Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
Karsten Wenzlaff is a Crowdfunding and Fintech Expert from Germany. He is Secretary-General of Digit[...]
Category Archives: Leadership, Competition, Human Capital, Health
Revolut Receives Conditional U.S. Bank Approval
September 3, 2026 | NCFA Market Activity | Digital Banking And BaaS, Regulation And Policy, Payments Infrastructure And Money Movement
Revolut Bank US, 2027 Launch Plans and U.S. Banking Products
On September 3, 2026, Revolut received conditional U.S. bank approval from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency form Revolut Bank US, N.A., a federally chartered national bank headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut. Revolut says it is still working through FDIC, Federal Reserve and final OCC approvals and remains on track for a 2027 launch. U.S. customers cannot open accounts with Revolut Bank US yet.
Revolut already serves U.S. customers, but the regulated banking are with other institutions. Lead Bank supports Revolut's prepaid card accounts and banking services, while Savings Vault funds are held at Cross River Bank. Revolut controls the app and customer experience, but those partner banks hold deposits and perform key regulated functions.
Revolut says the proposed bank would offer loans, credit cards and FDIC insured deposits, alongside access to stablecoins and cryptocurrencies. Its charter application also describes deposits, savings, business credit, payments, remittances and foreign exchange. Some investment and digital asset services could still sit with affiliates or outside providers rather than inside the bank itself.
Revolut has been working toward this for months. It dropped plans to buy a U.S. bank earlier this year and chose to apply for a new national bank instead. The OCC received the Revolut Bank US application on March 4. Conditional approval six months later gets the company much closer to owning the bank behind its U.S. app.
What Changes if Revolut Owns the Bank?
Today, Revolut can build the app, price subscriptions and design much of the customer experience, but it still depends on banks such as Lead Bank and Cross River Bank for core banking functions. That arrangement helped Revolut enter the U.S. without taking on the full cost of becoming a bank, but it also means product changes, deposit economics and parts of the customer relationship depend on outside institutions.
With its own bank, Revolut could keep more of that customer relationship inside the company. Deposits could sit at Revolut Bank US, lending income could stay within the group and the company could build products without asking a partner bank to support every change. Revolut also says direct access to payment networks such as Fedwire and ACH could make transfers faster and cheaper.
The economics become more interesting at Revolut's current size. Its 2025 financial results included US$6.0 billion in revenue, US$1.7 billion in net profit, US$67.5 billion in customer balances and a US$2.9 billion lending portfolio. Revolut now serves more than 80 million customers worldwide and is adding roughly one million customers every 17 days.
The U.S. opportunity is still much less developed than Revolut's business in Europe and some other markets. A bank charter gives the company a chance to compete for deposits, credit and primary banking relationships rather than mainly offering an app connected to somebody else's bank. Revolut has also committed to invest US$500 million in the U.S. over the next few years as it builds the products and operations around that effort.
What Still Has to Happen Before Launch
Conditional OCC approval is a major regulatory step, but it is not permission to open the bank tomorrow. Revolut still needs FDIC approval for deposit insurance, Federal Reserve approvals for its U.S. holding structure and final OCC clearance. The company also has to finish staffing, capitalization, technology, compliance and operational testing before customers can be moved onto the new bank.
Owning a bank also changes the risk Revolut takes on. A partner bank carries much of the regulated balance sheet today. Revolut Bank US would have to manage its own capital, liquidity, credit losses, consumer compliance, BSA and AML controls, cybersecurity, governance and federal examinations.
Lending makes that especially real. A payments app can process money without taking the same credit risk as a bank making personal or business loans. Once Revolut starts lending from its own balance sheet, growth has to be backed by sound underwriting, reserves, collections and enough capital to absorb losses when borrowers struggle.
The company is already building that structure though. Its application calls for a separate U.S. bank board and senior executives responsible for finance, risk, compliance, legal, lending and operations. Revolut says it remains on track for 2027, but the launch date still depends on regulators being satisfied that the bank is ready to operate safely.
Revolut's Canada Question Is Still Open
Revolut's first Canadian attempt ended very differently. The company launched a limited beta in 2019 and left Canada in 2021 without establishing a domestic bank. The earlier product was much narrower than the banking business Revolut now operates in several markets.
Jan Pilbauer now leads Revolut Canada, and Revolut has described the market as attractive, but there is still no announced launch date or public Canadian bank licence application. A U.S. national bank charter certainly doesn't give Revolut permission to take deposits or operate a bank in Canada.
If Revolut does return, it would arrive as a much larger and more regulated company than the one that left five years ago. It now operates licensed banks in multiple countries, carries a growing lending book and is building local banking operations rather than relying only on cards and foreign exchange. Canada has also changed, with OSFI's streamlined approvals framework giving eligible new entrants a clearer federal application process.
None of that means a Canadian relaunch is close. It does mean the next attempt, if it happens, could look much more like a full digital bank than the limited product Revolut tested here before.
See: Revolut U.S. Bank Plans
Revolut is now trying to do something large fintechs often avoid for as long as they can it seems. That is to own a regulated bank, the deposits, the lending and more of the customer economics. That can produce more revenue and more control, but it also means the compliance failures, credit losses and funding mistakes belong to Revolut too.
Talking Point
How much more can Revolut earn when it owns the bank behind the app?
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
 |  |  |
|---|---|---|
 |  |  |
Buy Canadian Returns As Trump Tariffs Hit 50%
September 3, 2026 | NCFA Story Intelligence | Trade And Tariffs, Canadian Economy, Cross Border Finance, Public Policy
Record Non U.S. Exports Meet Retaliation, Stalled Talks And A New Sovereignty Fight
On September 3, 2026, Canada's July trade report put two stories beside each other. Exports to the United States fell 6.6%, while exports to countries outside the U.S. rose 7.4% to a record C$25.6 billion. Canada's merchandise trade surplus with the world narrowed from C$4.2 billion in June to C$769 million. Its surplus with the United States fell from C$10.3 billion to C$5.9 billion.
Those numbers now sit inside a much rougher political relationship. On August 22, the United States imposed a 50% tariff on roughly US$20 billion of Canadian exports, while the Government of Canada values the affected goods at C$27.6 billion. Canada has rejected the terms on offer and announced matching counter tariffs on C$27.6 billion of U.S. imports, scheduled to take effect on September 8.
Canada is still deeply tied to the U.S. economy, but the reaction is no longer confined to government. Buy Canadian sentiment has returned. Companies are reviewing suppliers and customers. Travel choices have changed. More Canadian businesses are looking beyond the U.S. at the same time that Ottawa is asking them to absorb the cost of doing it.
The question running through this story is whether the tariff fight is merely disrupting Canada U.S. trade or helping create commercial relationships that remain different even after the politics cool.
The evolving trade war began with a border argument. Washington said Canada was not doing enough on fentanyl and border security. Ottawa said the scale of the problem did not justify an economy wide tariff and answered with retaliation rather than concession.
Ottawa disputed the premise while tightening the border anyway. Canada argued that the U.S. was imposing an economic penalty far larger than the border problem it cited. At the same time, Ottawa strengthened enforcement, giving the fight an early contradiction that never really disappeared.
CUSMA Is Supposed To Keep This From Happening 2025
North America already has a trade agreement designed to make cross border commerce predictable. The surprise is not that Canada and the U.S. disagree. It is that the disagreement can still produce sweeping tariffs while CUSMA remains in force.
CUSMA then became the shield Canadian companies hoped it would be. A large share of continental trade kept moving under the agreement, offering businesses a degree of protection from the broad tariff threat.
The most politically sensitive sectors did not get the same protection. Steel, aluminum and autos became proof that a trade agreement could survive while the industries most tied to jobs, factories and regional politics still took direct hits.
The Trade Deal Survives While The Trade Relationship Frays
CUSMA remains in place, but businesses now know that compliance with the agreement does not eliminate every tariff risk. A company can remain inside the North American trade framework and still be exposed to a separate sector fight.
Canada entered the 2026 CUSMA review looking for certainty and left without it. Ottawa wanted companies to know the North American rules would hold for another generation of investment. The review did not deliver that reassurance.
The United States did not give Canada the long runway it wanted. The agreement stayed alive, but companies making plant, supplier and capital decisions measured in years were left with a shorter political horizon.
Canada Keeps CUSMA But Loses The Certainty It Wanted July 2026
The agreement remains in force. But the failed long term extension means companies can no longer assume the relationship will simply return to the old operating model after one review.
Then the tariff ceiling moved again. After bilateral talks failed, Washington raised the pressure to levels that made another Canadian response almost unavoidable. The dispute was no longer about whether tariffs would remain. It was about how much economic pain each side was willing to absorb.
Canada chose retaliation over the deal on the table. Ottawa said the U.S. terms would leave Canadian workers and businesses worse off. Canada announced matching counter tariffs on C$27.6 billion of U.S. imports, scheduled to take effect on September 8.
Canada Walks Away Instead Of Taking The Deal
This is where the fight stops looking like a temporary tariff negotiation and starts looking like a choice about economic autonomy. Canada is accepting the risk of another round of costs rather than take terms Ottawa says would leave important industries worse off.
Trump then turned Lake Ontario into part of the dispute. The Lake America order gave Canadians something more visceral than a tariff table to react to. A fight over market access suddenly had a symbol that touched geography, identity and sovereignty.
The symbolism hit a country already primed to push back. The tariff fight had been accompanied by statehood rhetoric and repeated claims that Canada depended too heavily on the United States. The lake renaming made the argument feel less like a dispute over customs schedules and more like a challenge to Canadian identity.
Lake America Makes The Fight Personal
A tariff can feel remote until it affects a price, a contract or a job. Renaming a shared Canadian lake for U.S. federal purposes created a cultural symbol that was easier to understand and harder to separate from the wider sovereignty argument.
Canadian resistance is showing up in everyday choices. Buy Canadian sentiment has strengthened as consumers reconsider groceries, travel, technology, vehicles and other purchases. Businesses are also reviewing where they source products and whether U.S. dependence still looks commercially sensible.
American opinion is much less supportive of the escalation. A Reuters Ipsos poll found 57% of Americans opposed the latest tariffs on Canada and only 20% supported them. The same poll found 63% opposed Lake America and 14% supported it.
The Pressure Campaign Is Feeding A Buy Canadian Response
Canadian patriotism has many sources, so the tariffs should not be treated as the sole cause. But the observable response to repeated tariff threats, statehood rhetoric and Lake America includes stronger Buy Canadian behaviour, support for retaliation and a more explicit case for economic self reliance.
Some companies are acting on the anger instead of waiting it out. Reuters reported that Chapman's Ice Cream plans to cut U.S. imports by 70% by mid 2027. Other firms are reviewing suppliers, sourcing more at home and looking for customers outside the United States.
Once a supplier is replaced, politics may not put the old relationship back together. New contracts, certifications, logistics routes and internal processes create switching costs. A future agreement could remove a tariff quickly while leaving behind commercial relationships built during the dispute.
Tariffs Can End Faster Than A Boycott Or A New Supply Chain
This is where a patriotic reaction can become structural economic change. The first purchase may be emotional. The lasting effect depends on whether Canadian and non U.S. alternatives become good enough to keep the customer or supplier relationship after the anger fades.
The July numbers show Canada really is looking elsewhere. Exports outside the United States rose 7.4% to a record C$25.6 billion. Non U.S. destinations accounted for roughly one third of Canadian merchandise exports in July.
America is still too large to replace quickly. Canada's trade surplus with the U.S. fell to C$5.9 billion in July, while Canada ran a C$5.1 billion deficit with countries outside the U.S. More trade elsewhere reduces concentration before it replaces the commercial value of the American market.
Canada Is Looking Elsewhere Before It Can Replace America
The record non U.S. export figure shows diversification was already underway before the August 22 escalation. It does not prove the newest tariffs caused the change. It does show Canada was already finding more business outside the U.S., even while the American market remained too large to replace quickly.
There is also a cost to weakening the North American relationship itself. In a September PBS NewsHour discussion, former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick argued that the original logic of North American economic integration went well beyond lower tariffs and prices. Combining Canadian, U.S. and Mexican minerals, energy, manufacturing, supply chains and services made all three countries stronger competitors globally. The PBS discussion raises a larger question for both countries: how much competitive strength does North America give up when an integrated economic relationship becomes a zero sum fight?
Businesses are changing how they operate before the politics settle. The Bank of Canada's second quarter survey found firms changing production, shipping or customs arrangements and diversifying to reduce tariff exposure. About one fifth of firms reported cost pressure from tariffs and trade policies.
Every new route creates another bill before it creates resilience. New buyers can require longer shipping, different payment terms, more foreign exchange and more working capital. New suppliers can require deposits, inventory changes and fresh credit checks. The cost arrives before the exporter knows whether the new relationship can match the economics of the old one.
Breaking Up With A Supply Chain Is Expensive
Canada can become less exposed to one market while making individual companies more complicated to finance. Diversification works only if firms have enough liquidity to survive the period between leaving an old relationship and making a new one profitable.
Lenders now have to see tariff risk before the financial statements do. U.S. customer concentration, tariff sensitive inputs, margin exposure and the time needed to replace a buyer can change a borrower's risk within weeks. Historical revenue can therefore look healthy while the economics underneath it are already deteriorating.
Payments, foreign exchange and treasury providers face the opposite problem. More destinations create more currencies, settlement routes, counterparties and cash timing issues. The same diversification that reduces geographic concentration can increase demand for cross border payments, hedging, trade finance, receivables tools and working capital.
The Financial System Now Has To Fund The Separation
Trade policy becomes financial services work once companies start changing customers and suppliers. Credit has to recognize new exposure sooner. Payments have to reach more markets. Treasury teams have to manage more currencies. Working capital has to cover the period before new trade relationships mature.
Markets still assume some of this confrontation eventually fades. Currency forecasts are already looking past the current hostility and pricing a calmer relationship later. Businesses have less freedom to wait for that version of the future.
Businesses cannot wait for that forecast to come true. Carney said on September 1 that the United States must start being serious before talks can resume. At that point no new bilateral negotiations were scheduled. A company choosing a supplier, market or plant location has to make the decision under today's rules.
If The Politics Cool, The New Trade Relationships May Not
That is the deeper consequence of the dispute. Governments can reverse tariffs quickly. Companies that have spent months replacing suppliers, winning customers and building payment routes may have less reason to go back. The tariff war could therefore leave a commercial footprint that lasts longer than the tariffs themselves.
Talking Point
Trump's tariff campaign has done more than raise the cost of Canada U.S. trade. It has turned economic dependence into a Canadian political issue, revived Buy Canadian behaviour and pushed companies to look harder for customers and suppliers elsewhere. The unresolved question is whether that response leaves Canada with stronger companies and more durable trade relationships or simply a more expensive way to do business.
Frequently Asked Questions
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](http://www.ncfacanada.org)
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
Australia CDR Third Party Data Sharing Use Cases
January 27, 2026 | NCFA Resource | Open Banking And Consumer Driven Finance, Risk Compliance And Regtech, Artificial Intelligence And Data
Consumer Controlled Data Sharing Beyond Accredited Recipients
On January 27, 2026, Australia’s Consumer Data Right updated its Third Party Data Sharing Use Cases with practical examples showing how consumers can export financial data, give another person access, send data to another application or direct it into an account they control.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission developed the guidance with input from Treasury. It tackles a straightforward product question. After an accredited provider receives a consumer’s financial data, what can the consumer do with it next?
The answer depends on who initiates the sharing, where the information goes and who controls the destination. Those details affect consent, privacy and the provider’s responsibilities.
What It Does In Practice
The guidance organizes third party sharing into four situations:
- Export your own data. A consumer can download financial data into tools such as Excel or Power BI and then use or share it directly.
- Give someone access inside the service. A consumer can let an accountant, adviser, business partner or another third party view data while it remains inside the accredited provider’s app or website.
- Send data to another service. A consumer can instruct the provider to securely send selected financial data to another person, business or application.
- Send data into an account the consumer controls. With the consumer’s instruction and consent, the provider can send financial data directly into an account the consumer holds with a third party.
Who initiates the sharing is the key distinction. The ACCC says these consumer directed scenarios are unlikely to raise compliance concerns when the consumer makes a clear and informed choice. Downloading data, configuring access or instructing the provider to send information helps establish that the consumer chose the disclosure.
If the provider is making the disclosure itself, the permitted use and disclosure rules apply. The provider needs the authority and consent required under Australia’s Consumer Data Right rules.
See: Canada’s Open Banking Strategy Starts With Trust
That difference becomes concrete in product design. Letting someone download transaction history for personal analysis carries different responsibilities from automatically sending customer information to another company. Giving an accountant controlled access inside an SME finance platform is also different from transmitting the data outside that service.
Where the financial data remains inside the accredited provider’s service, the provider continues to carry the relevant Consumer Data Right obligations. These include privacy safeguards covering data security and the destruction or de-identification of information that is no longer required.
When consumers send their data outside that environment, they need to know how the recipient will handle it. The ACCC says providers should explain that other privacy laws may apply and encourage consumers to review the recipient’s data handling policies.
The same framework can support a single disclosure or recurring sharing for a defined period. The provider must hold the collection and use consents required for the service. Consumer Data Right consent generally lasts for up to 12 months, while some business consumer consents can extend for up to seven years.
Who Gets Value
Fintech product teams can use these examples when building financial data portability into real services. A personal finance app could let customers export transaction data for their own analysis. An SME platform could give an accountant controlled access to business records. A lending or cash flow application could let customers send selected information into another service they already use.
Compliance and legal teams can review the same features by asking a few direct questions. Who initiated the disclosure? Who controls the destination? Does the information stay inside the accredited service? What consent supports the sharing? Which obligations continue once the data leaves?
Banks and other financial institutions can use the examples to anticipate how customers may expect data portability to work. Consumers are unlikely to organize their behaviour around regulatory terminology. They will want financial information to work with budgeting software, accounting systems, lending applications, analytics tools and other services they choose.
Canada will face similar product questions as Consumer Driven Banking reaches implementation. Canada Open Banking And Consumer Driven Banking Rules tracks accreditation, authentication, consent, data sharing, security and liability requirements. Australia’s examples show what product teams have to consider after the first regulated transfer, when a customer wants to reuse the information somewhere else.
Standardized financial data can support credit assessment, fraud detection, cash flow analysis and financial guidance as well. NCFA’s Open Banking Decision Intelligence looks at how firms can turn permissioned financial data into better decisions. Third party sharing gives consumers and businesses more control over which tools can participate in those workflows.
Strengths And Limits
The four examples are specific enough to use in product and compliance discussions. Teams can look at an export button, an accountant access feature, an application-to-application transfer or recurring sharing arrangement and ask exactly who controls the data at each point.
The guidance also shows why interface design and compliance cannot be separated. A button that lets the consumer choose where information goes can create a different regulatory position from a service that sends the same information on its own. Consent, control of the destination and whether the provider continues to hold the data all affect the answer.
See: Canada’s Open Banking Journey With Kate O’Rourke, Treasury's First Asst Secretary for CDR
That's useful context for Canadian teams working through consent and downstream data use. Canada can define who participates in regulated sharing and how financial institutions transfer data to accredited recipients. Customers will still want to download that information, share it with professionals, use it in another application or authorize access over time.
Australia’s rules do not determine what Canadian firms can do. The two countries have different legislation, privacy requirements, accreditation models and regulatory terminology. The Australian examples are useful because they expose practical questions Canadian product, compliance and policy teams will also have to answer.
The ACCC also makes clear that the article is general guidance. Whether a particular implementation complies with Australia’s Consumer Data Right depends on the circumstances, and providers remain responsible for assessing their legal obligations.
Key Resources
Consumer Data Right (Australian framework, participants and consumer information)
Legal Obligations For Data Recipients (collection, consent, use and disclosure requirements)
CDR Privacy Safeguard Guidelines (privacy requirements for handling consumer financial data)
Canada’s Open Banking Strategy Starts With Trust (consent, fraud, liability and consumer protection in Canada)
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
VersaBank Takes Real Time Receivable Funding to U.S.
September 1, 2026 | NCFA Market Activity | Lending Consumer Credit And BNPL, SME Finance And Business Banking, Digital Banking And BaaS
ECN Capital and VersaBank's First U.S. Real-Time SRP
On September 1, 2026, London, Ontario based VersaBank announced the first U.S. Real-Time SRP implementation with ECN Capital. The system can fund eligible point of sale loans within hours. VersaBank says conventional funding can leave lenders waiting five to 30 days or longer while enough receivables accumulate.
ECN isn't a new customer. It implemented VersaBank's original U.S. Structured Receivable Program in 2025, and another ECN subsidiary joined the program in July with at least US$300 million in expected annual fundings. ECN Capital's Chris Johnson said the original SRP helped the company “grow our business faster” while improving profitability. The September implementation adds the newer real time capability, although VersaBank hasn't disclosed how much volume is flowing through it yet.
The scale is already substantial. VersaBank's total Structured Receivable Program portfolio exceeded C$4.4 billion as of January 31, 2026 after growing at a 33% compound annual rate over five years. U.S. SRP credit assets reached US$604.9 million by the end of the bank's second fiscal quarter of 2026, and VersaBank was targeting at least US$1 billion in additional U.S. SRP fundings during fiscal 2026.
What changes with ECN is speed. A funding model VersaBank has used in Canada for more than 15 years, and recently accelerated with Financeit, is now running in the U.S. with an established finance company.
Three Takeaways
1. Five to 30 Days Can Become Hours
Point of sale lenders need capital to keep making loans. A lender financing home renovations, HVAC systems, equipment or other large purchases may hold new receivables on its own balance sheet or borrow against them through a warehouse facility until the loans can be sold, refinanced or packaged into a securitization. That interval ties up capital and carries a financing cost.
VersaBank's Structured Receivable Program purchases qualifying receivables from finance companies. Real-Time SRP brings that funding closer to the original loan by evaluating and financing eligible individual receivables within hours rather than waiting for a larger pool to accumulate.
The model was first tested through an April Financeit pilot. The pilot finished ahead of schedule, and Financeit became the first partner to use Real-Time SRP at large scale when VersaBank formally launched the program in June. Financeit was approaching C$2 billion in annual loan originations, giving VersaBank a sizeable Canadian lending operation on which to prove the process before taking it into the U.S.
VersaBank describes the system as AI enabled, but its public disclosure supports a more targeted description. The bank says its internal AI technology helps evaluate individual loans underlying SRP receivables. It has not disclosed enough detail to determine exactly how eligibility, credit scoring, fraud checks or other decisions are divided between automation and human oversight.
2. Faster Funding Does Not Replace ABS or Forward Flow
Financeit completed a C$201 million ABS in June while also using VersaBank's real time funding. Those sources of capital can serve different stages of the same lending business. VersaBank can provide funding closer to origination, while securitization can provide longer term institutional capital after loans have accumulated into a larger pool.
Forward flow provides another option. Propel Holdings secured a US$60 million forward flow from Mesirow managed funds for Freshline loans, allowing institutional capital to purchase eligible production as it is originated. Warehouse lenders, forward flow investors, banks, private credit funds and ABS buyers are all competing to fund the period between a lender making a loan and receiving longer term capital.
VersaBank is trying to compress that period. The economic benefit depends on whether the cost of its funding, integration requirements and credit rules are attractive enough to save lenders money or free enough capital to justify adding another funding relationship.
3. VersaBank Is Exporting a Funding Model, Not Just Software
VersaBank has operated versions of its Structured Receivable Program in Canada for more than 15 years. It entered the U.S. point of sale finance market after acquiring a U.S. bank in 2024, giving VersaBank an OCC chartered national banking platform in Minnesota.
VersaBank is doing more than licensing software to ECN. It's using deposits and its own balance sheet to buy qualifying U.S. receivables through a funding model developed in Canada. That lets the bank grow through lending partners without having to build a large consumer lending operation itself.
ECN is now using the faster version in the U.S. VersaBank already had hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. SRP assets, and the wider ECN relationship includes at least US$300 million in expected annual fundings. The real time version gets eligible receivables onto VersaBank's balance sheet sooner.
Faster Funding Only Works if the Economics Hold
Faster funding can help lenders keep more cash available for new loans, but only if VersaBank's price and credit rules beat the alternatives. Lenders already have warehouse lines, forward flow buyers, banks and securitization markets competing for their business, so speed alone won't win the account.
For VersaBank, more U.S. receivables mean more loans and leases earning interest on the bank's balance sheet without VersaBank having to find the borrowers itself. The economics work only if what the bank earns on those assets stays comfortably above its funding costs and credit losses.
Growth can also concentrate risk. A few large partners, weaker loan quality or rising deposit costs could turn faster asset growth into lower returns. ECN is the first U.S. user of the real time version, so the more telling evidence will be whether other lenders adopt it and whether those portfolios perform well as volumes rise.
See: Canada's Private Credit Market
Private credit adds another source of competition for finance companies seeking capital. Canadian institutions already have roughly C$500 billion of private credit exposure, much of it outside Canada, while U.S. private credit funds have become major lenders to businesses and specialty finance companies. VersaBank is entering that competition with a regulated bank balance sheet, a deposit base and a funding system designed to work much closer to loan origination.
Talking Point
Can VersaBank turn a Canadian funding model into a scalable U.S. lending business?
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
TD, Scotiabank Among 21 in USD Stablecoin Venture
September 1, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization, Payments Infrastructure And Money Movement, Cross Border Payments And FX
TD, Scotiabank and Canada’s Emerging CAD Stablecoin Market
On September 1, 2026, TD Bank Group and Scotiabank joined a 21 institution stablecoin venture that plans to form a new company in the second half of 2026. The venture is targeting a USD denominated stablecoin launch in the first half of 2027, followed by a euro product, with other G7 currencies possible later.
The group started with 10 banks exploring a shared stablecoin in October 2025. It now includes Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Santander, Deutsche Bank, UBS and MUFG alongside TD and Scotiabank. Fidelity Investments and WisdomTree put asset managers inside the venture as well, creating potential connections to investment products, tokenized assets and institutional distribution.
The stablecoin isn't live and the group hasn't disclosed the company name or any details. It says the product is intended for wholesale, institutional and retail markets, including cross border payments and digital asset settlement, and is being designed to meet applicable U.S. GENIUS Act and European MiCA requirements.
The banks are entering a US$320 billion stablecoin market as of the end of May 2026. Roughly 98% of stablecoin value is denominated in U.S. If regulated digital dollars become easier for businesses and consumers to hold and use, banks have an economic reason to compete for the deposits, reserves, customer relationships and settlement activity around them.
Why Banks Are Building Stablecoins
Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan put a number on one concern in January. Citing U.S. Treasury studies, he said as much as US$6 trillion, or roughly 30% to 35% of U.S. commercial bank deposits, could migrate into stablecoins under scenarios where stablecoin holders can earn interest. It wasn't a forecast that US$6 trillion will leave banks. It illustrated how digital dollars could compete with deposits if customers can earn more elsewhere.
Deposits help fund lending and other bank balance sheet activity. Stablecoin reserves are generally held in cash, short term government securities and other permitted liquid assets. A large transfer from deposits into independently issued stablecoins could leave banks replacing some lower cost deposits with more expensive funding. Issuing or participating in stablecoins gives banks a way to retain more of the economics if customers start holding money onchain.
Europe is pursuing the same opportunity in euros. Qivalis euro stablecoin expanded to 37 financial institutions across 15 countries in May. Bank backed stablecoin ventures are becoming a competitive model alongside independently issued products such as USDC and USDT.
Banks are developing tokenized deposits at the same time. A tokenized deposit remains a liability of the issuing bank. A reserve backed stablecoin is a separate digital claim supported by designated reserve assets. Those differences affect funding, credit creation, redemption and who controls the customer relationship.
TD is already working across both models.
TD Is Active in USD, QCAD and Tokenized Deposits
On August 31, TD completed a Project Agorá payments test using tokenized commercial bank deposits and central bank reserves. TD moved real U.S. dollar funds between two U.S. entities through the Project Agorá platform, with BNY acting as the clearing bank and intermediary.
The test involved 28 central banks and financial institutions, covered 17 transaction scenarios and transferred approximately CHF 800,000 across selected currencies. Project Agorá is examining whether tokenized forms of existing bank money can improve wholesale cross border settlement while keeping commercial bank deposits and central bank money at the centre of the system.
TD also has a direct role in Canadian dollar stablecoins. Stablecorp selected TD in July as primary custodian for the fiat reserves backing QCAD Digital Trust, with the relationship expected to roll out in phases through the third and fourth quarters of 2026.
QCAD is building institutional access from several directions. QCAD bank integration is being developed by Deloitte and Stablecorp for Canadian financial institutions, while VersaBank and QCAD established another Canadian banking relationship earlier this year.
Stablecorp also issued QCAD on Circle's Arc testnet and integrated it with StableFX in May. The QCAD/USDC pair is available in the StableFX sandbox, demonstrating a potential onchain CAD/USD settlement route. Production is expected after Arc's mainnet launch, so this remains development work rather than a live production FX corridor.
Canada now has another domestic model through the CADD stablecoin. Tetra Trust Company, through CAD Digital, launched the 1:1 Canadian dollar backed payment stablecoin in May as Canada's first CAD stablecoin issued by a regulated financial institution.
See: Are Stablecoins Becoming Payment Infrastructure?
TD's activity across QCAD custody, tokenized deposits and the new global USD venture explains why banks may want several forms of digital money. Tokenized deposits can serve customers who want bank money on programmable settlement systems. A CAD stablecoin can support Canadian dollar transactions. A USD stablecoin can connect users to international liquidity, digital asset markets and cross border settlement.
The BankChain Alliance offers another approach. Thirty nine U.S. state banking associations are developing shared blockchain capabilities that could support tokenized deposits, stablecoins and automated settlement while giving participating banks a role in ownership and governance.
Banks are now experimenting with shared stablecoins, individual stablecoins, tokenized deposits and common settlement networks at the same time. The commercial winners will depend on where customers hold balances, which products can reach multiple networks and how cheaply money can cross between them.
Where CAD Stablecoins Fit in a USD Dominated Market
The U.S. dollar begins with an enormous network advantage. The BIS estimates that about 98% of stablecoin value is already dollar denominated. Annual stablecoin transaction volume reached an estimated US$28 trillion in 2025, although the BIS cautions that the number falls substantially after transfers between wallets controlled by the same party are removed and that ordinary payment use remains modest beside established payment systems.
Other currencies have struggled to build comparable liquidity. Only about 0.2% of global stablecoin circulation is euro denominated, even as European banks invest in Qivalis. CAD begins from a still smaller international base.
Canadian businesses still collect domestic revenue, pay employees, manage treasury balances and settle obligations in Canadian dollars. Sending those transactions through USD stablecoins would introduce foreign exchange exposure and conversion costs where a Canadian dollar product could settle directly in CAD.
See: Programmable Stablecoin Payments
Canada has also established a federal regulatory base for the market. Canada's stablecoin regulations now include the Stablecoin Act, Bank of Canada oversight, issuer registration, reserve requirements and redemption obligations, although the Act's substantive requirements are not yet in force.
The Bank of Canada's 2026 Financial System Survey raises a more practical concern. If Canadian businesses rely too heavily on foreign payment systems and foreign controlled stablecoins, more of Canada's payment activity could end up running through systems controlled elsewhere.
TD and Scotiabank can still benefit from joining a global USD stablecoin network. It gives them access to international liquidity, customers and settlement systems. The problem arrives if digital dollars become easy to use while Canadian dollar products remain harder to use for everyday business payments, treasury and settlement.
That risk creates room for Canadian fintechs. Businesses will need ways to convert between CAD and USD, manage liquidity, hold digital assets safely, handle compliance and connect stablecoins to treasury and payment systems without adding unnecessary FX costs.
Talking Point
TD is already working on both sides. It is supporting QCAD reserves, testing tokenized bank money and joining a global USD stablecoin venture. Scotiabank is now part of that international venture too. Canada does not need to match the dollar's global scale, but it does need CAD based digital money that businesses can actually use. Can Canada connect to global digital dollars without making digital CAD an afterthought?
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
India Fintech Talent Strategy: How Scaleups Can Build Teams Before Entity Setup
Sep 2, 2026
India is increasingly relevant to fintech companies for more than market access. It is also a significant source of technology, product, finance, risk, data, and operational talent that global scaleups can integrate into international teams.
India's wider startup ecosystem had more than 2.23 lakh government-recognised startups by March 31, 2026, while the country's digital financial infrastructure continues to expand rapidly. UPI alone processed more than 24,000 crore transactions during FY26, illustrating the scale at which digital financial services now operate in the country.
For a Canadian or international fintech, however, deciding to recruit in India creates a strategic question:
Should the company establish an Indian entity before building a team, or can it begin hiring first and make the larger corporate investment later?
For many scaleups, these decisions do not need to happen simultaneously.
A phased talent strategy can allow a fintech to test access to Indian talent, build an initial team, understand operating costs, and validate its long-term requirements before committing to a full local entity.
Why India Fits a Fintech Talent Strategy
India combines a large technology workforce with an established ecosystem across financial services, digital payments, software development, data, and startup innovation.
This creates hiring opportunities across functions that fintech companies frequently need as they scale, including:
- Software engineering
- Product development
- Data engineering and analytics
- Cybersecurity
- Quality assurance
- Finance and accounting
- Risk operations
- Customer operations
- Compliance support
- Technical support
- Business operations
India's digital payments ecosystem also gives fintech professionals exposure to financial products operating at substantial scale. UPI accounted for 85.5% of India's digital payment transaction volume in the second half of 2025, according to RBI data reported by IBEF.
But the business case for building a team should not begin with the question, "How many people can we hire?"
It should begin with:
Which capabilities should the company own internally, and which of those capabilities can be built effectively in India?
That changes hiring from a cost exercise into a talent strategy.
What Is a Fintech Talent Strategy?
A fintech talent strategy defines which capabilities a company needs, where those capabilities should be located, and how employees will be hired, managed, and integrated into the organisation.
For an India expansion, a useful talent strategy should address five areas:
- Roles: Which capabilities should be built in India?
- Employment: How will workers be legally engaged?
- Operations: How will the India team work with existing teams?
- Economics: What is the total cost of the chosen structure?
- Scale: At what point does establishing an Indian entity make sense?
This is particularly important for fintech companies because many roles interact with sensitive financial data, regulated products, security systems, or customer operations.
Hiring should therefore be considered together with data access, information security, governance, internal controls, and business continuity.
Prioritising the First Fintech Roles in India
The first India hires should solve clearly defined business problems rather than simply expand headcount.
A practical approach is to prioritise functions where the company already understands the workflows and can manage outcomes remotely.
| Function | Why a Fintech May Build It in India |
| Engineering | Product development, integrations, platform infrastructure |
| Data | Analytics, reporting, data engineering and modelling |
| QA | Product testing, automation and release support |
| Cybersecurity | Security operations and technical monitoring |
| Finance operations | Reporting, reconciliation and operational support |
| Customer operations | User support and service delivery |
| Risk operations | Process-driven risk and verification support |
| Product operations | Coordination between technology, product and commercial teams |
Leadership should also identify whether the function is supporting the global business or conducting activity directly in the Indian market.
That distinction can affect entity, regulatory, tax, and Permanent Establishment considerations later.
Can a Fintech Build an India Team Without Setting Up an Entity?
Yes, depending on the type of relationship and business activity.
A foreign fintech typically has several potential models available.
Independent contractors
Contractors may be appropriate for genuinely independent, project-based work.
For example, a fintech might engage a specialist for:
- A defined security review
- A short-term data project
- Product design work
- A specific technical integration
Contractors should not simply be used as substitutes for employees where the actual working arrangement functions like regular employment.
Outsourcing providers
A fintech can outsource a complete function or defined process to another company.
In this model, the external provider typically manages its own employees and delivers an agreed service or outcome.
That is different from building a dedicated internal team.
Employer of Record
Where a fintech wants dedicated employees in India but does not yet have a local employing entity, an Employer of Record India model can provide another option.
The EOR becomes the legal employer in India, while the fintech continues to manage employees' daily responsibilities, goals, projects, and performance.
Local entity
A fintech can establish its own Indian company and employ staff directly.
This generally provides greater long-term control but also introduces ongoing corporate, accounting, payroll, HR, tax, and administrative responsibilities.
Comparing India Hiring Models
The best structure depends on the company's stage and objectives.
| Factor | Contractor | Outsourcing | EOR | Own Entity |
| Dedicated employee relationship | No | Usually no | Yes | Yes |
| Local entity required | No | No | No for EOR employment | Yes |
| Client controls daily work | Limited by independent relationship | Usually outcome-focused | Yes | Yes |
| Local payroll | Not employee payroll | Provider handles employees | EOR handles | Company handles |
| Initial setup burden | Low | Low | Lower than entity | Highest |
| Suitable for testing India | Yes, for genuine projects | Yes | Yes | Possible but larger commitment |
| Long-term large workforce | Limited | Depends on model | Depends on scale | Strongest fit |
For a fintech building an internal product or operations team, the main comparison is often between EOR employment now and direct employment through an entity later.
Why Hiring Can Come Before Entity Setup
Entity establishment is a strategic corporate decision.
Hiring can be an operational decision.
Those decisions may move at different speeds.
Suppose a Canadian fintech has funding to build a six-person engineering and data team in India. It already knows the roles it needs, but management is not yet certain whether India will eventually support 10 employees, 50 employees, or a much larger operation.
Immediately building a company around an uncertain headcount assumption can create unnecessary fixed infrastructure.
A staged approach allows the fintech to answer questions such as:
- Can we attract the skills we need?
- Which Indian locations work best?
- How well does the team integrate with headquarters?
- What compensation and benefits are required?
- What management structure works?
- How quickly will headcount grow?
- Does the economics justify an owned entity?
The business can then make its entity decision using operating evidence rather than projections alone.
Modelling the Full Cost of an India Team
Salary is only one component of India workforce costs.
Finance teams should compare the total cost of different structures.
Relevant categories can include:
- Employee compensation
- Employer-side statutory obligations
- Benefits
- Recruitment
- Payroll administration
- HR systems
- Legal support
- Accounting
- Corporate secretarial requirements
- Entity maintenance
- EOR service fees
- Office or coworking costs
- IT equipment
- Security infrastructure
- Management overhead
An EOR may involve a per-employee service fee, while an owned entity introduces more fixed organisational costs.
The economics can therefore change as the team becomes larger.
Companies comparing these structures can also review State of India EOR 2026 when assessing employment costs, entity considerations, compliance responsibilities, and potential tax exposure.
Why Fintech Hiring Requires Additional Controls
Fintech teams often work within more sensitive operating environments than ordinary remote teams.
The question is not simply whether a developer or analyst can work remotely.
Companies may also need controls around:
Data access
Employees may interact with customer data, financial information, transaction records, or internal risk systems.
Access should be based on role requirements.
Security
Devices, authentication, credentials, source code, and internal platforms require appropriate security controls regardless of where employees are located.
Segregation of duties
Certain finance or payment workflows may require multiple layers of approval rather than giving one employee end-to-end control.
Documentation
Teams should understand who owns decisions, where approvals are recorded, and how processes are audited.
Regulatory boundaries
Hiring someone in India does not itself determine whether the fintech is permitted to offer regulated financial services in India.
Employment structure and financial-services licensing are separate questions.
A company building an India team to support overseas operations should therefore distinguish workforce expansion from market entry.
Employment Compliance for a Growing India Team
India's four consolidated Labour Codes came into effect on November 21, 2025, covering wages, industrial relations, social security, and occupational safety and working conditions.
Companies employing workers directly need processes covering relevant employment requirements, including areas such as:
- Employment documentation
- Payroll
- Applicable statutory contributions
- Leave
- Benefits
- Employee records
- Workplace policies
- Onboarding
- Offboarding
Under an EOR structure, many agreed employer-side administrative responsibilities are handled by the EOR.
However, using an EOR does not remove the fintech's responsibility for how employees access systems, handle information, perform regulated activities, or represent the business.
Does Hiring an India Team Create Permanent Establishment Risk?
Potentially, depending on what the employees do.
An EOR or contractor arrangement does not automatically eliminate Permanent Establishment or wider business-connection considerations.
India's Income Tax Department states that business income of a non-resident can be taxable in India where the enterprise has a Permanent Establishment or business connection, subject to applicable tax treaties.
Indian tax rules also identify activities such as habitually concluding contracts or playing a principal role leading to the conclusion of contracts as potentially relevant to business-connection analysis.
A fintech should therefore obtain appropriate tax advice where India-based personnel:
- Negotiate customer contracts
- Regularly influence contract conclusions
- Exercise commercial authority
- Conduct sales activity
- Represent the company to customers
- Manage significant India-facing business operations
A developer supporting a global product and a senior commercial executive entering contracts on behalf of the foreign company may present very different risk profiles.
When Should a Fintech Establish Its Own Indian Entity?
An entity can become increasingly attractive as India moves from an experimental talent location to a strategic operating hub.
Common indicators include:
- Headcount is increasing substantially
- India is part of the long-term operating plan
- Dedicated local leadership is required
- The company wants greater employment-policy control
- Multiple departments are being established
- Physical infrastructure is growing
- The economics favour direct employment
- The company plans India-specific commercial activity
There is no universal employee number at which every fintech should incorporate.
The decision should consider scale, cost, tax, regulation, employment requirements, business activity, and long-term strategy together.
A Phased India Talent Strategy
A practical expansion sequence can look like this:
Stage 1: Define the capability
Identify the roles that India can support and the business problem each role solves.
Stage 2: Build the first team
Recruit a small number of clearly defined roles using an appropriate employment structure.
Stage 3: Establish operating processes
Implement security, communication, management, documentation, payroll, and performance systems.
Stage 4: Validate the economics
Compare productivity and total employment costs against the original business case.
Stage 5: Forecast scale
Estimate whether the India operation is likely to remain a small global team or grow into a major operating centre.
Stage 6: Review entity strategy
Once the scale and commercial requirements are clearer, evaluate establishing a local entity.
This approach allows a fintech to treat entity setup as a consequence of proven scale rather than a prerequisite for exploring Indian talent.
Managing Employment During the Early Expansion Stage
For fintech companies that want employees in India before establishing their own entity, Asanify provides an India-focused Employer of Record model.
Asanify operates through its own Indian entity and can act as the legal employer while the client fintech retains control over employees' daily work, responsibilities, and performance.
Its EOR support can include:
- Employment contracts and onboarding
- Payroll administration
- Statutory administration
- Benefits and leave management
- Employee documentation
- Ongoing employment administration
- Offboarding
See: Canada Expanding Economic Ties With UAE India And Africa
This structure can be useful for scaleups testing the Indian talent market or building an initial team while their long-term entity strategy remains under evaluation.
Tax, regulatory, financial-services licensing, PE, data, and other business-specific risks should still be assessed separately.
Conclusion
For fintech scaleups, India expansion should start with the capabilities the business needs, not with entity setup.
Companies can first define the right roles, choose a suitable employment model, and validate costs, compliance, and team performance. This gives leadership a clearer view of how India fits into the wider operating strategy.
As the team grows, the business can then decide whether a larger local infrastructure or entity is justified. A phased approach helps keep early expansion flexible while supporting more informed long-term decisions.
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
Foxquilt Pushes Deeper Into U.S. Commercial Insurance
September 1, 2026 | NCFA Market Activity + Insight | Insurance And Insurtech, Embedded Finance, Competition And Market Structure
Toronto insurtech adds E&O as it builds a larger U.S. small business insurance platform
On September 1, 2026, Foxquilt launched E&O insurance in the United States, giving the Toronto founded insurtech its second admitted U.S. product. The initial rollout covers Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin, with nationwide availability targeted by the end of 2026.
Errors & Omissions (also called Professional Liability) covers financial losses caused by mistakes or failures in professional services. Foxquilt is targeting consultants, technology firms, beauty and health professionals and other service businesses, adding a different type of risk to the Commercial General Liability coverage already available through its U.S. platform.
Customers, agents and brokers can quote and bind both products through Foxden, Foxquilt's insurance platform. Embedded partners can also place E&O inside marketplaces, networks and other services used by independent professionals. Foxquilt describes the launch as part of its development from a single product U.S. MGA into a multi product commercial insurance business.
Foxquilt Has Been Building Toward a Bigger U.S. Business
Foxquilt was founded in Toronto in 2016 and started testing U.S. expansion years before this launch. It raised C$8 million in Series A funding in 2021 to support hiring, product development and expansion across the U.S. and Canada, followed by a C$12 million Series B aimed at North American expansion, technology infrastructure and a wider product offering.
Its U.S. footprint has since become much more substantial. Foxquilt expanded its small business insurance products into New York as it built agent, wholesale and enterprise distribution. The company now lists offices in Toronto and Charlotte, overall distribution across 50 U.S. states and eight Canadian provinces, and more than 50 distribution partners. Foxden supports direct retail, embedded partnerships, wholesale distribution and MGA syndicates.
E&O adds more value to those relationships because a broker or partner can now place more commercial coverage through the same system. A consultant or software company may need General Liability for property damage or injury claims and Professional Liability for financial losses tied to its work. Foxquilt can serve more of that account without asking the distributor to switch platforms.
The company is also building on its U.S. capacity relationship with Markel. CEO Karim Jamal says “E&O is the first of several strategic additions to our platform”, making today's launch part of a larger product plan rather than a one off filing.
Canadian Insurtech Is Scaling Through Execution
Canadian insurtech funding remains selective. KPMG counted only two Canadian InsurTech deals in H1 2026, compared with 19 AI and machine learning fintech deals. More activity is happening inside underwriting, automation and distribution, where insurers are spending to reduce manual work and get products to customers faster.
NCFA's 2023 Canadian insurtech overview highlighted multi channel distribution, insurer partnerships and automation as important industry trends. Foxquilt is now commercializing several of those ideas through digital underwriting, broker distribution and embedded insurance in the U.S.
KPMG reports that 73% of insurance CEOs see AI as a top investment priority, while 67% expect returns within one to three years and plan to allocate 10% to 20% of technology budgets to AI. Canadian insurers are already applying those investments to underwriting, claims, distribution and customer service.
Canadian companies are selling into that demand in different ways. Quandri raised C$12 million to expand insurance automation across Canada and the U.S., while Manulife has cut eligible life insurance approvals to as little as two minutes using automated underwriting. Foxquilt is working on another part of the market by combining underwriting software, digital distribution and insurance products for small businesses.
The U.S. gives Foxquilt far more room to grow, but execution gets harder. Insurance approvals vary by state, underwriting still has to produce acceptable losses as volume rises, and agents or embedded partners can control much of the customer relationship. Adding products only helps if distributors use them and the business remains profitable.
Talking Point
Can Foxquilt turn one successful U.S. product into a durable multi product insurance business?
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
