Organizations often struggle with managing expenses due to the manual, time-consuming, and prone to delays, errors, and misuse. In a recent podcast, Susie Shyatt, Business Development Executive at B4B Payments, and Hugh Thomas, Lead Commercial Payments Analyst at Javelin Strategy & Research, discussed common challenges businesses face in managing expenses and how embedded payments can help streamline this inefficient process. One of the most common issues in the expense management process is employees being required to use their own funds to cover company expenses. This requires sufficient funds, which can be challenging for costly business trips involving airfare and hotel stays. Additionally, once the employee returns, they must provide documentation for their expenses, which then needs to be manually processed, leading to delays or errors in reimbursement. There is also the risk of abuse in the process, which has been inadvertently encouraged by management. Embedded payments technology can help organizations reduce the amount of time finance personnel spend processing expense documentation, freeing them up to focus on more strategic tasks. It also gives organizations greater control over how funds are being spent, as there is often a lack of transparency into how and where those funds are sourced when using personal funds to cover expenses. Removing the inertia barrier is crucial for organizations to adopt embedded payments in the expense management process. The first step for these organizations is to take a deep dive into their expense management process from end to end. They should talk to their accounts payable and payroll staff, as well as any employee who regularly participates in the expense reimbursement program, and identify the true pain points in their current process. Once the organization has identified its needs, it can begin to address the inefficiencies in this critical function. Knowing exactly what you need not only helps with efficiencies within your company but also helps with cost savings as well.
Lessons learned from agentic AI leaders enterprise leaders now report more complex ROI patterns that demand different technical architectures
On day two of VB Transform 2025, a panel moderated by Joanne Chen, general partner at Foundation Capital, included Shawn Malhotra, CTO at Rocket Companies, Shailesh Nalawadi, head of product at Sendbird, and Thys Waanders, SVP of AI transformation at Cognigy; shared discovery: Companies that build evaluation and orchestration infrastructure first are successful, while those rushing to production with powerful models fail at scale. A key part of engineering AI agent for success is understanding the return on investment (ROI). Early AI agent deployments focused on cost reduction. While that remains a key component, enterprise leaders now report more complex ROI patterns that demand different technical architectures. For Cognigy, Waanders noted that cost per call is a key metric. He said that if AI agents are used to automate parts of those calls, it’s possible to reduce the average handling time per call. Saving is one thing; making more revenue is another. Malhotra reported that his team has seen conversion improvements: As clients get the answers to their questions faster and have a good experience, they are converting at higher rates. Nalawadi highlighted entirely new revenue capabilities through proactive outreach. His team enables proactive customer service, reaching out before customers even realize they have a problem. While there are solid ROI opportunities for enterprises that deploy agentic AI, there are also some challenges in production deployments. Nalawadi identified the core technical failure: Companies build AI agents without evaluation infrastructure. He noted that it’s just not possible to predict every possible input or write comprehensive test cases for natural language interactions. Nalawadi’s team learned this through customer service deployments across retail, food delivery and financial services. Standard quality assurance approaches missed edge cases that emerged in production. “We have a feature that we’re releasing soon that is about simulating potential conversations,” Waanders explained. “So it’s essentially AI agents testing AI agents.” The approach tests demographic variations, emotional states and edge cases that human QA teams can’t cover comprehensively.
Audos offers methodology for identifying promising everyday entrepreneurs and match their unique expertise with viable AI business opportunities using a framework that aligns personal strengths with business opportunity
Audos announced $11.5 million in combined Pre-Seed and Seed funding. Audos helps solo entrepreneurs quickly turn their expertise into business opportunities through a unique combination of AI tools, human support, and capital. Audos’ Program focuses on four key pillars: The Million-Dollar Business Model: A codified methodology from successful entrepreneurs to identify promising everyday entrepreneurs and match their unique expertise with viable AI business opportunities using a proprietary framework that aligns personal strengths with business opportunity. The result is a focus on founder-market fit, profitability, sustainability, and solving real problems from day one. Rapid Market Validation Through Doing: Helping entrepreneurs offer real services immediately instead of just testing concepts, handling technical implementation and customer acquisition so entrepreneurs can focus on relationships. The Audos Program: An all-in-one system combining human expertise with AI tools. Based on success patterns from the founders’ dozens of successful start-ups, the program helps entrepreneurs discover their business concept, identify and target customers, and create AI applications that operate 24/7 across multiple channels. The program’s agentic capabilities unlock a business’s potential through features including automated customer service, actionable insights, autopilot functions, and strategic iterative updates based on growth opportunities and customer data. Aligned Capital & Support: A model where Audos succeeds only when entrepreneurs succeed, providing flexible financing capital, support, and shared upside within a community of founders. The approach provides day-one resources with no personal risk through a revenue-sharing system, allowing entrepreneurs to grow at their own pace.
Traditional distinctions between private labels and national brands have become so subtle that most consumers can’t tell the difference
Private-label brands are creating shopper confusion, according to a new study from global retail platform First Insight. The study indicates that traditional distinctions between private labels and national brands have become so subtle that most consumers can’t tell the difference. Results show that 71% of surveyed consumers believed they could recognize a private label when making a purchase, but 72% failed to do so when shown side-by-side images of store-brand and national-brand products. The new data adds an interesting angle to Mondelez International’s claim that Aldi is violating trademark law by selling private-label versions of some of its most popular products. Mondelez International is now suing Aldi, claiming the discount grocer copied its packaging designs. “Defendant’s actions are likely to deceive and confuse consumers and dilute the distinctive quality of Mondelez’s unique product packaging, and if not stopped, threaten to irreparably harm Mondelez and its valuable brands,” the lawsuit states. The First Insight study shows that shoppers enjoy finding “the dupe.” 47% of consumers say they’ve tried a private-label product specifically because it was a duplicate of a name-brand item. In addition, 44% of shoppers—including 70% of those earning more than $150,000 per year—say they’re more likely to try a private label if it’s marketed as a dupe of a high-end product. Private label also continues to gain a strong foothold in the grocery marketplace. “Shoppers aren’t loyal to brand names the way they used to be,” said Greg Petro, CEO of First Insight. “They’re loyal to price, quality, and marketing. This creates a highly competitive arena where the best—yet not necessarily the most well-known—brands will win.”
Anthropic institutes program that probes ‘good and bad’ of AI to study AI impact and disruption of the labor market
Anthropic has debuted a program to study AI impact on the labor market. The AI company’s Economic Futures Program will also help come up with policy proposals to ready the world for this economic shift. “Everybody’s asking questions about what are the economic impacts [of AI], both positive and negative,” Sarah Heck, head of policy programs and partnerships at Anthropic, told. “It’s really important to root these conversations in evidence and not have predetermined outcomes or views on what’s going to [happen].” The report noted that among the prominent figures to offer their views on the potential economic impact of AI is Dario Amodei, Anthropic’s chief executive. Last month, he predicted AI could eliminate half of all entry-level white-collar jobs and send unemployment to as high as 20% in the coming years. When asked if one of the goals of the program was to research ways to alleviate AI-related job loss, Heck was “cautious,” the report said, arguing that the disruptive shifts AI will bring could be “both good and bad.” “I think the key goal is to figure out what is actually happening,” she said. “If there is job loss, then we should convene a collective group of thinkers to talk about mitigation. If there will be huge GDP expansion, great. We should also convene policy makers to figure out what to do with that. I don’t think any of this will be a monolith.”
U.S. Bank moves Global Corporate Trust clients to a new trust accounting system that allows transactions across multiple markets and currencies and no longer requires manual intervention to initiate overnight investment of cash
U.S. Bank Global Corporate Trust clients received account statements that looked notably different than ones in the past. They had a fresh, modern look that delivered more details on their accounts than before. The new statements were just one of the many improvements for the client and employee experience courtesy of a migration to a new trust accounting system, SEI Wealth Platform (SWP). The undertaking represents nearly six years of strategic planning and execution to upgrade to a cutting-edge and scalable new platform that allows transactions across multiple markets and currencies, better aligning with the demands of the bank’s global client base. The new SWP platform “incorporates multiple surround systems under a single platform, allowing us to better serve, grow and provide the latest technology solutions to meet our and our clients’ needs well into the future,” said Jeffrey Awsumb, head of Wealth, Corporate, Commercial and Institutional Banking (WCIB) product transformation and program sponsor. One of the internal benefits of the new SWP system is it no longer requires manual intervention to initiate overnight investment of cash in an account, said Ilias Gerontidis, a senior vice president in Global Corporate Trust whose team led the business through the transition. Now, once the account is turned on for “sweep,” the system will initiate that processing once cash is deposited into the account. “This saves time and effort, and mitigates the risk of internal teams not initiating the buy transaction in a timely manner,” Gerontidis said. As of the end of January, more than 192,000 accounts have been migrated to SWP. The first major client conversion took place in September 2022, with 10,000 accounts transitioning, and continued in large batches over the next several years before concluding in the U.S. in January. The bank plans to migrate Global Corporate Trust in Europe next. Part of the reason the upgrade took so long was the bank wanted to minimize the disruption to clients, which meant picking a three-day weekend at the end of the month and avoiding the first month after a quarter ended. The migration also involved training hundreds of employees both on their day-to-day usage of the new system and their specific business line needs.
Chime’s IPO price hype has fizzled out owing to the risk from stablecoins, which may pose a direct threat to Chime’s fundamental business model
The fintech firm Chime Financial went public about two weeks ago. Despite the stock rising nearly 40% above its IPO price of $27 to start at $43, it has since faced a steep decline, trading at approximately $29 as of Tuesday. Although post-IPO fluctuations are common, there are valid concerns regarding Chime stock. The risk seems to arise from stablecoins, which may pose a direct threat to Chime’s fundamental business model. Last week, the Senate approved the stablecoin bill, establishing a framework to regulate these digital currencies that are linked to the U.S. dollar. This action is anticipated to provide legitimacy to this cryptocurrency sector, thus increasing competition against traditional and digital-first financial service providers. Stablecoins effectively merge the dependability and stability of fiat currency with the rapidity, transparency, and programmability linked with cryptocurrencies and blockchains. They also have the potential to lower transaction costs compared to conventional financial systems. Chime might be at a greater risk compared to other financial entities. Chime operates as a neobank—essentially a digital-first banking institution that does not utilize physical branches. While several payment stocks, such as Visa and Mastercard, experienced declines following the bill’s approval, they have largely managed to recover those losses. Investors believe these well-established payment companies will adapt swiftly, given their extensive merchant networks and proactive investigation of blockchain systems. In contrast, Chime has a more limited business model. It concentrates on providing low-cost financial services through modern, mobile-first interfaces. This strategy has appealed to younger customers and under-served demographics, particularly those who are deterred by the fees and requirements imposed by traditional banks. However, these consumers are also more price-sensitive and tech-oriented, making them more inclined to adopt stablecoins if they present even greater convenience or savings. It’s important to note that Chime already has a no-fee structure, provides early access to direct deposits, and offers a streamlined app experience, differentiating it from many traditional banks. Nevertheless, these unique features may not suffice if stablecoin-based options emerge that provide near-instant settlements or integrated payment and savings functionalities. Furthermore, Chime has a relatively straightforward business model, primarily generating revenue through interchange fees—small charges that merchants incur when a customer uses a Chime card.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac revamp their JV as fintech venture to reflect a new role in which it will sell access to the mortgage-backed securities platform to others
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac unveiled a new strategy for their legacy joint venture, aligning with priorities set by President Trump and their federal overseer. Their Common Securitization Solutions JV will be renamed U.S. Financial Technology to reflect a new role in which it will sell access to the mortgage-backed securities platform used to manage their $6.5 trillion portfolio to others. “We created U.S. Fin Tech to demonstrate the incredible ingenuity of American technology under President Trump’s leadership,” said Pulte, who also has similarly rebranded the Federal Housing Finance Agency he heads. The repositioning of the securities platform might be a step toward releasing the GSEs from conservatorship. “One area that is complicated and difficult under any release from conservatorship is the common securitization platform,” said Dworkin. “Under its current structure where it’s exclusively available to both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that presents probably insurmountable antitrust issues.” Spinning off the securities platform could address the issue. This would require launching “a real IPO and then have an independent board manage and govern the CSP, which would become essentially a utility company,” Dworkin said. “Spinning off the CSP gives you additional value for the CSP itself, and it likely enhances the value of the enterprises, because it adds value to their MBS,” he said. That strategy could play a role in addressing a goal related to finding a way to better monetize the GSEs, although it may not be entirely in line with the thinking of those who want Fannie and Freddie to be more like other private companies that trade publicly.
FinCEN allows banks to collect tax identification number (TIN) information from a third party rather than from the financial institution’s customer
The Treasury Department has debuted rule changes designed to help banks maintain compliance. The department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). The department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued an order Friday (June 27) that allows banks to collect tax identification number (TIN) information from a third party rather than from the financial institution’s customer. “We recognize that the way customers interact with banks and receive financial services has changed significantly since 2001, when the initial requirement was enacted into law under the USA PATRIOT Act,” FinCEN Director Andrea Gacki said. “This order reduces burden by providing banks with greater flexibility in determining how to fulfill their existing regulatory obligations without presenting a heightened risk of money laundering, terrorist financing, or other illicit finance activity.” FinCEN issued the order in coordination with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), and the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA). The order lets banks that are under these agencies jurisdiction use an alternative collection method to obtain TIN information from a third-party rather than from the customer, so long as the bank otherwise adheres to the Customer Identification Program (CIP) Rule. That rule, requires written procedures that allow a bank to obtain TIN information prior to opening an account and “are based on the bank’s assessment of the relevant risks.”
58% of US banks now use both RTP network and FedNow embracing a multi-rail strategy for real-time payments, no longer viewing adoption as a choice between networks
PYMNTS report reveals a shift in the U.S. financial landscape: banks are embracing a multi-rail strategy for real-time payments, no longer viewing adoption as a choice between The Clearing House’s private RTP® network and the Federal Reserve’s public FedNow® Service. This strategic pivot is driven by the imperative to enhance speed, flexibility, and customer satisfaction. By leveraging both networks, financial institutions (FIs) can tap into their respective strengths, ensuring reliable, seamless service regardless of back-end disruptions, thereby boosting trust and minimizing operational risks. This multi-rail approach enhances flexibility for FIs, enabling them to support diverse transaction needs and expand their real-time payment reach across a broader range of customers. This shift reflects rising consumer expectations for seamless, always-on payment experiences and the critical need for resilience in payment infrastructure. Fifty-eight percent of U.S. financial institutions that enable instant payments do so through both the RTP network and the FedNow Service, indicating that a multi-rail approach has become the norm rather than the exception. This marks a change from earlier views, where choosing between the two rails was seen as a barrier to adoption. Consumer preference for speed is overwhelmingly clear, with 90% of individuals stating they would prefer to receive disbursements instantly if given the choice. Moreover, 94% of consumers who chose instant payments reported high satisfaction, significantly higher than the 80% satisfaction reported by those who did not use instant payments. The distinct capabilities of the two networks are being leveraged by FIs: The RTP network supports transactions up to $10 million, while the FedNow Service’s cap will rise from $500,000 to $1 million this summer. This difference in transaction limits, alongside the RTP network’s longer operational history and higher daily payment volume (1.2 million vs. FedNow’s 14,500), illustrates how combining them allows FIs to meet a wider array of customer needs.