Financial Services Regulations: A look back and a look ahead

by Kerry Rivera 4 min read November 3, 2016

financial-services-regulatory

It’s been a wild ride for the financial services industry over the past eight years. After the mortgage meltdown, the Great Recession and a stagnant economy … well, one could say the country had seen better days.

Did you watch The Big Short last winter? It all came crumbling down.

And then President Barack Obama entered the scene. Change was needed. More oversight introduced. Suddenly, we had the Affordable Care Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act and the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Taxes were raised on the country’s highest earners for the first time since the late-1990s. In essence, the pendulum swung hard and fast to a new era of tightened and rigorous regulation.

Fast forward to present day and we find ourselves on the cusp of transitioning to new leadership for the country. A new president, new cabinet, new leaders in Congress.

What will it all mean for financial services regulations?

It’s helpful to initially take a look back at the key regulations that have been introduced over the past eight years.

Mortgage Reform: Long gone are the days of obtaining a quick mortgage.  New rules have required loan originators to verify and document the consumer’s income and assets, including employment status (if relied upon), existing debt obligations, mortgage-related obligations, alimony and child support. The CFPB has also expanded foreclosure protections for struggling borrowers and homeowners. Maintaining the health of the mortgage industry is important for the entire country, and updated rules have enhanced the safety and transparency of the mortgage market. Home values have largely recovered from the darkest days, but some question whether the underwriting criteria have become too strict.

Combatting Fraud: The latest cyber-attack trends and threats come fast and furious. Thus, regulators are largely addressing the challenge by expecting banks to adhere to world-class standards from organizations such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) implemented the Red Flags Rule in November 2008. It requires institutions to establish policies and procedures to identify and recognize red flags — i.e., patterns, practices or specific activities that indicate the possible existence of identity theft — that occur during account-opening activities, existing account maintenance and new activity on an account that has been inactive for two or more years.

Loss Forecasting: The Dodd-Frank Act Requires the Federal Reserve to conduct an annual stress test of bank holding companies (BHCs), savings and loan holding companies, state member banks, and nonbank financial institutions. In October 2012, the Fed Board adopted the Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) rules. This requires banks with assets of $50 billion or more to submit to an annual review centered on a supervisory stress test to gauge capital adequacy. In January 2016, Dodd-Frank Act Stress Testing (DFAST) was introduced, requiring bank holding companies with assets of $10 billion or more to conduct separate annual stress tests known as “company-run tests” using economic scenarios. Every year regulators expect to see continued improvement in stress-testing models and capital-planning approaches as they raise the bar on what constitutes an acceptable practice.

CFPB: No longer the new kids on the block, the CFPB has transitioned to an entity that has its tentacles into every aspect of consumer financial products. Mortgage lending was one of their first pursuits, but they have since dug into “ability-to-pay underwriting” and servicing standards for auto loans, credit cards and add-on products sold through third-party vendors. Now they are looking into will likely be the next “bubble,” – student lending – and educating themselves about online marketplace lending.

Data Quality: Expectations related to data quality, risk analytics, and regulatory reporting have risen dramatically since the financial downturn. Inaccuracy in data is costly and harmful, slows down the industry, and creates frustration. In short, it’s bad for consumers and the industry. It’s no secret that financial institutions rely on the accuracy of credit data to make the most informed decisions about the creditworthiness of their customers. With intense scrutiny in this area, many financial institutions have created robust teams to handle and manage requirements and implement sound policies surrounding data accuracy.

This is merely a sliver of the multiple regulations introduced and strengthened over the past eight years. Is there a belief that the regulatory pendulum might take a swing to other side with new leadership? Unlikely. The agenda for 2017 largely centers on the need to improve debt collections practices, enhance access to credit for struggling Americans, and the need for ongoing monitoring of the fintech space.

Only time will tell, but one thing is certain. Anyone involved in financial services needs to keep a watchful eye on the ever-evolving world of regulation and Washington.

Related Posts

Are Fraudsters Building Better Identities Than Your Customers?

Fraudsters are getting surprisingly good at onboarding. Sometimes, better than your customers. Legitimate customers treat onboarding like an errand. They start an application between other tasks, get distracted, forget a password, switch devices, upload a document or come back later to finish. Their digital lives aren’t always linear, because real life isn’t either. Fraudsters approach onboarding differently. For them, opening an account is the objective. Every interaction is designed to increase the odds of success. The difference raises an uncomfortable question hanging over onboarding: What exactly are we rewarding? When smooth becomes suspicious Digital onboarding has traditionally rewarded experiences that feel smooth, consistent and complete. The challenge is that legitimate customers rarely behave that way. Most people approach onboarding somewhere between mildly distracted and mildly annoyed. They pause halfway through because dinner is burning. They reopen an old account only to realize everything is attached to an email they made in college and, somehow, still use for airline receipts. Digital life accumulates history unevenly, because ordinary life does too. Fraudsters have every reason to eliminate those inconsistencies. Applications may be rehearsed. Identity attributes are assembled deliberately. Contact points are prepared in advance. Every interaction is optimized to make the application appear credible. Ironically, the qualities organizations often associate with confidence — clean submissions, steady progression and few corrections — can also describe applications that have been carefully engineered to pass inspection. The challenge isn't that smooth onboarding is meaningless. It's that smooth onboarding, by itself, doesn't tell the whole story. Context changes interpretation A smooth onboarding experience should be the beginning of the evaluation, not the end. Behavior provides important context. How someone moves through an application can reveal whether the experience feels naturally human or unusually orchestrated. Do they interact naturally? Do they hesitate, correct mistakes or navigate in ways that resemble ordinary human behavior? Or does the session appear unusually scripted, automated or repetitive? Identity verification adds another layer. Matching information across trusted sources, validating identity details and strengthening confidence in account creation remain important, particularly when onboarding decisions carry financial, fraud or customer experience consequences. But verification largely answers a point-in-time question: Does this information match right now? A third layer comes from digital history. An inbox attached to years of airline receipts, loyalty accounts, subscription renewals, account recovery, financial notifications and familiar digital routines introduces a different kind of confidence. Legitimate digital identities leave behind patterns of persistence and engagement that develop gradually over time. Fraudsters can assemble convincing identity attributes, but creating years of ordinary digital life is much harder. Building confidence in an identity requires more than verifying information submitted during a single onboarding session. It requires understanding whether the identity reflects a broader history that supports what the application suggests. A multilayered approach builds stronger identity confidence No single signal can provide a complete view of identity risk. Organizations need multiple sources of confidence that reinforce one another. That's the thinking behind our approach: combining behavioral intelligence, identity verification and digital identity continuity into a more complete view of risk. We bring these complementary layers together through: • NeuroID adds behavioral context during onboarding and account creation, helping identify interaction patterns that may indicate automation, manipulation or coordinated fraud. • Precise ID® strengthens identity verification and resolution by comparing applicant information with trusted identity data. • AtData, recently added to our portfolio, contributes email-centered intelligence based on persistence, engagement and long-term digital history. Together, these capabilities help organizations move beyond evaluating a single moment in time to understanding whether an identity is supported by consistent behavior, trusted identity data and an established digital history. The future of fraud prevention isn't about rewarding the smoothest application. It's about recognizing the most trustworthy identity. Fraudsters can rehearse an application. They can optimize an onboarding journey. They can even assemble convincing identity attributes. What they can't easily manufacture is years of ordinary digital life. That's why digital identity continuity has become an important layer of modern fraud prevention. Combined with identity verification and behavioral intelligence, it helps organizations distinguish between identities that simply look convincing and those supported by a history that is much harder to fake. Learn more Contact us

September 2, 2026 by Julie Lee
From Hybrids to Refinancing: Consumers are Finding New Roads to Vehicle Affordability

For today’s automotive consumers, considering a vehicle purchase isn’t just about the price they see on the window, it’s about finding the right combination of their vehicle preference and monthly payment. In fact, data from Experian Automotive’s State of the Automotive Finance Market Report: Q2 2026 highlighted how affordability continues to shape the automotive finance market. For instance, hybrids offered the lowest average new vehicle loan payment across all fuel types, coming in at $646 in Q2 2026, compared to electric vehicles (EVs) at $692, and gasoline-powered vehicles at $721. This led to considerable growth in new vehicle market share for hybrids this quarter, accounting for 16.80%, from 12.99% last year. While the automotive market continues to offer consumers an expanding mix of fuel types, the combination of growing hybrid share and comparatively lower monthly payments is something worth watching. Affordability isn’t just about what consumers drive, it’s how they finance it While hybrid vehicles are continuing to pave their way in the vehicle market, consumers who already have an auto loan are finding greater savings through refinancing. In the second quarter of 2026, automotive refinancing reached approximately 140,000 loans. More notably, the financial benefit associated with refinancing has grown. Consumers who refinanced this quarter reduced their average interest rate by more than 2.4%, with the average rate moving from 10.40% on the original loan to 7.97% on the refinanced loan. Those rate reductions translated into meaningful monthly savings, especially when refinancing through particular lenders. In Q2 2026, refinancing saved consumers an average of $83 per month, compared to an average monthly savings of $64 this time last year. However, credit unions delivered the largest average payment difference among lender types at $102 this quarter, followed by banks ($65), and finance companies ($38). It’s important for automotive professionals to acknowledge that affordability is not a single moment in the vehicle journey. It can influence the vehicle a consumer chooses, the financing they opt for during that transaction, and the decisions they make years after driving off the lot. Understanding and leveraging those different moments can help professionals identify opportunities to better serve consumers throughout the vehicle ownership lifecycle. To learn more about automotive finance trends, view the full State of the Automotive Finance Market Report: Q2 2026 presentation on demand.

August 27, 2026 by Melinda Zabritski
AI Agent Identity Verification: How to Verify AI Agents in Digital Transactions

AI agents are changing the way consumers interact with businesses online. Learn how you can establish greater confidence in AI transactions.

August 26, 2026 by Laura Burrows

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Enter your name and email for the latest updates.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Don't miss out on the latest industry trends and insights!
Subscribe