Connect with us

Finance

Exploring Three Scenarios For How Gen AI Will Change Consumer Finance

Published

on

Exploring Three Scenarios For How Gen AI Will Change Consumer Finance

The rise of generative AI has led to much hand-wringing and discussion about the potential for the technology to disrupt industries and eliminate broad swathes of human jobs. But the impact of the technology will vary from industry to industry, so it’s important to look beyond the high-level talk around disruption and to think through exactly how it will change the financial services sector.

In the case of financial services, the impact of generative AI can be simplified into three possible future scenarios: 1) non-financial tech firms develop a dominant generative AI-based personal assistant and disintermediate financial firms, 2) no disintermediation, but the technology further entrenches the dominance of the largest global banks, and 3) no firms manage to establish dominant generative AI assistants, and the technology becomes commonplace without drastically altering market share.

While we can’t predict the future, it’s essential that financial services organizations think through the three possible outcomes to develop long-term plans for how their business would react to each of these scenarios.

Advertisement

Before diving into this topic, a caveat. The goal of this article is to to make the subject approachable for someone who is not familiar with the nuances of generative AI. This article will not discuss the technical developments that would drive these outcomes – e.g., whether it becomes cheaper and easier to build a proprietary large language model (LLM). This article will guide non-technical individuals through how generative AI will impact the financial services industry.

Scenario one: non-financial tech player(s) take a dominant position

One possible outcome for generative AI technology is that the consumer-facing tech behemoths (such as Alphabet, Apple or Meta) and/or a breakthrough tech startup develop consumers’ go-to personal assistant for a very wide range of life tasks, including personal finance. Consumer behavior changes, and the average person looks to the leading generative AI-based virtual assistant(s) with dominant market share to help them with questions and concerns.

This outcome sees generative AI technology evolve in such a way that tech firms are able to develop a superior personal assistant that is so advanced it incentivizes consumers to almost exclusively use their personal assistant. This assistant would monitor consumers’ affairs (via linked outside accounts) and would provide advice when asked questions like “how can I improve my financial situation?” or “could my savings be earning more?” This development would disintermediate financial services firms and the assistant would be able to influence consumers’ financial decisions and behaviors.

If this scenario becomes reality, the response of financial services firms to this disintermediation partly depends on how regulation shakes out and whether AI assistants can earn referral fees. Beyond the referral question, in the long-term this outcome would likely make the financial services industry much more cutthroat.

In this scenario, financial services firms would need to become far more innovative and would need to develop compelling and unique products and services. Financial services firms would need to incentivize clients to actually log into their website and app and not just rely on their personal assistant. A generic product lineup and a generic client experience would gradually lose market share in a world driven by tech firms’ high-performing virtual assistants.

According to Remco Janssen, Founder and CEO of European tech news media company Silicon Canals, “in past tech hype cycles, the established tech giants were often slow to react. When it comes to generative AI technology, however, the largest firms have acted quickly. Tech behemoths like Apple, Google and Amazon
Amazon
also have an advantage since they have access to consumer payment data. The most challenging outcome for financial services firms would be a situation where one-to-three leading tech players become the dominant force in generative AI, like Google and Apple’s dominance of mobile operating systems.”

Scenario two: the largest financial firms use gen AI to further entrench their dominance

In this scenario, generative AI technology develops in such a way that tech companies do not disintermediate financial services firms, but the costs and complexity of advanced AI technology allows the largest global banks to gain a competitive edge over relatively smaller rivals in the industry. For an example of the gulf between the top financial services firms and the next tier of financial institutions, as of May 10th, the market capitalization of JPMorgan Chase ($570.80 billion) and Bank of America ($300.69 billion) both exceed the combined market capitalization of US Bancorp, PNC, Capital One and Truist. The combined market capitalization of those four institutions is “only” approximately $235 billion.

Advertisement

It may turn out that the largest financial firms–those which can afford expensive engineering talent and cloud computing resources–can develop meaningfully more powerful generative AI-based financial assistants than the average financial services firm and the industry’s third-party vendors. If the largest global banks can offer a superior generative AI-based financial assistant, they will use this offering to further entrench their dominance of the industry and to win market share from relatively smaller firms.

Scenario three: no dominant gen AI assistants emerge

The final scenario sees generative AI technology become somewhat of a commodity and no firm develops a meaningfully superior generative AI assistant. Generative AI-based assistants become a standard feature of financial services websites and apps without fundamentally disrupting the industry and changing market share dynamics. Financial services firms may even end up relying on multiple third-party generative models simultaneously, calling upon different models depending on the user’s needs.

In this scenario, financial services firms would need to be thoughtful about how they optimize their generative AI assistant to minimize costs and maximize revenue. Financial services firms would work to continually improve their generative AI’s ability to handle customer service questions (preventing more expensive queries to the customer service call center) and to drive desirable actions (e.g., establishing direct deposit, opening a new account, etc.). While this third scenario presents less of a threat to the average financial services firm, developing a high-quality generative AI assistant still represents a large and complex undertaking.

Advertisement

According to Dr Andreas Rung, CEO and Founder of Ergomania, “banks and financial institutions have a tendency to keep big tech initiatives in the experimental/ideation phase for too long. Time is of the essence when it comes to generative AI. Your organization needs to move quickly to deploy a generative AI assistant to your customer base. In order to keep pace with the competition, your generative AI assistant must also become a seamless part of the UX and customer experience.”

Gen AI has the potential to upend financial services, and firms must start planning for future scenarios now

Only time will tell how generative AI technology develops and which of these three scenarios becomes reality. But your organization should start to think through these outcomes and how to react in each situation. Could your organization restructure and make a massive investment in developing a cutting-edge generative AI assistant if that becomes necessary? If your firm uses a third-party AI vendor, what are the “switching costs” if your firm “backs the wrong horse” and must make a change in order to keep pace with the leading firms? In each of these scenarios, how would your firm adjust the human workforce? It is better to start planning now than to be reactive and scrambling to catch up to changing market dynamics.

According to Milan De Reede, Founder and CEO of Nano GPT, “I see our customers’ preferences shift in real time as new generative AI models and updates are released. There’s no clear “winner” as of May 2024. Our customers seem to prefer different generative AI models for different tasks. At some point in the future, your firm may need to change your generative AI infrastructure and approach relatively quickly depending on which of these three scenarios becomes reality.”

Advertisement

Finance

Opinion: Teaching kids how to manage money is now a reality in New Hampshire – Concord Monitor

Published

on

Opinion: Teaching kids how to manage money is now a reality in New Hampshire – Concord Monitor

Money looks — and feels — different than it did a generation ago. The era of checkbooks and paper cash is fading; in its place is an all-digital ecosystem of instant payments, peer-to-peer apps, online shopping and real‑time betting markets. That shift has changed not only how people transact, but how they think about money. If we want our children to grow into financially capable adults, schools must catch up. New Hampshire is finally doing just that.

Today’s payments are frictionless. Venmo, PayPal, Zelle and similar apps let teens split dinner bills, send gifts or trade cash for concert tickets with a tap — and without the tactile reminder that handing over cash provides. That digital ease reshapes spending psychology: abstraction and immediacy can weaken the emotional “pain” of parting with money, making impulse purchases and casual transfers feel less consequential.

Layered on top of effortless payments are prediction markets and widely available sports gambling. Betting apps normalize risk‑taking behavior and create fresh avenues for rapid losses — especially among young people who grow up seeing real‑time odds, live lines and social feeds celebrating wins. Online shopping amplifies the problem. The fewer trips consumers make to local retailers, the more normalized becomes a culture of instant gratification: one click, next‑day delivery and a new item arrives before the buyer has reconsidered the impulse.

These trends matter beyond individual households. Roughly two‑thirds of the U.S. economy depends on consumer spending. When consumers overspend, accumulate avoidable debt or lack basic savings and investment know‑how, the ripple effects are real: financial stress at home, reduced long‑term economic resilience and less stable local economies.

Advertisement

That’s why financial education in schools is no longer optional. For over 25 years, the NH Jump$tart Coalition has advocated teaching personal finance in classrooms across the state. This fall brings a major milestone: beginning September for the 2026-2027 academic year, New Hampshire will require a standalone half‑credit course in personal finance for graduation, in addition to the existing half‑credit economics requirement. New Hampshire joins about 30 states that have adopted similar graduation requirements — a recognition that personal finance skills are foundational, not extracurricular. Reinforcing that momentum, Governor Kelly Ayotte has declared April as Youth Financial Literacy Month, a statewide acknowledgment that building these skills must start early.

A required course gives students structured exposure to budgeting, saving, credit, debt management, insurance, investing basics and the behavioral forces that drive spending. It provides a space to discuss how digital payments and gambling products influence decision‑making, how to spot predatory financial offers and how to build financial habits that support long‑term goals rather than immediate gratification.

But passing a graduation requirement is only the first step. Teachers need support. NH Jump$tart and partner organizations are working to provide professional development and classroom resources — many at no cost — so educators can teach personal finance confidently and effectively. Free curricula, interactive simulations, lesson plans and workshops help translate policy into practice in diverse classrooms.

Our next focus must be on measurement: determining what effective financial education looks like and how to scale it. We need clear metrics to evaluate whether students leave the course with durable knowledge, sound habits, and the confidence to make smart financial choices in a digital world. Measuring outcomes will help refine curricula, target teacher training and ensure the investment actually improves financial capability.

This new requirement, bolstered by the Governor’s proclamation and years of advocacy, signals a shift in priorities: New Hampshire recognizes that helping students manage money is as essential as reading and arithmetic. With two‑thirds of the economy riding on consumer choices, teaching financial literacy is not merely a personal benefit — it’s an economic imperative. By equipping young people to navigate digital payments, resist instant gratification and understand risk, we strengthen families, communities and the broader state economy.

Advertisement

New Hampshire has taken a meaningful step. Now we must ensure schools, teachers, parents and students have the tools and the evidence to make that step count.

Daniel H. Hebert is the state president of NH Jump$tart Coalition. He lives in Hillsborough.

Continue Reading

Finance

Lloyds will not take legal action against Britain's car finance redress scheme, FT reports

Published

on

Lloyds will not take legal action against Britain's car finance redress scheme, FT reports
Lloyds Banking Group will not launch a legal ​challenge against the UK financial regulator’s 9.1 billion pound ($12.25 billion) compensation ‌scheme for consumers who were allegedly mis-sold car finance, the Financial Times reported on Friday.
Continue Reading

Finance

Access to Auto Credit Improved in March, as Increased Negative Equity and Growing Subprime Share Push Dealertrack Index Higher – Cox Automotive Inc.

Published

on

Access to Auto Credit Improved in March, as Increased Negative Equity and Growing Subprime Share Push Dealertrack Index Higher – Cox Automotive Inc.

In March 2026, the Dealertrack Credit Availability Index rose to 102.4, its best reading since June 2022. The All-Loans Index increased 1.3% from February’s 101.1 and is up over 6% from March 2025. Even as yield spreads widened, the month’s improvement was broad-based across all channels and lender types, driven primarily by a significant expansion in subprime lending, a recovery in approval rates, and strong gains from banks.

Key Metrics
  • Approval Rates: The approval rate for auto loans rose to 70.8% in March, up 40 basis points (bps) from February, reversing a two-month declining trend. Approval rates remain down 180 bps from March 2025 (72.6%), even as most lenders continued to expand access broadly.
  • Subprime Share: The share of loans to subprime borrowers increased by 200 bps month over month (from 17.5% to 19.5%) and is up 300 bps year over year. March’s reading of 19.5% is the highest level in the dataset since March 2020. This sustained expansion suggests lenders are increasingly comfortable extending credit to higher-risk borrowers.
  • Yield Spread: The yield spread widened by 31 bps (from 7.53 to 7.84), while the average contract rate rose 50 bps (from 11.2% to 11.7%). The 5-year Treasury yield increased by 17 bps (from 3.68% to 3.85%). This widening spread represents less favorable pricing for consumers and may reflect lenders charging a premium to offset the increased risk from higher subprime lending and elevated negative equity.
  • Loan Term Length: The share of loans with terms greater than 72 months decreased by 50 bps (from 29.3% to 28.8%), breaking a three-month streak of increases, and is up 510 bps year over year. February’s 29.3% remains the all-time high in the dataset; at 28.8%, March’s reading is the second highest on record and continues to reflect ongoing affordability pressures as consumers opt for longer terms to manage monthly payments.
  • Negative Equity Share: The proportion of borrowers with negative equity increased by 120 bps month over month (from 58.0% to 59.2%) and is up 620 bps year over year, pushing the share to a new all-time high for the third consecutive month and signaling increased risk as more borrowers carry loan balances that exceed their vehicle’s value.
  • Down Payment Percentage: The average down payment percentage increased by 30 bps (from 13.6% to 13.9%) but is down 80 bps year over year. This modest increase may reflect lenders requiring slightly more upfront capital or consumers voluntarily putting more down, though down payments remain below year-ago levels.
Channel and Lender Trends
  • Channels: Credit access improved across all sales channels in March. The largest gains were in the Non-Captive New segment, followed by All New. Franchise Used, All Used, CPO, and Independent Used also saw improvement.
  • Lender Types: Lender performance was broadly positive in March. Banks led the improvement with credit availability rising 5.2%, the largest monthly gain among lender types. Credit Unions reversed their prior month’s decline, up 2.9%. Captives continued to improve, rising 1.4%, while Finance Companies were essentially flat. Overall, lenders are showing continued willingness to extend credit, with banks driving the month-over-month improvement.
Year-Over-Year Comparison

Compared to March 2025, credit access was looser across all channels and lender types:

  • Channels: The most notable year-over-year improvements were in Franchise Used, All New, and Non-Captive New, indicating stronger credit availability across both new and used vehicle segments. All Used and Independent Used also saw solid improvement, while CPO saw more modest gains.
  • Lender Types: Captives and Banks led the year-over-year loosening, while Finance Companies also improved. Credit unions showed a more cautious yet still positive stance on credit access compared with a year ago.
Implications for Consumers and Lenders
  • Consumers: Credit access continued to broaden in March, with improvement across all channels and lender types offering financing opportunities in both new and used markets. However, the underlying picture carries increasing caution. Record negative equity, a sharply rising subprime share, and widening yield spreads all point to elevated borrowing costs and greater long-term financial risk. Consumers should carefully consider the full terms of any financing offer, particularly total loan length and overall cost.
  • Lenders: Banks led the market in March, posting the strongest monthly gain among lender types. Captives also continued to improve, with their index reaching its highest level since April 2022, while credit unions reversed their prior month’s decline. With negative equity reaching a new all-time high, lenders increasing exposure in this environment face growing collateral risk, and balancing volume growth with disciplined underwriting will be increasingly important as these risk indicators continue to build.

Overall, the March Dealertrack Credit Availability Index reflected continued improvement in auto credit access, with the headline index climbing to 102.4, its best level since June 2022. Individual metrics told a more complex story, however. Subprime lending reached its highest level since March 2020, approval rates recovered modestly, and banks posted the strongest monthly gain among lender types. Yet negative equity reaching another new high and widening yield spreads point to growing risk beneath the surface.


View historical Dealertrack Credit Availability Index reports.

The Dealertrack Credit Availability Index tracks six factors that affect auto credit access: loan approval rates, subprime share, yield spreads, loan term length, negative equity and down payments. Reported monthly, the index indicates whether access to auto credit is improving or declining. This typically means that it is cheaper and easier for consumers to obtain a loan or more expensive and harder. The index is published around the tenth of each month.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending