Category Archives: Marketing, Strategy, Growth, Design

Why Canada Is Making It Cheaper to Leave Your Bank

November 11, 2026 | NCFA Story Intelligence | Competition And Market Structure, Wealthtech Investing And Trading, Regulation And Policy

Digital illustration of Canada bank transfer fee reform showing easier investment account switching, lower fees, open banking, payment infrastructure and stronger financial competition

Canada is cutting bank fees and switching barriers after years of weak competition, high concentration and poor productivity.

On November 7, 2026, the federal government proposed something Canadian investors have complained about for years. Banks would no longer be allowed to charge most investment account transfer fees, which typically cost about $150 per account. Ottawa also wants clearer transfer information and tighter timelines for moving investments to another financial institution.

The fee matters because leaving can already be slow and frustrating. Receiving firms often reimburse the outgoing charge to win the account. That means a fee collected by the institution losing the customer can become part of the acquisition cost for the institution trying to win that customer.

Canada's six largest banks hold roughly 93% of banking assets. The Competition Bureau was warning about barriers facing fintech competitors in 2017. Ottawa began reviewing open banking in 2018. A federal advisory committee later recommended an operating system by January 2023 and warned that government should not delay.

January 2023 came and went.

Real Time Rail also slipped years beyond its first expected launch. Meanwhile, Canada's productivity performance kept falling behind major peers. In 2024, the Bank of Canada called the problem an emergency. By 2025, Senior Deputy Governor Carolyn Rogers was directly connecting productivity, competition and Canada's highly concentrated banking sector. She also said the debate had become more urgent after U.S. trade policy delivered a major economic shock to Canada.

Then more barriers started coming down.

Payment companies came under supervision. Payments Canada opened membership to more firms. Consumer driven banking advanced. NSF fees were capped. Real Time Rail finally launched. Budget 2026 targeted bank entry, ownership and regulatory competition. Now Ottawa wants to make investment accounts cheaper and faster to leave.

The $150 exit fee is the latest part of a much longer story about how difficult Canada has made it for customers to switch and for competitors to win them.

Canada Gets Comfortable With Concentration Before 2018

Canada's banking model earns trust for good reasons. Major institutions survive repeated economic shocks, deposits feel safe and regulators put stability first. For years, those strengths make concentration easier to accept.

But concentration changes what happens around the customer. When a small group of institutions holds most banking assets, controls large financial relationships and already has access to core infrastructure, the cost of entering or leaving matters more. A fee, a delayed transfer or restricted access can help keep a customer in place without giving that customer a better product.

How Concentrated Is Canadian Banking?

In October 2025, Bank of Canada Senior Deputy Governor Carolyn Rogers called Canada's banking system an oligopoly. The six largest banks collectively held about 93% of banking assets.

High concentration doesn't automatically mean poor service or weak banks. Stability and scale carry real value. The concern grows when concentration combines with barriers that make entry, growth or customer switching harder.

Rogers' warning was blunt: limited competition can hold back productivity and innovation.

Canada had already been debating these barriers for years. In 2017, the Competition Bureau called for stronger competition and innovation in financial services. NCFA agreed that regulatory burdens could favour large incumbents and pointed to the UK's more aggressive support for fintech and new competitors.

Customers faced their own friction. Bundled products, recurring payments, transfer charges, branch relationships and the hassle of changing providers all made staying easier than leaving. In a concentrated market, those small frictions can add up to a powerful advantage.

Canada Knows And Still Waits 2018 to 2024

The warnings keep piling up, but change comes slowly. Ottawa starts reviewing open banking in 2018. By 2021, its advisory committee recommends an operating system by January 2023 and says "Government should not delay."

January 2023 passes without one. Real Time Rail also slips years beyond its expected launch. By then, Canada isn't waiting to discover whether customers and new competitors face barriers. It is waiting to remove barriers that have already been identified.

How Long Did Canada Know?

The fight for consumer control of financial data was already well underway during Canada's open banking debate.

Real Time Rail followed another long wait. Payments Canada delayed the system again in 2023 without providing a new launch date.

The delays weren't limited to payments. Parliament approved broader fintech investment powers in 2018, but the operating rules did not reach Canada Gazette Part I until October 2026. That eight year wait for fintech investment reform became another example of how slowly financial modernization could reach the finish line.

Ottawa launched the open banking review in 2018 while Canadians were already connecting outside apps to bank accounts through screen scraping. Privacy, security, liability and technical standards required real work, but the January 2023 target still passed without an operating system.

Interac was selected as the RTR exchange provider in 2021 when launch was expected in 2022. The rail did not reach production until November 2026, leaving Canadian firms to build around older settlement infrastructure for several more years.

The Cost Of Waiting Gets Higher 2024 to 2026

Canada's weak productivity stops looking like a problem that can be pushed down the road. The country has struggled for roughly 25 years. In 2024, the Bank of Canada calls it an emergency. By 2025, it estimates that matching G7 productivity growth since 2000 would have left Canadian GDP about 9% higher, worth almost $7,000 more per person.

Then the pressure starts coming from outside too. Carolyn Rogers says the productivity debate becomes more urgent after new U.S. trade policies deliver a major shock to Canada. A country already struggling with investment, scale and weak competitive pressure now has less room to make firms fight through unnecessary domestic barriers as well.

Why Productivity Changes The Competition Debate

Canada's productivity weakness has been building for decades. Bank of Canada data showed Canadian output per hour falling from about 88% of the U.S. level in 1984 to roughly 71% by 2022.

Stronger competition puts pressure on companies to improve products, cut costs and invest. That connection became harder to ignore as Canada's productivity gap widened.

The country was already trying to break a long productivity trap before the Bank of Canada later warned that Canada had reached a productivity crossroads.

Trade Pressure Raises The Cost Of Slow Reform

U.S. trade pressure didn't cause every financial reform that followed. The timing still matters because the economic environment became less forgiving.

Tariffs made Canada's dependence on the U.S. harder to ignore as the trade fight intensified. Canadian fintechs faced the same pressure to find growth beyond the U.S. market.

Rogers tied the issues together in October 2025 when she said the productivity debate had become more urgent after U.S. trade policies created a major shock for Canada.

In March 2024, Bank of Canada Senior Deputy Governor Carolyn Rogers said Canada's productivity problem had reached emergency status. Canada was producing far less output per hour than the United States and had lost relative ground against major peers over several decades.

By October 2025, Rogers was talking directly about competition. She pointed to Canada's concentrated banking market, said stronger competitive pressure can improve productivity and warned that new U.S. trade policies had made the need to perform better at home more urgent.

Ottawa Starts Removing The Barriers 2025 to 2026

Then more changes arrive in a short period. Payment companies come under supervision. Payments Canada opens membership. Consumer driven banking advances. NSF fees fall. Real Time Rail finally goes live. Budget 2026 targets bank entry, ownership and competition inside financial regulation.

The changes come through different laws and regulators, but they keep hitting the same pressure points: who gets in, who gets access, what customers pay, how quickly money travels and how easily a customer can choose someone else.

Bank of Canada supervision of payment service providers began on September 8, 2025. Expanded Payments Canada eligibility followed later that month. By October 2026, 22 new members had joined after access opened, including fintechs, payment companies and credit unions that couldn't qualify under the old rules.

Consumer driven banking advanced through 2026 while new open banking rules started turning accreditation, consent, security and data access into practical requirements. On November 9, Real Time Rail went live after years of delay.

Federal rules cut NSF fees to a maximum of $10 on March 12, 2026. Typical charges had been about $45 to $48. The rules also block repeat NSF charges within two business days on the same personal deposit account and prohibit the fee when the shortfall is under $10.

By November, Budget 2026 widened the competition push with proposals covering faster bank entry, a secondary competition objective for OSFI, ownership rules, credit union funding and customer switching.

The Exit Fee Becomes A Competition Cost November 2026

The November transfer proposal brings everything back to one customer trying to leave. The incumbent charges the outgoing fee. The receiving institution may reimburse that customer to win the account. In those transfers, the firm trying to win the customer absorbs a cost created by the institution losing the relationship.

Finance Canada's regulatory model assumes that 90% of covered transfers run from established financial institutions to firms it classifies as entrants. It also assumes receiving institutions reimburse about half of transfer fees, which raises the cost of winning customers away from incumbents.

What The November Transfer Proposal Actually Changes

The proposed rules would prohibit most bank charges for closing or transferring investment accounts. An exception would remain for accounts funded for fewer than 90 days. Legitimate redemption or sale charges that would exist without a transfer could still apply.

The typical transfer fee is about $150 per account. Registered account transfers commonly take 2 to 6 weeks. Some can exceed 25 business days, while certain GIC transfers can take 6 to 8 weeks.

Delivering banks would generally have two clearing days to provide required asset and cash information. CIRO is separately developing rules that target settlement within 10 clearing days once impediments have been resolved and final instructions are available.

Finance Canada estimates banks would forgo about $16.3 million in net transfer fee revenue over 10 years. Firms it classifies as entrants are estimated to save about $7.7 million in reimbursements, while consumers would save about $8.6 million.

The regulations remain proposed. The fee prohibition would start 60 days after final regulations are registered, while other disclosure and timing rules would come later.

Finance Canada estimates about 17,000 transfers would be covered in the first year of its model. It assumes no increase in transfer volumes because there isn't enough evidence yet to know how customers or institutions will respond once the barrier is removed.

Banks could also respond by improving offers to keep customers. Easier switching doesn't require everyone to leave to create pressure. The possibility of leaving more easily can give the customer more leverage before the account ever goes anywhere.

Keeping The Customer Has To Be Earned Now

None of these reforms guarantees that a challenger wins. A large bank can still keep customers through trusted advice, better service, stronger products, competitive pricing, useful bundles and the convenience of a broad relationship.

What changes is how much of that relationship can be protected by friction. More firms can enter. More firms can reach infrastructure. Financial data is becoming easier to share. Payments settle faster. Some fees are lower. Leaving is becoming cheaper. More of the contest can come down to who serves the customer better.

Canada's Recent Financial Competition Reset

The recent changes reach almost every part of the customer relationship. Some open the system to more competitors. Others lower fees, make switching easier or give customers more control over their money and data.

  • Payment companies entered formal supervision. Bank of Canada oversight under the RPAA began in September 2025, giving regulated PSPs a clearer place inside Canada's payment system.
  • Payments Canada membership opened. Federal reform made more PSPs, credit unions and other qualifying firms eligible to join. Twenty two new members joined in the first year.
  • Consumer driven banking advanced. Canada's open banking rules are turning data access, consent, security and accreditation into operating requirements.
  • NSF fees fell to a maximum of $10. The March 2026 cap cut a charge that had commonly been about $45 to $48 and added restrictions on repeat fees.
  • Real Time Rail finally launched. After years of delay, RTR went live on November 9, bringing 24/7 clearing and settlement to participating institutions.
  • Fintech investment powers are finally being activated. Parliament approved broader technology investment powers in 2018, but operating rules took another eight years to arrive. The long wait for fintech investment reform shows how slowly even approved changes can reach the market.
  • Bank entry could get faster. Budget 2026 proposes a maximum one year decision timeline for new banks, trust companies and insurers.
  • OSFI could get a competition objective. The same Budget 2026 package proposes adding competition as a secondary statutory objective alongside prudential stability.
  • Growing banks could face fewer ownership limits. Ottawa proposes raising the bank equity threshold that triggers widely held ownership requirements from $12 billion to $25 billion and giving some foreign bank subsidiaries more flexibility.
  • Federal credit unions could get more room to raise capital. Proposed changes would widen who can invest and make growth easier.
  • Deposit insurance could rise to $250,000. A higher limit could make it easier for customers and businesses to keep larger deposits with smaller federally insured institutions.
  • Bank fees could become easier to see. Budget 2026 proposes an annual statement showing total chequing and savings account fees after FCAC found that banking costs can be difficult to see and compare.
  • Branch closures could make switching cheaper. Budget 2026 proposes waiving certain closing or transfer fees during prescribed branch closure periods.
  • Mortgage competition is also getting attention. Budget 2026 proposes stronger rate disclosure and other measures aimed at giving borrowers more choice.
  • Investment account exit fees are now directly in Ottawa's sights. The November 7 proposal would prohibit most bank transfer fees, improve disclosure and put clearer timelines around account transfers.

Canada is now changing who can enter, who can reach payment infrastructure, who can use customer data, what institutions can charge, how quickly money can travel and how easily a customer can leave.

For years, these problems could be treated as separate files. Open banking sat in one department. Payments modernization sat somewhere else. Banking fees were a consumer issue. Productivity was an economic problem. Competition had its own consultations.

They are harder to separate now.

Canada needs firms to invest faster, grow further and compete in a tougher economy. A financial system that makes entry, customer acquisition and switching more expensive than they need to be works against that goal.

The country knew about many of these barriers years ago. What has changed is how many of them are finally coming down at the same time.

Talking Point

Canada's recent competition reforms aren't about handing fintechs or challenger banks an advantage. They're about removing advantages that can protect an incumbent relationship before price, service, product quality or trust gets a chance to decide who wins the customer.

The results should become visible. Transfers should get faster if the rules work. Receiving firms should spend less reimbursing exit fees. New payment participants should be able to offer services they couldn't offer before. Incumbents may respond with better prices, products and service.

The bigger question is whether all of that produces the competitive pressure Canada has been missing.

What Happens Next?

  • Will the investment transfer proposal survive consultation without major changes?
  • Will account transfers become measurably faster once the timing rules take effect?
  • Will receiving institutions spend less reimbursing outgoing transfer fees?
  • Will consumer driven banking lead to more switching, not just easier comparison?
  • Will new Payments Canada members turn access into lower costs, better products or new services?
  • Will RTR adoption spread beyond the first launch participants?
  • Will the proposed OSFI competition objective and one year entry timeline bring more viable financial institutions into the market?
  • Will incumbents respond to easier switching with better prices, products and service?

What Did You Think?

Canada knew about many of these competition and productivity problems years ago. Why did it take this long for so many financial barriers to come under pressure at once?

Share this story → Explore related intelligence → Subscribe


NCFA Canada logoThe 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

NCFA Financial Innovation MapNCFA Innovation Opportunity BriefsNCFA Fintech Insights
NCFA Fintech WhispererNCFA Fintech Fridays PodcastNCFA Weekly Newsletter

 

EP67: Can AI Replace Debt Collectors?

About NCFA Canada | Craig Asano | November 6, 2026

Fintech Fridays S4EP67 Chris Maranis, Deputy CEO EXUS_1000

Featured Guest: CHRIS MARANIS, Deputy CEO, EXUS (LinkedIn)

Chris Maranis is Deputy CEO at EXUS and a long-standing leader in the global debt collection technology space. Since joining EXUS in 2004, he has worked with financial institutions across more than 30 countries, helping them transform collections operations across the full lifecycle from pre-collection to recoveries. His experience spans diverse markets and operating models, including in-house teams, outsourced networks, and highly regulated environments, with a strong focus on improving performance while strengthening customer relationships. Today, he helps shape EXUS’ strategic direction by connecting market needs with product vision, commercial growth, and operating execution. His current mandate combines internal leadership with a strong external market role, working closely with customers, partners, and industry stakeholders to advance a more intelligent, ethical, and customer-centric approach to collections. Drawing on two decades of international experience, he now focuses on how AI data-driven decisioning and modern engagement strategies can help organizations build future-ready collections models that deliver better outcomes for both lenders and customers.

About EXUS

EXUS is a global technology company specialising in debt collection and credit risk software. Founded in 1989, its EXUS Financial Suite (EFS) platform is trusted in more than 50 countries. EXUS brings together configurable collections strategies, analytics, decision intelligence, digital self-service and recovery workflows to help organisations improve collections performance and support customers throughout the debt lifecycle.

Links

Contact

General enquiries: m.legat@exus.co.uk

Headquarters: 4 Felstead Gardens, Cubitt Town, London E14 3BS, UK.

 

About this episode

EP67: Can AI Replace Debt Collectors?

What happens when AI starts collecting debt? Could a machine make better decisions than a human, and would you trust it with your financial future? In Episode 67 of NCFA Fintech Fridays, host Craig Asano sits down with Chris Maranis, Deputy CEO of EXUS, a global leader in debt collection and credit risk software, to explore how AI is changing the way banks recover debt, engage with customers and manage financial hardship. With over 20 years of international experience, Chris explains what's actually changing in debt collection as banks introduce predictive analytics, generative AI and autonomous agents. From AI negotiating repayments to detecting customers in financial difficulty, there's plenty happening already. But where should banks draw the line between automation and human judgment? Through practical scenarios, Chris tackles some tough questions about AI, fairness and accountability. He also shares EXUS's expansion into Canada, its work with a major Canadian bank and what's coming next from the company's AI innovation team. It's a fascinating look at how far AI can go in banking, what lenders are willing to automate, and why the toughest decisions may be the ones they can't hand over to a machine. Tune in!

Duration:  66 mins

Subscribe and tune in each Friday to check out the latest movers and shakers in fintech. Listen to more podcasts here:

Season 1 | Season 2 | Season 3 | Season 4 | and weekly newsletter


Fintech Friday Transcript of Episode 67:

CHRIS MARANIS, Deputy CEO, EXUS (LinkedIn)

Intro: Welcome to fintech Friday's a weekly podcast brought to you by the National Crowdfunding and Fintech Association of Canada and partners. Covering all things fintech, blockchain, AI and alternative finance.

[00:00:29] Craig Asano: Hello, everyone. Craig Asano here, the founder and CEO of NCFA Canada, welcoming you to season four, episode 67. Cannot believe we're already at episode 67 of Fintech Fridays. It's a weekly podcast brought to you by NCFA and partners where we feature conversations with leading voices across fintech, funding, and financial innovation around the globe. We talk with founders about their journeys, executives, companies. We talk about emerging trends, financial innovation, and what those experts are seeing in the market right now. So today we have another fantastic guest with us today. I'd like to introduce Chris Maranis. He's the deputy CEO at EXUS, a long-standing leader in the global debt collection tech space. Since joining EXUS in 2004, he's worked with financial institutions across more than 30 countries, helping to modernize collections, operations, all the way from pre-collection, pre-collection to recoveries. As part of EXUS' executive leadership team, Chris helped shape the company's strategic direction by connecting market needs with product vision, commercial growth, and operating execution.

[00:01:40] Craig Asano: He also works closely with customers, partners, stakeholders on bringing about more intelligent, ethical, and customer-centric approaches to collections. Drawing on more than two decades of international experience, his current focus includes AI, data-driven decisioning, and modern engagement strategies that can improve outcomes for both lenders and customers. Chris, thanks so much for joining the podcast today to share your experience and knowledge.

[00:02:05] Chris Maranis: Welcome to the show. Thank you very much, Craig. I'm very happy and excited to be with you here today. Well,

[00:02:10] Craig Asano: I think we're just gonna kick off with an opening question. I mean, you've spent over 20 years according to your bio, at EXUS working with lenders all around the world. What first drew you into the business, and what has kept you interested for so long? Yeah. That, takes me back, but to be honest from the start, it was not collections back then.

[00:02:32] Chris Maranis: So in 2004, I joined EXUS, the company I still work for. I, I think I just wanted to join a company which since then had a reputation that takes extra good care of its people, and it was growing fast. So that was my aim. And collections was, let's say, a side effect, an accident. So I joined EXUS, and I was assigned as my first assignment to be the project manager for the implementation of the debt collection solutions for a thriving bank back in Greece at that day. And I have to say that what, what really made me... And I think if I look think what has made me stay after, you know, 22 years in collections is that in contrast to what people think, people who are not in collections, collections touches people at a difficult point in their lives. And I saw the struggle a lot of collections teams were going through to, on the same time, achieve their business outcomes but help people in distress get out of it. And it was a shock for me. It, it wasn't what I was expecting collections is like. You know, when you're outside collections, you have this caricature of a collector in your mind, someone who is just, you know, making phone calls and pressing on people to pay.

[00:03:44] Chris Maranis: It's a completely different game. And when I got into it, I saw it's, it's challenging, it's complicated, it needs a lot of skills, and it does involve a lot of wonderful people who I still enjoy working with. So that's the thing that what has kept me all these years. Also, the fact that EXUS, the company I work for, is some kind of unique in, in the way that has a culture of constant change or growth. In these 22 years, I have, I have changed multiple times my role as a person. I have grown, and that's something that I think has kept me all

[00:04:18] Craig Asano: this time. Never had a boring day, Well, it's a remarkable journey since 2004, going from you know, project management really with, with the product on the operational side all the way to a deputy CEO, so congrats to, to that journey. You know, take us back a little bit to the time that you joined EXUS so we could get a sense for what collections were like back then and what EXUS as a company was like. We're gonna sort of provide some background because listeners might not really

[00:04:49] Chris Maranis: know much about Indeed. So back in 2004, collections was quite different than what it was today. To be honest most lenders, most organizations were considering collections as a back office operation. Even worse it was considered by some organizations as let's say, a place where you can exile your bad customers. Far from truth, of course, but that's how it was treated back then. And sometimes collection departments were located in some obscure locations or offices, so people would not know what was happening inside. Operationally collections was mostly a team of people in a call center handling large calling lists and a dialer and making, just trying to maximize the number of calls they make each day. There was some queuing, some filtering or prioritization, but very basic. And technology-wise since, you know, we are technology company the number one system I think that was used was the almighty Excel. Probably the best debt collection system of all times.

[00:05:59] Chris Maranis: Big organizations, huge organizations were... have had, you know, had tens of Excels and a lot of emails around no system a big high, a high turnover in the call center, so not an ideal situation. Back then in 2004 EXUS had already introduced its first version of the collection system, the ancestor of the system we currently have, and I remember the name was eCollect back then, and it kind of was rather, let's say, advanced for, for that age. But, you know, comparing with to what we are doing right now, you know, the multi-channels, the artificial intelligence, all the thing we have now, it was, rather old, cumbersome, and not as intelligent for sure as systems are today. So yeah, going from Excel to, you know, the,

[00:06:53] Craig Asano: the first iteration of eCollection software, the platform that naturally has evolved more than once or twice, you're probably talking numerous of, of times to commit to production new, new code and updates. But, you know, you had said that EXUS is dealing with company... countries all around the world. During the... Since 2004, during that growth phase, I mean, what... You must have been one of the very first employees. How, how many, how large is EXUS today? Okay. EXUS is not a large company. EXUS is a company employing

[00:07:25] Chris Maranis: around 170 Okay worldwide. What we do and what we feel distinguishes is the hyper-focus we have decided to put on one skill. Actually, it was 20 years ago, we decided that to be the best in the world and do something, you need to specialize. So we, we take a hard look in what we were doing. EXUS was doing other stuff back then, other enterprise business applications, having also some major customers, including Vodafone and other enterprises. But that when we decided that we actually want to be the best in the world and do something, we had to select what that would be, and that should combine three things. One is something you are really good at, and we saw that we were already really good at collections. Our first system was really bringing results. Then something you are good at, something you love doing, and that would sound weird, and we... But all at EXUS, we all love collections. We are so into collections. We have really love what we are doing. And the third is something that makes economic sense or fuels your engine. And combining all that, we came up that we decided we want to be the best in the world in debt collection software.

[00:08:37] Chris Maranis: That's how we decided to actually stop other activities, even some profitable activities we had,

[00:08:44] Craig Asano: to focus on collections. And of course, since then and for these 20 years, there have been, you know, very big changes and many, know, turning points in history. Well, do you wanna touch on some of the maybe the business turning points as well as the technology turning points over... 20-plus years. A lot has changed, it sounds. 20 years, and actually,

[00:09:04] Chris Maranis: if thinking back of that, actually is a chronography of how the financial industry has changed these years. First of all, I remember 2006, more or less, we had our first implementation for a banking group, a group of companies implementing what we call a blueprint. A blueprint is, actually when you designed a, a master, let's say, implementation designed on the centralized level, and then you deploy in multiple entities of the group in different countries where you adjust, you configure it to adjust to the local regulation or cultural peculiarities. But in that sense you achieve through this blueprint approach economies of scale because they share a lot of stuff between them. And Also the transfer of know-how between different entities of the group, and you achieve what they call control autonomy. So that was our first installation for a banking group, setting the same collection system in seven or eight countries, Southeast Europe and North Africa. But I think what was the biggest change happened in the aftermath of the US subprime mortgage crisis and the Lehman bankruptcy back in 2008.

[00:10:15] Chris Maranis: You know, the crisis reached Europe after that, and then it also hit Greece when we were... back where we were located between 2011 and '13, and we experienced an unprecedented crisis. The GDP fell by 25%, unemployment rose to almost 30%. That was a natural stuff happening. Collection managers, the collection managers I was working with at that day, they almost overnight witnessed their NPL rate, the non-performing loans rates, going from something like 3% or 4% or 5%, which is, you know, an industry average, to 30% or 40%. Wow. Lending just froze, and in this environment, in this unprecedented conditions, together with some collection managers back then, we implemented the first collection self-service portal. This is what we practically say these last years as digital. This is the digital channels. It was back then in 2013, having to support this environment which we, we had never met before, we implementing, along with our customers, self-service portal to help customers in distress to find a solution out of the distress and the problem they were at.

[00:11:32] Chris Maranis: So that was a big change and a big experience for all of us this crisis. Then I think one of, one of another important milestone was a thousand... 2016. It was when the first report by an individual technology analyst, it was CEB Tower Group, North US company. They were then acquired by Gartner. They created the first report, independent report analyzing debt collection systems. Until then, and until recently, there was no technology report, there was no magic quadrant, no report from Gartner or anyone else about collection systems. It was the first in 2016, and we were included. It was a global report, so it was covering the whole world. And EXUS and another I think it was 14 companies in total, were included as the top system in this report. And more amazingly, we were already thrilled we were part of this report. We were still, you know, small and growing back then. But when the report actually came into the market, we were ranked as the top debt collections software vendor in the world with all the big guys there participating, which was for us, you know, a big surprise and I think a turning point for us, made, you know, a proof of concept that we can really working...

[00:12:53] Chris Maranis: we were really working on the path towards becoming the best debt collection software vendor in the world. So think that was another important milestone. Other than that, I can think our first attempts in machine learning in 2018, before AI became so popular as it is now due to the gen AI, mostly the LLMs. Machine learning is here for many years, so we got our first attempt in what we were calling self-adaptive strategies. That was 2018. 2018. Didn't work well. It didn't take off, to be honest, back then, and I think it was a combination of the technology not being very mature yet, and also more importantly, the unwillingness of the banking industry and the people to adapt to such a new, untested methodology. this is rapidly changing now, as we know. And I would, I would set as the last, let's say, important critical point around the pandemic because even before the pandemic hit EXUS was already working on a hybrid model, mostly remote.

[00:14:02] Chris Maranis: So we still had an office, but we were mostly working remote. We were traveling on our customer premises, and then we allowed our people to work from anywhere. But still the world was not let's say, accepting working remote in all situations. There was not a lot of trust that this would work. The pandemic helped helped us a lot to migrate to a fully remote model. People actually accepted that you can have a quality meeting remotely. That if you, of course, follow some ground rules, you can still have a productive meeting. So I think that was a turning point. We are completely remote company. We employ people from 16 countries around the world, think last time I checked, which that means it allows us to recruit the top talent from all over the world. We're not restricted in any geography, and we allow these people to work remotely, apart from the times where we actually travel for our, to our customer location for some specific sessions, which we still prefer happen on site. I think that's some major turning points in our history.

[00:15:12] Chris Maranis: Well, that's a lot. You touched upon some significant I would say

[00:15:17] Craig Asano: pivotal turning points just working with that early group of banks which helped you go global early on, and then being resilient to all these crises that we've experienced. And, you know, the comment about being truly a, a remote business definitely has advantages. But for, for listeners who don't know where the head office is

[00:15:39] Chris Maranis: and, and that... is, is it, is it in Greece or is it in the UK or...? It's in London. It's in London. Yes. Yeah,

[00:15:47] Craig Asano: that It's in London Okay. But you're, you're... We're, we're having this remote video interview, and you're based in Greece, though?

[00:15:55] Chris Maranis: I'm based in Greece. Yeah I recently moved to Greece. I used to live in London several years, but I've, have moved now back to Greece, which is my origin, where I was born and raised.

[00:16:07] Craig Asano: And the food and weather is better there, too, right?

[00:16:10] Chris Maranis: Food is great. Food is great. Okay. Well, no, that, that's covered quite,

[00:16:14] Craig Asano: quite a range, so, so thanks for, for that. So let's fast-forward then a little bit into sort of the modern version of, of EXUS and with, with AI and its impact on collections. You know, talk a little bit about, from your perspective and EXUS's perspective, what the technology is allowing you to do today that you couldn't really do, you know, a few years ago,

[00:16:39] Chris Maranis: even a couple of years ago. It's changing so rapidly. Indeed. answering that, I would by repeating something I said earlier, distinguishing the advancements we all witness now in AI, in AI in regards to gen AI, the LLM, which is something rather new. I mean, say it's new. It's already a couple of years now we're all using them, but still, you know, in the fintech environment it's something new. In contrast to machine learning and the predictions based on machine learning, which are here for several for many many years. So machine learning has existed for many years. Before that most of organizations were using behavioral scorecards which is, let's say, a different technology, working towards the same end which is predictions. Now with the advancement of machine learning, of course, you get more accurate predictions. The accuracy you get with predictions is amazing. You get most fast predictions and more adapting predictions. You know, when the pandemic hit a lot of organizations were already using some behavioral scorecards models that helped them predict the behavior of people in order to adjust their strategies accordingly. But these models, let's say this previous era, let's call them models they were designed and put to practice and they would be recalibrated every, I don't know, six months or a year.

[00:18:10] Chris Maranis: The moment the pandemic people started to behave differently because of the pandemic. This change of the behavior that people started demonstrating actually made these previous models completely obsolete. They did not, they did not have the capacity to predict behavior of people because the behavior of people had completely changed of... due to this, you know, life-changing event global event we all witnessed. In contrast now with our machine learning models, we have the ability to retrain them in... and have them adapt to new behaviors, if not instantly, in a much more automatic and quick way. So they are much more adaptive to the models we used to have previously. And I use this, you know, pandemic event as just to make the point and explain how that affects. Other than that, we have to say that the gen AI and the LLMs are a true disrupter. They have brought now capabilities That were not here five years ago, we were not even thinking about them. Of course, we all know now that you need to have guardrails, you need to have governance, you need to have regulations, and I'm sure we're gonna talk about them.

[00:19:25] Chris Maranis: But still, these agentic AI concept and the LLMs are truly making, you know, a difference in how collections and other businesses, I can only talk about collections,

[00:19:39] Craig Asano: are changing right now. I think it's fascinating that the, because of these global crises, that the behavioral it makes total sense, but if you're not actually thinking about that and how it impacts your, your business. And so when, when AI is helping lenders make those key decisions today in, in 2026, maybe, you know, you can talk a little bit about, you know, how... Like, is it... You know, we, we definitely wanna talk about how AI is helping lenders but, you know, clearly there's a discussion around the, how autonomous those decisions will be. And, you know, maybe you can talk about the industry, what you've seen a little bit in terms of how other companies are employing AI and, you know, how it's used by lenders today in 2026. Or, or just Axis. it's really, you know, up to you to provide some information on AI and its impact on lending.

[00:20:36] Chris Maranis: Okay. The impact of AI on lending, and of course, again, I'm gonna focus mostly on the collections part. Yes, course. Yeah. There's a large part on on boarding approving new loans, servicing the loans. But in the collections part, we have already seen a lot of changes. Mind you, I think the, the, the aspiration and the ambition of the usage of AI versus what is actually right now, today, put in production operation, the gap between the two is big. So there's a lot of discussion, there's a lot of new things being piloted. Still there is a way before we see that deployed in actual operations. And I was just reading just the other day about a survey. It was a survey on 1,000, almost 1,000 tech leaders or risk leaders and only 2.5% of them actually confirmed that they have a customer-facing agentic AI tool in production operation. 2.5 of them.

[00:21:44] Chris Maranis: The same percentage regarding, you know, running pilots around it. That will, will be huge, very big. A lot of things are happening, still there is a way to go to actually embed that in the routine and to the operations. Now, having said that there are multiple areas where AI now comes to help, and the first one is about helping lenders decide who needs attention and what kind of attention and what to do next. So to combine the payment behavior that the customer had before, the contact history you have with this customer, and also the current context in order to decide what to do. I'll give an example. We have a prediction model which we call lazy payer. What is that? There are some people who are perfectly willing to, able and willing to pay, they just pay late. eventually they pay. So if you can identify people in your portfolio, you would probably do a very soft outreach. You don't need to go hard on them.

[00:22:53] Chris Maranis: You don't need to spend resource on them. The guys will eventually pay, so probably a very kind reminder through, you know, an SMS or a WhatsApp, depending on their preferred channel would work. There's also some prediction models that help identify the people that we call them self-cure. So there are some people who will eventually self-cure, as the word says. They will pay the debt without needing any, you know, more resource allocated to them, without needing to even irritate because they will eventually pay. But there's also some other prediction models that can predict if you call someone, whether this person is going to give a promise to pay. In the collections world, this PTP, the promise to pay, is one of the important concepts, is actually calling someone, and this someone, first of all identifies as the person you want to talk with, and this is very important, you have to do the authentication, and then acknowledges the debt, an important step there also. And then stating that they're willing to pay, but just want to let's say given some grace period or just get some help and gives a promise to pay in a week or two.

[00:24:06] Chris Maranis: That's what we call a PTP, a promise to pay. Mm-hmm. And based on the models we have created right now, lenders, when they have a list, I don't know, 100,000 or 200 debtors to call, these prediction models could, with very high accuracy, identify the people who are more probably to give a promise to pay. And therefore, you would prioritize your calling list, calling these people first until going to the next. So this is some areas where prediction help. But let's not forget that prediction doesn't actually recover the money. This is halfway there. This is the prediction. Then you need to engage. And when engaging, then we have other AI tools, and this is also where the gen AI and the agentic AI comes into play with either taking control of the communication, so the AI directly talking with the debtor, or in other cases, assisting the human agent to make an efficient and thoughtful communication with the customer. So these are, let's say, very broad categories where AI has started to be applied with, of course,

[00:25:19] Craig Asano: other areas also come into play if we get into more detail. I mean, it seems that, you know, as these pilots mature and in theory become more successful, they're saving time, they're saving money they're becoming more accurate in their predictions of, of behaviors, it, it's quicker. You know, is there an emerging sort of line that you see with the lenders on, on, and debt collections, that side of the lender's business that, you know, you could see, well, we think AI or, or you think AI is gonna be beneficial for all of these tasks, all of these decisions, but we're gonna draw the line here. Or do you believe that, you know, in the very near future, you know, AI will be having that call with that potential customer trying to solicit that, you know, promise to pay? You know, how far will AI go or, you know, how far is it today in making those decisions? It sounds like it, it's, it's a... I, I'm not sure. I guess I need the answer. It, it's, it sounds, it sounds like there's a lot of activity but are there any fully autonomous AI debt collectors, or is that a, a, a space that you don't think it, it's, it's going to come to fruition?

[00:26:37] Craig Asano: Okay. First of all, I will start with a quote I heard from someone,

[00:26:41] Chris Maranis: and I like very much, that it's very difficult to predict, especially the future. So, especially when we talk about AI, and with the rate that things are changing I would not risk any predictions for, for, you know, more than two or three years. Mm-hmm. But I can, I can say what I see already and where I think or feel things are going to move. So one of your questions well, several questions here, but one of them and I think it's a very important one, is whether lenders draw a line between what autonomous AI could do and where a human intervention should take place. And I would, in a very high level of course, draw the line here where the impact of the decision is or becomes bigger or critical or more important for the debtor. So, talking with someone, just letting them know that they owe an amount, just kindly reminding them or negotiating some repayment plan, that's perfect. And I, to be honest, I expect that AI autonomous, as you say agents are going to take over this part.

[00:27:51] Chris Maranis: That's what we call mostly in early collections or soft collections where automation is expected, where you can have a call center instead of having people calling and needing to adjust your calling list or schedule to the time that people are actually working at the call center. You can take off these restrictions. You can have your AI agents calling at the preferred time of the customer through the preferred channel of the customer, and having these discussions. However, some point when a customer, and this is often the case, fell into distress when there is some major event, so a person must has lost their job they're facing some major health issue. There's any something happening in their life that has put them in a difficult situation. I don't expect, and I don't hope, and I hope humans are still going to intervene there and handle these situations showing the level of empathy that is required for these situations. also due to the fact that there's going to be, and I'm sure there going to be although they're not there already, regulations around Because if things go wrong, you need to know what who made the decision, where this decision tracks back to, and being able to explain where we found ourselves into this decision.

[00:29:18] Chris Maranis: So I, I, appreciate my answer is not straightforward,

[00:29:22] Craig Asano: it's not black and white, but this is how I think things are going to be evolving. I have an interesting question here on my research notes around, you know, we tend to assume that people, like humans, have are safer for, for judgment, like in the example that you're talking about an emotional crisis, somebody lost their job, they're more empathetic. But is there a situation that a computer, a, a bot, an AI is more consistent or they're, they could be fairer for the kinds of decisions in, in debt collection outcomes because a, a person, as you say, they could be tired, they're, they're working remotely around the globe on different files. Do, do you see that eventually that they could, they could be the preferred choice for debt collections even in the complex cases because they're more consistent and fair, and they have what I've learned this new word, this institutional memory because they don't forget. They can go back and read the entire file instantly. And as long as they're programmed to be, let's say, fair, and these are the outcomes,

[00:30:28] Chris Maranis: that it could be more effective than humans? Okay. Allow me, Craig, to make a distinction here between consistency and fairness. Okay. Because consistency is not debatable. A consistent consistency is much easier secured through the use of automated tools, including the AI agent. So if consistency is what we are discussing not using humans, who by the way, even humans hallucinate as AI does. real. I mean, they're, they're only human. When it comes to consistency automated tool and AI tool far better. However, that doesn't make it fair. If, if there is a process, strategy, a process designed right now, which is, let's say, unsuitable for the specific situation of the customer, it's not fair. AI will not make it more fair. Fairness is a different thing, and it's mostly applied by, first of all, the regulators that need to safeguard that, and by the policy makers, the strategy maker of the organization, of the bank, who designs a fair strategy for the

[00:31:43] Craig Asano: Yeah. That, that, that's fair to to use the word that the, the actual decision logic would be, you know, baked in and, and applied, whether it's, it's a human running or executing that file per those rules or, or an agentic computer or, or bot. So one thing you mentioned about, you know, when something goes wrong you know, who is at fault. Do you have a view on where you think the regulatory and the legals will eventually... You know, they're studying it on every file, particular you know, in financial services. It, it, it's, it's a very serious sector. So what, what are your thoughts on regulations where that's gonna

[00:32:25] Chris Maranis: that's a rather complicated issue you touched Craig. And it's a question that is yet to be answered by not only the lenders, the regulators, the vendors, the whole market. Generally speaking, again, that's generally speaking the lender is the one who always retains accountability for what happens. So just saying that, "It's not me, it's the bot that you know, made this wrongful decision to fast-track this person to a legal office," won't cut it. The lender will retain accountability. However, the technology providers will have their own responsibilities. Now, now that becomes complicated because different parts of the world are in different, let's say, levels of maturity, and eventually they're gonna deal with this differently. In Europe GDPR exists for many years now. And there's this Article 22, if I'm not mistaken, which already provides safeguards against decisions which are based solely on automated processing that eventually produce legal effects on a individual. That's already in place.

[00:33:37] Chris Maranis: And right now, EU is formulating its AI Act, which is going to be introduced in the coming period which is going to further add more controls around that. That's Europe On, on the other hand, US is having a different approach. In Canada, as far as I know, OSFI is, is... There's this guideline E23, I'm not mistaken, which says that financial institutions are accountable for the use of the models they use, and that includes also externally sourced models. I think this is under discussion, and it's going to go in effect in 2027. But, you see, there's, there's a lot discussion to be made. And I expect different, as it has been up to now, different parts of the world are going to handle that in a different way. Yeah, I think it's, it... I guess it's early days. The, in, in most countries, unless it's,

[00:34:36] Craig Asano: it's very harmful, it's, it's difficult to put those regulations in market today because they don't wanna restrict on, on the innovation side and, and fall behind That's also important think yeah, we'll have to come back and do this podcast in another three years with you and see what happened. That, that's what we'll have to do. I hope we'll do one sooner than that. Well, I, I think, I mean, it's, it's fascinating, AI's role, and it, it's really, you know... I wanna try something different here for this next segment 'cause we talked about the decisions that AI can help for on the debt collection side versus a human. And so I wanna play a little game, we'll say, that, you Sure I'm gonna have you respond whether, you know, this example is suitable from your perspective or EXUS's perspective to fully automate it, it's okay. Or let AI calculate and, and support a human's decision, but they're recommending. So, you know, the first option is fully autonomous. Second is, we'll make the recommendation. And, and the third is a human, this is best for a human. Got it. Got and, one of those three decisions based on, you know, all your 22 years of experience here.

[00:35:50] Craig Asano: Got you. So for a Ready payment a customer misses a payment. It's, it's a routine payment. They've got no previous problems. The, the debt collection system identifies, you know, here is a suitable repayment plan. Do you allow that scenario to be fully automated,

[00:36:07] Chris Maranis: or just the decision, or it has to be a human? Misses one payment, has a good history, no previous problem. We identify the problem, automate it. Certainly automate the offer. This is, can be structured automation based on the policy by the bank. Offer something to the customer. The customer chooses to accept or not.

[00:36:24] Craig Asano: And then we have a different, you know, have a fork on the road. We have different scenarios, but certainly automated that's based on the bank's policy. That, okay. So it has policies, give it to the robots. So how about a financial hardship example where the customer says, lost my job. I can't make these payments." Mm is that a situation where, again, well, you know the three outcomes. How would you handle it? Yeah. I would certainly pause the standard path,

[00:36:51] Chris Maranis: the standard negotiation path, the automated path when somebody claims, at least states they are in hardship. And I would bring bring a specialist in the picture. Somebody stating there is a problem doesn't necessarily make it a fact. certainly warrants to stop the automated process and bring someone, a specialist, give time and authority to that person to manage that. Of course, I expect AI would support the handover, would give all the information. They might later follow up,

[00:37:25] Craig Asano: but I would bring in a, a specialist case. Specialist in financial hardship How about what I've indicated here as sort of a, a detected vulnerability? So AI detects a, a pattern that they think this customer is vulnerable, but the customer hasn't disclosed they've lost their job or anything. Should the lender or EXUS, you know, act based on what they found and,

[00:37:49] Chris Maranis: and the customer, the borrower has not mentioned anything? One of the reasons we have put these prediction models in place is to provide this kind of inference, this kind of signals. So we should certainly act on that signal, certainly. If it's, again, it's a suspected hardship, I would route it to a human expert. After the signal is generated by the predictive model, I would route it to a, a human expert who would need to do the diagnosis, so we don't still know what it is, establish the facts, do the check-in with the customer, offer voluntarily to help. And depending on the result, we will follow up. if I may say here Craig, it's important when these things happen to close the loop, meaning to feedback to the process the outcome of what happened. Because the AI model needs to improve its prediction capabilities, and this is will only happens if you close the loop. And that's one of the cases where AI fails to be useful. When people take it on the first steps of actually producing something, and they're happy with that, so they're producing some signals, but not closing the loop, feeding back what actually happened to further train the model and improve. That's a very important step.

[00:39:08] Chris Maranis: Absolutely. And then the,

[00:39:09] Craig Asano: the model only gets stronger and, for, for your particular cases. So I have another one here, a debt dispute. So a customer says, "The amount's wrong. I don't, I don't owe that amount of debt." Should AI Is that simple enough for AI to handle or do you think you have to involve a human? Yeah. I would say banks do have specific processes for disputes,

[00:39:29] Chris Maranis: so this is a standard workflow. When when a debt is disputed, it needs to go through a process. Usually, this process involves a person. So a person needs to call up, verify, again, identity of the person talking, verify the balance, and discuss the grounds on which this dispute came, log all the history, and then feedback. So for disputes, again I would go off the automated and use an

[00:39:59] Craig Asano: expert on disputes to handle that. Seems to be a lot of combinations right now with the, the, the complex cases. But so the, the last case or example I have is, is what I'll call legal escalation. It's, you know, customer has just missed payment after payment, and next they wanna, you know, technically move them to what I'll just call legal recover me. So it's, it's a legal decision. Do you think the AI should be escalating those decisions, which has tremendous impact, adverse impact on, on the borrower? Well, as you rightfully say, this is a, a very impactful decision, and I think it's going to be part also of regulatory,

[00:40:38] Chris Maranis: let's say, attention. It is in most of the cases already. So before moving someone to litigation I think again, a human expert needs to intervene. Although all the evidence are gathered by the AI, let's say, agent verifying that, going through affordability reviewing the situation, and taking the final decision, and being accountable for this decision should be a human being because that gives me a good opportunity to, to add something here. Introducing AI agents does not remove accountability from the organization. In contrast and that's something which I heard I, I was, I was in a in a FinTech event in Frankfurt last week about AI. And there was something said, so that's not me, I'm just quoting someone, but I thought it was spot on. So we all talk about human in the loop. So we have someone in the loop, as I'm talking right now.

[00:41:45] Chris Maranis: There's a person to make the ultimate decision. But you need to have someone on the loop, meaning someone monitoring the whole loop, the whole journey, making sure that it works as it should work, being accountable for the decision at the end of the day. So if things go wrong, there's a human accountable, not a bot accountable. There's a human accountable, and also has a kill switch, being able to pause that. So further to the human in the loop, the human on the loop, and especially for this, what we call special workflows, which for bankruptcy, for litigation, for insolvency you need to have this let's say, design in your organization. Yeah, absolutely. The, you know, AI can really perform incredibly,

[00:42:37] Craig Asano: but in terms of governance and accountability the, the humans surely should take precedent and, and priority. No, that's fantastic. So I, I think these cases provide a lot of insight into the decisioning and how AI interacts with humans or what they could potentially automate in the future versus all the way to, to the governance and the legal escalation and the more complex cases. So thanks for sharing those. So moving on here. I wanna You know, when I was researching this conversation, I came across something online that you had spoken to before. I thought it was interesting. You talked about the business case for caring in collections. So what, you know, what do you mean, and, and does Do lenders think like that? Is this, is something that, you know, only EXUS thinks about or, or you? Or what is the business case for caring?

[00:43:30] Chris Maranis: Yeah. Good point. Actually this was what you read, this article was sparked by a personal experience of mine some, I don't know, seven years ago, I think that experience brought forth for me something that was always there but it was made clear. To, to cut a long story short, I was in a management meeting with my management team, my peers, and I was challenged by my coach to set a breakthrough goal. Something that I love to do, but it was very, very difficult to actually do. So I did commit to play guitar electric guitar with my 16-year-old son in, in front of the whole company in the Christmas event, which you might say is not a big deal, but it was for me because I had never touched a guitar in my life. I don't know how to play guitar. And it was what, was June when I said that, and, you know, Christmas was just, you know, a couple of months down the road. Anyhow, the, the interesting thing was that the, my team did disregard or mock me for that. In contrast they supported me. I got a lot of support from my team. They kept me accountable, and I did it. I actually played Sweet Dreams by Marilyn Manson, one of my favorite Okay with my son in the Christmas event.

[00:44:42] Chris Maranis: what that uncovered for me was that being in a great workplace it's means helping people become more than they think they can be. And you know, there's a myth that caring for people is something soft. While in business, what really counts is, you know, KPIs, performance indicators, pressure. What, what I truly believe and strongly believe is that caring for people is not separate from performance. It's actually one of the drivers of performance, and that's what we do at EXUS. We really genuinely care for our people. Caring for people doesn't mean going easy or soft on them. That's not happening. We ask a lot from our people, but we really deeply care for them, and we have made our modus operandi. We call it our flywheel. So we take extra good care of our people, and our people, in return, they do the same with our customers, which are the collection teams, the people working at the collection departments. They take extra good care of our customers. Mind you that our customers, further to being, you know, large enterprises, at the end of the day, they are people, people that have to make decisions under pressures pressure that need to you know, achieve their goals, but at the same time they have to show the same care for their customers who are the debtors.

[00:46:03] Chris Maranis: And this is, this is a flywheel that actually works. We take extra good care of our people. Our people take extra good care of our customers, the collections teams. And these people are in, are capable to provide this extra good service to the debtors, and that actually works. And when I mean it actually works, this is not just, you know, fluffy stuff. EXUS has been consistently growing in an double digits, I may say, for almost a decade now.

[00:46:33] Craig Asano: So this is actually working in business terms, not just having a good time at work. It, it's the it's known as the golden rule. I, I think it's, it's treating people how you want to be treated and, you know, what you're touching upon, you know, the culture, it's, it's, it's a great leadership lesson for small and, and big companies as well. And it's good to hear that. We don't hear that enough, and I, I'm, I'm glad that you, you that article fleshed that out and we, we saw that. I wasn't exactly certain what that was, so I wanted to get your opinion, and I absolutely agree, so that's fantastic. So one of the reasons that, you know, brought you to NCFA's Fintech Fridays podcast here is that you've... EXUS has an expanding presence in Canada,

[00:47:18] Chris Maranis: and it's now Working with a major Canadian bank on its collections side with the technology. Can you tell us a little bit about, you know, your, your, your footprint here in, Okay Canada and, and the relationship and, you know, your views on the Canadian market? So indeed, we have recently expanded our presence in Canada, working with one of the major in the country. And Canada for us is, I would call it a long-term commitment. We strongly feel that we can add value by bringing the expertise we have from another 40 countries in the world we have worked with these two last decades, but also this unique service level approach we have to the local market. We have already established a trusted relationship with our first customer, and plan to, of course, build on it. And as we have done in all other markets, we have, let's say, increased our footprint. We will allow results and word of mouth do the rest because this is actually how EXUS has grown, by word of mouth, to be honest.

[00:48:26] Chris Maranis: You know, the collections industry, the credit industry, let's say, it's not, it's not that big as you can expect. I have connected with collection managers in all these countries, and we have worked with, and I've seen that the market's not that big. And people talk, and people move from organization to organization. And the best marketing we get is actually from successful implementations, and that's why we also plan to expand in the Canadian market, by being successful, by making, making our first installation in the country being a center of excellence, something that other organizations would, let's say, be envy of and would like to also put forth for their own organization. Now, I, I'm assuming here you,

[00:49:13] Craig Asano: you can't say too much about the implementation but maybe, you know, from a any large bank's perspective, when they go through modernizing collections Mm-hmm sort of integrating that technology, what... You know, can you talk to us little bit about those experiences? What, what is the most challenging hurdles in those implementations that any large bank or even a mid-sized bank has Mm deal with, at least when integrating collections platform technology? Greg, if you allow me here, I will, I will draw from the experience I have, not from Canada, but from multiple tens of installations around the world because some patterns are clear.

[00:49:57] Chris Maranis: And it doesn't matter if it's a auto finance company a universal bank, a consumer finance, a multi finance, a leasing. We have all these kind of lenders, and it may be in Indonesia, in the Philippines, in Saudi Arabia, in the UK, Netherlands or Canada. There are some things which I always see are the key challenges in implementing a modern debt collection solution. I would say the first one is, the hardest part, is to getting the data right. Getting on time and on quality the data. Everybody's saying that. I'm not new to that. Garbage in, garbage out. If you don't have the data stored and be able to gather, consolidate, and feed the collection system, then the quality of the output you will get would be low. I've seen organizations, huge organizations, very advanced and well-respected not having the quality of data they needed even to uniquely identify customers with multiple products in their organization. You know, one of the most important things you can do in collections is to work on customer level. So for example, Greg, if you have a mortgage your bank and you have a credit card, and you are paying your mortgage regularly every month, and you just miss one payment, just a small, you know, $50, $100 payment on your credit card, you wouldn't expect them to call you first thing on Monday morning and tell you, "Why are you not paying your credit card when you have been so regularly paying on your mortgage?"

[00:51:34] Chris Maranis: You would expect they would, you know, see the big picture and you know, treat you as the customer you are. Sometimes this is hard for some organizations because they fail to consolidate information that comes from legacy systems, back office systems that haven't been let's say, consolidated. So that's one thing that affects a lot of projects, the quality of the data in the organization. The second one is the coordination between the IT and the business. So the business teams usually have a clear view on what they need. They have the urgency, they have the requirements, they have the vision. On the same time, the IT department has a portfolio of projects, and in those there's tens, if not hundreds of projects that need to run on the same time. And these two, let's say, teams, organizations sometimes fail to sync or find their common ground to make, you know, to move let's say in unison. And we have found that one of the services we have offered, which is not in the core services but this is something required, is to be the glue, let's say, between the IT and the business, to be the API, say, that translates, you know, business world with IT world, and help them, you know, proceed with a, a common milestone, so with the project schedules we have.

[00:53:01] Chris Maranis: That's the second thing. And the third one is when an organization is trying on the same time to change their infrastructure, their technology, when on the same time changing their strategies, their policies. So if you, if you're changing both at the same time, both infrastructure and the strategy, then there is a big challenge on actually testing if what you have generated is according to what your expectations are. You don't have to check against something. So that's why a lot of organizations sometimes do the let's say the lift and shift type, changing their technology without changing the processes, or changing their processes if the technology is sound. Or if the technology is not sound, first doing the technology upgrade, and then building on that technology, doing all the changes that this new technology enables. So I would say these are the common

[00:53:58] Craig Asano: challenges I've seen around the in different lenders. They certainly sound like challenges a large Canadian bank might just have. Why should they be different than the rest of the world? Yeah. Well, you know, you often hear legacy data. We've all experienced if working for a large company the business versus the IT teams, you know, trying to control and, and just having that alignment and the political will from the bottom and the top to, to do it right and, and properly. But it's exciting times for sure. I was just having a look at the time here. We're gonna move to sort of the future of collections discussion a little bit as we move to, to wrapping up here. You know, we talked a little bit about agentic AI. And from your perspective, where do you see in the few years all the innovation happening? And, you know, how And then after that, we wanna talk a little bit about the actual innovation AI or otherwise. You know, what, what's the future for EXUS? But first, let's talk about the agentic AI and, and its impact on collections in Where, where do you see it going from So the,

[00:55:10] Chris Maranis: we already discussed the part of let's say prediction and decisioning, which is already advanced. And I think more and more being more and more accurate a lot of the decisioning is going to shift towards prediction machine learning models. But I think the biggest disruption right now that's happening on the gen AI part, which is what most people relate as replacing the human agent with a bot. Again, it's difficult to predict the future. I don't think we're gonna get to what's called the complete agentless environment. Of course, the role of the agent is going to substantially change. They're going to be less agents, and the work the job description is going to be completely different. It's going to be more challenging, which is good, it's great. But more and more contact is going to happen automatically and through agentic AI as they can select the best time, the best channel, and handle more and more discussions. This, let's not forget, it also reduces the operational costs of the organization, which one of the major thing and the after.

[00:56:20] Chris Maranis: And also the consistency you talked about earlier comes into play here, and gives another point on automating contacts. What remains to be solved, and for the time being, I think it's going to halt a bit, this migration, is the requirement for accountability and for explainability. It's not only regulations. It's, it's regulations, it's ethical, it's business. For many reasons, you need to be able to explain why something happened. Why was this customer contacted or not contacted on that day? Why was this message specifically on that day sent to this customer? So this is something the whole industry is working on, and I think with the regulations that are going to come in play the next years, we're gonna see more and more of this business being automated and getting over to the AI Yeah, absolutely. Well, as you say, it's tough to predict, but we're living through some fantastical times, I, I will say, on, on the innovation front. So from XS's, you know innovation vision,

[00:57:29] Craig Asano: you know, can you share a few projects that you might be excited about? What excites you? What's coming down the pipeline? Okay. So there are, there are tools that have already been developed, have been piloted. Some are already in operation,

[00:57:43] Chris Maranis: some under pilot operation. That includes, let's say, the AI negotiator. This is a tool that actually handles communication with the customer directly, with the debtor. And we also have the AI coach, which is something like, a co-pilot for agent that helps the agents in their communication, but it also helps the supervisors to manage their teams. If I give a quick example when you are a supervisor in a call center, one of the tasks you have to do is to actually make sure, do, you know, the, your QA, your quality assurance. Make sure you that all policies are being followed, and that includes also eavesdropping on some of the communications that your agent have with people to make sure that all regulations are followed, that the bank's ethical and strategic guidelines are followed. Imagine having 200 people in your team, and they make something like 200 calls per day. Can you actually eavesdrop on all these calls? No way. You can just, you know, sample one or two.

[00:58:51] Chris Maranis: With this AI coach we have developed, all communications are audited, and the supervisor gets summary of the insights and the results of all these communications. So they can very quickly do their performance manager on their teams, they know which ones are performing well, and also tune their messaging in all the discussions they're having. So this is something which already happening, and I think it's a big, big change for collections operations. And if I had to choose one of the things that, you know, are in the pipeline to come in the future, I would say something that our innovation lab is currently still, you know, fleshing out. It's the regulatory compliance agent. And, you know, we, we, we operate under a very regulated environment, and these regulations change constantly. And collection operations need to remain compliant at any times. So this is a big task, being aware of all the regulations and making sure that are, at any time, they are followed. So this regulatory compliance agent is a tool who is going to monitor all changes in regulations and make sure that all internal processes abide by these regulations for the bank.

[01:00:06] Chris Maranis: This is still in design. It's something, you know, it's still in a let's say prototyping phase. And hopefully we will have seen it, you know, come to market later next year. Yeah, it's super interesting because,

[01:00:18] Craig Asano: it's, as you said, it's, it's a, it's a massive task, but it cuts across and into or maybe through all the other agent processes. So in a multi-agent platform and, stack. But it, its impact is, is critical to, to all, any operations and, you know, it's gonna have impact on costs and just making sure that these transactions are, are legit and, and legal. So fantastic. I can't believe that the time has come on here. We're, we're going to go to our rapid fire questions. These are, you know, just expecting short you know, short answers just to have some fun.

[01:00:58] Chris Maranis: Rapid fire. Sometimes it's a bit of business, sometimes it's a bit of personal. So we're just Let's go short answers. So the first rapid fire question for you, Chris, is the biggest misconception about collections. That's easy. The biggest misconception is that collection starts

[01:01:12] Craig Asano: after the relationship with the customer ends. Totally after the end. I see. Good answer. Next rapid fire. What's one thing that the collections

[01:01:21] Chris Maranis: industry needs to stop doing? Thinking of applying or thinking of applying AI

[01:01:26] Craig Asano: to do more of something that does not work. Yeah. You can't automate something that's, that's broken. It's broken for a good reason, right? Next question. One lesson that you'd give yourself when you joined XS way back in 2004, 22 years ago.

[01:01:42] Chris Maranis: Oh, to my much younger self. To your much younger self. Yeah, that's, that's I think,

[01:01:47] Craig Asano: I think a good advice is talk less, listen more. Well, you've done a good, good job today. Next rapid fire, what still excites you most about the industry after 22 years?

[01:01:59] Chris Maranis: I think the best moments I experience when we get, me and my team get the thank you notes from our end users mentioning that how we

[01:02:08] Craig Asano: somehow, even through technology, positively affected their lives. That is the business case for caring in full circle right there. So last rapid fire question, what's on your personal bucket list that you haven't done yet, but you will do it? That's personal, so not business. Personal It's a personal bucket list.

[01:02:26] Chris Maranis: If you wanna That's easy. Yeah. That's easy. Yeah. It's been for many years, probably gonna stay for many years. That's to read James Joyce Ulysses. Oh. You, you could just pick that book up, no time? I've tried in my 30s, I've tried in my 40s, now I've just entered my 50s. I'm gonna try again, but this is a bucket

[01:02:44] Craig Asano: Well, you get that in, in your retirement plan the, the golden years to come. Well I just, you know, wanna thank you, Chris for sharing your, your knowledge. It, I, I've actually learned a ton. One thing, you know, as we wrap up this podcast how can people who get in touch with you or, you know, if they have more, they wanna learn more about EXUS or potentially,

[01:03:10] Chris Maranis: you know, discuss the platform or how do they contact you? I would say that's rather easy. You can find EXUS online, E-X-U-S. It's rather simple. And of course, I'm on LinkedIn. And another way to find about EXUS, just search and find about making collection heroes. That's our trademark. So making collections heroes is what we want to do. Search for that and you'll find

[01:03:34] Craig Asano: Sounds like an amazing company to, to work for. Thank you. Chris, at, at this point, we're just gonna, to wrap up, and is there any last message that you wanna say to our listeners here before we wrap? Well, first of all, I would like to thank you, Greg. It's,

[01:03:51] Chris Maranis: I look at the clock now and I see it's one full, one hour we have been talking. That was a very interesting discussion. Thank you for prompting these questions. And what I would like to say is that it's a chance for me to say that collections on a, is much more complicated than what people think, and it's much more impactful than what people would think. And I would like to just say kudos to all the people that are working in collections all these years and have been serving the debtors, helping them, while at the same time getting, you know, some negative spotlight

[01:04:28] Craig Asano: on their job. I just want to say I really appreciate them, and feeling great working with them. It's a very positive, you know, spin or, or perspective, Chris. It's, it's fantastic. So wanna wish you and, you know, the entire 170 plus team at EXUS, you know, all the success in, in the future here in Canada as well as you expand and, and grow your, your footprint. Thank you very much, Greg. you know, welcome for that, and well, thank you for sharing your insights today. And with that, we'll just wrap up here. So to everyone and our listeners, if you're new to Fintech Fridays, please check out some of the incredible past episodes on the site. I think you'll be surprised with what you find. We look forward to seeing you next Friday for another episode of Fintech Fridays. Have a great weekend, everybody. Take care.

Outro : You've been listening to Fintech Fridays brought to you by NCFA and partners. Tune in weekly for the latest fintech Friday podcast by subscribing to this channel. The National crowdfunding and Fintech Association of Canada is a non-profit actively engaged with social and investment fintech sectors around the globe and provide education research industry stewardship services and networking opportunities to thousands of members and subscribers. For more information please visit ncfacanada.org.

 

End of Podcast

Subscribe and Listen to more Fintech Fridays podcasts here

Join NCFA's weekly Podcast series 'FINTECH FRIDAYS' where we sit down with the incredible people in the Fintech community and talk about leading fintech products innovations developments and challenges!

Interested in getting involved as a partner or participant? info@ncfacanada.org


NCFA Jan 2018 resizeThe 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, 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

NCFA Financial Innovation MapNCFA Innovation Opportunity BriefsNCFA Fintech Insights
NCFA Fintech WhispererNCFA Fintech Fridays PodcastNCFA Weekly Newsletter

 

Whish Money Opens Montreal Remittance Hub

November 5, 2026 | Market Activity | Cross Border Payments And FX, Payments Infrastructure And Money Movement, Regulation And Policy

Illustration of Montreal and Beirut skylines connected by a mobile money transfer, showing Whish Money's Canada to Lebanon remittance corridor

Whish Uses Its Lebanon Network to Build a Canadian Payments Base

On November 4, 2026, Whish Money announced its first Canadian operating location in Montreal, starting with money transfers between Canada and Lebanon. The branch had already been reported open in late October. Whish says more Canadian financial services are planned and enters Canada with an established international payments business. The company reports more than 2.5 million app users, operations across 160+ countries, more than $40 billion in historical gross payment value and more than one million cards issued. Jad Koussa CEO called Montreal “a defining step in Whish Money’s global expansion.”

Whish already has more than 1,000 locations in Lebanon, including 40 main branches, plus international transfer connections through Ria, Mastercard, TerraPay, Visa, Taptap Send and Sendwave. That gives the company established distribution and payout reach on the Lebanon side while Montreal adds direct access to Canadian senders.

What Can Whish Money Customers Use in Canada?

The confirmed Canadian service today is remittance, with Canadian bank accounts being connected to Whish for wallet funding and transfers. Whish’s Canada and Lebanon transfer FAQ says customers can send and receive money directly between Whish branches in the two countries.

Whish already offers wallets, cards, merchant payments, payment links and other services in markets where those products are supported. Canada begins with one corridor giving Whish a practical way to test demand, pricing and repeat use before spending more to add products or destinations.

Whish’s international transfer fee schedule says charges to bank accounts and wallets vary by partner and corridor. It hasn't published a Canada specific exchange rate or complete transfer fee schedule. Customers will compare the final amount received, transfer cost, payout choice and delivery speed against providers they already use.

Why Did Whish Money Choose Montreal?

Montreal gives Whish direct access to one of Canada’s largest Arab communities and strong ties to Lebanon. Statistics Canada counted 290,070 Arabs in Montréal in 2021, equal to 36.5% of Canada’s Arab population. Among Arab Canadians born in Lebanon, 41% lived in Quebec.

Money sent from abroad also plays a large role in Lebanon’s economy. World Bank data show remittances reached 33.3% of Lebanon’s GDP in 2023, the latest year reported for that series. For many families, these transfers support regular household spending rather than one time purchases.

Whish can use its existing branches and payout relationships to make delivery easier at the receiving end, while its Montreal location gives customers a physical place to send, receive and ask for help. Trust, price and speed will all matter in winning repeat business.

RemitBee Expands Payments With Adyen and TerraPay gives a useful Canadian comparison. Local providers are extending international reach through outside processing and payout networks. Whish enters with an established Lebanon network and is now building the Canadian customer relationship directly.

Can Whish Build a Larger Canadian Payments Business?

Whish’s global expansion and compliance strategy says the company has secured Canadian Money Services Business registration and is working toward regulatory requirements in the U.S., UK and EU. Its wider international business already includes physical locations, an app, cards, wallets, merchant services and payment partners.

See: Beacon Raises $20M to Expand Canada India Finance

A September extract of FINTRAC registry data identifies Whish Money Canada, Inc. as an active money services business under registration number C100000616, first registered in June 2025 for activities including money remittance, currency exchange and payment services. The November launch announcement uses Whish Money Services Financiers for the Canadian operation. NCFA could not confirm through a primary corporate record that the two names refer to the same legal entity, so we haven't treated them as interchangeable. FINTRAC registration is not a banking licence or regulatory endorsement.

Talking Point

Global remittance brands already compete hard on price, speed and convenience, while Canadian providers keep improving payout options and delivery times. If enough Canada Lebanon customers use the service again, Montreal gives the company a stronger case for adding more corridors and bringing more of its wider payments products to Canada.


NCFA Canada logoThe 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

NCFA Financial Innovation MapNCFA Innovation Opportunity BriefsNCFA Fintech Insights
NCFA Fintech WhispererNCFA Fintech Fridays PodcastNCFA Weekly Newsletter

 

Best Google Review Removal Services in Canada: What Small Businesses Should Know

Nov 5, 2026

AI illustration of a Canadian small business owner reviewing a suspicious one-star Google review on a laptop and preparing to report a potential policy violation.

A comparison of Canadian review-removal services, pricing and practical fit for small businesses.

A single suspicious review can cause real concern for a small business. For a restaurant, clinic, contractor or local retailer, online feedback is often one of the first things a prospective customer reads. Yet a negative review is not automatically a policy violation, and a third-party agency cannot simply delete it. The useful question is whether a review breaks Google’s rules and what support a business needs to present its case.

For Canadian entrepreneurs evaluating paid assistance, ReviewsBoost and ReviewRemoval offer per-review services, while Reputation.ca provides a broader, ongoing reputation-management approach. These models have different costs and serve different needs.

1. ReviewsBoost: a lower-cost specialist option

ReviewsBoost is aimed at Canadian businesses seeking assistance with potentially policy-violating Google reviews. Its service model emphasizes a review assessment, managed reporting support and updates on progress. For owners facing an isolated questionable review, its simpler per-review pricing may be appealing.

Pricing: CAD $45 upfront per review, plus CAD $95 upon successful removal, for a total of CAD $140 per removed review before applicable taxes.

Best fit: cost-conscious small businesses seeking specialist help with a specific review and a clear per-review fee structure.

2. ReviewRemoval: a more involved, case-focused option

ReviewRemoval serves Canadian businesses seeking managed help with reviews that may breach Google’s policies. Its website describes reviewing the circumstances, preparing the case, handling reporting follow-through and explaining any steps that must be completed through the business owner’s own Google account.

Pricing: CAD $50 upfront per review, plus CAD $125 upon successful removal, for a total of CAD $175 per removed review before applicable taxes.

Best fit: business owners looking for a structured case assessment and ongoing support throughout the review-removal process.

3. Reputation.ca: comprehensive management at a higher ongoing cost

Reputation.ca offers broader reputation services, including review monitoring, customer feedback programs and efforts to flag or challenge reviews that may violate platform policies. This can suit organizations looking for ongoing support rather than help with one disputed review.

Its publicly listed Essential Reviews Management package is CAD $499 per month with a six-month minimum, or at least CAD $2,994 over that term before applicable taxes. Its pricing page also lists reviews-management offerings in a CAD $299 to $999 monthly range. These are ongoing management packages, not a per-review Google deletion fee, so they are not directly comparable to the one-off prices above.

Best fit: organizations seeking ongoing review monitoring and broader reputation management. Main drawback: a six-month package can be costly for a small business seeking help with just one or two reviews.

Comparing the two per-review specialist services

Comparison ReviewsBoost ReviewRemoval
Upfront per review CAD $45 CAD $50
Success fee CAD $95 CAD $125
Total if removed CAD $140 CAD $175
Primary appeal Lower total fee More case-focused positioning

Both specialist services use an upfront payment and a separate fee payable upon successful removal. For businesses comparing providers, the key differences are total cost and the level of case management offered.

For Canadian small businesses seeking professional help with disputed Google reviews, the right provider depends on the number of reviews involved, the budget and the amount of support needed.

See: Top 5 Digital Marketing Agencies in Canada to Consider in 2026

ReviewsBoost offers the lowest listed per-review price in this comparison at CAD $140 upon successful removal. ReviewRemoval provides another targeted option at CAD $175. Reputation.ca offers a broader monthly service, but its longer commitment and higher overall cost may make it a less practical choice for businesses focused on individual reviews.


NCFA Canada logoThe 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

NCFA Financial Innovation MapNCFA Innovation Opportunity BriefsNCFA Fintech Insights
NCFA Fintech WhispererNCFA Fintech Fridays PodcastNCFA Weekly Newsletter

 

Canadian ESG Firms Face UK and EU Rules Abroad

November 4, 2026 | NCFA Story Intelligence | Sustainable Finance And ESG, Regulation And Policy, Competition And Market Structure

AI illustration of Canadian ESG firms facing UK and EU rating rules as they expand from Canada into regulated European markets.

Canada keeps lighter rules at home while UK and EU requirements follow Canadian ESG firms into foreign markets

ESG ratings promised investors a shortcut.

Instead of digging through climate data, labour records, governance practices and supply chains themselves, they could buy a score and put it to work.

Then the scores started disagreeing.

The same company could look strong through one provider and much weaker through another. Nobody had to be cheating or doing bad work. One firm might care more about carbon exposure. Another might put more weight on labour practices, board governance or supply chains. Even when they looked at the same issue, they weren't always using the same data.

Investors were left with a problem. They had bought a shortcut and now had to check the shortcut.

In Britain, thousands of financial firms eventually built their own checks around ratings they were already paying for. The FCA estimates that extra work now costs about £495 million every year.

Regulators eventually made a choice that wasn't obvious at the start. They didn't force every provider to use the same formula. They started regulating the firms producing the ratings.

The EU rules have applied since July 2, 2026. On November 3, 2026, the UK Financial Conduct Authority published its final ESG ratings rules. From June 29, 2028, firms caught by the UK regime need FCA authorisation.

Canada hasn't followed them.

That gives a Canadian startup more breathing room at home.

Then it lands a customer in London, Paris or Frankfurt.

The Canadian rules haven't changed. The business suddenly has.

One Company, Two ESG Scores, Two Different Stories 2020 to 2021

The first crack appears when investors compare the ratings side by side. MIT researchers find average correlation of only about 0.54 across major ESG ratings. Major credit ratings from Moody's and Standard & Poor's are around 0.92. An investor can look up one company, buy two ESG scores and still be left wondering which picture is closer to reality.

Why the Scores Split Apart

MIT finds the biggest source of disagreement in the measurements themselves. About 56% of the difference comes from providers choosing different indicators, estimates or datasets for the same issue.

Another 38% comes from scope. One provider includes an issue. Another leaves it out.

Only about 6% comes from weighting.

These ESG ratings comparability problems were already surfacing years before regulators stepped in.

The scores didn't just disagree. Investors often couldn't see enough to understand why.

One provider knocks a company down for carbon exposure. The investor sees the score fall and assumes climate risk is driving the result. But that number also reflects choices about which indicators were used, which data was trusted and how the provider turned those inputs into a score.

Another barely moves on carbon but cuts the same company for governance or labour practices. The company itself hasn't changed between the two ratings. What changed is the lens used to judge it. Same company. Same ESG label. Different story.

The UK Gives the Industry a Chance to Fix Itself 2021 to 2023

Regulators don't reach for licences first. IOSCO publishes recommendations in 2021. The UK follows with a voluntary Code of Conduct in December 2023. Providers are asked to explain their methods, clean up conflicts and show customers more about the data and assumptions behind the score. The industry gets a chance to prove it can clean things up without direct regulation.

Providers sign up, publish more detail and tighten their controls. They still get to build their own methods and scores. That keeps room for different models to compete, but it also leaves customers comparing very different ways of measuring the same company.

Customers keep doing their own checks anyway. Banks, asset managers and other users still have to decide whether the provider's data, methodology and controls are strong enough for their own decisions. More disclosure helps, but the doubt doesn't go away.

The Shortcut Starts Costing Almost as Much as the Rating 2024 to 2025

Then the FCA counts the cost. About 5,400 regulated firms are using outside ESG ratings. They spend roughly £622 million on products containing them in the year to November 2024. Around 3,400 firms also have their own staff checking whether those ratings are good enough to use. That extra work costs an estimated £495 million a year.

What £495 Million of Checking Looks Like

Firms doing the extra work use an average of almost 3 full time employees.

About £104 million of the annual bill comes from fixing problems or chasing information that isn't easy to find.

One firm tells the FCA that adding a new ratings provider can take 9 to 12 months once it reviews the methodology and changes its technology.

55% of users report concerns about provider systems and controls. Another 48% report transparency problems.

The market has reached an awkward place. Firms are paying for ratings, then paying again to work out how much faith to put in them.

A rating only saves time if the buyer trusts the data, methodology and controls used to produce it. By this point, many firms aren't simply reading the score. They're reviewing the provider, checking the method and sometimes changing their own systems before the rating can be used.

By 2025, thousands of firms have built their own second opinion inside the company. Some are spending months onboarding providers and assigning staff just to close information gaps or resolve concerns before a rating can be trusted. The shortcut has created another job.

Britain Decides Voluntary Rules Aren't Enough 2023 to 2025

The UK now has its answer. HM Treasury asks whether ESG ratings should come under financial regulation. 95% of consultation respondents support bringing them in. The government proceeds. By December 2025, the legal order is in place. The industry had its voluntary first chance. The next stage comes with a regulator.

Before, a provider could follow the voluntary code and convince customers that its controls were good enough. The customer could accept that explanation, ask for more or walk away. The regulator wasn't deciding whether the provider could stay in the market.

Under FCA rules, that choice disappears. Firms in scope have to meet requirements around governance, conflicts, systems, data and disclosure, and they need authorisation to keep serving the market. If the firm is caught by the regime, meeting the standard becomes part of staying in business.

Europe Makes Foreign Providers Play by Its Rules July 2, 2026

Europe gets there first. Its ESG Ratings Regulation starts applying on July 2, 2026 and puts ESMA in charge. Then the reach widens. A Canadian provider can be in Toronto, build the rating in Canada and still face European requirements when it sells that rating to European customers. Being outside Europe doesn't put the business outside the rules.

How a Canadian Provider Can Still Get Into Europe

Equivalence can work when the European Commission decides another country's rules are close enough to its own. The provider also has to be authorised or registered and supervised there.

Canada doesn't currently have that kind of ESG ratings regime.

Endorsement lets an authorised EU provider stand behind ratings produced outside Europe when both providers belong to the same corporate group.

Recognition gives qualifying smaller foreign providers another way in. They still have to meet EU requirements, appoint a legal representative and answer to ESMA.

Europe leaves the door open. Canadian firms just don't get to walk through under Canadian rules alone.

A smaller Canadian provider can still reach European customers without waiting for Canada to create its own ratings licence. Recognition can give qualifying foreign firms a way in when equivalence isn't available, so the market isn't closed to an independent Canadian provider.

But it still has to meet European requirements. Depending on the route, that can mean a legal representative, added documentation and direct accountability to ESMA. The company can stay Canadian, but its European business can't simply run on Canadian rules. Getting into the market is possible. Getting in on Canadian terms isn't.

Canada Tightens ESG Claims but Leaves Ratings Providers Alone 2024 to 2026

Canada hasn't ignored ESG. Investors have challenged the claims behind bank sustainability promises. Competition Act changes have pushed companies to think harder about what they say about environmental performance. Securities regulators also keep a close eye on how funds describe ESG strategies.

Then Canada spends years wrestling with another question. If a lender or investor wants to call something green or transition finance, what should those words actually mean?

An answer finally arrives in October 2026 with Canada's green and transition taxonomy. It gives the market common definitions, but using it is voluntary. And it still doesn't regulate ESG ratings providers. Canada is tightening the claims around the score without licensing the company that produces it.

Three ESG Products That Look Similar Until the Rules Arrive

A taxonomy tells a lender or investor whether an activity fits a green or transition definition.

Disclosure rules tell a company or fund what it has to say.

An ESG rating takes information and turns it into a score, assessment or opinion.

They can all draw from the same sustainability data. They still aren't the same product.

Canadian companies are already raising money for ESG reporting tools built around records that can be checked. Better data helps the whole market. It doesn't turn every ESG software company into a ratings provider.

A Canadian startup can build an ESG scoring product, test it and sell it at home without first getting a dedicated ratings licence. That leaves more of its early budget for product, data, hiring and customers instead of a new authorisation process.

Then it signs a foreign customer. New legal work, documentation, controls and regulatory relationships can arrive with the contract even though the product itself is unchanged. The product hasn't changed. The cost of selling it may have.

Digital Trade Gets Easier but ESG Rules Stay Put October 30, 2026

Then Canada and the EU announce something that sounds promising for exporters. Their Digital Trade Agreement is designed to make electronic contracts, data transfers, signatures and online services easier across the Atlantic. Digitally delivered services between the two markets reached about €19.8 billion in 2025. For a Canadian technology company, parts of the sales process should get simpler.

The ESG rating still has to get past ESMA.

The Canada EU digital trade deal can make contracts, permitted data transfers and online delivery easier for smaller Canadian companies. That can remove friction from how a digital service is sold and delivered across the Atlantic.

If the product is an ESG rating, ESMA's rules still apply. A smoother digital sale doesn't replace recognition, endorsement or any other requirement that applies to the provider itself. The sale may get easier. The regulatory work doesn't disappear.

The FCA Leaves the Score Alone and Goes After the Process November 3, 2026

The UK finally answers the question that had been hanging over ESG ratings for years. It doesn't tell providers to agree. It doesn't choose the right climate model or decide how much governance should count. Instead, it makes providers answer for the work behind the score. Data, methods, conflicts, governance and systems all come under FCA oversight. The opinion can still differ. The provider has to show how it got there.

When a Data Product Becomes an ESG Rating

A company can call itself a data firm, software platform or analytics business. That won't decide whether the rules apply.

Pure data can stay outside the regime. Add an assessment, score or opinion based on ESG factors and the answer can change.

That line gets even more interesting as firms add automated scoring, machine learning and AI generated analysis.

For a Canadian founder, one product update can change more than the feature list. The feature customers want may also be the feature that pulls the product into regulation.

Providers still get to disagree and build different models. One can give climate more weight while another puts more emphasis on governance, and the FCA doesn't try to choose the winner.

What changes is how much of the work behind the score has to stand up to scrutiny. Providers have to explain more about the data, methods, conflicts and controls that produced the result. The rating can stay subjective. The process can't stay hidden.

A Canadian Firm Wins the Customer and Inherits the Rules 2027 to 2028

Now Canada's lighter model meets the export market. A Canadian provider can spend years building under domestic rules, hire a sales team and finally win the overseas client it wanted. Then compliance enters the deal. Britain may require FCA authorisation. Europe may require recognition, endorsement or another permitted path. Lawyers get involved. Controls get added. Contracts change. Someone has to own the relationship with the foreign regulator.

Winning the customer can become the moment the company inherits the regulation.

UK applications begin in 2027. Firms expecting at least £500,000 in ESG ratings revenue over the following 12 months apply first. Smaller providers follow. For a Canadian exporter, the size and timing of the sales pipeline can therefore affect when the FCA application work starts.

A firm serving both the UK and EU can reuse some people, controls and documentation. That should keep the second market from starting entirely from zero, but the two regimes remain separate and each still has its own entry requirements. It can reuse the work. It can't reuse the permission.

When Does Regulatory Divergence Start Costing Canada?

Canada gets a real benefit from staying lighter.

A young ratings or analytics company can spend more of its first dollars on product, hiring and customers instead of building a licence around a market that may still be small.

That works well while Canada is the market.

Then the company wants to scale.

A UK customer can bring FCA requirements into the sales process. A European customer can bring ESMA. The Canadian company starts hiring compliance staff, changing contracts, documenting methods and adding controls that Canada never asked it to build.

Copying the UK or EU isn't an obvious answer either.

A Canadian licence would cost money. Plenty of firms may never need one. Large global providers can spread that cost across thousands of customers. A startup can't.

But staying different isn't automatically free.

If every Canadian firm with global ambitions has to build around foreign rules anyway, Canada's lighter model starts saving less than it first appears.

Canada hasn't crossed that line by law. Some Canadian firms may cross it much sooner.

At what point does regulatory divergence stop saving Canadian firms money and start making international expansion more complicated?

Ottawa hasn't answered that question. Canadian firms trying to sell abroad may answer it first.

What Happens Next?
  • Will FCA and ESMA oversight help smaller providers win business, or make the biggest firms even harder to challenge?
  • How many Canadian firms will build around foreign rules without Canada ever creating its own ESG ratings licence?
  • When does an analytics tool become a rating as founders add scores, rankings and AI generated judgments?
  • Will Canadian exporters start treating UK and EU compliance as the real operating standard even while Canada stays lighter?
  • At what point would Canadian rules make foreign expansion easier instead of simply adding another cost at home?
What Did You Think?

Does Canada's lighter approach give ESG ratings firms a useful advantage, or does that advantage fade once the firms start selling into regulated UK and EU markets?

Share this story → Explore related intelligence → Subscribe


NCFA Canada logoThe 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

NCFA Financial Innovation MapNCFA Innovation Opportunity BriefsNCFA Fintech Insights
NCFA Fintech WhispererNCFA Fintech Fridays PodcastNCFA Weekly Newsletter

 

Who Gets Accredited for Canada’s Open Banking System?

November 3, 2026 | NCFA Regulatory Insight | Open Banking, Consumer Driven Banking, Fintech Regulation, Canada

AI illustration of a secure open banking accreditation gateway connecting banks and fintechs under Canada’s Consumer Driven Banking Framework

How High Will Canada Set the Bar for Open Banking Participation?

On November 2, 2026, the Bank of Canada launched a consultation on draft accreditation guidelines for Canada’s Consumer Driven Banking Framework. The framework is supposed to do more than make financial data sharing safer. The federal government has made competition, innovation and economic growth one of its three policy objectives, alongside consumer protection and financial system safety. That makes the accreditation bar more than a compliance question. How demanding the rules become will help determine which banks, fintechs and other providers participate, and how much real competition open banking ultimately produces.

That competitive promise depends on who can actually enter the system. Canada already has about nine million people sharing financial data through screen scraping, according to the federal framework, so there is an existing market for services that could move into regulated open banking. If accreditation is too expensive or difficult for credible fintechs to obtain, consumers may get safer data sharing without enough new providers to materially improve choice, pricing or service.

The Competition Bureau has warned about this risk for years. The Bureau's October 2026 submission on Canada’s draft Consumer Driven Banking Regulations says smaller fintechs, challenger banks, credit unions and emerging firms can face proportionately higher implementation and compliance costs, and that these costs can discourage entry or expansion. The Bureau supports strong safeguards but recommends that requirements reflect factors such as risk, size, activity and access to consumer data.

NCFA's Open Banking & Consumer-Driven Finance Interactive Intelligence has tracked the same tension across competition, accreditation, switching, innovation and global market design. The question now moving from policy into supervision is whether Canada can protect financial data without setting an entry bar that leaves too few challengers in the market.

What Is the Bank of Canada Consulting On?

On November 2, 2026, the Bank of Canada opened consultation on its first draft supervisory guidelines for accreditation.

Comments are due December 8, 2026, and the Bank specifically asks whether any part of the drafts needs clarification, would be difficult to implement, needs more examples or could “discourage voluntary participation.”

The consultation does not reopen the full Consumer Driven Banking Framework. It deals with how the Bank proposes to assess accreditation applications under the Consumer Driven Banking Act and proposed regulations. The two draft guidelines cover participating entities and accredited Third Party Service Providers, with later Bank consultations expected on other supervisory topics.

Which Accreditation Route Applies in Canada?

Canada proposes three accreditation routes for participating entities. The route depends largely on whether the applicant already operates inside another regulatory framework, while accredited Third Party Service Providers sit beside these three routes under a separate guideline.

1. Standard accreditation for independent applicants. This route applies generally to eligible corporations, trusts, partnerships, funds and other organizations that are not registered payment service providers or federally or provincially regulated financial institutions. The participating entity draft guideline requires the broadest evidence package under this route, including governance, security, technical compliance, consumer dashboards, complaints, insurance or guarantees, operations and national security information.

2. Streamlined accreditation for registered PSPs. Payment service providers already registered under the Retail Payment Activities Act can use a separate streamlined route. They still need to provide security, technical, insurance, governance, operating and national security evidence, but the Bank can rely on regulatory information and oversight that already exist rather than requiring every control to be established again from the beginning.

3. Streamlined accreditation for regulated financial institutions. Banks, authorized foreign banks, trust and loan companies, credit unions, caisses populaires, insurers and certain provincial Crown corporations can use the narrowest participating entity route. Their existing prudential regulation carries more of the supervisory burden, while the draft focuses particularly on technical compliance and a declaration from the responsible senior officer that required security safeguards are in place.

Accredited Third Party Service Providers (TPSPs) use a separate pathway. A TPSP is a company that performs specified technology or operational functions for an accredited participant. The TPSP draft guideline applies when a provider performs activities such as obtaining or managing consent, handling authentication, or providing or receiving consumer data. A software company does not need TPSP accreditation simply because it sells technology to a bank or fintech.

The structure already contains some proportionality. Firms with existing supervision get more streamlined treatment, while independent applicants carry more of the accreditation burden themselves. The unresolved competition question is whether prior regulatory status should be the main route to lower burden or whether lower risk independent fintechs should also have a staged way into the market.

What Will Applicants Need to Prove?

The standard route requires more than corporate information and a security policy. Applicants need an operating evidence file covering ownership, governance, responsible people, regulatory status, security safeguards, technical standards, consumer dashboards, complaints, insurance, expected activity and national security information. The Bank can also request more information while reviewing an application.

Security will require independent confirmation, but firms may be able to reuse credible work they already maintain. The draft says ISO 27001 certifications, SOC reports and NIST based assessments may support an application when an independent assessor maps that work to the Bank's safeguards and explains its scope and limitations. The Bank expects the confirmation to rely on an assessment completed within the previous 12 months.

Insurance also follows a risk based approach. Standard applicants and registered PSPs are expected to hold professional indemnity and cyber insurance, or comparable guarantees, but the Bank does not prescribe one coverage amount for everyone. Applicants need a documented methodology that considers factors such as data sensitivity, data volume, operating scale, complexity and potential losses from privacy, cyber or operational incidents.

Some important costs remain difficult to calculate. The draft guidelines say more information on accreditation fees and the web application process is forthcoming, and the participating entity guideline notes that the Technical Standards Body had not been designated when the draft was prepared. Firms can prepare much of their governance, security and insurance evidence now, but they still cannot fully map the cost and timing of accreditation.

How Do Canada, the UK and Australia Compare?

The UK and Australia show two different ways to make regulatory burden more proportional without removing consumer protection. Both markets allow firms to participate at different levels instead of requiring every company using open banking infrastructure to clear the highest regulatory bar itself.

The UK's Financial Conduct Authority allows a firm providing only account information services to use the registered account information service provider route. A business that combines account information with other regulated payment services needs authorization instead. Firms can also operate as registered agents on behalf of regulated principals. Those agents are part of the regulated ecosystem but do not hold the same independent authorization as their principal. They provide regulated services through that principal, which remains responsible for the activities covered by the arrangement.

Open Banking Limited reported 145 third party providers with live open banking propositions and another 406 registered agents in its 2025 impact report, with potentially thousands of additional firms using open banking data and payments through regulated providers. Open Banking Limited also reported more than 19 million active user connections and over 40 million open banking payments per month in 2026. That does not prove every UK regulatory choice should be copied, but it shows how participation can extend well beyond firms holding their own direct regulatory permission.

Australia goes further by creating several distinct participation routes through its Consumer Data Right accreditation framework. A firm can become fully accredited, obtain sponsored accreditation under a fully accredited sponsor, or participate without its own accreditation as a CDR representative under a written agreement with a fully accredited principal. Each step gives up some independence in exchange for a lower direct entry burden.

In 2025 to 26, Australia's competition regulator reported 30 active accredited data recipients and 178 active CDR representative arrangements. Representative arrangements are not the same as 178 unique companies, but the gap shows how much participation can occur outside full accreditation.

Issue Canada draft United Kingdom Australia Lessons for Canada
Full direct participation Independent participating entities can seek standard accreditation and participate directly Authorized providers can deliver the regulated open banking services covered by their permissions Unrestricted accreditation allows full participation, including collecting CDR data directly from data holders Canada already has a full direct route. The larger policy question is whether every credible new entrant should need to start there.
Lighter direct route Registered PSPs and regulated financial institutions receive streamlined treatment because another regulator already supervises them A firm limited to account information services can use registration rather than broader payment services authorization Sponsored accreditation reduces the evidence burden but requires an unrestricted accredited sponsor Canada has no comparable lighter route for an independent fintech based only on lower risk or a narrower activity. Streamlining is mainly reserved for firms already regulated elsewhere.
Participation without full direct approval TPSPs can perform specified functions for participating entities, but the draft does not create a broad representative route for an independent consumer facing fintech Registered agents can provide regulated services through an authorized principal without holding equivalent independent authorization themselves A CDR representative can offer its own goods or services to consumers without holding accreditation under a written arrangement with an unrestricted accredited principal Canada has no broad agent or representative route that lets an independent consumer facing fintech enter under another accredited firm's responsibility.
What the lighter route gives up Streamlining mainly benefits firms that have already entered another regulatory regime A narrower permission limits the regulated services the firm can provide independently, while an agent depends on its regulated principal A sponsored firm cannot collect CDR data directly from a data holder, while a representative depends on its accredited principal Canada currently gives smaller entrants less ability to trade independence for a lower entry burden. The UK and Australia make that tradeoff explicit.
Security evidence Standard applicants need independent confirmation, although existing ISO, SOC and NIST work may support the evidence Security and operational controls remain required under the account information registration route Sponsored applicants can self assess and attest to relevant information security compliance instead of providing the third party assurance report required for unrestricted accreditation Canada can consider whether every lower risk direct participant needs the same independent assurance burden at entry. A lighter route could still preserve security requirements.
Insurance and financial protection Relevant participating entities need professional indemnity and cyber insurance or comparable guarantees, with coverage tied to risk Registered account information providers still need professional indemnity insurance or a comparable guarantee Accredited recipients must demonstrate adequate insurance, while responsibility under representative arrangements sits with the accredited principal Lower entry burden does not require weaker financial protection. Canada could vary the route while keeping insurance and accountability requirements in place.
Evidence of participation The accreditation system has not launched, so Canada does not yet have participation results to compare 145 live third party providers plus 406 registered agents were reported in the 2025 Open Banking Limited impact report, with potentially thousands of other firms using open banking data and payments through regulated providers 30 active accredited data recipients and 178 active representative arrangements were reported for 2025 to 26 The UK and Australia show that participation can extend far beyond firms holding the highest level of direct approval. Canada has not yet created an equivalent ladder for independent entrants.
Independent fintech with no existing regulatory status Generally faces the standard participating entity route if it wants to participate directly May qualify for registration if it limits its regulated activity to account information services, or may operate through a regulated principal depending on its role Can seek sponsored accreditation or potentially participate without accreditation as a CDR representative This is Canada's clearest gap. A credible lower risk fintech with no existing regulatory history has no sponsored, representative or narrow activity based route comparable to those available in the UK or Australia.
Where responsibility sits under lighter entry Responsibility follows the statutory role of participating entities and TPSPs The regulated principal remains accountable for the regulated services provided through its registered agent The unrestricted accredited principal is responsible for its CDR representative, while a sponsor supports a firm using sponsored accreditation Canada could let a stronger accredited participant carry more responsibility for a smaller entrant. Australia shows one way to lower entry burden without leaving responsibility unclear.
Bottom line Canada is relatively lighter for firms already regulated, but more demanding for an independent fintech that wants to participate directly without that regulatory history. The UK allows participation at several levels. Directly regulated providers sit alongside hundreds of registered agents operating through regulated principals, plus a wider group of firms using open banking through regulated providers. Australia has the clearest participation ladder. Full accreditation, sponsored accreditation and representative arrangements let firms participate at different levels of independence and responsibility. Canada's draft leaves independent new entrants with fewer ways in. The main policy choice is whether to add a limited, sponsored or representative route without weakening security or accountability.

The comparison does not show that one country simply has weak rules and another has strong ones. The UK and Australia still require security, accountability and financial protection. The larger difference is how many ways a company can enter the ecosystem and how much independence it receives at each level.

In the UK, direct regulation is only one part of the market. Hundreds of registered agents operate through regulated principals, while a much larger group of firms can build open banking data or payment functionality into their products through regulated providers. Australia makes that ladder even more explicit. A firm can carry full accreditation, accept less independence under sponsored accreditation, or offer services as a representative while the accredited principal carries the regulatory responsibility.

Australia reported almost six active representative arrangements for every active accredited data recipient in 2025 to 26. That ratio should not be read as a direct count of companies or as proof that Australia's model is superior, but it does show that participation can become much broader when full accreditation is not the only practical entry point.

Canada already does something similar for registered PSPs and financial institutions by recognizing supervision they have completed elsewhere. The main gap is the independent fintech that creates limited risk but does not yet have a regulatory history that qualifies it for a streamlined route.

See: Canada Real-Time Rail Rules and Access

Also Canada already has a recent example of why voluntary participation cannot be taken for granted. BetaKit reported in October 2026 that none of Canada’s Big Six banks was then scheduled to participate in the first phase of the Real Time Rail, citing four fintech sector sources familiar with the rollout. The Real Time Rail and consumer driven banking are different systems, but the participation lesson is relevant. New financial infrastructure does not create competition by itself if major institutions or smaller providers decide the cost, timing or operating burden is not worth joining.

Could Canada's Entry Bar Limit Competition?

The Competition Bureau's October 23 submission puts that issue directly on the table. It supports strong accreditation, reporting, audit and security requirements but warns that fixed compliance costs can weigh more heavily on smaller firms and discourage entry or expansion.

The Bureau recommends considering requirements according to risk, size, activity and access to consumer data. It also suggests a provisional or tier based accreditation model that could let firms enter earlier under appropriate safeguards and move toward full accreditation as their operations and risk grow. Canada's current Bank draft does not create that model.

The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada found that switching barriers can reduce competitive pressure and weaken incentives for providers to compete on price and service. Consumer driven banking can improve comparison and portability, but those advantages are worth less if consumers don't have enough credible alternative providers to choose from.

NCFA's Canada Open Banking Rules and Regulations tracks the broader accreditation, security, liability and supervisory framework. The Bank's current consultation is where those rules begin translating into the practical cost of entering the market.

Canada does not need weaker protection to increase participation. It needs to decide whether security and accountability can remain firm while the pathway to meeting those outcomes varies with the activity, risk and maturity of the applicant. The UK and Australia show that proportionality can be built into market access rather than added after firms have already absorbed the full cost of entry.

How Long Could Accreditation Take?

The Bank does not promise a standard approval time. Once an application is complete, the Bank sends a copy to the Minister of Finance and begins its own review. The Minister has 60 days to decide whether a national security review is needed and can extend that decision period in additional 60 day periods.

If a national security review is opened, the review period is 180 days and can also be extended in additional 180 day periods. Not every applicant will undergo a full review, but the Bank cannot grant accreditation while the Minister's decision or review remains outstanding. Firms tying financing, hiring or product launches to accreditation need to plan for timing they cannot fully control.

See: Real Time Rail Puts Canada’s Productivity Test In Focus

A refused applicant can generally request review within 30 days. The Bank's delegated decision maker can accredit the applicant or confirm the refusal within 120 days after the applicant has had an opportunity to make representations, and a further appeal can go to Federal Court. Once applications begin moving through the system, publishing normal processing times would help founders and investors distinguish routine accreditation from exceptional delay.

What Should Firms Tell the Bank Before December 8?

The Bank wants written feedback by December 8, 2026. Respondents should identify themselves, use the subject line specified on the consultation page, identify the relevant part of the draft and explain the implementation issue as specifically as possible. Commercially sensitive information should only be submitted when it is clearly identified.

Fintechs should put numbers around the burden wherever they can. If security mapping needs 120 staff hours, another assurance exercise costs $40,000, insurance materially increases annual operating cost, or Canadian presence changes the economics of entry, those figures tell the Bank more than simply calling a requirement burdensome.

Registered PSPs and financial institutions should identify evidence another regulator already holds and where the Bank can safely avoid duplication.

Independent fintechs should explain whether a limited, provisional or sponsored route would change their ability or willingness to enter Canada, while TPSPs should identify where responsibility for consent, authentication and data handling remains unclear between provider and participating entity.

NCFA believes Canada should add a proportionate entry route for credible lower risk fintechs that are not already supervised under another regulatory regime. The UK and Australia show that this can be done without removing accountability. Canada should consider narrower permissions for narrower activities, sponsored participation through an accredited firm, or a representative model where a stronger regulated participant carries more responsibility while a younger company proves its product, controls and operating record before seeking full independent accreditation.

Bottom Line

A framework that protects data but attracts too few credible challengers will struggle to deliver the competition, consumer choice, innovation and pricing pressure that consumer driven banking was built to support. The December 8 consultation deadline gives industry a chance to influence that balance before the entry rules become embedded in Canada's open banking market. Responses can be emailed to SupervisionInfo@bank-banque-canada.ca


NCFA Canada logoThe 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

NCFA Financial Innovation MapNCFA Innovation Opportunity BriefsNCFA Fintech Insights
NCFA Fintech WhispererNCFA Fintech Fridays PodcastNCFA Weekly Newsletter

 

BDC Launches Mission AI to Help Canadian SMEs Adopt AI

November 2, 2026 | NCFA Market Activity | Artificial Intelligence And Data, SME Finance And Business Banking, Canada

AI illustration of Canadian SME team reviewing digital workflow charts and AI adoption tools in a collaborative workspace, illustrating BDC Mission AI and AI Studio for business productivity and financing efficiency

BDC Connects AI Adoption, SME Productivity and Financing

On November 2, 2026, the Business Development Bank of Canada BDC launched Mission AI and AI Studio to improve AI adoption and financing for Canadian SMEs. Mission AI will test Canadian AI products with small and medium sized businesses and measure whether they improve real business workflows. AI Studio is an internal BDC initiative that will also build and deploy AI inside the bank to make support and financing faster, simpler and easier for entrepreneurs to track.

BDC works with thousands of SMEs and, as of September 2026, was directly or indirectly invested in more than 300 Canadian AI companies representing nearly C$800 million in total investments. Mission AI connects Canadian AI suppliers with SME buyers. AI Studio applies AI to BDC's own lending and service operations, where document collection, analysis, underwriting and servicing all carry costs.

According to BDC, 69% of Canadian SMEs are AI Novices, meaning they use AI rarely or not at all. Another 83% remain in the learning phase and only 5% qualify as AI Leaders with AI deeply integrated into operations and decisions. BDC's June 2026 AI and digital transformation research found that 30% of SMEs use generative AI and that users in its study were 24% more productive than nonusers. The 24% figure is an observed difference, not proof that AI caused the full gain.

Mission AI Targets the Gap Between Trying AI and Using It

Mission AI starts with business problems rather than software. BDC plans to identify common SME needs, find Canadian AI products that address them and test those products with panels of entrepreneurs. Examples include preparing quotes in minutes instead of hours, processing invoices, following up on sales opportunities and using AI agents for routine customer questions and bookings.

Dominic Gagnon, Managing Director of Mission AI, says “An entrepreneur should not have to become an AI expert to benefit from it.” BDC plans to use real deployments and measurable results to show other businesses which products work and how they can be implemented.

An SME owner still has to decide whether a product is credible, whether it works with existing systems, how much staff time implementation will consume and whether the expected gain justifies the cost. If the same Canadian product repeatedly cuts quoting time, invoice handling or administrative work across comparable businesses, the next buyer has operating proof instead of a vendor claim. BDC has not said Mission AI products will be free or offered at discounted prices, so affordability will still matter once a business moves beyond testing. Mission AI can therefore reach businesses that are much earlier in AI adoption than the firms eligible for BDC's larger technology financing programs.

BDC's C$500 million LIFT program is more selective. Its digital transformation and AI stream is available to Canadian businesses with at least C$1 million in annual revenue, demonstrated profitability, a strong financial foundation and solid credit history. A BDC Advisory Services digital plan is mandatory, and financing ranges from C$25,000 to C$2 million for eligible investments including data infrastructure, AI implementation, enterprise systems, cybersecurity, training and integration.

The 2026 Bank of England and FCA AI survey shows how adoption changes as firms move further into deployment. Some 86% of responding UK financial firms use AI. Among firms completing the short survey, 73% use AI and 64% report current or planned use in operations. These are regulated financial firms rather than Canadian SMEs, so the percentages are not directly comparable.

Only around 7% of the AI systems reported by UK firms were considered highly material. Integration into existing business processes remained a major constraint. High adoption did not remove the harder work of integration, controls and human oversight.

BDC's digital research puts more numbers beside Canada's AI Productivity Test Is Execution: 96% of Canadian SMEs use at least one digital technology, but only 23% have high or very high digital maturity. BDC estimates Canadian GDP could eventually be nearly 14%, or C$350 billion, higher if SMEs reached the digital maturity of the most advanced firms. The estimate covers digital maturity broadly rather than AI alone.

BDC Could Become a Distribution Channel for Canadian AI

Canadian AI companies need customers, implementation evidence and repeatable sales channels. Selling one small business at a time can be expensive because SME buyers are fragmented, contract values are smaller and each customer may need help deciding whether an unfamiliar product is worth adopting. BDC already has relationships on both sides of that transaction. Its AI portfolio includes companies working in robotics simulation, mining, regulatory intelligence, health and procurement, while its SME client base provides businesses where products can be tested against operating problems.

A product that performs well across several Mission AI businesses can produce more than a case study. The vendor can see which customer profile gets the strongest result, how long implementation takes, where adoption stalls and which operating result convinces a customer to keep paying. That information can lower customer acquisition costs and make subsequent sales easier.

BDC could become a validation and distribution layer between Canadian AI suppliers and the SME market. Successful vendors get operating evidence and customer access. SMEs get a lower risk way to evaluate products that may otherwise be difficult to compare. That also pushes BDC closer to work already performed by private AI advisors, software marketplaces, consultants and systems integrators. BDC describes its development role as market complementary, but Mission AI will source, validate and help scale selected AI products. If that process becomes an important route to SME customers, BDC will need to show that it is filling an adoption gap rather than displacing private firms that can already perform the same function.

BDC also has financial exposure to hundreds of Canadian AI companies while Mission AI will select products for use with participating SMEs. Clear vendor selection criteria, comparable performance measures and disclosure of any preference given to portfolio companies would help preserve confidence in the results. BDC has not yet published that level of operating detail.

AI Studio Targets SME Lending Friction Inside BDC

AI Studio is not a separate private company. Technology entrepreneur Raff Paquin will lead it. BDC cites his experience across Shopify, Lightspeed, Altitude Sports, Frank And Oak and Return Magic. His current LinkedIn profile identifies Panorama as his main affiliation rather than BDC.

Paquin says “We'll focus on tools that help our clients get answers faster, access financing sooner and spend less time on administration.” BDC says AI Studio is intended to reduce time to money while giving entrepreneurs better visibility and predictability during financing.

A BDC small business loan application begins with an eligibility check and information about the company, its leadership and shareholders. BDC may require financial information and supporting documents before completing its review, and applications remain subject to a full assessment of the business and its owners.

For loans up to C$100,000, BDC says applicants are more likely to qualify when the business has at least C$100,000 in annual revenue, a personal credit score of 600 or higher, current profits and at least 24 months in business. BDC advertises approval in less than 10 days when the required information is supplied. For loans above C$100,000 and up to C$350,000, the revenue guideline rises to C$250,000 and BDC advertises approval in less than 30 days.

AI Studio can reduce work surrounding the credit decision. Applications can be checked for missing information before an advisor opens the file. Documents can be classified and summarized. Financial data can be extracted without repeated manual entry. Inconsistencies can be identified earlier and routine status questions can be handled without another staff handoff. Advisors can spend more time assessing the borrower and less time assembling the file.

The Bank of England and FCA survey shows a similar pattern inside regulated financial firms. Operations and IT account for about 31% of reported AI systems and 80% of respondents use AI agents for decision support. Even including planned adoption, no more than 9% expect agents to approve or decline customer outcomes, initiate or block payments, execute trades or change limits and controls. Automation is moving deeper into the work around financial decisions while autonomy over consequential decisions remains limited.

BDC has not said AI Studio will approve loans, lower credit standards or change approval authority. Faster processing is not the same as easier credit. The fintech opportunity is lower origination and servicing costs, better information flow and less administrative friction without removing human judgment from credit decisions.

BDC has already been increasing its exposure to borrowers outside standard lending models. Its 2026 annual reporting says the bank holds a higher share of younger and higher risk businesses and is leaning further into its development mandate. BDC separately reported that the dollar value of transactions authorized to elevated risk businesses was 21% higher in fiscal 2026 than in fiscal 2020.

Its 2025 results also reported that businesses with less than C$2 million in annual sales represented 68% of its portfolio and that BDC had tripled the number of small loans since fiscal 2010. BDC said it had deliberately increased financing for unconventional business models and borrowers with weaker equivalent credit grades.

Smaller and less conventional borrowers can require more analysis even when the eventual loan is modest. A young technology company, a business with uneven cash flow or a firm without a long credit history may take more work to assess than an established borrower with predictable earnings. Better document processing can lower the cost per file, while better information can give an advisor more time to understand the business and the risks that matter.

BDC, Woveo, Peloton and Driven SME Financing also shows why small loan economics matter. Verification, underwriting and servicing costs do not fall in proportion to the loan size, which can make smaller financing expensive to deliver.

The strongest outcome would be better SME credit decisions, not just faster processing. If AI helps BDC assess smaller and less conventional businesses more accurately while lowering the cost of each file, AI Studio could improve both access to capital and lending efficiency.


NCFA Canada logoThe 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

NCFA Financial Innovation MapNCFA Innovation Opportunity BriefsNCFA Fintech Insights
NCFA Fintech WhispererNCFA Fintech Fridays PodcastNCFA Weekly Newsletter