Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
October 19, 2026 | Insight | Wealthtech Investing And Trading, Artificial Intelligence And Data, Risk Compliance And Regtech

On October 19, 2026, Global X Investments Canada and National Bank Direct Brokerage released a Canadian survey on AI and finfluencers in investing, finding that 84% of 834 surveyed self-directed investors use AI, financial influencers or both for investment research and related activities. Some 77% watch financial creators, while 56% use AI for investment research and related activities. The findings raise a new question for Canada's investment industry. Does AI help investors critically assess ideas discovered through social media, or does it reinforce the original recommendation?
The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) has already tested how investors respond to financial promotions and AI investment suggestions. The new research adds evidence that investors are using these sources together. For Canadian wealthtech firms, winning investor trust increasingly means helping customers assess investment ideas, compare options and make informed decisions before they place a trade. That creates new possibilities for research products and digital advice, along with questions about the information investors rely on.
The October survey found that 68% of finfluencer viewers also use AI for investing, compared with 14% of non-viewers. Investors use AI to check their thinking, research markets, generate ideas and summarize financial information. Among finfluencer viewers, 83% reported taking some action after consuming content, including learning financial terms (26%), increasing savings (24%) and starting to invest (18%). Not every action involved buying or selling an investment, and the survey doesn't establish that financial content caused the reported behaviour.
Earlier OSC research offers stronger evidence about how promotional content can affect investment choices. In its 2025 finfluencer research, 38% of participants exposed to promotional investment content purchased the featured asset in a simulated portfolio, compared with 8% in the control group. The OSC also tested disclosures, advance warnings and prompts encouraging investors to check accuracy. Each reduced promotional influence, although none eliminated it.
The OSC separately examined AI investment recommendations in 2024. Investors were about as likely to follow investment recommendations from AI as from human financial professionals. They were most likely to follow advice that combined both, although the difference wasn't large enough to be statistically meaningful. Even before the latest survey, investors were open to taking investment advice from AI.
The research gap is what happens when these influences meet. Consider an investor who discovers a stock through a financial creator and asks AI to evaluate it. The AI response might identify risks the creator missed. It could also repeat promotional claims drawn from the same underlying sources, giving the investor more confidence without adding independent evidence. As AI use grows, testing whether it challenges or reinforces financial promotions will seemingly become a practical investor protection priority.
AI also introduces the possibility of financial content being produced and assessed by automated systems. Digital influencers can generate investment messages, while investors may use another AI service to evaluate those messages. More personalized content could make promotions increasingly relevant to individual interests, but it could also become harder to distinguish independent analysis from repeated marketing claims.
Financial creators attract investors who actively manage their portfolios. Surveyed viewers reported an average of 9.9 portfolio adjustments a year, compared with 2.3 among non-viewers. They were also more likely to identify as aggressive investors, at 14% versus 4%. Those differences suggest that many investors consuming financial content are comfortable making decisions and looking beyond their brokerage for information.
Professional judgment still has considerable influence. Some 46% of respondents manage at least part of their investments independently while also working with an advisor. Among finfluencer viewers with an advisor, 84% said creator content had changed that relationship, often by helping them ask better questions or seek confirmation. And 96% of investors combining DIY investing with professional advice said they would pause or reconsider an AI or creator sourced investment if their advisor recommended against it.
Claude-Frédéric Robert, President of National Bank Direct Brokerage, described the challenge:
"It's understanding which sources to trust, how to validate ideas and how to turn information into informed investment decisions."
For advisors, clients who arrive with their own investment research create an opportunity for better conversations. A client may already know a company's growth story, valuation or recent performance but need help assessing portfolio concentration, risk and personal financial circumstances. The advisor's value comes from challenging assumptions and connecting an investment decision to the client's broader financial plan, not simply supplying information the client can now find elsewhere.
AI could strengthen that relationship if firms use it to make research easier to understand and prepare clients for more useful advice. It could also expose weak advice models built around access to information rather than professional judgment. The October findings support interest in combining independent research and human advice, but they don't establish that any particular hybrid model produces better investment outcomes.
AI is giving investors another place to research stocks, compare ETFs and assess investment ideas before placing a trade. The brokerage that executes a trade may not be the company that influenced the decision. As more investors turn to AI for research, investment platforms risk losing some of the customer engagement that supports trading activity and other services.
AI could also influence which investments investors discover. The sources an AI tool selects and how it compares products may affect which funds, stocks or strategies receive attention. That gives fund providers another way to reach investors while creating new competition for brokerages that traditionally attract customers through their own research and investment offerings.
Canadian wealthtech firms have an opportunity to bring that research back into their platforms. Rather than adding another chatbot, they can help customers verify investment claims against company filings, compare costs and understand portfolio risks. Reliable information and useful comparisons give investors practical reasons to return.
The business model determines how far these services can go. Execution only brokerages can offer education and general investment research without providing personalized recommendations. Registered advisors can use AI to support their work while remaining responsible for meeting applicable advice and suitability requirements. Firms combining digital tools with professional advice may appeal to investors who want to manage their own portfolios but need guidance on important decisions.
Canada already has rules covering much of this activity. In December 2025, the CSA and CIRO issued guidance on finfluencers and securities law, addressing investment promotions, registration, compensation and conflicts. It also covers AI generated digital influencers. Explaining an investment is different from recommending what someone should buy based on their personal circumstances. Firms need to understand where that boundary applies to their AI products.
For fintech operators, the practical questions include where AI gets its information, how it handles misleading claims and when customers should be directed to qualified advice. These choices affect customer trust, compliance costs and the services a platform can offer.
Canada's digital investment advice review has also looked at barriers to online and hybrid advice. As AI adoption grows, investment firms could serve more customers by combining accessible research with professional guidance when needed. The opportunity is to offer something genuinely useful, not simply generate more investment recommendations.
About the survey: The Global X and National Bank Direct Brokerage survey was conducted by RKI in June 2026 among 834 qualifying Canadian DIY investors who used social media and actively sought financial information. Participants needed at least $10,000 in investable assets, or $1,000 if they were under 30. The findings apply to this surveyed group, not all Canadian investors. The earlier OSC experiments used different methods, so their results can't be used to measure changes in AI adoption over time.
AI could become a powerful second opinion on investment ideas, but a second opinion isn't necessarily an independent one. The opportunity for Canadian wealth platforms is to help investors distinguish credible research from repeated financial promotion before confidence turns into a trade.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |

On October 17, 2026, Finance Canada published proposed fintech investment and technology regulations for powers Parliament approved in June 2018 and never brought into force. The package reaches more than 400 federally regulated financial institutions.
Finance now says the older rules can “prevent or complicate” fintech investment, limit capital flowing into innovative sectors and impede productivity growth. Eight years after Parliament acted, the operating rules are still only proposed.
The delay wasn’t one long consultation. Finance’s own record shows six concrete problems. Officials had to draw the regulatory perimeter between finance and technology, preserve the barrier against unrelated commerce, set revenue and regulatory capital limits, stop the rules from squeezing smaller institutions, and cut reporting requirements industry said were too heavy. Then Parliament had to repair defects in the 2018 statute in 2024. Six problems turned one reform into eight years of rulemaking.
This wasn’t a ban on fintech investment. Banks and insurers could still buy businesses that fit the existing rules. The trouble started when a fintech mixed finance with commercial software or expanded after an institution had invested. Banks had already warned that some domestic technology approvals took three to four months. The 2026 proposal would finally give qualifying mixed businesses a new route when at least 60% of their activity is financial, subject to separate limits on the investor.
Finance opened the review in 2016. It held 32 meetings and received 63 written submissions, then received 300 submissions in 2017, with 25 focused on fintech. Finance later acknowledged that incumbent institutions and industry associations were better represented than independent fintechs and venture investors.
Bankers came with a practical complaint. The Canadian Bankers Association’s 2017 submission said some domestic technology approvals could take three to four months and covered only the activities named in the application. That’s a poor fit for a fintech that can add a product, market or subsidiary in the time it takes a large institution to finish an approval process.
Founders weren’t building tidy regulatory categories. Payments were moving into merchant software, identity tools could serve banks and law offices, and data companies were becoming financial infrastructure while selling into other industries. The old rules drew cleaner lines than the market did.
Investors wanted a wider lane too. Finance said collaboration could pair fintech speed with the balance sheets and customer relationships of established institutions. Portag3 Ventures, then backing Canadian companies including Wealthsimple, Borrowell and KOHO, supported broader investment flexibility and argued that bank financing and collaboration were important to the fintech ecosystem. Capital and distribution were already part of the policy problem.
Under the Bank Act route described by the CBA, a substantial investment generally had to stay inside permitted activities. If even one ancillary activity or a downstream subsidiary moved outside that list, the bank could face another approval, a different investment classification or divestment. The CBA called the restriction a “significant impediment” with the potential to restrict Canadian innovation.
Insurers ran into the same boundary from another direction. The life insurance industry’s 2017 submission said an insurer could use identity or anti money laundering technology inside finance but couldn’t freely sell the same capability to law offices, real estate firms, other businesses or government. Useful technology could have a broader market, while the ownership and commercialization rules stayed narrow.
A growing fintech can create a problem for the shareholder that helped fund it. Add inventory software, merchant analytics or a commercial subsidiary because customers want them, and the business may no longer fit the permission that supported the original bank investment. The CBA warned that this could discourage fintechs from working with banks.
Insurers faced a similar commercial choice. A tool built for regulated finance might have customers far beyond finance, yet the legal route could narrow who could own the business or where the product could be sold. That can influence which investor a founder takes, how the company is structured and which markets it enters next.
Parliament responded on June 21, 2018. The 2018 Budget Implementation Act broadened permitted technology activities, removed prior ministerial approval for the expanded nonfinancial activities, widened referral powers and created a new investment category for companies whose businesses were mostly financial services. The law clearly moved toward more flexibility.
But Parliament didn’t define how much of a company had to be financial to qualify as a majority financial services entity. It also left the revenue, capital, reporting and transaction conditions to regulation. Without those operating rules, institutions couldn’t use the new powers and stayed under the older framework.
Parliament gave banks and insurers broader ownership powers in June 2018. Finance still had to define the majority test, exposure limits and safeguards before anyone could use them. The authority existed. The investment route didn’t.
That left financial institutions making real investment decisions under the old framework while fintech business models kept widening. A company could fit the rules when a bank first invested and create a new legal problem later simply by adding a commercial activity customers wanted.
After Royal Assent, Finance worked with the CBA, the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association and OSFI. The first problem was the regulatory perimeter. Finance called separating new technology activities from core financial services a “serious technical challenge”, especially when the same staff, assets and systems served both. Officials also had to preserve existing investment prohibitions and keep visibility into the new business.
Then came the operating limits. In 2019, officials worked through revenue caps, regulatory capital exposure, annual reports and transaction conditions. A 2020 technical review exposed two more problems. Uniform rules could box out smaller institutions, while the proposed reporting package could impose a significant burden. Finance later revised both.
The delay didn’t come from one unresolved issue. It came from six. Finance had to separate finance from technology, preserve limits on unrelated commerce, set revenue and capital exposure caps, give smaller institutions enough room to compete, and reduce reporting requirements industry said were too burdensome. Those were the five regulatory design problems documented through the consultation record.
The sixth problem sat in the law itself. Bill C-59 received Royal Assent in June 2024 and made technical corrections to the 2018 law. It fixed discrepancies between the English and French provisions and clarified that the expanded technology powers were limited to information technology. By then, Finance had already consulted in 2019, reviewed a draft in 2020, consulted again in 2021 and returned with another draft in 2024.
Every revision created another round of legal or regulatory work. Caps changed. Reporting changed. Parliament repaired the statute six years after passage. The first public regulations still didn’t reach Canada Gazette Part I until October 2026, even though stakeholders were asking by 2024 for the powers to come into force “as soon as feasible.”
National Bank took control of Flinks in 2021. Its disclosed transaction included C$73 million for voting preferred shares followed by another C$30 million investment. The bank’s interest rose to 85.9%.
RBC bought WayPay in 2019 to expand automated business payments and account reconciliation. Canada Life acquired ClaimSecure in 2021, adding 1.25 million plan members and technology handling more than C$1.2 billion in annual claims payments. Canada Life and ClaimSecure later launched a combined benefits product.
Those deals matter because they rule out the easy story. Canada didn’t ban institutional fintech investment, and banks and insurers kept buying businesses that fit the existing framework. The squeeze showed up at the edges, where finance blended with commercial activity or a company later expanded beyond the legal fit that supported the original investment.
By October 2026, Flinks had moved beyond financial data connectivity into banking development, payment integrations, account switching and managed services. That’s exactly the kind of expansion a strategic shareholder may want to keep backing. Under the older framework, a different commercial move could force the shareholder to stop and ask whether it could legally stay invested.
The CBA warned that the legal fit could affect a deal before anyone applied for approval. If a fintech needed capital quickly, a bank bid carrying a regulatory condition could lose to cleaner, faster money. A later business change could also force the bank back into approval or divestment. A lost opportunity can disappear before Ottawa ever sees a file.
Finance expects more activity once the new route is usable. Over the past decade, roughly one institution per year sought the relevant ministerial approvals. Finance now assumes large banks will average two qualifying investments annually and large insurers one. The figures aren’t directly comparable, but Finance itself expects more activity because the process should be faster, less costly and more certain.
Government data can count approvals. It can’t count the bank bid that was never made, the expansion pushed into another company or the investor a founder never approached because the legal fit was poor. It can’t count technology an insurer decided not to sell outside finance either. Those decisions rarely leave a public record.
The economic toll starts before an approval file exists. A bank offer with conditions can lose to faster capital. A founder can split a product, delay a commercial move or avoid an investor whose ownership may become a future constraint. None of those choices needs a rejection letter to change the company’s path.
The October proposal finally puts a number on majority. A target can qualify when at least 60% of its business consists of qualifying financial activity, measured using whichever produces the highest result among revenue, operating expenses or assets. That gives younger or differently structured companies more than one way to clear the test.
The investor has separate limits. Institutions with more than C$12 billion in equity would face a 10% nonfinancial revenue ceiling and a 10% regulatory capital exposure limit. Small and medium institutions with C$12 billion or less in equity would get 15% revenue headroom while keeping the same 10% capital limit.
Take a payments company that also sells merchant software. Under the older activity based route, one impermissible commercial activity could knock the company out of that investment permission. Under the proposal, a business with 70% qualifying financial activity and 30% other commercial activity could potentially qualify. The 70 and 30 split is illustrative, but the business consequence is straightforward. The founder may no longer have to strip out every useful commercial feature just to keep a bank investor eligible.
The percentages don’t describe the same limit. The historical 5% exemption covered certain bank technology investments without approval and required the investee to stay within prescribed activities. The new 60% test applies to the target company’s business mix. The 10% and 15% limits apply to the investing institution’s aggregate nonfinancial business. There isn’t a simple old cap and new cap comparison.
More eligible bank and insurer investors can improve financing choices, distribution and negotiating leverage for an independent fintech. A strategic buyer can get a product in front of customers much faster. It can also end up owning technology several competing institutions rely on. More capital and more competition aren’t automatically the same outcome.
Finance is trying to keep sight of that risk. Certain large acquirers would have to report material supply arrangements between a target and the acquirer’s competitors. Smaller and medium institutions get more revenue headroom and no new reports, because identical limits would leave them with much less room to compete.
A wider buyer pool can help founders raise money, get distribution and negotiate exits. It can also put an important supplier or emerging challenger inside a major incumbent. That’s where the reform shifts from a capital question to a competition question.
The Competition Bureau’s fintech study supported removing unnecessary barriers to entry and collaboration while keeping scrutiny where incumbent relationships could weaken competition. Finance’s new supply reporting reflects the same concern. The useful outcome isn’t simply more acquisitions. It’s more capital reaching strong companies without draining independent competitive pressure from the market.
Finance estimates the proposed rules will add C$267,518 in annualized administrative and compliance costs, or about C$1.88 million in present value over 10 years. Those figures cover the new reporting burden. They don’t count the savings from removing some ministerial approvals, and they certainly don’t capture eight years of slower, narrower business choices under the old framework.
The regulations are proposed, not in force. Canada Gazette Part I opened a 30 day consultation on October 17, 2026, with comments due November 16. The government still has to finalize the regulations and use a separate Order in Council to activate the dormant 2018 amendments.
The last round now turns on execution. The 60% definition has to work for current fintech business models, smaller institutions need enough room to compete, and Finance needs visibility into new risks without rebuilding the reporting burden industry spent years pushing back on. Get those choices wrong and the reform can still underdeliver even after eight years.
Canada has already spent eight years designing conditions around powers Parliament approved in 2018. The next step is simpler to describe and harder to deliver. Put the rules into force, give good businesses a workable path to institutional capital, and keep enough independent competition in the market that customers actually benefit.
Canada’s eight year delay carried a real economic toll. Banks faced approval processes that could take three to four months. Mixed fintechs could lose access to some bank or insurer investors as they expanded. Insurers had less room to sell useful technology outside financial services. Finance now says the old framework can prevent or complicate investment, limit capital and impede productivity. We can’t put a credible dollar figure on every deal, product or expansion that went another way, but the commercial cost isn’t abstract. It lands in who funds a company, what it builds next and how quickly it gets to market.
Canada has good reasons to keep banks and insurers out of unrelated commerce. Those guardrails protect stability and stop financial institutions from controlling too much of the wider economy. But a safeguard carries a cost when rules written for older business models keep constraining newer ones after Parliament has already approved change. The Competition Bureau’s fintech progress review has warned that regulatory barriers can weaken competition too. Capital won’t wait eight years for rulemaking to catch up.
Founders didn’t stop building while Ottawa worked through the rules. Banks and insurers still found ways to invest where the old framework allowed it, as Flinks, WayPay and ClaimSecure show. The 2026 proposal can widen those paths without turning strategic investment into another route to incumbent control. Eight years are gone. The better outcome now is a market where good Canadian fintechs have more ways to finance growth, commercialize useful technology and challenge the status quo.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Oct 16, 2026 | Wealth Management, Retirement Planning, Personal Finance

Planning for retirement while living in a high-cost state like New York is even more important. Housing, healthcare, taxes and everyday expenses can go up and affect retirement.
Retirement planning aligns savings, investments, income, and future lifestyle goals. So, a retirement strategy should include a person’s location, income, assets, investments and expected retirement age.
Wealth management for pre-retirees in New York City can make the process much easier by working with financial planners.
Consider potential housing expenses, property taxes, utilities, transportation, and healthcare in New York. Also account for mortgage payments, rent, and other fixed expenses when planning retirement.
Moreover, you should consider whether downsizing or paying off a mortgage could help with long-term financial flexibility. Estimate essential expenses separately from discretionary spending.
Review workplace retirement plans, including 401(k) and 403(b) accounts. Traditional and Roth IRAs offer benefits if an individual is eligible. Diversifying investments and asset classes is key when planning for retirement.
Time horizon, risk tolerance, inflation, and withdrawal needs affect investment decisions. Review contribution levels, employer matching opportunities, and beneficiary designations. A retirement portfolio should gradually reflect changing income needs as retirement approaches.
Early retirement often requires a larger savings base and a longer withdrawal period. Retiring before age 65 can affect access to Medicare and the need for alternative health insurance. Withdrawals from certain retirement accounts before age 59½ may trigger income taxes and additional penalties. Highlight the importance of maintaining accessible savings outside tax-advantaged retirement accounts.
Stress-test retirement plans against inflation, market downturns, and unexpected expenses.
Social Security benefits, pensions, investment income, and retirement account withdrawals may be taxed differently. New York State usually provides a qualifying exemption for certain pension income for eligible taxpayers aged 59½ or older, subject to statutory limits and conditions.
Note that qualifying Social Security benefits are generally exempt from New York State income tax. Verify state and local tax obligations based on their residence and income sources.
Withdrawal sequencing and tax planning can influence how long retirement assets last.
Professional guidance helps coordinate investments, retirement income, tax considerations, and estate planning. Financial advisors for retirement planning can help develop a personalized strategy.
Understand an advisor's qualifications, fee structure, fiduciary obligations, and compensation model. Ask how often their plan will be reviewed and updated. Professional guidance can be particularly useful during major transitions, such as selling a business, receiving an inheritance, or preparing to leave full-time employment.
Looking for a financial planner in Brooklyn? Prestique Wealth focuses on professional guidance tailored to local circumstances.
Here is a retirement planning checklist to help you.
Retirement planning is an ongoing process, not a one-time calculation.
Effective retirement financial planning combines savings, investment management, tax awareness, and realistic budgeting. New York residents should account for local living costs and personal retirement goals. Revisit your plans as your circumstances and financial markets change.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Oct 16, 2026

Image: Unsplash/Karen Uppal
Wealth managers and enterprise founders are adopting flexible foundation vehicles in leading financial jurisdictions to safeguard international assets effectively. These legal frameworks give business families durable control over cross-border capital.
Running an international enterprise brings substantial operational reach, but cross-border wealth invites sudden legal exposure, tax friction, and succession disputes. When your commercial footprint spans multiple continents, managing assets through personal names or informal agreements leaves your life's work vulnerable to external shocks.
Forward-thinking business leaders now establish institutional holding structures designed to insulate capital across sovereign borders. Foundations in premier financial hubs combine corporate agility with structural preservation, giving your family firm a dependable platform for private governance.
Trusts historically served as the default choice for generational planning across common law nations. They separate legal ownership from beneficial enjoyment, which helps manage wealth distribution across successive generations.
Many international founders find standard trust mechanics too restrictive for dynamic commercial operations. Trustees hold ultimate legal title, meaning you must surrender day-to-day command over your underlying assets to an outside third party. Foundations solve this tension by operating as separate legal entities, blending the asset segregation of a trust with the structured decision-making of a private corporation.
Foundations own underlying assets in their own legal name because they possess standalone corporate status. When you choose to establish a foundation in ADGM as your primary holding structure, you preserve strategic oversight while separating personal risks from enterprise capital. That distinct legal boundary shields private investments from external disputes across different jurisdictions. Your chosen council administers daily tasks while strictly following your founder regulations.
You create the foundational charter, appoint the governing council, and outline your succession vision through bespoke bylaws. This arrangement prevents foreign courts from seizing operational companies during personal litigation, providing true insulation without stripping away commercial agility.
Global financial districts provide well-tested legal frameworks grounded in English common law. Their independent courts, digital registries, and clear statutory rules give wealth managers predictable enforcement mechanisms.
A research analysis from the Purdue University Daniels School of Business highlights that private wealth offices can maintain asset positions indefinitely, avoiding the forced divestment horizons typical of standard private equity funds. Operating within a respected global hub allows your family capital to hold strategic equity for decades without arbitrary regulatory disruptions. You gain direct access to sophisticated international banking corridors and world-class professional advisors.
International institutions scrutinize private capital structures with increasing rigor. Complex corporate wrappers without clear governance generate regulatory friction and complicate relationships with global investment counterparties.
A global survey published by the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance shows that major institutional capital providers demand accountability, operational transparency, and strict alignment with long-term enterprise value. Structuring your private holdings through a recognized foundation satisfies those institutional expectations by maintaining orderly council meetings, documented accounting trails, and transparent governance registers. That institutional credibility smooths cross-border transactions and builds confidence with institutional partners.
Integrating a foundation into your existing enterprise structure requires deliberate legal sequencing. You separate high-risk operating businesses from passive holdings, creating dedicated subsidiaries beneath the foundation canopy.
Holding structures work best when you divide assets by risk profile and geographic location. Trading companies, commercial properties, and liquid investment portfolios require individual corporate entities to isolate legal liabilities.
Structuring each asset class under dedicated holding companies isolates operational liability while leaving strategic stewardship firmly under council governance.
Passing control to the next generation frequently triggers internal conflicts if families leave succession rules ambiguous. Foundation bylaws eliminate this friction by spelling out voting privileges, distribution schedules, and leadership succession protocols before disputes arise.
You establish conditional distribution terms that support entrepreneurial initiatives among descendants rather than passive entitlement. Your wealth vehicle remains functional and self-governing, shielding family holdings from probate court delays across multiple countries.
Protecting cross-border wealth requires intentional governance structures built before external crises strike. Modern foundation frameworks give you legal security, administrative flexibility, and institutional standing to preserve your commercial legacy. When you align robust structural defenses with clear family bylaws, your enterprise navigates global market disruptions with lasting confidence.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
October 15, 2026 | Insight | Fintech Funding, Embedded Finance, Payments Infrastructure

On October 15, 2026, New York fintech Ramp announced US$1.85 billion in financing at a US$60 billion valuation, less than three months after expanding its corporate cards and financial operations platform into Canada. Ramp now serves more than 85,000 businesses and reports over US$2 billion in annualized revenue. Its growing financial resources raise the stakes for Canadian competitors Float, Venn and others, particularly as corporate cards, payments and expense software increasingly compete for the same business customers.
Ramp already sells more than corporate cards. Its platform combines spending controls, supplier payments, accounting automation and financial software, with new AI services extending its reach. The financing gives Ramp substantial resources to expand those products and compete for larger accounts, while Canadian fintechs face decisions about pricing, customer acquisition and which financial services they can profitably provide.
Dragoneer Investment Group led the primary financing round, with Thrive Capital, Founders Fund, Sands Capital and Avenir Growth as co-leads. Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan also participated. Ramp's valuation has risen from US$44 billion in June, when it raised US$750 million, bringing total equity financing to approximately US$5 billion.
Ramp reports more than US$275 billion in annualized purchase volume, up 175% year over year. Its enterprise customers generating over US$100,000 in revenue for Ramp increased 113%, indicating greater adoption among larger businesses. Ramp earns revenue through interchange, software subscriptions, interest and other services.
Ramp's US$60 billion valuation implies a valuation-to-annualized-revenue multiple below 30x, based on its reported revenue run rate of more than US$2 billion. That reflects substantial investor expectations for continued growth. Ramp also reports positive cash flow, although it hasn't disclosed sufficient financial results to establish sustained profitability.
More than half of Ramp's customers use at least two products, and one quarter use three or more. That gives Ramp opportunities to increase revenue from existing accounts while making its platform more useful to finance teams managing several functions. The company has also expanded into accounts receivable automation, AI spending controls and model cost management.
Its Router.com service selects AI models based on cost and performance, while AI Token Spend Management tracks spending across providers, teams and models. Eric Glyman, Ramp's co-founder and co-CEO, described the company's ambition in the financing announcement:
"AI opens up much more of the work it takes to run a company."
Greater product adoption may improve revenue per customer and retention, but investors will ultimately need evidence that those gains justify the company's development costs and valuation.
Ramp expanded its Canadian platform in July 2026, offering corporate cards, expense management, reimbursements, bill payments and accounting integrations. Peoples Trust Company issues its Canadian Visa cards. The platform supports CAD spending and virtual USD cards, giving eligible businesses another option for managing domestic and international expenses.
Ramp's Canadian eligibility requirements include a minimum C$25,000 across connected bank accounts. Businesses registered in Quebec and the territories aren't supported, nor are sole proprietorships and unregistered businesses. The restrictions narrow Ramp's initial addressable market and leave opportunities for providers serving those customers.
Toronto based Float competes directly in corporate cards, expense management, bill payments and business accounts. In June, it raised C$85 million in Series C financing to expand its AI finance capabilities and Canadian distribution. Float reports more than 7,500 business customers. Venn competes through corporate cards, multicurrency accounts, foreign exchange and international payments, targeting businesses that need banking and spending tools across currencies.
Ramp's reported customer adoption across multiple products points to a competitive challenge beyond fundraising. When one provider manages cards, expense controls and supplier payments, customers have more reasons to stay. A Canadian fintech offering only one of those services may need to demonstrate stronger functionality, better pricing or savings large enough to justify using another provider.
Ramp's capital could also give it more flexibility to bundle products or invest in customer acquisition. If that leads to lower software prices or more aggressive sales offers in Canada, competitors could face pressure on margins and acquisition costs.
Float and Venn's opportunities lie in the customers and financial requirements they can serve better, including Canadian banking services, domestic payment needs and businesses outside Ramp's current eligibility rules. Local presence has commercial value only when it delivers something customers will pay for or gives them a compelling reason to stay.
For Canadian fintech founders, the choices are increasingly specific. Expand into more financial services, concentrate on a profitable customer segment, or supply payments, integrations and risk controls to larger platforms.
Ramp's US$1.85 billion financing gives an established Canadian market entrant greater resources to compete for corporate spending and financial operations customers. Can Canadian fintechs earn and retain more revenue from each business customer without matching the capital demands of a US$60 billion competitor?
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |