In this episode of the ProSight Banking Strategies Podcast, Frank Devlin speaks with Mark Majeske, SVP of Faster Payments at Alacriti, about the rapid evolution of instant payments in the U.S. banking system. They explore where real-time payments stand today, comparing RTP and FedNow adoption, usage patterns, and growth prospects. Majeske explains why customer expectations—such as 24/7 access, faster payroll, and instant disbursements—are driving demand, and why many banks are choosing to support multiple payment rails. The discussion also covers fraud considerations, product strategy, the future of ACH and wires, and emerging technologies like stablecoins.
Subscribe to ProSight Podcasts: Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, Youtube
Don’t miss this opportunity to discover the key factors shaping discussions on faster payments for consumers and businesses with Alacriti’s Mark Majeske in the ProSight Quick Q&A on Modern Payment Options.
TRANSCRIPT:
Frank Devlin: The instant payments ecosystem can be daunting for financial institutions that want to join in, but it doesn’t have to be. Learn about the landscape for instant payments and the related challenges and opportunities in the ProSight Banking Strategies Podcast.
I’m Frank Devlin, and this is the ProSight Banking Strategies Podcast. We’re here to inform you on the top trends, challenges, and opportunities in banking today. Formed from the merger of BAI and RMA, trusted organizations that have been supporting financial services leaders over 100 years, ProSight is a leading non-lobbying connector of people and information with deep expertise in risk, fraud, compliance, and retail and commercial banking. Our purpose is to empower financial services leaders to strengthen and advance our industry through training and insights, as well as tools and resources like this podcast.
To the list of modern capabilities customers increasingly expect of their financial institution, you can add instant payments. Whether it’s a business that would rather hold working capital itself until the moment a bill is due, or a gig worker who wants certainty that their pay is going to clear, people appreciate when payments settle instantly rather than floating in the ether for a period of time.
But the instant payment ecosystem can be daunting for institutions that want to join in, whether it’s deciding on which rails are best, or just the cost and time involved with getting up and running. Joining me to discuss this ever-evolving system and how instant payment priorities can differ depending on the customer and financial institution is Mark Majeske, SVP faster payments at Alacriti. Mark has extensive experience in the payment space, formerly leading product development for the RTP, real-time payments network, the FedNow Service, and Zelle. Welcome, Mark.
Mark Majeske (Alacriti): Thank you, Frank. Glad to be here.
Devlin: It’s excellent having you here as well. If we could start by setting the stage, kind of a big picture view would be great, can you set the scene for us for where the financial industry in the US is right now regarding instant payments and the instant payments journey? So for instance, how far along are we? What percentage of banks offer them? What sort of services are available?
Majeske (Alacriti): Sure. I’d be glad to do that. What we really do is look at the RTP and FedNow journey. And to be honest, they’re a little bit different, but a lot similar as well. So from RTP perspective, that was introduced about eight years ago. It currently has 1,135 plus financial institutions on board. 70% small banks and credit unions make up that 1,135.
So what RTP did was it signed up a lot of large banks, and now is working towards the medium and smaller size banks to bring them on board. So they’re currently offering 72% access to US DDAs. So when you think about it in terms of the 1,100 plus or minus banks that they have, by having the largest banks first, they’ve covered a lot of that percentage of the US DDAs. So that was important. I think as we go forward on that, we start to look at bringing on more medium and small institutions, but gathering a lower amount of percentage of access as a result. So you need many more small and medium-sized banks to equate to what you’ve gained by the larger banks.
Some other interesting information about RTP, what type of transactions are happening? Currently, active consumers on the RTP network, about seven million. Active businesses, about 350,000. So this tells us that it’s found its space in the consumer market. However, I could tell you that when we designed it, we really thought we’d get about a 50-50 blend. So I think that’s going to happen over time. The 2025 transaction volume in RTP is 447 million for the year. And the daily active transactions are about 1.3 million.
If we fast forward to the FedNow offering, obviously only two years into the marketplace. So obviously we’re not going to see as great a number of volume or transactions in the marketplace yet. However, they do have 1,600 FIs on board, which is a pretty large number when you compare it to RTP. I think what happened was when FedNow went live, we started to see, because the market was educated to instant payments, the adoption rate for banks was faster. So 1,600 on FedNow, about 8.4 million in transaction volume versus 447. That’s why I’m saying there’s a huge difference in the two in terms of volume, but the FedNow network is growing pretty healthy rate. The average daily transaction on FedNow, 23,000 transactions a day versus 1.3 million. So obviously a great difference.
Have a couple of fun facts for you. RTP and FedNow share 60% of their banks. So 60% of the combined RTP and FedNow banks are actually on both rails. So a lot of people ask, well, how many people are just on FedNow or how many people are on RTP? Interesting to know that 60% of the banks on both are on both rails. Services include receive, send. We have 22% of the customers on RTP are certified for send, 4% on FedNow. And there’s a delta between whether people sign up for send and are actually doing it. The number of people who are certified, but sending, is far lower. So that’s sort of a snapshot of where we are in the market today.
Devlin: How much room is there to run still then? So you mentioned the percentages. We’re not all the way there. Even when you talk about the number of people who have access to it in some way, let alone the actual financial institutions that are set up. Are we going to get to around 100% of all banks and credit unions at some point, maybe in five years or 10 years? Or will there always be some that maybe it’s just not the right thing for them and they don’t quite need it?
Majeske (Alacriti): That’s a good question. I’ve been trying to figure that out myself. When you look at other rails, ACH is an example where almost every bank does ACH transactions. Not everyone does wire. So where will instant payments be in five to 10 years? I’m kind of thinking that we’ll get on both networks up to about 90 some percent, but I don’t know that we’ll actually have every bank.
What I’m hoping will happen is that once banks stop signing up directly with the individual networks, that maybe other institutions will offer RTP and FedNow as part of a correspondent banking relationship to the outliers. And so I’m kind of thinking that, yeah, can we get to 100%? Absolutely we can. But I think it’s going to take a little bit of work to get the last percentages on board.
Devlin: Real big picture, and like why we’re here today, why are instant payments becoming more popular and more important?
Majeske (Alacriti): I don’t think it’s because banks are looking at it. I think it’s because of consumers and businesses looking at use cases. We as consumers are pampered. And what we’re doing is we’re starting to look at, and I always use Amazon as an example, my expectation for things being delivered to my home has risen greatly. I think the movement of money, because we’re starting to see use cases where people are using instant payments and getting expedited access to their payroll, or being able to gamble online and get those winnings very, very quickly, everyone’s starting to think in terms of real time. And I think that that’s really what’s driving the popularity of this. I think banks need to react to that.
Devlin: You had mentioned about 60% of banks that are on these rails have both RTP and FedNow. Some though have an analysis paralysis. They feel as they have trouble deciding on which flavor of instant payments to offer. So what are some of the reasons these 60% of institutions do have both offerings? And what are some developments down the road that could prove them wise five years on, that was a good thing that we did both?
Majeske (Alacriti): I remember when we launched RTP, did we really know what the mix was going to be? And the answer is no. And when we look at where FedNow is as well, and the types of transactions they’re doing, it’s still too early to tell who’s going to be a dominant player in what market segment. And because the two are so similar, I think the market has to determine that. I don’t think banks direct it.
And so it’s all about usage. It’s all about how many people utilize an app to receive funds, or to send them very, very quickly. So to me, it’s always been, in product development, and I’ve spent plenty of time in product development at banks, it’s about the customer. The customer has a need. They have certain ways that they want to bank to make their lives easier. That’s what’s driving this whole marketplace. I think the banks that don’t respond to that are going to have a problem.
Devlin: Is it possible that one will become much preferred? And then if you only have the other one, you’re kind of out of luck, and you’re not going to be as appealing to customers?
Majeske (Alacriti): Yeah. See, that’s the problem. I’m not a gambler, so I want to make sure that I have myself covered. And I think that it’s too early to tell that, hey, I’ll use RTP. I think some people are looking at it and saying, “So many banks or so many transactions are being funneled through the RTP network. Why don’t I go with that one?” The problem is that when you start to look at your customer base or your member base, we don’t really know where FedNow is going to fit and where RTP is going to fit snugly.
We never want to be in a position where we have to say no, right? And the problem with these networks is if your recipient is not on one of these networks, you can’t send to them. So it makes a lot of sense to offer both, and the cost of adding both at the same time is very, very low compared to starting a new project. If I’m on the bank side, and I’m saying, “What’s my strategy here,” from a payments perspective, this has always been my thought is I never want to be in a position to say no to my customer, you have to go somewhere else. By bringing on both rails, you never have to say that.
Devlin: Regardless of which path a bank takes, how would that path differ depending on their size, or a credit union? How is a community institution likely to get involved in instant payments? What about a mid-tier? What about the very large banks? How is that journey different, depending on the size of bank from what you’ve seen?
Majeske (Alacriti): It actually is different for a number of reasons. I think from a larger bank perspective, and that’s kind of where I came from, you have larger customers. And when you have larger customers, you have larger requests or requirements. So when you’re a large bank, you can go to say a PayPal or someone else, and work out and build an app for them using real-time payments. That has a heck of a lot of influence on the market. However, there’s a trickle down benefit to that to smaller community banks and credit unions as well because their customers or members get to use that application. So it helps the entire market when a large bank can go in and go to a Verizon or someone else, and create an app that uses instant payments.
On the smaller institution, from that perspective, obviously they don’t have the resources or the budget that the large banks do. However, I’ve seen an awful lot of innovation coming out of those small and medium sized institutions. And so they’re very nimble. They can launch something faster. And so they have a smaller customer base that they can actually talk to them and see what their needs are and then go build it.
So I’ve seen a lot of good things coming out of smaller institutions. Remember, at the end of the day, they both compete. So if large bank comes into town and they have a much better offering, obviously the community banks or the credit unions of the world have to respond to that because they don’t want to lose their customers to attrition. So I think there’re benefits on either side of the fence. I think both of them need to look at this from a strategic perspective very seriously. Because even though smaller institutions are going to be able to use those larger bank apps, they do need to create their own on the send side. And so you want to build value there for your customer.
Devlin: What is the future then as instant payments continue to grow, take up more of the pie, what’s the future for ACH, which you mentioned before, and which I think there was just a report this week that the amount processed cleared through that goes up every year, regardless of the fact that we’re starting to add some real time. Will ACH go away ultimately, or become much smaller of a number, and why or why not?
Majeske (Alacriti): I don’t think ACH is going to go away at all. I think there are enough applications using it and it’s an inexpensive, reliable rail. And what I always tell people is it’s not going to replace, it’s going to shift. And it’s all about use cases. So if I’m a financial institution and I’m creating a use case, and it require or enables my customers or members to utilize something on the weekend, well, guess what? I can’t use ACH. And so I think that that shift is going to happen as we start to see more instant payment transactions and usage. So it’s really a shift. It’s not a replacement. That’s the way I look at it.
Devlin: So if ACH will continue, what about wire? What’s its role in the world of RTP, considering it can sometimes take over a day for a wire payment to settle. It doesn’t seem as wow, as impressive, as maybe it did before.
Majeske (Alacriti): Yeah. I think wires is an interesting… It’s a little different than ACH, although there is a little bit of shifting going on. When I think of cross border payments and we think of wire, the competitor that I think about when I talk about instant or faster payments is Visa Direct. Because as we well know, RTP, FedNow haven’t got into the cross border space yet. Are they able to? Absolutely. And when we were designing RTP, we kept that in mind. We looked at certain geographic regions, and looked at how we might be able to interconnect with them. But the RTP and FedNow rails have focused really on domestic right now. So I go to Visa Direct.
And so when you compare a Visa Direct to a wire transaction, there are a lot of differences. First of all, and probably the most important one, is the Visa Direct is 24/7. Wire is not. Okay? So you still have to wait for bank business day and send the transaction. The other thing that Visa Direct does that I like, it enables you to send to the receiver exactly what you want. So what happens in a wire is if I want to send you 1,000 British pounds, there are fees along the way that I don’t know about so that essentially you will receive less than 1,000 pounds because your bank maybe has charged you some fees along the way. And so you’re getting maybe 950 or whatever it might be.
With a Visa Direct payment, all the costs are standardized and known upfront. So Frank, if I want to send you 1,000 British pounds, that’s exactly what you’re going to get, and you’re going to get it in about four minutes, 24/7. And also as a sender, I can send it to your account at the other institution in the UK, I can send it to your card, and I can also send it to your wallet. So that expands out the capability so that when you look at something like Visa Direct, you’re really reaching over 190 countries and over 160 currencies. Also, remember, Visa Direct enables you to do the FX portion on the US side. So a lot of pluses and minuses are going on. Visa Direct, only up to 100K. And obviously with wire, it’s much higher. So maybe we’ll start to see large corporate transactions sticking with wire, but maybe we see low value cross border transactions shifting to Visa Direct.
Devlin: So speaking of pluses and minuses, can we talk a little bit about some of the concerns that a financial institution that wants to go on this journey, they might have before they get involved with real-time payments, before they engage a company to get into that?
Majeske (Alacriti): There are a couple of things that I hear a lot about people sort of considering, and this is where that analysis paralysis comes in. Where you can overanalyze things and say, “Oh, we better not do that.” But I think that if you look at some things like rail pricing, the great thing about instant payments is it’s fairly priced. It’s about the cost of a same day ACH transaction. All financial institutions are charged the same amount per transaction through the network. There’s not a situation where a larger bank has a lot greater volume and they get discounts. It’s not true. So everyone’s at an even keel there.
From a fraud perspective, yes, there are things to consider. So if you have a fraud system for ACH and wire, you may want to rethink what you’re going to do for the instant payments space. And the reason is, it’s a very fast transaction. It’s 15 seconds end to end. So you need a system that can analyze data very, very well, and come up with scoring in milliseconds so that you can decide or decision the transaction before it even goes out the door.
You can’t do that with a wire system because wire and ACH are built so that it’ll form a queue. And so what people do at banks is they look at that queue, and they decide whether those transactions will go or not. They have time to do it because they have to do it by the end of the day. With instant payments, you have 15 seconds once you hit the go button. Very, very quick expectation on the sender side that that transaction is going to be very, very fast. And so what’s happened is you start to see fraud providers who are very, very good using AI and machine learning to analyze more data better and do it more quickly. So what I’m saying to people is, you can go and use your same vendor as long as they have a module for instant payments. Don’t rely on the same system you are for wires and ACH to do instant payments.
The only other thing I can think of is change in operations. So there’s processes that banks have. This is an opportunity, I see it as an opportunity, to go into your current processes and modernize. So if I’m going to go in, because this may be the first time the bank is doing real-time payments. And so what? You have to think about a lot of things, risk, fraud. You have to think of operationally, how are you going to sustain it? How are you going to sustain customer service when a customer calls on a Saturday regarding a transaction they sent five minutes ago? These are things you have to consider.
And what a lot of banks have actually done is they first shy away from that, and say, “I don’t want to make any changes.” But at the same time, once they do, they also find that they can make other changes that have been in the queue for a long time, but they never did. So by opening up those processes to ingest instant payments the same time they’re improving operations and processes across the enterprise level of the organization.
Devlin: Is there a typical order into which these services are added? So for example, would a financial institution say, “Well, the most basic thing is RTP and/or FedNow, and then come in later and maybe do Zelle, come in later Visa Direct.” Is there no real order that banks typically follow when they add these services?
Majeske (Alacriti): The one thing about Alacriti and the strategy that we’ve put in place is it doesn’t matter. Whatever you need is what you should use. And so the argument I make in terms of when do you start with instant payments, you start by looking at your customers. You start by doing old-fashioned product development. You do research, you figure out what you need to do.
The rails themselves, in my mind, are tools. And when I was building products at large banks, I didn’t look at the tools until I figured out what it was I was asking for. So I’ll build a product, and then start shopping for my tools. So am I going to use RTP, FedNow? Am I going to use Visa Direct or Zelle, or something else?
The way we’ve designed our hub is that it’s very easy for an institution to come in, start with maybe RTP and FedNow, and then build out as their business grows. Because their customers are going to want more and more. And so by having everything in one place, in one hub, it makes it much easier for them to add additional rails. I call it grow as you go. So if I want to start with instant payments, and I add in Visa Direct because I want to do international transactions and I want to do Zelle because I like P2P, and I like their directory, there’s reasons to do everything. All these rails have very interesting characteristics, but you shop for them after you know what it is you want to deliver to your customer.
Devlin: Depends on that financial institution and what their customers want. So that makes a lot of sense. Now what about stablecoin? How does that fit in now, and how much of a demand are you seeing for that?
Majeske (Alacriti): I see a demand in terms of information. I think what we’re doing, and I’ll just share with you, that we do things exactly like banks do. So we’re doing product development on stablecoin and tokenized deposits. We’re looking at them and saying, “Where do they fit for our customers? Is this something we should offer? And if so, how?” So I’m doing the same thing that banks are doing. I’m looking at our client base and saying, “What can I deliver them to make participation in stablecoin and tokenized deposits as easy as possible?” And so we’re doing that research now. So we’re actually doing the same product development that I’m preaching for them to do with instant payments. It’s no different.
Where I see stablecoins right now, and I do chair the cross border work group for the Faster Payments Council, we’re doing a ton of research right now on both of those, on stablecoin and tokenized deposits. I’m starting to see the stablecoin piece as a really good replacement or something to use for cross border. Tokenized deposits, better for domestic right now.
But again, if I were to tell you that I figured it out at this point in time, it’d be too early. So what we’re doing is we’re doing research, we’re talking to potential partners. We will put a product out there for those two. But I won’t do that without speaking with my clients first or prospects first and figuring out exactly what the perfect balance is. So stablecoin, tokenized deposits, very interesting, a lot of buzz going on about it. It’s something I don’t think that will go away. Both have some very, very positive attributes.
Devlin: Just earlier, you were talking about how the path a financial institution takes with instant payments depends on what customers want. Are instant payments something customers are flat out asking for, or they may be asking in a roundabout way, but not in the trade name? What are you hearing there?
Majeske (Alacriti): That’s an interesting question because I constantly hear from financial institutions that my customers aren’t asking for RTP. Well, they don’t know what it is, but they do know that they want their payroll sooner. And they do hear that people are using online gambling or they’re using instant loan disbursements. It’s all about raising the bar to the customer. So the customer is interested in the result, the use case that enables them to do more faster.
I’ll tell you that, even at a national level, what we found in our data is that I think it’s about 52% of the transactions on RTP and FedNow are done outside of bank business hours. That tells you right there what people want. They want a bank when they want to bank, when they’re at home or in a place where they could actually send funds. We actually, that number for us, is actually as high as 60%. So from our-
Devlin: There’s your use case right there. Yeah.
Majeske (Alacriti): Yeah. Really, it kind of says it all. But also what we’re seeing is in the data, particularly for receive, is that… I’ll give you an example of the growth, gambling, that market used to have about three players, so we constantly saw the same three. It’s now up to 16, so it’s growing quite a bit. When you analyze data, especially in the transaction space, you can very easily tell what customers want by what they do.
Devlin: What about younger customers? We know that in particular community banks, we actually had a survey here at ProSight that said one of the main risks going forward that community banks see is their customers are not going to be followed by their children, their grandchildren, and they really need to appeal. And when you think younger people, are they even more interested in real-time payments than maybe older generations? Is it a deal breaker maybe for a younger person if a bank doesn’t offer them because they’re so used to everything with our technology happening so quickly and conveniently?
Majeske (Alacriti): I would say that if you’re looking at younger generations, this is what I’m seeing, is that they’re very knowledgeable. They’re very smart consumers. They know exactly what’s out there because their friends talk. They’re aware of what’s out there, and they’re very quick to make a change. So it’s not a situation where I bank at bank ABC or credit union XYZ, and I’m just going to stay there. They’re looking at being totally satisfied. And so they might use many more financial institutions or many more entities to do what they need to do. So they’re aware of what can be done. They know faster is better. They still want safety and they still want trust. They want to trust the organization.
What I’ll say next might surprise you, but in a lot of cases, older consumers or other segments are also thinking the same way. Look, they’re all smart consumers. I think the internet has brought a ton of information to people. They still have the same desires for trust, for safety, but they’re also looking at faster ways to do things as well. So I wouldn’t just say that younger customers are more difficult. They’re interested in newer, faster, better. I think all consumers are. It’s not just the young people that do that anymore. And they’re very quick to go on social media and say, “This is good,” or, “It’s not good.” And their tolerance level is very, very low.
Devlin: That brings me to my next question. There’s the Andy Warhol saying 15 minutes of fame. You have your 15 seconds of fame saying it has to do with sort of like, here’s your one chance to impress or not impress the customer. Can you talk about what that means, the 15 seconds of fame?
Majeske (Alacriti): Oh, absolutely. What we’ve done in research is found, and I found this at some of the larger banks where we do this kind of research, is a customer will come onto a new product, and literally they’re on there once, and they either love it or they hate it. And if they hate it, they’re going to let everyone know they hate it. And if they love it, they’ll let people know they love it too.
But the tolerance level for a really good user experience is very important here. And so when I used to develop products, I always made sure it worked the first time. You don’t want to send something out the door that’s not working, or that has little glitches. Literally, I got it down to the level when I was a product development person, I would actually engage in the testing to make sure that my customer was going to see everything working well the first time, because I know they will not be back a second time if it doesn’t work.
So again, that communication between the segments saying that something’s good or it’s bad, there is no yellow light here. It’s pretty much red or it’s green. There is no yellow. And so the people today in particular, they’ll see something once, they don’t like it, they’ll never come back.
Devlin: And to avoid that, like you’re saying, it takes testing, it takes communications between different parts of the organization, which all makes sense. What’s been surprising? You’ve been at this since the inception, you were present at the creation of real-time payment systems. What’s been surprising about the adoption of instant payments in the US so far?
Majeske (Alacriti): I think in terms of what people’s expectations were, it’s probably slower. I think a lot of banks were figuring initially that I’ll do receive only first, see how it goes. Sort of like sticking your toe in the water. And it’s safe because you’re really not going to have a lot of fraud with a receive transaction. A lot of people started to do that in the beginning, but there’s been a shift. And the shift is now they’re saying, “Hey, if I’m going to go in, I’m going to spend the time and resources to onboard instant payments.” I’ve got the team together who’s very knowledgeable about what we’re doing. I’m going to educate everyone in my institution around what we’re doing and why we’re doing it. And I’ve got the teams on board, fraud, operations, risk, et cetera, IT. You have everyone on board, they are more apt today to do both RTP and FedNow.
However, we still have some challenges. And that is once I certify for send, am I sending? And the missing link here is that product development piece that I was talking about. So what I think people need to do, even before they decide to bring this in house or to implement to it, is to think through your strategy, and say, “Here’s what my customers want, here’s what they’re used to, but here’s what they want to see tomorrow.” Ask them. Focus groups are great for that. And so customers are usually not shy about saying what they want. And also do studies on UI and improving that customer experience as much as possible. Without a strategy, without a product strategy for send, very difficult to come in later because you really bought the capability without having the foresight of knowing how to use it. And that’s why we experience these gaps.
Devlin: Mark, we’ve talked quite a bit here, and we’re at time already, but it feels like I’ve been talking to you for five minutes. It’s been really interesting conversation. But if I could just get you for a couple more minutes, and if you could just before we go, let me know some takeaways maybe if you’re talking to financial institutions if they’re listening right now. If they just had to remember a few points to take this, go back and talk with our colleagues, make some sort of decision, make some kind of strategy, what would you tell them?
Majeske (Alacriti): I think number one, remember not to bypass the time tested practice of true product development. I’m harping on that a lot, and starting with exploring what capabilities for customers and members will value. What are they going to value? Not you. Educate yourself and staff on what it is you’re trying to achieve and do it together. A lot of people have a tendency to not bring in groups that are going to be touched by the product right away and doing new project. I think it’s a huge mistake. Involve all active parties within your organization in the beginning. So product, IT, risk, fraud, operations. Treat your TPSP, third party service provider, like Alacriti, as a partner. Remember, we are here to assist you every step of the way in helping you scope out new processes, address fraud gaps, and readying your team to perhaps 24/7 transactions for the first time. Set realistic goals, ROI, retention. Think about the cost of attrition, and put that into your business case. But build one that you can live with. Set realistic expectations.
The technology behind instant payments is impressive and was built with your success in mind. It does everything it’s supposed to do well. So use it, learn what attributes it brings to the table, and then fit that into your strategy for your customer. Lastly, and I know this is going to sound unrealistic to a lot of people, have fun. There hasn’t been a new product rail in over 40 years. Drive it to success your best customer fit. So you have a great opportunity here. Build something totally different than ACH, totally different than wire. Take advantage of it and get creative and innovative.
Devlin: Thanks so much for sharing your perspectives with our audience today, Mark, and for joining us on the ProSight Banking Strategies Podcast. To our listeners, thanks for spending your available time with us. If you liked it, please spread the word. I’m Frank Devlin, senior editor at ProSight Financial Association.
The views expressed by the speakers are the speakers’ own and do not reflect the views of ProSight Financial Association, BAI, or RMA. The views expressed and information shared are of a general nature and are not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. No one should act upon any such views or information shared during this podcast without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation.
