testing requirements for midsize banks add to their already considerable compliance burden, with questionable payback in terms of better risk management, at least in the near term.

Given the importance and huge upside of success, the risk of disappointment in a firm's diversity and inclusion efforts must be continuously confronted and overcome.

Although American Banker's Editor-at-Large Barbara Rehm believes the implementation of Dodd-Frank is taking too long, enough people have told her otherwise, so she presents our readers with the counter-argument.

Under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, regulators have the authority to apply tighter regulations on firms that pose a significant threat to the financial system-and they are doing just that with asset management firms.

In a little-noticed agreement with Wells Fargo, the Office of Foreign Assets Control raised the bar on acceptable checking practices and potentially exposed many other financial institutions to penalties.

Editor-at-Large Barbara A. Rehm has argued for months that Dodd-Frank implementation should be sped up so banks can know the rules they face. A slew of sources disagree – here’s why.

Giving the rest of our sales teams regular snapshots of factors that brought about star performances is far more useful than simply reporting who those star performers are.

Because third-party processors are on the hook for losses from fraudulent transactions, they have as much interest in eliminating bad actors as anyone.

Regulators and financial firms must listen to each other and work together to protect the interests of customers and stakeholders. Only then, will they be able to build a safe and sound financial system.