Abrigo

This article covers these key topics:

How the WARM method estimates credit losses
How to implement the remaining life method
Comparing the WARM method to other CECL approaches
Is WARM the right fit for your institution?

Understanding the WARM method

Learn how the WARM method supports CECL compliance with step-by-step guidance, example calculations, and comparisons to other methodologies like SCALE and discounted cash flow models.

The WARM method, short for Weighted Average Remaining Maturity, is one approach to estimating credit losses under the current expected credit loss accounting standard (CECL).

The allowance for credit losses (ACL) is one of the most significant estimates in an institution’s financial statements and regulatory reports. Understanding the basics of WARM, how financial institutions implement it, and how the methodology compares to alternative allowance methodologies under CECL can guide more informed discussions.

Unlike models that calculate the allowance under CECL using loan-level data encompassing the entire life of the loan, the WARM methodology estimates lifetime credit losses without requiring such granular information. Instead, it leverages an institution’s top-down historical annual charge-off rates along with information about the remaining life of a loan pool. This is why WARM is also known as the remaining life method.

Since limited data has been one of the biggest challenges for institutions transitioning to CECL, WARM has been an attractive option to some financial institutions, especially after regulators recognized it as an acceptable CECL methodology.

Other reasons financial institutions consider using the WARM method include that it is forward-looking (similar to the discounted cash-flow method) and offers a transparent and repeatable process.

Abrigo has helped hundreds of institutions with CECL implementation and ongoing compliance.

Read their stories

How the WARM method estimates credit losses

Under CECL, an allowance must cover losses expected over the entire life of the loan. Previously, losses weren’t recognized until they were both probable and estimable. In other words, credit losses under CECL are calculated by assuming that all loans are originated with some measurable risk of default.

Estimating lifetime losses is difficult without the historical, life-of-loan or life-of-cycle data detailed at the loan level. Data gaps may stem from operational issues (such as a small portfolio acquisition or a system conversion) or numerical limitations (such as a new line of business or a de novo institution without sufficient history).

The WARM calculation helps address the data gap by combining three key inputs:

Average annual charge-off rate, typically derived from historical loan-level or portfolio-level losses, institution call report data or peer group data.
Amortization-adjusted remaining life, reflecting expected paydowns or prepayments and curtailments. Remaining life is derived by calculating the average life of the segment using an attrition model or other methods.
Qualitative adjustments, which account for factors not captured in the historical data that are quantitative in nature.

As FASB has explained, “The average annual charge-off rate is applied to the contractual term, further adjusted for estimated prepayments to determine the unadjusted historical charge-off rate for the remaining balance of the financial assets.” To comply with CECL’s requirement for adjustments to historical loss information for current conditions and a “reasonable and supportable forecast period,” the qualitative components are layered in.

For example, in a widely cited interagency illustration, a $13.98 million loan pool with a 0.36% charge-off rate and a 2.52-year remaining life yields an unadjusted lifetime loss rate of 0.90%. Adding a 0.25% qualitative adjustment raises the final allowance for credit losses (ACL) to 1.15%, or $161,000.

The math for WARM is relatively simple, but examiners have cautioned that supporting these inputs and layering on qualitative factors to account for forward-looking information is important to establish CECL model credibility.

How to implement the WARM method

Step-by-step implementation process

Institutions implementing WARM typically follow this process:

Segment the loan portfolio by similar risk characteristics, such as type, term, and credit quality.
Determine remaining life using contractual terms adjusted for expected prepayments. One approach is to use a quarterly attrition analysis that tracks exit events and develops an annual percentage of how often loans exit the portfolio via payoffs, renewals, maturity, or charge-offs. Call Report data (yours or peer data) may also be used for this.
Calculate the historical loss rates at the pool level using available charge-off data, Call Report data, or peer data.
Apply forecast model to capture the forward-looking impact on the reserve. This can be done through an expedient method or through application or regression models.
Apply the WARM formula to generate the lifetime historical charge-off rate for the remaining balance of the financial assets.
Incorporate qualitative overlays to adjust for reasonable and supportable forecasts.

Banks are expected to reflect forward-looking risks, not just replicate historical patterns. That’s where adjusting credit loss estimates with so-called qualitative factors comes in.

Adjusting for qualitative factors (Q factors)

What are Q factors, and why do they matter?

Qualitative factors, or Q factors, are adjustments to credit loss estimates that help account for risks that quantitative models and historical loss data can’t fully capture. Q factor adjustments to the allowance developed with the remaining life method will ensure reserve levels reflect what’s expected in the future, based on reasonable and supportable forecasts, rather than capturing past performance alone.

Under CECL, these adjustments are especially important because institutions must incorporate a reasonable and supportable forecast period. In this context, the forecast period is a near-term horizon over which management can credibly link economic forecasts (such as unemployment, interest rates, or local market conditions) to expected credit performance.

However, CECL also requires institutions to address what happens after that forecast horizon. Since forward-looking forecasts cannot be projected indefinitely with reliability, the guidance requires a reversion period. The reversion period is the point at which loss rates transition back to long-term historical averages.

In practice, this means:

Reasonable and supportable forecast period: The near-term horizon (often 1–3 years) where economic forecasts are applied directly to adjust expected losses.
Reversion period: The time after which forecasts become unreliable, during which modeled loss rates revert to long-term historical loss experience, either immediately or gradually (e.g., linear reversion).

For WARM specifically, the average annual charge-off rate is extended across the pool’s remaining life, but it must be adjusted first, for near-term forecasts (via Q factors) and second, for how losses revert beyond that period.

For example, an institution may adjust loss rates upward for the first two years due to a projected economic slowdown but then revert to historical charge-off levels for the rest of the pool’s life.

Documenting how management determined both the forecast horizon and the reversion approach is essential. Examiners have emphasized that unsupported overlays or vague explanations of forecast and reversion assumptions are among the most common CECL exam findings.

Documenting qualitative overlays for examiners

According to recent Fed findings, another common CECL-related exam issues was unsupported Q factors. Some institutions either neglected to apply qualitative overlays or failed to document them adequately, despite experiencing known risk shifts, such as entering new markets or launching new loan types.

Even though the adjustments are labeled “qualitative,” they can and often do have a quantitative basis.

Examples of qualitative adjustments in WARM

Examples of well-supported Q factors that could be incorporated into the WARM method include:

Local unemployment rate changes
Loosened underwriting standards compared to historical periods
New or inherently riskier product types, such as commercial real estate lending expansions

One way to determine what economic factors may apply is to talk with internal credit and Treasury teams to identify which economic factors are already being used internally, for example, for stress testing. Regardless of which factors are selected, they need to be tied to measurable indicators, and financial institutions should document their rationale as part of overall model governance. They should also define when the institution will revisit the factors as part of sound model governance.

Model governance and documentation

CECL internal controls

Speaking of model governance, CECL auditors and experts have noted that recent exams and audits have focused on this important aspect of calculating the allowance. Good CECL model governance, regardless of whether the institution uses a more simplistic model like WARM or something else, should include documentation, validation, and back testing. Regulators have cited inadequate documentation as another common issue in CECL exams.

Governance best practices and examiner expectations

To meet examiner expectations regarding other aspects of model governance, institutions using WARM should also:

Maintain a clear allowance policy that aligns with CECL
Explain why WARM was chosen to calculate the allowance and where it applies
Detail the assumptions specific to using WARM, lookback periods, segmentation logic, and forecast policies
Review and update assumptions periodically

Sound governance, including documenting assumptions, is essential when using the remaining life methodology or other options for CECL calculations.

Save time estimating the allowance with a compliant model that scales to your level of complexity.

Allowance software

Comparing the WARM method to other CECL approaches

WARM method vs. SCALE

Both WARM and the Federal Reserve’s SCALE tool (Scaled CECL Allowance for Losses Estimator) are intended to help estimate the ACL for less complex entities or those with less complex financial asset pools. As a result, both methods appeal to community banks and credit unions. However, they serve different needs and have some important differences.

SCALE leverages peer data, which may ease data requirements for banks with limited internal loss history. The regulators and auditors still expect institutions to adjust for their own experience, which can be challenging and hard to support.
WARM can also use peer data, but it allows for greater use of internal data and portfolio-specific risk segmentation. It also offers more customization, which requires documentation.

Other considerations when it comes to comparing SCALE and the remaining life method:

SCALE relies on proxy expected lifetime loss rates of peers, which are already adjusted for reasonable and supportable forecasts. Management should consider whether a qualitative adjustment should be applied to account for local economic conditions expected to perform better or worse than industry economic conditions.
The peer data used for SCALE would typically be based on information from the previous reporting period. Management should consider the timing issue and determine the impact of any changes in business or economic conditions as between when proxy loss rates were calculated and the reporting date.
Regulators have said the SCALE tool is not appropriate for institutions with assets greater than $1 billion that are required to submit data into Schedule RI-C since that would result in an institution both submitting data and using data derived from Schedule RI-C.

WARM vs. discounted cash flow and static pool models

WARM, discounted cash flow (DCF), and static pool methods all comply with CECL, but they vary greatly in data requirements, forecasting precision, and operational complexity.

Discounted cash flow models simulate individual loan cash flows using assumptions for prepayments, default timing, recovery rates, and discount rates. They provide high granularity and allow institutions to align economic forecasts with precise time periods, which can be a key advantage when forecasting near-term economic volatility or credit deterioration.
Static pool or cohort-based models track over time a defined group of loans originated during a given period, measuring cumulative loss behavior. Static pool methods conceptually align with CECL’s lifetime loss perspective, but they require longitudinal, loan-level data and robust cohort tracking practices.

By comparison, WARM estimates credit losses using historical loss averages applied across the remaining life of the pool. It does not account for the timing of losses and treats the portfolio as a single amortizing asset. As a result, WARM is easier to govern and document but sacrifices modeling precision.

Considerations for use cases of each model type

WARM may be best for institutions with relatively simple, amortizing portfolios and limited access to life-of-loan data, or for less complex portfolios/segments, new lines of business, or immaterial acquired portfolios. It may be appropriate for specific types of loan portfolios, such as segments without losses or segments lacking loan-level data because they are serviced by a third party. A credit card portfolio is an example.

DCF and static pool models may be better suited for institutions with complex portfolios, short-term credit volatility, or regulatory pressure to align forecasts more tightly with exposure timing.

Trade-offs and limitations of the WARM method

As noted above, the WARM method is designed for clarity and feasibility. But that simplicity comes with trade-offs. Institutions using this approach should recognize its potential limitations and actively mitigate them through documentation and governance.

Challenges with data granularity and outliers

Because WARM is a top-down method relying on aggregated portfolio data, it lacks visibility into loan-level performance patterns. This can mask significant outliers or emerging risks within a pool. For smaller institutions or smaller segments, one or two charge-offs can skew the average charge-off rate, especially when loss histories are shallow or inconsistent.

Institutions should consider the statistical volatility of smaller pools and whether supplemental analysis or exclusion of outlier periods is needed to avoid distortions.

Situations where WARM may introduce oversimplification

WARM assumes straight-line balance reduction across the remaining life of the pool. While this simplifies exposure modeling, it often does not reflect actual amortization behavior. Products with balloon structures, revolving credit, or seasonal paydown patterns may not fit the straight-line assumption well.

Institutions using WARM should document how they determined remaining life and consider qualitative adjustments if actual repayment patterns materially diverge from the model assumption.

Balancing ease of use with accuracy

CECL requires incorporating reasonable and supportable forecasts, and WARM supports this through qualitative overlays and near-term forecast layering. However, because the method applies charge-off rates evenly over the remaining life, WARM lacks the ability to time forecasted risk precisely.

For example, if an institution anticipates elevated losses within the next 12–18 months due to deteriorating market conditions, the WARM method can’t easily front-load those losses. More granular methods like DCF or PD/LGD modeling are better suited to simulate time-based loss expectations.

When WARM may not be the best fit

The WARM method may not be appropriate for all loan types or portfolios. Institutions should reassess their methodology if they have:

Newly introduced or unseasoned loan products without reliable loss history
Complex structures (e.g., interest-only periods, variable-rate resets, or off-balance sheet exposures)
Significant concentration risk in high-volatility asset classes
Rapid growth into new markets with limited historical performance data

In these cases, WARM may oversimplify the credit risk profile, potentially leading to under- or over-reserving. If the institution cannot clearly tie the model assumptions to observed portfolio behavior, examiners may challenge the methodology’s adequacy.

Is WARM the right fit for your institution?

The WARM method remains a viable, widely accepted CECL methodology, especially for community institutions seeking a manageable and auditable approach. Still, institutions should ask:

Have we documented why WARM is appropriate for our portfolio?
Are we using recent, relevant historical loss data?
Have we applied and supported Q factors tied to observable risks?
Have we backtested the remaining life model to ensure results truly reflect the institution risk profile? Even though WARM is considered one of the more straightforward CECL methodologies, regulators expect every institution regardless of model complexity to validate and backtest their allowance methodology. This is not optional.
Do our policies reflect CECL’s expectations, not just our legacy allowance process?

If the answer to any of these is “no,” it may be time to revisit model inputs, documentation, or governance structure.

Practical tips for financial institutions

An automated CECL solution that supports WARM and other methodologies can help institutions remain compliant without unnecessary complexity. Moreover, it allows institutions to fine-tune the CECL process as the institution grows and changes and as best practices evolve.

Abrigo supports institutions using WARM and other methodologies through CECL software, CECL advisory services, and CECL allowance training programs. Abrigo’s allowance software contains an attrition calculator and examiner-ready documentation tools.

Revisiting CECL methodologies

CECL was one of the most significant changes to financial institution accounting in decades.

For many financial institutions, the remaining life or WARM method offered a practical on-ramp to CECL. Now that community financial institutions have navigated their first year of compliance with CECL, some are revisiting their allowance methodologies. For those using WARM, reviewing model selection and assumptions regularly can demonstrate “ownership” and make for a smoother review by auditors and examiners.

This blog was developed with the assistance of ChatGPT, an AI large language model. It was reviewed and extensively revised by Abrigo's subject-matter expert for accuracy and additional insight.

Success Stories

Integro Bank turns to Abrigo Advisory to advance its CECL model

Webinar

CECL mastery series: From compliance to confidence

Webinar

Backtesting and ongoing monitoring: Making CECL models work over time

What is reputational risk: How it fits into business strategy

As banks and credit unions navigate evolving regulatory expectations, reputational risk remains important, especially for community financial institutions that prioritize strong, trusted relationships. While regulatory agencies have clarified they will not examine reputational risk in isolation, many institutions continue to consider it part of a broader, community-centric strategy. Understanding reputational risk and its impact can help financial institutions stay aligned with their mission, protect stakeholder trust, and make informed business decisions.

Regulatory guidance on reputational risk

In a recent shift in examination expectations, the three federal banking regulators—the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation—have confirmed that they will no longer consider reputational risk as a stand-alone factor during bank examinations. The National Credit Union Administration is being called upon by America’s Credit Unions to follow suit. The change is part of a broader effort to clarify expectations and reduce the likelihood of institutions feeling pressure to exit entire industries based solely on perceived reputational concerns.

This shift provides more certainty around how regulators approach client risk for banks and credit unions. However, it raises important questions about how financial institutions define and manage reputation within their risk frameworks, primarily when serving diverse or high-profile client groups. While regulators have stepped back, reputational considerations remain, especially regarding community trust and long-term strategy.

Need short-term fraud or AML staffing relief? Abrigo Advisory Services can help.

Connect with an expert

What is reputational risk and why it matters

Reputational risk is the potential for negative public perception to affect a financial institution's credibility, client trust, or financial performance. It often stems from how an institution is viewed by its community, clients, regulators, or media, and it may arise even when no compliance violations or operational failures have occurred.

Today, reputational risk can be influenced by various factors, including the types of clients an institution chooses to serve or decline, partnerships with third-party vendors, lending or investment decisions, or how it handles emerging social or political issues. Even lawful and risk-based decisions may draw public scrutiny if they appear inconsistent with the institution's stated values or community expectations.

These factors make reputational risk more dynamic than ever. For example, exiting a relationship with a high-profile business might be entirely appropriate from a risk management perspective. Still, without clear communication or documentation, the public can misinterpret the decision as unfair or discriminatory. Likewise, continuing to serve a controversial client segment may prompt questions from community members, advocacy groups, or employees.

New regulatory changes

The decision to remove reputational risk as a factor in formal bank examinations was mainly in response to concerns about derisking—when financial institutions end relationships with entire categories of clients or industries based on perceived reputational harm rather than individual risk assessments. In previous years, some banks chose to exit entire sectors, such as money services businesses, cannabis-related businesses, or international remittance providers, not because of direct regulatory violations, but because of uncertainty around supervisory expectations. This derisking trend created unintended consequences. Legitimate businesses, especially those serving underserved or international communities, were sometimes left without access to essential financial services. In response, regulatory agencies clarified that while banks can make risk-based decisions, supervisors would no longer use reputational risk alone as a basis for exam criticism. The goal is to promote financial inclusion while ensuring client decisions are grounded in individual risk, not generalized assumptions.

Reputational risk is connected to other areas of risk

Reputational risk rarely stands alone. In fact, it often overlaps with other key risk categories, which means it can surface in situations where it may not be immediately obvious. Understanding these connections helps financial institutions see the full picture before making decisions that could have lasting effects.

Strategic risk can rise when an institution chooses to enter or exit industries that are considered sensitive or controversial. Expanding into a new market segment may create growth opportunities, but it can also bring heightened public attention. Likewise, stepping away from a line of business for sound risk reasons may be interpreted by some as a value statement.
Compliance risk can occur when actions do not align with written policies or when those policies are applied inconsistently. Even if a decision is legal and defensible, failing to follow established processes can create reputational questions about fairness, transparency, or governance.
Credit risk can be complicated when the financial strength of a borrower becomes secondary to how the relationship is perceived. A strong-performing borrower in a controversial industry may pose minimal credit risk, but the reputational implications could still influence the institution’s decision-making.

For example, an institution might decide to end a relationship with a client whose lawful business activity does not align with the bank’s mission or community priorities. While the decision could be supported by credit analysis, operational considerations, or policy requirements, it may also reflect reputational concerns.

The key is to evaluate the full risk picture and anticipate how a decision will be perceived by customers, staff, and community stakeholders. By doing so, banks and credit unions can minimize surprises, ensure decisions are consistent with their stated values, and preserve the trust that often takes years to build.

Reputation as part of governance conversations

Even though examiners will no longer evaluate reputation as a stand-alone risk, institutions benefit from including it in board and leadership discussions. In fact, the regulatory agencies expect banks and credit unions to engage in sound risk management practices, operate in a safe and sound manner. For many community financial institutions, reputation remains an important aspect of risk management. Common governance examples of include:

Reviewing client onboarding and exit policies for reputational considerations: Customer acceptance and closure policies should account for reputational implications and be applied consistently. Clear criteria and documentation help staff explain decisions to customers, community members, or regulators.

Evaluating new products or services through a community impact lens: Before launching new offerings, consider how they will be received by the community and whether they align with the institution’s mission. This helps prevent missteps that could harm trust or brand perception.

Discussing high-profile vendor relationships that may attract stakeholder attention: Vendors with public visibility can influence how the institution is perceived. Leadership discussions should weigh the benefits against potential reputational costs and ensure there is a plan to address questions if they arise.

When reputation is discussed at the board or committee level, it helps ensure that the institution's decisions align with its stated values and risk appetite.

A simple framework for assessing reputational exposure

Adding structure to reputational risk management does not require new systems. Institutions can adapt existing tools to include questions such as:

Does the client or activity align with our institution's mission and values?
Could this relationship or decision attract public or media attention?
Have we documented how and why we reached a decision?
Would this decision be viewed as fair and consistent by clients and regulators?

These questions help bring consistency to decisions that often involve subjective judgment. They also help front-line and risk staff feel confident in their approach when handling complex or sensitive situations.

Prioritizing reputation

For many banks and credit unions, reputational risk is not just about regulatory expectations but about living out the values they promote within their communities. These institutions are not managing their reputation to meet a rule. They are doing it because they believe it is the right thing to do.

Local financial institutions often have deep relationships with their clients. Their reputations are built over years, sometimes decades. Once trust is lost, it is not easily regained. Institutions that include reputational considerations in their risk and business decisions are often better positioned to preserve that trust during times of change.

Reputational risk may no longer be central to regulatory examinations, but remains a valuable part of business strategy. Financial institutions that proactively consider reputation in their governance, client policies, and community engagement are taking steps to ensure long-term strength and stakeholder trust.

Powerful financial crime fighting

Get features and functionality you need from AML compliance software.

Transaction monitoring software

Webinar

Panel: Making fraud everyone’s fight

Webinar

Minimizing wire fraud risk: Strategies for faster payments and smarter defenses

Webinar

Making it make sense: Documenting your fraud strategy & response

Elder sextortion: The emotional and financial toll

Financial exploitation of older adults continues to evolve as fraudsters shift their tactics to digital platforms. According to the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) 2024 data, more than 147,000 Americans aged 60 and older reported falling victim to online fraud, with total losses approaching $4.9 billion. This represents a 43 percent increase in reported losses compared to 2023.

Among these crimes, elder sextortion stands out as one of the most emotionally and financially damaging. Elder sextortion is a form of blackmail that combines romance scams, impersonation, and manipulation to target older adults online. A 2024 study published in Computers in Human Behavior estimated that one in seven adults globally has experienced someone threatening to share intimate images.

The FBI reports that extortion, including sextortion, among older adults increased by 134 percent year over year. These are not isolated incidents. They are part of a growing trend in digital crime affecting some of the most vulnerable members of our communities.

For community banks and credit unions, responding to this threat is not simply a matter of fraud detection. It is about protecting customers, preserving trust, and reinforcing the financial institution's role as a safe, trusted partner.

What is elder sextortion

Elder sextortion occurs when scammers deceive older adults into sharing explicit photos, videos, or engaging in private online interactions. The fraudster then uses that content, or the threat of having it, to extort money. In many cases, the scammer never actually possesses any images. Instead, they rely on fear, shame, and the victim's concern for their family, social circle, or religious community to force compliance.

These cons often begin as online romance scams. Fraudsters are patient and calculated, gradually building emotional trust before introducing explicit content or requests. The scammer starts making demands once the relationship feels real to the victim.

While financial loss is significant, the emotional toll can be devastating. Many victims do not report the crime due to embarrassment. The resulting shame may lead to social withdrawal, depression, or, in some cases, even premature death.

Staying on top of fraud is a full-time job. Let our Advisory Services team help when you need it.

Connect with an expert

How scammers target older adults

Criminals executing sextortion scams use sophisticated tactics that take advantage of the emotional, digital, and social vulnerabilities of older adults. These include:

Preying on loneliness or grief: Scammers identify recent widows or widowers by scanning online obituaries or public posts. They initiate contact under the guise of companionship.
Romance scams on digital platforms: Many scams begin on dating apps, social media, or text messaging. Initial messages may seem innocent or friendly, but quickly turn flirtatious.
The "wrong number" trick: A scammer pretends to text the wrong number. If the recipient responds, the conversation escalates into a manufactured romantic interest.
Fake profiles and video calls: Scammers use images of attractive individuals, often stolen or computer-generated, and may encourage victims to engage in private chats. Some use deepfake technology or screen recordings to fabricate compromising content.
Phishing links and malware: Clicking on suspicious links can give scammers access to the victim's device, camera, or personal files. Older adults with limited cybersecurity protections are particularly vulnerable.

These methods exploit both emotional trust and gaps in digital literacy. Increasingly, these scams are not random acts. Many are carried out by transnational organized crime groups that share victim information and target retirement communities or individuals identified through data breaches.

Find out how Abrigo Fraud Detection stops check fraud in its tracks.

fraud detection software

When sextortion escalates

A recent case reported to the AARP Fraud Watch Network Helpline involved a 70-year-old man from Missouri. He was targeted through what he believed was a romantic relationship. After sending nude photos, he was quickly threatened with exposure unless he paid $2,500.

Soon after, another person contacted him, pretending to be a law enforcement officer. This impersonator accused him of criminal behavior related to the images and warned that his employer would be contacted if he did not send more money. The scammer knew where the man worked, intensifying the pressure.

This case demonstrates how sextortion can quickly evolve from emotional manipulation to impersonation and coercion. It also highlights the importance of financial institutions being prepared to spot signs of distress, especially when older customers make unusual transactions or appear anxious.

Protecting clients from fraud: Steps to stay safe

Fraud can happen to anyone, but the FBI advises there are practical steps financial institutions can coach their clients on to help protect them and their personal information:

Verify before trust: If a client is contacted by someone they do not know, they should take time to research the contact’s name, phone number, email address, or the offer they are presenting. A quick online search can often reveal warnings from others who may have been targeted by similar scams.
Avoid being rushed: Scammers often try to create urgency to pressure victims into making quick decisions. They may appeal to their emotions or promise financial gain or companionship. Advise clients to take a step back and give themselves time to evaluate the situation.
Never share sensitive information: Clients should never give out personal or financial information, including social security number, bank details, or wire instructions, unless they have verified the legitimacy of the request.
Take immediate action if an account is compromised: If your client suspects someone has gained access to their personal devices or financial information, they should notify their bank or credit union right away. Advise them about placing additional safeguards on their accounts and remind them to monitor their activity closely for unauthorized transactions.

How financial institutions can protect their customers from elder sextortion

Banks and credit unions serve as critical touchpoints for many older adults. When staff are trained to recognize potential fraud, they can help stop scams before more harm occurs. Proactive steps include:

Educate frontline employees: Tellers and customer service teams should be trained to spot red flags such as abrupt wire transfers, large cash withdrawals, or changes in financial behavior. Empower staff to ask respectful, nonjudgmental questions when something seems unusual.
Use fraud detection tools: Implement systems that monitor behavior outside a customer's typical transaction pattern. Real-time wire fraud monitoring combined with behavioral analytics helps stop fraud losses before they occur. Banks and credit unions should combine technology with transparent internal escalation processes.
Provide targeted client education: Offer ongoing education through brochures, in-branch events, webinars, or one-on-one consultations. Topics include safe online practices, how to identify scams, and how to respond to suspicious messages.
Partner with external agencies: Establish relationships with local law enforcement, elder protection agencies, and fraud reporting centers. Coordination can lead to faster, more effective responses when fraud is suspected.
Foster a safe, supportive environment: Many older adults fear being judged or losing independence if they disclose being scammed. Creating a culture of support and privacy encourages disclosure and early intervention.

Why action matters

As more older adults embrace digital communication, the threat of elder sextortion will continue to grow. Financial institutions are in a strong position to detect early warning signs and respond with compassion and professionalism.

Preventing financial loss is essential, but helping clients preserve their dignity, feel supported, and recover from emotional harm is just as important. Addressing elder sextortion goes beyond risk mitigation. It reflects the core mission of community financial institutions to serve and protect. With strong fraud detection tools, well-trained teams, and a commitment to client care, banks and credit unions can be a first line of defense against this increasingly personal exploitation.

Webinar

Minimizing wire fraud risk: Strategies for faster payments and smarter defenses

Webinar

From exam room to boardroom: What regulators expect & boards need to know

Webinar

Under pressure: Mastering Financial Crime compliance in a changing landscape

FinCEN Investment Advisor Rule delay: A shift in regulatory priorities

On Aug. 5, 2025, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued an Exemptive Relief Order delaying the effective date of the Investment Adviser Rule. The delayed effective date gives some breathing room to affected advisers and their banking partners for adjusting systems, training staff, and coordinating with technology vendors. However, financial institutions would be wise to nevertheless begin planning for implementation, given the importance of the rule’s ultimate goal of protecting the U.S. banking system.

Once implemented, the rule will require certain investment advisers to establish formal anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) programs, maintain detailed records, and file suspicious activity reports (SARs). Finalized on Sept. 4, 2024, the rule extends long-standing Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) obligations, already applied to banks, credit unions, and broker-dealers, to segments of the investment industry that have not been covered.

It was originally set to take effect Jan. 1, 2026, but now the Treasury Department has exempted covered investment advisors from all rule requirements until Jan. 1, 2028. FinCEN intends to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to propose a new effective date for the rule no earlier than Jan. 1, 2028.

Why FinCEN issued the delay

FinCEN said it issued the relief order to ensure the regulation is “efficient” and “appropriately balances costs and benefits” following industry feedback. According to the relief order, the extension is intended to:

Allow investment advisers to design and implement effective AML/CFT programs without creating undue operational risk;
Provide time for FinCEN to develop additional guidance and respond to industry feedback on rule interpretation;
Support coordination between investment advisers and financial institutions to ensure consistent application of due diligence standards;
Avoid compliance bottlenecks that could arise if thousands of newly covered entities rushed to meet the same deadline.

These statements are a significant shift from FinCEN’s stance when the rule was finalized in 2024. FinCEN issued the rule after carefully considering public comment and extensive consultations with staff and various government and industry advisors. At that time, FinCEN determined that the rule would:

Help prevent criminals from laundering money through the U.S. financial system
Improve the U.S. financial system’s transparency and integrity
Provide beneficial information to law enforcement authorities
Bring the U.S. into greater compliance with international AML/CFT standards and address a significant gap identified by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF)

The delay reflects a broader regulatory approach under the federal government’s current administration, which has emphasized deregulation to reduce perceived compliance burdens across multiple sectors. Even so, the underlying need to protect the U.S. financial system from illicit actors remains, and any delay in implementation should be balanced with measures that preserve the integrity and security of our banking system.

Staying on top of fraud is a full-time job. Let our Advisory Services team help when you need it.

Connect with an expert

Why the delay matters to financial institutions

Even though the delay offers breathing room, it is still recommended that financial institutions begin preparing. Once implemented, the rule will influence how they work with investment adviser clients and bring greater alignment in compliance expectations across the industry. While banks and credit unions are not the primary targets of the rule, it will likely impact their compliance priorities, especially in customer due diligence (CDD) and coordinated financial crime prevention, assuming an effective date is eventually set.

This pause is a chance to get ahead of the ripple effects. Institutions should be ready for:

Requests for closer collaboration from adviser clients
More consistent application of CDD standards
Heightened regulatory scrutiny once the rule takes effect

Acting now can help avoid last-minute disruptions, prevent operational bottlenecks, reduce compliance risk, and position banks and credit unions for smoother coordination with investment adviser clients when deadlines return.

We recommend that banks and credit unions prioritize the following actions for eventual compliance:

Update policies and procedures: Review and revise AML/CFT policies to address the specific risks and compliance expectations tied to investment adviser relationships. Document procedures for onboarding these clients, including when to apply enhanced due diligence, how to verify beneficial ownership information, and escalation steps when unusual or suspicious activity is detected. Ensure these policies are consistent across business lines so retail and commercial teams follow the same standards.

Evaluate technology readiness: Work with your AML software provider and core system vendor to confirm that existing platforms can handle expanded monitoring rules, higher volumes of alerts, and any additional data points associated with investment adviser accounts. Consider testing automated scenarios now to identify gaps in detection logic or reporting capabilities. Build in time for any needed upgrades, integrations, or workflow adjustments before the rule’s compliance date.

Train compliance and frontline staff: Develop targeted training for employees on how investment adviser business models operate and the unique risks they may present. Include case studies on common red flags such as layered transactions, unexplained transfers between client accounts, or the use of complex corporate structures. Reinforce escalation and SAR filing procedures, especially as the FinCEN Investment Advisor Rule delay concludes and expectations increase.

Refresh AML/CFT risk assessments: Update your institution’s AML/CFT risk assessment to reflect the potential impact of serving investment adviser clients. Consider how these relationships might influence customer risk ratings, monitoring thresholds, and the allocation of compliance resources. Document any changes in risk mitigation strategies so they can be communicated to regulators during examinations.

Next steps

The delay in the FinCEN Investment Advisor Rule is a limited opportunity for banks and credit unions to get ahead of future compliance demands. While the deadline has shifted, the expectation to maintain strong AML/CFT programs has not. Institutions that use this time to enhance monitoring processes, test technology, update risk assessments, and strengthen staff expertise will be well-positioned to adapt quickly when the rule takes effect. Early preparation reduces operational and regulatory risk and reinforces an institution’s role in safeguarding the U.S. financial system from illicit activity.

Find out how Abrigo Fraud Detection stops check fraud in its tracks.

fraud detection software

Webinar

Minimizing wire fraud risk: Strategies for faster payments and smarter defenses

Webinar

From exam room to boardroom: What regulators expect & boards need to know

Webinar

Under pressure: Mastering Financial Crime compliance in a changing landscape

Day 2 accounting work can get tricky

Following a deal, financial institutions need to recognize the accretion or amortization of purchase accounting marks in an auditable and transparent way. Don't overlook income recognition.

This article covers these key topics:

M&A activity among banks and credit union has increased
Post-merger accounting deserves planning
Using the institution's core for income recognition
Can our CECL model handle this?

Deal activity is heating up; be accounting-ready

With deal activity heating up again, bank and credit union leaders can’t afford to be caught flat-footed when it comes to the accounting side of a merger.

Piper Sandler Chairman and CEO Chad Abraham said recently that conditions “have continued to improve for depository M&A,” according to a transcript of the firm’s recent earnings call.

“Credit’s been pretty good. There’s capital available if that needs to be part of transactions,” he said. “We’re definitely seeing proof of regulatory approvals being quicker. And I would say our pace of announcements has increased kind of across the spectrum—the small deals, a few of the larger deals.”

Improved conditions for mergers and acquisitions are good news for institutions looking to grow, but they’re also a reminder that critical financial reporting follows a deal.

Income recognition, in particular, is one of those areas that can get overlooked until it’s too late. Now’s the time to line up a merger accounting playbook that’s audit-ready and built to scale.

Abrigo's experts handle Day 1 and Day 2 accounting, exit pricing, and other quarterly services.

See available services

Income recognition accounting can’t be an afterthought

Closing a bank acquisition is a big milestone, but it’s really just the start of the hard work. Day 2 accounting—particularly income recognition—is where things can get tricky fast. These purchase marks can be material to earnings, and if financial institutions aren’t paying attention to how they flow through their systems, they might set themselves up for issues with auditors and regulators. Abrigo Advisory has seen this firsthand. A lot of institutions get focused on valuation and CECL planning tied to a deal, and they treat income recognition almost like an afterthought. That can be a costly mistake.

What drives the complexity is the materiality of purchase marks (fair value adjustments). Deferred fees and costs, which are accounted for under the same accounting standard, aren’t significant enough for expedients to generate material differences.

Fair value adjustments, especially in dynamic rate environments, are significant, and it is the responsibility of management to understand how these amounts find their way into the income statement.

The core and income recognition: A recipe for auditor questions

A lot of institutions figure they’ll run the accretion through the core system or track it in a spreadsheet. The problem is, that only gets you so far. ASC 310-20 is the accounting standard that describes the treatment for recognizing fees, costs, fair value adjustments, etc., over the life of the loan as an adjustment to yield. As such, management should be able to recalculate yields, reconcile beginning and ending marks between reporting periods, accelerate and decelerate accretion in order to maintain yield, and provide loan-level positions. If not, something is missing.

To make matters more challenging, we've seen numerous cases where the valuation was calculated at a pool level with purchase marks subsequently being allocated to each underlying loan. This approach results in irrational yields and subsequent problems with loan-level accretion.

Time and time again, we've seen the inability of management to get any information or clarity from core-calculated accretion. When a parallel calculation is performed accurately, the results are significantly different. That’s why we always push for loan-level granularity from the beginning. It gives you control and defensibility.

CECL and income recognition

Some folks ask, “Well, can’t we handle all of this with our CECL model?”

If you’re talking about how marks flow into your allowance or how expected credit losses for acquired loans need to be calculated on Day 1 and for each subsequent reporting period, then yes, there’s overlap. But the allowance isn’t income recognition. They touch, but they’re not the same. As its name implies, the current expected credit loss (CECL) model is about expected credit losses. Income recognition is about amortizing or accreting a known mark into earnings over time. Different accounting standards and different processes.

Documentation matters here more than people think. If you can’t explain why income is rising or falling as those marks burn off, someone’s going to start asking questions. What you don’t want to happen is to get caught flat-footed by assuming the core system was handling it, or by the person who built the spreadsheet leaving without someone else knowing how it worked. That’s not a position you want to be in.

Abrigo built income recognition software with all of this in mind. It takes in the purchase marks, handles both base and accelerated accretion, and ties back to CECL where needed. Everything is transparent and auditable at the loan level.

But regardless of what system you’re using, the point is this: don’t wing it. You need a process that scales and holds up when someone comes asking to see the details.

Who really owns the income recognition process?

We’d also encourage banks not to treat income recognition as a bolt-on task. If you’ve got one firm doing the valuation and another firm helping with CECL, and no one really owning income recognition, you’re going to have gaps. Those gaps usually show up in audits. What you want is someone who can help you stitch the full process together, someone who’s been on calls with examiners and knows what they’re going to ask.

Income recognition isn’t the flashiest part of a deal, but it’s one of the most important parts when it comes to the integrity of your financials. It’s where the marks you put on at close start hitting your earnings every month. A problem isn’t simply a technicality; it’s visible. So get ahead of it. Build the right foundation. And make sure your process isn’t merely working—make sure it’s defendable.

See how your loan fair value estimates compare to market-based benchmarks.

See Quarterly Insights

Whitepaper

Loan fair value and exit price trends: Quarterly disclosure insights – Q1 2025

Whitepaper

Ahead of the curve: A banker’s podcast episode 2 – M&A accounting best practices

Whitepaper

Valuation and purchase accounting in a dynamic macroenvironment

Fraud victim support: How financial institutions can respond and restore trust

As fraud schemes evolve in complexity and scope, financial institutions are called upon to do more than just detect and prevent illicit activity. Banks and credit unions often also serve as first responders when individuals or businesses fall victim to financial fraud.

Institutions that respond with urgency and empathy to support victims of fraud can rebuild trust, restore confidence, and reinforce long-term relationships with clients. But fraud victim support is about more than recouping financial loss. Understanding the common fraud schemes clients may encounter and taking an intentional approach to assist in the aftermath demonstrates an institution’s values, dedication to client care, and role as a trusted advisor within the community.

The growing cost of fraud

Reported fraud losses exceeded $12.5 billion in 2024, according to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FBI documented an even higher total loss of over $16.6 billion across 859,000 complaints. These figures speak not only to the scale of financial harm but to the emotional toll these crimes leave behind.

The volume and impact of fraud are increasing across all channels. In 2024, investment scams topped the list in financial damage, with $5.7 billion in reported losses. Imposter scams followed closely at nearly $3 billion. Criminals prey on trusting and vulnerable people, and they continue to leverage digital platforms to initiate contact via email, phone, or text, and move funds through cryptocurrency, bank transfers, or wire services.

According to the FBI, phishing scams were the most frequently reported. However, business email compromise and investment fraud caused the most significant monetary damage. These trends highlight the urgent need for comprehensive fraud victim support programs that go beyond the basics of account recovery.

Staying on top of fraud is a full-time job. Let our Advisory Services team help when you need it.

Connect with an expert

Understanding the scope of fraud

Financial institutions must first understand the various forms of fraud affecting their clients to deliver meaningful assistance. Some of the most prevalent methods include:

Cybercrime attacks: Cybercrime attacks occur approximately every 11 seconds, costing organizations an average of $13 million per incident. Small businesses are especially vulnerable due to limited cybersecurity infrastructure.
Consumer fraud: Consumer fraud takes many forms, including synthetic identity theft, spoofing, romance scams, and grandparent scams. These often target the elderly and financially inexperienced.
Business and investment fraud schemes: Scams such as Ponzi operations, business email compromise, and wire fraud continue to result in significant losses for commercial clients.
“Pig butchering”: A particularly alarming emerging scam is known among criminals as “pig butchering” because victims are deceived over time through emotional manipulation before being persuaded to make large financial transfers.

Each scheme can leave a trail of emotional distress and financial disruption. A thoughtful, informed approach to fraud victim support is essential to help affected individuals navigate the aftermath.

A layered approach to fraud victim support

1. Prevention through education and technology

Preventing fraud begins with awareness. Banks and credit unions can help clients identify red flags by offering regular educational materials across digital and in-person channels. Topics include the creation of secure passwords, the identification of phishing attempts, and safe usage of peer-to-peer payment apps.

Technology also plays a pivotal role in prevention. Sophisticated fraud detection tools incorporating artificial intelligence and behavioral analytics can monitor suspicious activity in real time. Institutions can also empower their clients with biometric login, multi-factor authentication, and real-time fraud alerts.

Helping clients create a response plan

Helping clients prepare a response plan before fraud occurs can reduce confusion and stress if the worst happens. Encourage clients to keep a written checklist that includes how to report fraud to their financial institutions, contact information for the FTC and FBI, and steps for freezing credit with the major bureaus. The plan should also cover resetting login credentials and enabling fraud alerts. Reviewing this plan regularly gives clients confidence that they know what to do and who to call. It is a simple way to support a long-term client relationship.

Responding with clarity and compassion

A fast and empathetic response is critical following a fraud incident. Banks and credit unions should have clear procedures in place to support victim response plans, including measures around:

Freezing or closing affected accounts
Reissuing account credentials and payment cards
Assisting with dispute processes and documentation
Communicating directly with law enforcement when appropriate

Empowering front-line employees to handle these cases with care can help ease client anxiety and reestablish trust during a particularly vulnerable time.

Supporting financial recovery

While banks and credit unions often must reimburse clients for unauthorized transactions, many fraud cases involve victims being tricked into authorizing payments. In these situations, reimbursement is not always guaranteed. Still, financial institutions can support victims with the following meaningful actions:

Assist with regulatory reporting: Help victims file official complaints with the FTC, the FBI, or Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). These reports establish a record of the incident and contribute to broader fraud tracking efforts.
Work with law enforcement and other financial institutions: Cooperate with authorities and peer institutions to trace stolen funds and flag suspicious accounts. Swift action can help contain damage and may lead to partial recovery.
Provide recovery resources: Refer victims to identity theft protection services, legal aid, or nonprofit support organizations. These resources can help clients manage credit impacts and protect against future fraud.

Even when full financial recovery is impossible, these steps demonstrate a commitment to care and accountability. Institutions prioritizing fraud victim support during recovery reinforce trust and deepen client relationships.

Sustained support beyond the incident

Helping a client through the immediate fallout of fraud is the first step. Ongoing protection is key to rebuilding confidence. Financial institutions can offer continued support through:

Identity theft monitoring
Credit and account activity alerts
Help with placing credit freezes
Referrals to advocacy groups for seniors or other vulnerable individuals

Staying engaged after the crisis helps banks and credit unions show they are not just financial service providers but also long-term partners in their clients’ security and peace of mind.

Making victim support a shared responsibility

An effective response to fraud must involve collaboration across internal teams. Anti-money laundering (AML), information technology, fraud prevention, and client service departments should operate under a unified plan to ensure quick and coordinated action. Regular training and updates on emerging fraud trends are essential.

Equally important is leadership support. Institutions that invest in fraud prevention tools, adequate staffing, and client education signal that fraud victim support is not a side function but a core priority.

Turning crisis into opportunity

Fraud response efforts should be viewed as risk mitigation and opportunities to lead with purpose. Financial institutions can demonstrate their commitment to ethical banking and social responsibility by standing with victims and guiding them through recovery. Banks and credit unions that take fraud victim support seriously will be better positioned to retain loyal clients, enhance their brand reputation, and serve as trusted pillars in their communities.

Find out how Abrigo Fraud Detection stops check fraud in its tracks.

fraud detection software

Webinar

Minimizing wire fraud risk: Strategies for faster payments and smarter defenses

Webinar

From exam room to boardroom: What regulators expect & boards need to know

Webinar

Under pressure: Mastering Financial Crime compliance in a changing landscape

AI-driven elder fraud: Deepfakes; the newest threat

As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to advance, fraudsters are leveraging these tools to exploit one of the most vulnerable groups in our communities, older adults. According to the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) data, there were $4.88 billion in losses from seniors in 2024. These numbers continue to trend upwards, and the rise of AI-driven elder fraud presents new risks to victims and financial institutions. AI-driven elder fraud involves scams that use artificial intelligence to make attacks against older adults more convincing, harder to detect, and easier to carry out on a large scale. The increased threat requires both awareness and proactive mitigation by banks and credit unions to protect clients and maintain trust in their communities.

The evolving tactics behind elder financial exploitation

Historically, seniors have fallen victim to fraud schemes such as phishing, romance scams, and complex investment schemes. Today's fraudsters are taking scams to a new level by using generative AI tools—such as deepfakes and voice cloning—to impersonate loved ones and create compelling, urgent scenarios. A deepfake is a video, photo, or audio recording that seems real but has been manipulated with AI. Perpetrators often extract voices from social media videos or manipulate photos to craft believable messages. These AI-powered deceptions can lead to hurried decisions by victims, resulting in panicked wire transfers, large cash withdrawals, or the sharing of sensitive account credentials.

In an example of an AI-enhanced grandparent scam, a fraudster might scan public social media profiles to learn a grandchild's name, see that they are vacationing abroad, and note that they call their grandparent "Nana." Using a voice-cloning tool and this easily accessible personal information, the scammer can generate a frightened phone call from the "grandchild" claiming to be in legal trouble and urgently needing bail money. The voice's realism and details make it alarmingly easy to convince the victim to send funds immediately, without stopping to verify the story. The nature of AI-driven elder fraud has made it more difficult to detect using traditional red flags. What once might have seemed suspicious can now appear legitimate, making staff training and innovative detection systems even more essential.

Staying on top of fraud is a full-time job. Let our Advisory Services team help when you need it.

Connect with an expert

What financial institutions can do now

Banks and credit unions are uniquely positioned to safeguard older adults through technology and personalized service. Here are some key actions institutions can take to prevent their clients from becoming victims:

Employ robust fraud detection software: Enhance fraud monitoring systems to flag unusual activity on accounts held by older adults, typically aged 60 and above. Use tailored parameters to detect anomalies like sudden large wire transfers, frequent ATM withdrawals, or new payees that do not align with the client's typical behavior. These targeted settings improve your institution's ability to catch early signs of AI-driven elder fraud and take timely action.
Train employees to recognize new scams: Equip front-line staff and fraud teams with practical training to identify signs of AI-driven elder fraud. These signs can include clients who appear anxious, confused, or unusually secretive during large transactions, or those referencing family emergencies with limited or inconsistent details. Staff should know how to respond empathetically, ask clarifying questions, and escalate concerns when needed. Regular training helps teams stay alert to evolving scam tactics and reinforces a culture of prevention.
Clarify communication protocols: Remind clients, especially seniors, that your institution will never request sensitive information like passwords or social security numbers by phone, email, or text. Understanding communication methods is critical as AI-driven scams increasingly use cloned voices and urgent messages to pressure victims. Make it clear that legitimate staff will not use threats or demand immediate action. Encourage clients to hang up, verify requests by calling a published number, and ask questions. Reinforcing this message during visits, alerts, and outreach helps build confidence and reduce the risk of fraud.
Build trust through relationships: Strong relationships with long-time clients are key to spotting and preventing fraud. Encourage staff to visit clients when something feels off, using a conversational tone to avoid alarming or upsetting the client. For example, saying, "That's a larger transaction than usual. Is everything okay?" can open the door for a helpful discussion. Building trust before issues arise makes it easier to address concerns if signs of elder fraud appear later.

Find out how Abrigo Fraud Detection stops check fraud in its tracks.

fraud detection software

Understanding regulatory expectations

Financial institutions are expected to play a central role in identifying and reporting elder financial abuse. With AI-driven elder fraud rising, examiners and enforcement agencies may scrutinize how effectively institutions adapt to emerging typologies. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has named fraud one of its national AML/CFT priorities, emphasizing the importance of proactive detection and reporting. Filing a suspicious activity report (SAR) is just one component; maintaining a culture of vigilance and continuous training is equally critical.

Institutions integrating fraud detection with anti-money laundering (AML) processes are better positioned to respond quickly to evolving threats. AI and machine learning can enhance monitoring by identifying unusual behavioral patterns that are common in modern fraud cases. While operational functions may remain separate, collaboration between fraud and AML teams is essential. Working in silos is no longer effective in detecting complex, AI-driven fraudulent activity.

Community education can prevent losses.

Technology is essential, but it is not the only solution. Many cases of AI-driven elder fraud can be avoided through targeted education and outreach. Consider hosting in-person fraud awareness sessions at senior centers, places of worship, or branch locations, where trusted staff can explain how fraudsters use AI to manipulate voices, images, and personal information. Partnering with local organizations or law enforcement can add credibility and help reach broader audiences. Institutions can also distribute printed guides or quick-reference tip sheets that walk through common scam scenarios, what to look out for, and how to respond. Posting short educational videos on your website or sharing alerts through account notifications and email campaigns reinforces these lessons and helps keep seniors informed between visits. A consistent focus on community education builds trust and positions your institution as a proactive ally in fraud prevention.

Practical tips to share with clients

Educating seniors with simple, actionable steps can go a long way in preventing AI-driven elder fraud. Consider sharing the following guidance during outreach efforts or in printed materials at branches:

Confirm unexpected requests: If someone claims to be a relative in trouble or a representative from the bank, urge clients to hang up and call back using a known, trusted number, never the one provided in the message or call.
Be cautious with links and urgent messages: Remind clients not to click on links, download attachments, or send money based on a single phone call, text, or video, even if the message appears to come from a loved one. AI tools can make fake messages seem personal and convincing.
Enable account alerts: Encourage seniors to set up text or email alerts for large transactions or unusual activity. These real-time notifications can provide an early warning and allow for quick intervention.
Review account activity regularly: Suggest checking account statements frequently or enrolling a trusted family member to help monitor for suspicious transactions.

Sharing these tips in clear, non-technical language can empower clients to act confidently and avoid becoming victims of increasingly sophisticated fraud attempts.

Protecting seniors in the age of AI

As fraud tactics evolve with AI, so must the strategies used to stop them. Financial institutions have a unique opportunity, and responsibility, to protect older clients through education, collaboration, and well-equipped fraud detection programs. By combining personal relationships with innovative technology and ongoing awareness efforts, banks and credit unions can serve as a first line of defense against AI-driven elder fraud. Staying informed and proactive today means safeguarding trust and financial well-being for the seniors who rely on you tomorrow.

Webinar

Minimizing wire fraud risk: Strategies for faster payments and smarter defenses

Webinar

From exam room to boardroom: What regulators expect & boards need to know

Webinar

Under pressure: Mastering Financial Crime compliance in a changing landscape

AI value opportunities for banks and credit unions: A sample

AI is reshaping how financial institutions operate, compete, and deliver value. Learn some of the areas in banking where predictive and generative AI are creating the most value and where to start.

A framework for AI opportunity for financial institutions

Artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer a future-facing technology — it’s a present-day differentiator. Across banking, AI is reshaping how financial institutions operate, compete, and deliver value. From marketing to compliance, the most promising AI use cases in banking help organizations improve decision-making, reduce operational risk, and grow more efficiently. This article explores a sample of opportunities where AI creates the most value today by showing major areas of banking where artificial intelligence (either predictive or generative) can be useful. It also explains how financial institutions can safely begin or accelerate their AI journey and identify applications for the technology in their own banks or credit unions.

Learn the basics of AI and an approach to adopting it.

download whitepaper

Examples of current AI applications across banking

There are two primary forms of AI driving transformation: predictive AI, which forecasts outcomes and detects patterns, and generative AI, which creates new content from existing data sources.

The graphic below illustrates dozens of current AI applications across the banking lifecycle.

Current applications of artificial intelligence across banking fall into six core areas of opportunity, described below along with examples of how financial institutions are already benefitting from AI on these fronts:

Marketing and sales

AI enables personalized engagement and smarter targeting for bank and credit unions’ marketing and sales.

Predictive models forecast customer lifetime value
Generative tools create hyper-personalized messaging and offer recommendations
AI segments audiences for cross-sell campaigns and streamlines onboarding

Personalizing content on JPMorgan’s mobile phone apps helped increase engagement rates by 25%, the company said during its May Investor Day.

Prospecting and onboarding

AI can reduce friction in early-stage customer interactions for banking services.

Automate document verification and identity validation
Prepopulate onboarding forms and streamline KYC workflows
Use chatbots for initial data collection and customer guidance

Costs to verify investment bank clients are down 40% where AI is being deployed across the workflow, JPMorgan also said.

Credit risk underwriting and review

AI enhances accuracy and speed in credit decisions, helping lenders make good decisions quickly.

Predictive models analyze cash flow, credit scores, and risk thresholds
Generative AI assists in drafting credit memos and narrative summaries for loan reviews
Real-time data integration supports more holistic, dynamic underwriting

Bankers Trust, a $7 billion community bank, reduced its commercial loan process for certain loans from two weeks to three to five days using Abrigo’s loan origination for smaller commercial loans, which automates decisioning and features AI-powered loan scoring. And Abrigo’s Loan Review Assistant allows credit risk review staff to evaluate credit quality and document insights in minutes rather than days.

Operations

Financial institutions can improve back-office efficiency with AI automation.

AI routes payments, classifies documents, and extracts insights
Automated financial spreading saves hours of manual entry
Collections strategies are optimized through borrower-level pattern recognition

NVIDIA’s latest survey of financial institutions’ use of AI found that more than 60% of respondents credited AI with helping reduce annual costs by 5% or more.

Customer support

With artificial intelligence, financial institutions boost service quality while scaling support teams.

Chatbots answer common questions and reduce call center volume
AI listens to and analyzes call transcripts to coach agents and spot risk indicators
Personalized engagement improves retention and satisfaction

Bank of America’s AI-driven virtual assistant for employees, Erica for Employees, reduced calls into the IT service desk by more than 50%, the bank said. Similar support improvements can benefit clients.

Risk and compliance

Both predictive AI and generative AI enable institutions to meet regulatory demands with precision and agility.

Alert narratives and ongoing due diligence tasks can be automated
AI helps detect fraud patterns across transactions
Compliance checks are embedded into loan review and audit workflows

Texas National Bank uses Abrigo’s AI-driven check fraud detection to identify fraudulent checks before they are cashed. Within just two months, the bank identified and prevented over $377,000 in fraudulent check transactions.

Altogether, these banking AI use cases drive measurable business benefits: faster loan decisions, higher operational efficiency, improved accuracy, and reduced churn.

Check out helpful AI resources for bankers, including an AI-readiness checklist.

AI resources

How to prioritize projects when implementing AI

The range of available AI use cases in banking can feel overwhelming. But successful institutions typically begin with focused, high-impact projects that align with their data readiness and staffing capacity.

To start:

Partner with trusted providers who understand regulatory frameworks and can integrate AI into existing systems. Abrigo prioritizes data security and privacy by developing AI technology with stringent data protection measures, using encrypted data environments and robust access controls to secure client data. Make sure that any vendors you choose have similar controls in place. You may choose to consider vendors that specifically work with financial institutions so that you can be sure their solutions fully comply with banking regulations. Vendors should be continuously monitoring regulatory landscapes to ensure their solutions meet legal and regulatory requirements.
Experiment with pilot programs such as automating credit memos or onboarding flows to introduce AI one process at a time. Identify and prioritize low-risk, high-value pilot projects, and make sure that leaders from across the organization are united when assessing the feasibility, risks, and intended outputs before starting a project. Once an AI tool is adopted, conduct ROI analysis regularly to make sure the new process is working as intended.
Educate your team on what AI is and what it isn’t to build buy-in across departments. While AI automates certain tasks, it primarily augments the capabilities of banking staff by allowing them to focus on more complex and strategic activities. Done well, this enhances job satisfaction and productivity. Make sure staff are well-trained and emphasize that a human-in-the-loop is always necessary to keep AI processes running smoothly.

From AI’s value potential to AI’s value creation

Long-term AI success requires thoughtful governance, clean data inputs, and strategic planning. With the right use cases and the right partners, banks and credit unions can unlock the true value of AI: accelerating growth, reducing risk, and improving every interaction.

See how an AI assistant shaves days off the loan-review process for more efficient credit risk review.

Loan review assistant

Whitepaper

Rethink asset/liability management: From static snapshots to strategic forecasting

Whitepaper

Ahead of the curve: A banker’s podcast episode 6 – Tariffs, technology, and trust with Duncan Taylor

Whitepaper

Ahead of the curve: A banker’s podcast episode 4 – AI in loan review

Tackling a global epidemic

With fraud at an all-time high, complex scams are at the forefront of financial concerns among consumers and small business owners (SBOs). The FBI 2024 Internet Crime Report details reported losses exceeding $16 billion for 2024, a 33% increase in losses from 2023, and the trend doesn’t seem to be slowing.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is profoundly reshaping the fraud landscape, and Americans are taking notice. While many are concerned with the fraud risks AI introduces, there is growing recognition that AI can be an essential tool for fighting financial crime. Banks and credit unions face a key challenge in protecting clients from AI-driven fraud while using the same technology to detect fraud and strengthen trust.

How is AI used to commit fraud: Client concerns and vulnerabilities

According to the 2024 Abrigo Fraud survey, more than 83% of respondents express concern about AI-assisted fraud, and nearly 60% say they are either extremely or very concerned. That level of anxiety stems in part from personal experience. One in four respondents has either been a victim of AI-related fraud or knows someone who has. The numbers for small business owners (SBOs) are even higher, with 40% reporting they have personally experienced AI-enabled fraud.

The most common concern among respondents is the loss of control over private personal information (PPI), with 57.5% citing high-tech identity theft as their top fear. Additionally, AI-generated deepfake videos and voice cloning now mimic loved ones with unsettling accuracy, making schemes like grandparent scams more convincing than ever. AI-enhanced phishing emails are harder to detect, thanks to flawless spelling, grammar, and tone. These advancements are also fueling more sophisticated business email compromise (BEC) attacks, an escalating threat that organizations of all sizes must take seriously.

Need short-term fraud or AML staffing relief? Abrigo Advisory Services can help.

Connect with an expert

AI is also a part of the solution

Despite the concern, many consumers believe AI can improve fraud detection. 43.5% of survey respondents say that knowing their financial institution uses AI for fraud prevention would increase their confidence in that institution. Another 41% say they are at least interested in using AI-powered tools to monitor their accounts.

Interest among SBOs is even stronger. Nearly 70% of SBO survey respondents say AI fraud detection would make them feel more secure. This is an essential takeaway for financial institutions. Clients are not rejecting AI; they want to know it is being used responsibly and effectively to protect their financial security.

More intelligent detection with Abrigo Fraud Detection

Abrigo Fraud Detection uses AI and machine learning to identify suspicious patterns across channels while improving efficiencies. By combining behavioral analytics with real-time risk scoring, the solution helps institutions detect and stop fraud faster. More importantly, it improves operational efficiency by reducing the number of false alerts that drain time and resources.

This advanced technology matters because the true cost of fraud goes far beyond the dollar amount stolen. It includes hours spent investigating cases, losses in client trust, and emotional strain on victims. In the survey, 56.4% of fraud victims reported stress or anxiety, and 54.1% said they spent significant time resolving the issue. With Abrigo, institutions can take action earlier, resolve fraud faster, and avoid unnecessary disruptions for legitimate clients.

Awareness and education gaps remain

While many respondents hope AI can enhance fraud prevention, more than half say they need to learn more before feeling confident in its role. At the same time, 52% of respondents do not know whether their bank uses AI for fraud detection. This lack of understanding suggests that even well-developed fraud prevention programs may fall short if not clearly communicated to clients. Educational efforts that explain how AI safeguards financial data could go a long way toward building trust, especially among the most concerned demographics.

Key fraud trends for banks

The rise of AI-enabled scams coincides with broader fraud trends that clarify the urgency of the situation. In the past year alone, 26.4% of respondents experienced fraud in their financial accounts. Of those affected, more than half reported stress or anxiety, and 40% suffered economic losses. SBOs reported higher exposure and spent more time resolving fraud incidents.

These findings reflect a broader sentiment that fraud is no longer an abstract threat but a frequent and disruptive reality. Yet only 10.1% of survey respondents feel prepared to defend against emerging threats. More than 68% say banks should carry the primary responsibility for protecting consumers from fraud.

Moving forward: Clear strategy and communication

Financial institutions have an opportunity to lead in both action and education. That starts with a clear strategy for adopting and communicating the use of AI in fraud detection. It also means investing in tools that effectively detect suspicious activity and offer meaningful transparency to clients.

Clients want to know their financial institution is paying attention to the threat landscape and adjusting accordingly. They want real-time alerts, stronger authentication options, and reassurance that modern tools protect their financial data.

Understanding how AI is used in fraud is no longer just a technical issue. It is central to the client experience, risk management, and institutional trust. Banks and credit unions that take a proactive, transparent approach will be better positioned to retain client confidence and respond effectively to AI as an evolving threat.

This article covers these key topics:

Statistics on successful fraud scams
Three pillars for measuring and evaluating fraud costs
Additional fraud implications and best practices for preventing fraud losses

Measuring the cost of fraud losses

The true cost of fraud goes beyond initial monetary losses. Read on for factors your institution should consider in its plans to combat fraud.

Consumer and bank fraud loss statistics

Today's financial institutions are grappling with significant rises in various types of fraud.

Check fraud has surged, driven by the exploitation of vulnerabilities in the postal system, with fraudsters using techniques like mail theft and check washing. FinCEN reports that Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) filings for check fraud in 2024 alone exceeded 521,000, nearly doubling the number of filings the previous year. Check fraud in 2024 was projected to reach a staggering $24 billion globally.

Online fraud, including investment scams and pig butchering scams, has also escalated, with sophisticated schemes targeting unsuspecting investors. While some of the recent trending fraud schemes are not new, they have been transformed to prey on communities already dealing with unprecedented times.

Staying on top of fraud is a full-time job. Let our Advisory Services team help when you need it.

Connect with an expert

The factors mentioned above created abundant opportunities for fraudsters, and financial institutions and consumers must stay one step ahead to protect themselves from falling victim to a myriad of fraud schemes. According to the FTC, consumers lost more than $12.5 billion to fraud in 2024. This marks a 25% increase over 2023. More consumers reported losing money to investment scams—more than $4.6 billion—and the second-highest fraud category was imposter scams, with fraud losses of nearly $5.7 billion reported. The FTC also reports that consumers lost more money to bank transfer and cryptocurrency fraud than all other methods combined. This, of course, doesn’t include fraud losses that were not filed due to the victim's embarrassment or lack of knowledge on how to report. No matter the medium used, it is clear fraud continues to grow and cannot be ignored.

The true cost of fraud extends far beyond direct financial losses. There are many ways that fraud losses impact financial institutions' bottom line and its hidden costs can add up. Institutions must invest not only in advanced security measures and skilled personnel but also in client education and community engagement to combat fraud effectively.

Geographic and sector variations in fraud risk

Fraud impacts financial institutions differently depending on both their geographic location and sector.

Geography

Studies show significant variation in fraud costs across regions, with U.S. and Canadian institutions facing rising losses. Canadian firms, for example, saw a 28% year-over-year increase in the cost per dollar of fraud, reaching $4.45 in 2023, while U.S. firms averaged $4.41 per dollar lost. Within the U.S., states like North Dakota and New York experience the highest per-victim losses, but states such as Rhode Island and Alaska report the most fraud incidents per capita.

Sectors

Sector-wise, banks, fintech companies, and credit unions all report increases in fraud attempts, but the financial impact and attack vectors differ: fintechs, for instance, may face higher exposure to digital and mobile fraud, while traditional banks contend with check and ATM fraud. Understanding these geographic and sector-specific patterns is crucial for tailoring effective fraud prevention strategies.

3 pillars for evaluating the costs of fraud

Leaders within financial institutions are frequently tasked with grasping the full scope of a bank's fraud losses and their impact. It's essential to recognize that the repercussions extend far beyond the immediate monetary losses from each fraudulent transaction. To fully appreciate the actual cost of fraud, one must delve into its complex nature and wide-ranging effects.

1. Hard dollar losses

The first pillar encompasses the overall hard dollar loss rate experienced from illicit transactions. This represents the immediate financial hit impacting the bottom line, including not only the amount of funds extracted by fraudulent means but also the associated financial repercussions, such as transaction reversal costs and compensation paid to affected clients. While this tangible loss is the easiest to quantify, it merely scratches the surface of fraud-related costs.

2. Technical and human resource costs

The second pillar concerns the cost of technical and human resources dedicated to fraud prevention, detection, and remediation. The race against fraudsters demands continuous investment in cutting-edge technologies designed to safeguard against intrusion and theft. Additionally, the human capital investment—in terms of both hiring fraud prevention experts and training existing staff—constitutes a significant operational expense. These costs are necessary and ongoing, forming a crucial barrier against fraud scams.

3. Client value impact

The third pillar, the client value impact, addresses attrition rates following fraud incidents. The erosion of trust caused by fraud can lead to a decline in client retention, a critical issue for financial institutions. Each client lost to fraud represents future revenue streams that are now gone. The relationship between fraud incidents and client departure is a serious concern, as the institution not only loses the lifetime value of the client but also incurs higher costs in attempting to acquire new clients to fill the void.

By understanding these three pillars, leaders can better assess the true cost of their bank's fraud losses and allocate resources more effectively to mitigate its impact.

Additional consequences of fraud loss: Non-financial risks

Reputational risk

Separate from these pillars, financial institutions suffer reputational risk whenever a client falls victim to fraud scams. The damage inflicted on an institution’s reputation after a fraud incident can have extensive ramifications. A tarnished reputation can deter potential clients and negatively affect existing relationships, as trust is critical in a financial relationship. According to research by Javelin Strategy & Research, 31% of clients are more likely to leave the financial institution after a fraud event, even when the bank or credit union is not at fault.

Regulatory risk

Regulatory risk is yet another significant concern. Failure to meet regulatory standards can result in regulatory sanctions, fines, and a mandate for expensive corrective measures. Moreover, non-compliance can lead to enhanced scrutiny by regulators and the possibility of heightened requirements in the future.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has listed fraud and cybercrime as two of its National AML/CFT Priorities. This is the first time fraud has been addressed at a high level as part of AML compliance, but it makes sense considering proceeds from fraudulent activity must be laundered.

With fraud now considered an AML/CFT priority, regulatory penalties and fines around fraud may be something to consider in future exams. Regulators are expecting financial institutions to address each of the priorities in their AML/CFT program, and when there are deficiencies, you can expect criticism and possibly monetary penalties. Now is the time to be sure that your fraud, AML, and IT security teams collaborate and keep each other informed on illicit trends they are detecting.

Best practices for fraud risk management: A checklist to prevent bank fraud losses

Financial institutions must approach fraud with a comprehensive strategy that accounts for direct financial loss, resource allocation, and the broader implications on client value, reputation, and regulatory standing. It is a continual battle requiring vigilance, innovation, and a commitment to safeguarding all stakeholders. Things to consider include:

Hardware: Is your business data safe, and are updates and patches applied timely? They should always be.
Software: Do you have adequate fraud detection software? Are you able to detect various types of illicit activity, such as check, wire, and ACH fraud?
People: Do your investigators receive proper training? Do they have the correct skill set to detect complex patterns of fraudulent activity?
Client education: Does your institution have avenues for client education, such as written materials, online warnings, or in-person seminars for clients and prospects? If not, this is a great way to foster community goodwill and deter fraud at the same time.

Industry innovations in fraud risk management

Abrigo is at the forefront of industry collaboration and innovation, providing U.S. financial institutions with advanced technology solutions to combat fraud more effectively. By centralizing data and integrating compliance, risk management, and fraud detection tools, Abrigo enables organizations to work more efficiently and share critical intelligence across teams. Our platform supports collaboration between fraud, AML, and IT security departments, ensuring that emerging illicit trends are quickly identified and addressed.

Software solutions

Abrigo’s commitment to innovation is reflected in its comprehensive suite of fraud detection software, which leverages cutting-edge analytics to detect various types of illicit activity, from check and wire fraud to more complex schemes.

Education

Additionally, we promote industry best practices by offering resources for your professional education and community engagement, helping institutions stay ahead of evolving threats and reduce the overall cost of fraud.

For more information about Abrigo’s collaborative approach and solutions, visit our Fraud Prevention and Fraud Detection Software pages.

Find out how Abrigo Fraud Detection stops check fraud in its tracks.

fraud detection software

Webinar

Panel: Making fraud everyone’s fight

Webinar

Minimizing wire fraud risk: Strategies for faster payments and smarter defenses

Webinar

Looking for Valuant? You are in the right place!

Looking for DiCOM? You are in the right place!

Looking for TPG Software? You are in the right place!

This article covers these key topics:

Understanding the WARM method

Abrigo has helped hundreds of institutions with CECL implementation and ongoing compliance.

How the WARM method estimates credit losses

How to implement the WARM method

Step-by-step implementation process

Adjusting for qualitative factors (Q factors)

Model governance and documentation

Save time estimating the allowance with a compliant model that scales to your level of complexity.

Comparing the WARM method to other CECL approaches

WARM method vs. SCALE

WARM vs. discounted cash flow and static pool models

Trade-offs and limitations of the WARM method

Is WARM the right fit for your institution?

Practical tips for financial institutions

Revisiting CECL methodologies

Integro Bank turns to Abrigo Advisory to advance its CECL model

CECL mastery series: From compliance to confidence

Backtesting and ongoing monitoring: Making CECL models work over time

What is reputational risk: How it fits into business strategy

Regulatory guidance on reputational risk

Need short-term fraud or AML staffing relief? Abrigo Advisory Services can help.

What is reputational risk and why it matters

New regulatory changes

Reputational risk is connected to other areas of risk

Reputation as part of governance conversations

A simple framework for assessing reputational exposure

Prioritizing reputation

Powerful financial crime fighting Get features and functionality you need from AML compliance software.

Panel: Making fraud everyone’s fight

Minimizing wire fraud risk: Strategies for faster payments and smarter defenses

Making it make sense: Documenting your fraud strategy & response

Elder sextortion: The emotional and financial toll

What is elder sextortion

Staying on top of fraud is a full-time job. Let our Advisory Services team help when you need it.

How scammers target older adults

Find out how Abrigo Fraud Detection stops check fraud in its tracks.

When sextortion escalates

How financial institutions can protect their customers from elder sextortion

Why action matters

Minimizing wire fraud risk: Strategies for faster payments and smarter defenses

From exam room to boardroom: What regulators expect & boards need to know

Under pressure: Mastering Financial Crime compliance in a changing landscape

FinCEN Investment Advisor Rule delay: A shift in regulatory priorities

Why FinCEN issued the delay

Staying on top of fraud is a full-time job. Let our Advisory Services team help when you need it.

Why the delay matters to financial institutions

Next steps

Find out how Abrigo Fraud Detection stops check fraud in its tracks.

Minimizing wire fraud risk: Strategies for faster payments and smarter defenses

From exam room to boardroom: What regulators expect & boards need to know

Under pressure: Mastering Financial Crime compliance in a changing landscape

Day 2 accounting work can get tricky

This article covers these key topics:

Deal activity is heating up; be accounting-ready

Abrigo's experts handle Day 1 and Day 2 accounting, exit pricing, and other quarterly services.

Income recognition accounting can’t be an afterthought

The core and income recognition: A recipe for auditor questions

CECL and income recognition

Who really owns the income recognition process?

See how your loan fair value estimates compare to market-based benchmarks.

Loan fair value and exit price trends: Quarterly disclosure insights – Q1 2025

Ahead of the curve: A banker’s podcast episode 2 – M&A accounting best practices

Valuation and purchase accounting in a dynamic macroenvironment

Fraud victim support: How financial institutions can respond and restore trust

The growing cost of fraud

Staying on top of fraud is a full-time job. Let our Advisory Services team help when you need it.

Understanding the scope of fraud

A layered approach to fraud victim support

Making victim support a shared responsibility

Turning crisis into opportunity

Find out how Abrigo Fraud Detection stops check fraud in its tracks.

Minimizing wire fraud risk: Strategies for faster payments and smarter defenses

From exam room to boardroom: What regulators expect & boards need to know

Under pressure: Mastering Financial Crime compliance in a changing landscape

AI-driven elder fraud: Deepfakes; the newest threat

The evolving tactics behind elder financial exploitation

Powerful financial crime fighting

Get features and functionality you need from AML compliance software.