FFIEC Archives - Safe Systems

11 May 2023

Banks, Compliance, Credit Unions The Safe Systems Compliance Team 0 comment

The Importance of Effective Third-party Management

As financial institutions increasingly rely on outsourced providers, third-party management is becoming a more critical aspect of managing risk. Institutions depend on third-party providers for a variety of essential services, including technology, operations, and marketing. And while these entities offer significant benefits, such as cost savings and improved efficiency, they also pose a substantial risk. We often refer to this as “inherited” risk, as institutions will inherit the residual risk of the third party. If not properly identified, measured, and addressed, inherited risk can expose financial institutions to threats such as regulatory non-compliance, operational downtime, and reputational damage. However, institutions can successfully mitigate many of these risks by ensuring that they thoroughly vet outside providers prior to engagement, properly structure contracts, and employ ongoing monitoring and reporting.

Key Elements

The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) has issued guidelines for managing vendor relationships effectively. These standards emphasize the importance of several key elements, including:

Due diligence: Financial institutions must evaluate vendors’ financial stability, reputation, and regulatory compliance prior to engagement. This includes assessing vendors’ security controls, data protection policies, and disaster recovery plans.
Contract management: Vendor agreements should clearly outline the scope of work, deliverables, and performance metrics. They should also include provisions for termination, dispute resolution, data disposal, and indemnification.
Ongoing monitoring: Financial institutions must regularly monitor their third parties to ensure that they continue to meet contractual obligations and regulatory requirements. This includes periodic risk assessments, reviewing vendor reports, and could even include conducting on-site visits.
Risk assessment: Institutions should assess the level of risk associated with each vendor relationship based on the services provided, the vendor’s access to sensitive data, and the potential impact of vendor failure. Doing so can help financial institutions allocate resources more effectively to minimize potential risks.
Board and management oversight: Third-party management should be an ongoing topic of discussion at the board and management levels. This includes not only approving policies and procedures, but also reviewing risk assessments and monitoring reports, and making decisions about initiatives that require new vendor relationships.

Common Misconception

Risk management requires first identifying the risk’s source before it can be measured and mitigated. To accomplish this, it’s important to separate the risks of the underlying initiative from the risks of the third party that supports the initiative. With the possible exception of reputation risk, most of the risks surrounding the evaluation and implementation of a new initiative are associated with the initiative itself, not the third party. Simply put, if the strategic, operational, and regulatory risks would be present in the initiative regardless of the third party selected, it does not belong to the third party, it belongs to the initiative or project. We’ve found this to be a fairly common misconception, even among auditors and examiners.

Effective Solutions

Once the risk source is confirmed as associated with the third party as opposed to the initiative, institutions must create a protocol for what risks to assess and how to assess them (the inherent risk), what specific controls to implement, and the effectiveness of those controls assuming they will be correctly implemented and operate effectively (the residual risk). This is where an app can significantly help standardize and streamline the process. An automated third-party risk management program will identify and assign specific controls according to the specific risks and risk levels identified.

With the increased focus on third-party risk management, more banks and credit unions are finding that auditors and examiners expect institutions to not just identify appropriate controls, but to actually request, receive, and review them. Particularly key control documents, such as contracts, financials, and audit reports, such as System and Organization Controls (SOC) reports. However, knowing what to look for (and where to look) in these documents can be challenging. Partnering with a third-party service to assist you can provide a second set of eyes and additional expertise to ensure that these documents are supplying the necessary controls.

Other key features to look for in an effective third-party risk management program include the ability to assign one or more vendor managers, email reminders when tasks are due or overdue, automatic Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) checks, the ability to easily identify and track complementary user entity controls (CUECs), the ability to store key vendor documentation and notes. Also, a robust on-demand reporting feature is important to be able to provide stakeholders with timely, accurate updates on the status of your third-party risk management program.

By associating with the right partner, financial institutions can develop a strong third-party risk management program that aligns with guidance, keeps data private and secure, and minimizes the impact of third-party cyber threats. Safe Systems, for example, offers a wide range of vendor management solutions to help institutions ensure regulatory compliance.

20 Apr 2023

Banks, Compliance, Credit Unions The Safe Systems Compliance Team 0 comment

Best Practices for a Successful ISO Transition

It can be challenging for financial institutions to lose an information security officer (ISO)—particularly for smaller community banks and credit unions. Since ISOs have broad responsibilities relating to data security and other vital areas¹, they play a critical role within the organization. Therefore, institutions must have a well-defined plan in place to keep an ISO’s transition or departure from adversely affecting their security posture.

There are many reasons an ISO may leave—retirement, a transfer to another role within or outside of the organization, or perhaps an unanticipated health issue. Whichever the circumstance, the reason for departure can significantly impact the transition process. For instance, if the position was vacated due to a planned retirement or staff reorganization, there can be a smooth transfer of duties between the outgoing and incoming ISOs. However, a sudden job change can result in a more complicated process.

There are two main facets of the ISO’s role that are critical to focus on during a transition: access to data and applications, and the continuity of the processes and responsibilities that the position encompasses.

1) Ensuring that access to data and applications is properly revoked, modified, and/or reallocated during an ISO transition is very similar to what happens when an IT Administrator leaves a financial institution. Although the IT and ISO roles (and their respective data access requirements) are different, the steps outlined in this article can help ensure information is protected when either role departs.

2) Some of the key areas of responsibility that must continue during an ISO transition include:

Infosec compliance, including regulatory guidance, written policies, written procedures, and documented practices
Oversight and coordination of data security efforts, including protecting the privacy and security of sensitive information belonging to the institution and its customers and members
Business continuity management and incident response programs, including exercises and tests
Third-party risk management (TPRM)
Cybersecurity assessments, gap analysis, action plans, and
Lead for steering committee meetings
Information security program status updates to the board of directors
IT audit and exam preparation, participation, and response

Planning Ahead

There are a number of strategies institutions can proactively implement to make an ISO’s job transition as successful as possible. A primary step to take is succession planning. This should be considered whether or not an ISO departure is anticipated. Regulators expect institutions to have a formal succession plan for all key leadership positions, and few roles are more critical than the ISO, as failing to maintain infosec continuity can leave an institution exposed and potentially more vulnerable to security issues.

Succession planning is often more problematic for smaller community banking institutions where employees typically wear multiple hats. Regulatory guidance requires that the ISO exist as a separate role within the institution. And while it is easy to designate an ISO successor on paper, an institution with limited staff may not have an employee with the appropriate knowledge, experience, and availability ready to step into the role. In addition, because of the potentially smaller talent pool in the geographic areas that community institutions serve, our experience is that smaller institutions often have difficulty finding good candidates.

However, if a solid succession plan is in place that includes both internal and external resources, the incoming ISO should at least have access to adequate experience and subject matter expertise to seamlessly step into the new role with minimal disruption. In a situation where there is seamless continuity, at least one of the following usually applies:

The employee replacing the ISO has been given sufficient prior notice and preparation, including cross-training and job shadowing.
Ideally, the incoming ISO has gained previous experience at a financial institution of similar size and complexity, or at minimum, managed information security in a regulated environment.
The institution has partnered (or can partner) with a third-party provider to augment the role with a virtual ISO (vISO) solution.

Getting Help to Ensure a Seamless Transition

To be clear, transitioning between ISOs can be challenging whether the institution grooms an internal successor, hires a seasoned outsider, or partners with a third party (or a combination of the three). In all cases, there will be some type of learning curve. Either a promoted employee will need time to build proficiency in the position, or a hired replacement (individual or third-party provider) will need time to get familiar with the institution. Inevitably, the probability of security gaps will increase during this transition period, and IT auditors and examiners know this too. For this reason, employing a third-party provider is often an effective way to maintain infosec continuity during a transition, and ensure that all IT and information security tasks and related activities are completed on time and properly reported to the various stakeholders.

The bottom line: ISO transitions are inherently challenging—and seamless continuation is critical as they directly impact a financial institution’s audit and exam success as well as overall security posture. Whether the job change is planned or unexpected, institutions can apply effective succession planning to minimize the disruption. They can also address any deficiencies in their own internal knowledge and expertise by partnering with a third-party provider like Safe Systems. As an example, a bank in South Carolina used Safe Systems’ Virtual ISO service, ISOversight, to support succession planning for its retiring ISO. This resulted in multiple benefits, including an interrupted security posture, improved business continuity management, third-party management, and strategic planning.

¹ISO responsibilities may consist of strategic planning, quality assurance, project management, InfoSec risk assessments, infrastructure and architecture security, end-user computing, and regulatory and legal compliance

05 Apr 2023

Banks, Compliance, Credit Unions Tom Hinkel 0 comment

Evolution of Third-party Management

Pending interagency guidance on the management of third-party relationships will significantly alter how financial institutions (FIs) handle risks related to external service providers. The new guidelines will increase the complexity and responsibility of third-party management for banking organizations in the near future. These standards will apply to all financial institutions—including community banks—with third-party relationships.¹

The updated guidance—proposed jointly by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the Board), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)—will consolidate² the agencies’ separate rules into a single common guideline built around the OCC Bulletin 2013-29. The proposed guidance states that “the new framework is based on sound risk management principles for banking organizations to consider in developing risk management practices for all stages in the life cycle of third-party relationships.”

Increased Regulatory Expectations

FIs s need to consider the key implications of increased regulatory scrutiny in this area, particularly where they expand on current expectations. For instance, regulators will expect them to do more due diligence on the pre-engagement side, which affects the initial selection and contract negotiation process. Institutions will also be held more accountable for understanding and predefining the termination process for outside service providers. This includes considering who owns data, how the data is returned, and how it is disposed of after the relationship with the provider ends.

From a regulatory perspective, third parties represent the biggest single source of noncontrollable risk to a bank or credit union. To a considerable extent, examiners will draw comparisons to overall enterprise risk management maturity from an institution’s third-party risk management program. In their words; “A banking organization’s failure to have an effective third-party risk management process that is commensurate with the level of risk, the complexity of third-party relationships, and the organizational structure of the banking organization may be an unsafe or unsound practice.” In addition, they will expect to see sufficient oversight at all levels, from the board to senior management, and ultimately the employees directly overseeing the individual relationships.

Vendor vs. Third Party

It is also critical for FIs to be aware of—and adjust for—the difference between the terms “vendor” and “third party.” While banks have historically used these words interchangeably, it is now clear that institutions will have to remove the term “vendor” from their vocabulary and substitute “third-party” in its place. The proposed guidance uses the term “vendor” only 4 times, while the term “third-party” is used 262 times!

The reason for the change is more than just semantic, it represents a significant shift in how a third party is defined. A third party can be any entity with which the institution has a business relationship, and neither a written contract nor monetary exchange is necessary to establish a business arrangement. A business relationship can include more obvious arrangements such as referral agreements and professional services providers like law and audit firms, but also less obvious companies such as maintenance, catering, and custodial service companies. Business arrangements have greatly expanded and become more varied and, in some cases, far more complex. FI’s should be prepared to expand the scope of their third-party risk management (TPRM) program.

Expansion of Third-Party Risk Assessment

Financial institutions will also need to expand third-party risk management beyond the scope of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GBLA) to comply with the new guidance. They should broaden their focus beyond non-public information (NPI) to include anything that may not be directly related to customer information, but still needs to remain confidential. This can include strategic plans, unaudited financial statements, HR and shareholder records, and committee meeting minutes. Regardless of the type of information, regulators will expect institutions to manage their risk by accurately assessing all third-party exposure to the storage, transmittal, and processing of information.

While institutions cannot directly control third-party risks, they will need to request and review certain documents—especially from critical parties. A few key third-party documents that institutions should examine prior to engagement³ include contracts, audit reports⁴, and financials. Depending on criticality, FIs may also need to maintain a list of potential alternate providers in case their primary provider fails or cannot complete the terms of their contract. Finally, institution management should be fully aware of any gaps or limitations in third-party contracts, so they can manage any increased residual risk effectively.

Another area likely to draw increased scrutiny is Complementary User-entity Controls (CUECs), included in the SOC report. These are the controls third parties require for you to utilize their products or service. The best practice strongly suggests you document these CUECs and adhere to them.

Financial institutions that may lack the internal time and/or expertise to review third-party contracts, financials, and SOC reports, can consider adding a solution like Safe Systems’ Vendor Management Document Review. The service enhances the control review process and makes it easier for institutions to meet the increased regulatory expectations for managing third parties. Read more about this topic by accessing our “Evolution of Third Party Management” webinar.

¹ As of this date the NCUA has not indicated that they will be a signatory on this new guidance.

² The Board’s 2013 guidance, the FDIC’s 2008 guidance, the OCC’s 2013 guidance and its 2020 FAQs.

³ Certain documents such as SOC reports may only be made available after a contract is in place.

⁴ Depending on the trust criteria selected, audit reports like the AICPA System and Organization Controls (SOC) 1 and SOC 2 should also include an auditor opinion on the information security and business continuity controls in place at the third party.

07 Feb 2023

Banks, Compliance, Credit Unions Safe Systems 0 comment

Highlights from our Annual Look Back at Regulatory Updates

As 2023 continues to unfold, there are some important regulatory compliance tips, tricks, and trends that financial institutions should review from last year and consider in the future.

Looking Back

Two key issues to revisit from 2022 are the new Computer-Incident Notification Rule and updates to the 2018 Cybersecurity Resource Guide for Financial Institutions. The incident notification rule—approved in 2021 by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Federal Reserve System, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), went into full effect in April 2022. Under the rule, banking organizations must promptly notify their primary federal regulator of certain computer security incidents that rise to the level of a notification incident within 36 hours. Anything that could materially disrupt or degrade your critical operations could be classified as a notification incident. Most institutions should have already adjusted the policies and procedures of their incident response plan to comply with the new notification requirements. If they haven’t, they should do so immediately because this will undoubtedly be an issue in the next examination cycle.

The rule also obligates third parties to report certain events that occur, so financial institutions should cover this issue with new vendors and those renewing contracts. Institutions should ensure that all contracts specify under what conditions third parties must inform them of any incident. Contracts should also identify at least one contact person to notify within the institution if an event occurs.

Late last year, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) updated its Cybersecurity Resource Guide, which is designed to help financial institutions meet their security control objectives and prepare to respond to cyber incidents. The revised guide features updated references and a list of ransomware-specific resources, which is well warranted given the increasing frequency and complexity of ransomware incidents. The guide now includes eight different cybersecurity assessment tools that institutions may use, along with the “gold-standard” Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) to combat the evolving threat of ransomware.

Looking Ahead

This year, ransomware will continue to be one of the key areas of focus for financial institutions—as well as auditors and examiners. Institutions should also start thinking of using the term “third-party risk management” instead of “vendor management” to match an impending shift in interagency guidance. The new terminology is more than just semantic, it represents a shift in how the agencies define anyone with whom you interact; including those with or without a contract, and with or without the exchange of compensation. Regulators will be releasing new guidance relating to the issue of third-party relationships and risk management. The stronger emphasis on third-party risk management is significant because it implies a broader and deeper scope of responsibility for institutions in terms of their engagement and oversight processes.

In addition, the guidance will likely propose a six-part, third-party risk management process. The process, for instance, will cover key areas like early planning, selection due diligence, and contract negotiation. It would be wise for institutions to begin contemplating these new expectations and how they will navigate the different aspects of third-party risk management in the future.

Anticipated Trends

There are also some potential trends that financial institutions should be aware of going forward. Based on their actual recommendations or observations, auditors and examiners expect institutions to:

Identify tolerances for processing and data recovery times for ransomware events—separately from the standard recovery times (RTOs) established in the business impact analysis.
Have a list of forensic experts available to call if they require assistance with cyber events. (Your cyber insurance provider may require you to utilize their associates, so it’s best to check.)
Formalize vendor information and ensure their management team is periodically updated about third-party risk management practices.
Have project management policies that address steps to request and approve new applications, including licensing, contracts, business justification, integration, and risk assessments.
Make provisions for succession planning for IT, which is a key component in the risk management program. (If necessary, smaller institutions might consider outsourcing the IT role to ensure an appropriate succession plan is in place.)

Read more about this topic by accessing our webinar on “Regulatory Tips, Tricks, and Trends—Looking Back and Ahead.” Or contact us for more information about how our compliance services are specially designed to help community banks and credit unions meet their regulatory requirements.

02 Feb 2022

Banks, Compliance, Credit Unions The Safe Systems Compliance Team 0 comment

2021 Compliance Review and Tactics for Staying Ahead of Regulators in 2022

Compliance Review and Tactics

With 2021 in the rearview and 2022 well underway, it’s a good time to consider some compliance issues from last year, and current trends and tactics for keeping ahead of regulators this year. In 2021, we saw a number of compliance-related changes from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council’s (FFIEC) and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). One important development, especially for smaller community banks and credit unions, was the FDIC’s new Office for Supervisory Appeals. The office—launched in December to operate independently within the FDIC—considers and decides appeals of material supervisory determinations. It replaces the existing Supervision Appeals Review Committee.

The Office of Supervisory Appeals will “enhance the independence of the FDIC’s supervisory appeals process and further the FDIC’s goal of ensuring consistency and accountability in the examination process,” according to the FDIC. There’s a broad range of material supervisory determinations that institutions can appeal through the office, including CAMELS ratings under the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System; IT ratings under the Uniform Rating System for Information Technology (URSIT); and Trust ratings under the Uniform Interagency Trust Rating System. This new appeal process isn’t a guarantee that supervisory findings will be changed but may prove useful as a last resort for FDIC institutions facing downgrades in scores where there is a material disagreement between the FI and the FDIC.

Another significant FFIEC development last year involved amendments to the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and anti-money laundering (AML) regulations. The BSA amendments included certain provisions to the USA Patriots Act to detect, deter and disrupt terrorist financing networks. This would appear to be an area of focus going forward, as 3 of the 10 most substantive (i.e., non appointment-related) FFIEC releases in 2021 were related to BSA/AML.

In June, the FFIEC issued a new Architecture, Infrastructure and Operations (AIO) booklet as part of its Information Technology Handbook. With this logical move, the FFIEC replaced its July 2004 Operations Handbook with a single booklet that merges three interconnected areas. In August the FFIEC also enhanced its guidance on authentication and access to services and systems—advocating for the widespread use of multi-factor authentication (MFA)—and released guidance on conducting due diligence on fintech companies.

One additional item of note in 2021; the FDIC’s tech lab, FDITECH, launched an initiative to challenge institutions to measure and test bank operational resiliency. Ultimately, a set of metrics may be applied to financial institutions—perhaps community banks in particular—to determine whether they are adequately resilient against operational disruptions. We’re keeping a close eye on this as it may lead to a universal formula for grading or ranking resilience. Anything that reduces subjectivity also reduces uncertainty, and that is a good thing when it comes to regulations.

Tips, Tricks, and Tactics

One of the main tactics to apply now to enhance compliance is to focus on the concept of resilience in all areas of the financial institution. Incorporate this concept into your business continuity management plan, vendor management program, third-party supply chain management, and information security. The key is to prepare in advance for a disruption—to put processes in place to reduce the possibility of disruption, and to minimize the impact of disruption should it occur.

Here’s another way to stay ahead of regulators: Financial institutions can connect the concept of risk appetite to the acceptable risk in their risk assessments. This goes beyond merely asserting that whatever residual risk you may have is deemed acceptable, which is highly subjective. Inherent risk less controls establish residual risk. However, residual risk levels must be compared to pre-determined risk appetite levels to determine acceptability. Only if the residual risk is less than or equal to their risk appetite can residual risk be considered acceptable. This process also reduces subjectivity and uncertainty—which should leave examiners and auditors much less room for interpretation, and result in a better audit/exam experience for you.

What to Consider in 2022 and Current Trends

Another area we’ll definitely be watching in 2022 involves the new incident notification rules that were issued late last year. All financial institutions will need to update their incident response plan and possibly their vendor management program and business continuity plans to accommodate these new regulations. These changes, while not necessarily difficult, can be pervasive in that they will cross over into multiple policies and procedures. In short, the rule requires institutions to notify their primary federal regulator as soon as possible—no later than 36 hours—after they determine that a notification incident has occurred. There are also new requirements for third parties to notify you if they experience a similar event, which could require changes to the vendor contract. The effective date of the new rule is April 1, 2022, with compliance expected to begin on May 1, 2022. There may be a grace period, but financial institutions should be prepared for examiners to ask questions about your adherence to these new rules at your next Safety and Soundness exam.

Regarding trends, we believe the focus on third-party risk management will continue in 2022 and into the future. Currently, there’s growing support for the idea of having the FDIC, Federal Reserve, National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) and other agencies coalesce around a single set of standards for third-party management. This would create more consistency with the rules concerning how regulators and others define third parties and vendors, and expectations for effective risk management. The outcome of the discussions around this topic may not manifest until Q3 or Q4 of this year, but institutions should work on formalizing their process for conducting due diligence when dealing with fintech companies and other critical vendors.

Safe Systems has been serving financial institutions for more than 25 years. To get more of our experts’ views on this topic, listen to our webinar on “Compliance Review and Tips, Tricks, and Trends for Staying Ahead of Regulators in 2022.”

19 Jan 2022

Banks, Compliance, Credit Unions The Safe Systems Compliance Team 0 comment

Balancing Strategy and Compliance: Addressing the Strategic Needs of Your Institution While Remaining Compliant

Balancing Strategy and Compliance

Banks and credit unions require a complex interconnected infrastructure to support their employees, serve customers, and maintain their operations. This entails an array of owned and outsourced elements: hardware, software, controls, processes, and evolving technologies such as cloud, artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and more. In addition, effective data governance and data management are fundamental to maintaining the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information. The data management process is highly regulated and financial institutions are under increasing pressure when trying to balance the strategic needs of their organization with the increased demands for remote employees and online customers.

Evolving Remote Workforce and Customer Base

Over the past couple of decades, advancements in communication and technologies have allowed for a more mobile workforce and customer base, and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic quickly intensified this trend. During the first year of the pandemic, Gartner conducted a survey that found 82% of businesses intended to allow remote work at least part of the time, with 47% of companies allowing it full time. Although 2o20 represented a significant increase in remote work and digital engagement, the trend seems to be continuing for the foreseeable future. According to Upwork’s Future Workforce Report 2021, 40.7 million American professionals, nearly 28% of respondents, will be fully remote in the next five years, up from 22.9% from the last survey conducted in November 2020.

This trend requires adding more technology and devices to enable online access to financial services, and to enable secure access to the information and other resources needed for remote workers to perform their duties away from the office. Banking customers want convenient access to financial services, whether through a physical location, the internet, or a mobile app, and institutions need the tools and techniques to keep them secure. With more devices in the hands of employees and customers, there are many more vectors for cyberattacks and way more endpoints to secure. Even institutions that have been trying to avoid the risks that come with enabling remote engagement are forced to reevaluate the costs and benefits.

Increasing Regulatory Requirements

Privacy and data security have become key compliance issues for financial institutions as they adapt to accommodate employees and customers who prefer to work and bank remotely. From a regulatory standpoint, the Federal Financial Institution Examination Council (FFIEC) has always expected financial institutions to have data management controls in place to protect data in physical and digital forms wherever the data is stored, processed, or transmitted. This includes any data relating to the organization, its employees, and its customers. “The data management process involves the development and execution of policies, standards, and procedures to acquire, validate, store, protect, and process data,” states the FFIEC IT Handbook’s Architecture, Infrastructure, and Operations booklet. “Effective data management ensures that the required data are accessible, reliable, and timely to meet user needs.”

The FFIEC requires institutions to follow a wide range of other guidelines and procedures, which are reflected in various FFIEC booklets and include:

Governance – Management should promote effective IT governance by establishing an information security culture that promotes an effective information security program and the role of all employees in protecting the institution’s information and systems.
Know-your-customer – Financial institution management should choose the level of e-banking services provided to various customer segments based on customer needs and the institution’s risk assessment considerations.
Resilience – Financial institutions are responsible for business continuity management (BCM), which is the process for management to oversee and implement resilience, continuity, and response capabilities to safeguard employees, customers, and products and services.

Strategic Compliance Solutions

With so many compliance issues to address, it can be difficult to balance the needs of your financial institution, your remote workers, and your customers. Safe Systems has a team of compliance experts and a broad range of compliance solutions to help you manage government regulations, information security, and reporting efficiently. Our team of compliance experts are trained in banking regulations, hold numerous certifications, and are laser-focused on delivering the tools and knowledge to give you compliance peace of mind.