Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Op-Ed: Crypto market bill adds risk, not clarity

Markets function best when participants understand the rules of the road, investors have confidence in the integrity of the system, and regulators have clear authority to police misconduct. The crypto market structure legislation now advancing in Congress promises exactly this clarity. Yet it raises a more troubling question: what happens when legislation written to create clarity instead exempts large parts of the digital asset ecosystem from the very safeguards that make markets safe for everyday Americans? Blockchain technology, tokenization, stablecoins and digital assets can improve efficiency, lower transaction costs, and widen access to financial products. Those opportunities are real. But sustainable innovation requires trust, and trust requires accountability. The legislation under consideration would create broad carve-outs for parts of the digital asset ecosystem, particularly within decentralized finance. Supporters call these provisions pro-innovation. Economically, they are regulatory arbitrage–the practice of avoiding rules and requirements that apply to similar financial activities elsewhere. Regulatory arbitrage does not create better products or services. Instead, it allows some firms to operate with lower costs by avoiding obligations designed to protect consumers and maintain financial stability. When two companies provide the same financial service but follow different sets of rules, the company with fewer requirements will naturally have lower costs. Those savings are not necessarily the result of greater efficiency. They often come from avoiding safeguards that other firms are required to maintain. Consider what the exemptions waive. A bank that holds customer assets must keep those assets separate from their own funds, maintain capital reserves, and fund a supervisory and compliance apparatus. An exempt digital platform performing the same custodial function carries none of these costs, so it can offer the service more cheaply while taking on risks that may not become apparent until problems arise. A bank that pays a return on deposits also pays deposit insurance premiums, holds regulatory capital, and absorbs the cost of anti-money-laundering compliance. An exempt platform passing through the yield on its reserves bears none of these and can therefore advertise a higher net rate on funds that are, economically, deposits. The activity is the same on both sides of the ledger. Only the rulebook differs, and the rulebook is the cost. This asymmetry falls hardest on community banks. Their deposits are the raw material of local lending. When an exempt platform can out-price them on stablecoin yield without carrying the costs that yield is meant to cover, deposits migrate, funding costs rise, and lending capacity contracts. As a result, community banks have less money available to lend, which can make it harder for small businesses to access credit. Community banks are responsible for roughly 60% of small-business loans and 80% of agricultural lending nationwide[1]. In Louisiana, where local banks finance small businesses and family farms, that risk is especially acute. The lesson is straightforward: when economically similar activities–like stablecoin yield and interest payments–operate under very different rules, risk often becomes harder to see until it's too late. History shows where this leads. Before the 2008 crisis, mortgage-related risk migrated out of regulated banks and into the “shadow banking” system–financial entities and investment vehicles that operated with less oversight. Those markets looked innovative and efficient. But because transparency and accountability were weaker, risk accumulated out of sight until it threatened the entire system. The lesson is not that the instruments were novel. It is that economically similar activities were governed by different rules, and risk flowed to the corner where it was hardest to see. The same logic applies to investors. Markets succeed only when participants trust them, which is why registration requirements promote transparency, best-execution standards help ensure fair treatment, and anti-money-laundering tools deter illicit activity. The legislation would let certain digital asset developers operate outside many of these protections. Technology can change how an asset is recorded or transferred. It does not change the risks an investor bears, or the incentives a firm faces when no one is watching. The United States does need a durable framework for digital assets, and regulatory uncertainty serves no one. Entrepreneurs need predictable rules, investors need confidence, and markets need consistency. But a framework built on exemptions delivers none of these. It delivers a two-tier market in which the regulated bear the costs and the exempt reap the advantages, until the risks they shed reassemble somewhere less visible. The most durable financial innovations in American history emerged within systems that paired opportunity with accountability. Digital assets should be no exception. Congress should reject this legislation and pursue a framework that applies the same rules to the same activities. Innovation matters. Trust is what makes it last.

Deaths, resignations in Congress test narrow majority

United Press International (UPI wire service) interviewed Meena Bose, Hofstra University professor of political science, executive dean of the Public Policy and Public Service program, the Kalikow Chair in Presidential Studies and director of the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency, about the death of Senator Lindsey Graham and President Donald Trump‘s choice of the late Senator’s sister Darline Graham Nordone, to succeed him. Until the midterm elections, Nordone will hold that position in an honorary capacity. There are four active vacancies on Capitol Hill with Nordone filling Graham’s seat. “The issue here is really that there have been vacancies and resignations and that the margin is so narrow for party control, particularly in the House of Representatives,” Dr. Bose told UPI. “The number of resignations or decisions not to run for re-election is indicative of questions about why people want to serve in office or indicative of a question of are people hesitant to serve in public office, and if so, why?”

MEDIA RELEASE: CAA survey finds 96 per cent of Ontario drivers have witnessed dangerous driving behaviours on Ontario roads

Nearly every Ontario driver has witnessed dangerous driving in the past year, yet many do not believe they contribute to the problem, according to a new survey from CAA South Central Ontario (CAA SCO). The survey found that 96 per cent of Ontario drivers have observed dangerous driving behaviours, including speeding (78 per cent), aggressive driving (69 per cent), unsafe lane changes (68 per cent) and distracted driving (67 per cent). However, only 57 per cent admit to engaging in at least one dangerous driving behaviour, revealing a disconnect between what drivers see on the road and how they assess their own actions. This number rises to 62 per cent among drivers aged 18 to 34. Most Drivers See Dangerous Behaviour, Fewer Admit to It “Most Ontario drivers can identify dangerous behaviours when they see them, but many don't realize they may be contributing to the problem themselves,” says Michael Stewart, community relations consultant, CAA South Central Ontario. “The good news is that small changes in driver behaviour can make a big difference. By slowing down, staying focused and making safe choices behind the wheel, we can help create safer roads for everyone.” Speeding remains the most common dangerous driving behaviour reported by Ontario drivers. More than one-third (38 per cent) admit to speeding, with more than half of those drivers say they typically travel 10 to 19 km/h above the speed limit. Even small increases in speed can significantly increase the likelihood and severity of collisions. Many drivers may not realize that fines increase depending on how far over the speed limit they are travelling and can be doubled in community safety zones. Encouragingly, most Ontarians say they slow down when they realize they are speeding, suggesting awareness and education can play an important role in changing behaviour. According to the data, 87 per cent of drivers also support the fines and penalties for speeding, and 37 per cent claim that penalties and fines affected their driving behaviour in the past year. Distracted Driving Also Remains a Serious Concern Across the Province A separate survey conducted by CAA SCO found that 16 per cent of Ontario drivers have been involved in a collision caused by distracted driving, a figure that has gradually increased in recent years. Rear-end collisions remain the most common type of crash associated with distraction, according to this study. “Distracted driving is preventable, yet it continues to put lives at risk every day,” says Stewart. “Whether it’s checking a notification, interacting with in-vehicle technology or taking your eyes off the road for a few seconds, the consequences can be devastating. The safest choice is to stay focused on driving.” As Ontarians prepare for the upcoming long weekend, CAA South Central Ontario is encouraging drivers to stay focused, alert and aware behind the wheel. For more information about road safety advocacy and research, visit www.caasco.com/advocacy Speeding and Dangerous Driving Behaviour Survey Methodology: The online survey was conducted by DIG Insights from March 10 to March 20, 2026, with 1,504 Ontario drivers aged 18 and older. Based on the sample size of n=1,504 and with a confidence level of 95 per cent, the margin of error for this research is +/- 2%.) Distracted Driving Survey Methodology:  The online survey was conducted by DIG Insights from February 3 to February 13, 2026, with 1,500 Ontario drivers aged 18 and older. Based on the sample size of n=1,500 and with a confidence level of 95 per cent, the margin of error for this research is +/- 2%.)

Fewer Essays, Fiercer Odds: The New College Application Math

A growing number of top colleges — including Tulane, Washington University in St. Louis, and UNC Chapel Hill — are trimming or eliminating supplemental essays, citing student stress and the rise of AI-assisted writing that makes it harder to tell who actually wrote an application. But the shift comes with a catch: fewer barriers to applying tend to mean more applications and lower admit rates. The Wall Street Journal explored the trend, and pointed to Texas Christian University as a case study already living the tradeoff. Heath Einstein is Vice Provost for Enrollment at Texas Christian University, now in his 13th year at TCU after previously serving as dean of admission and director of freshman admission. With more than two decades in admission and college counseling, he is a frequent speaker at national conferences and a voting delegate to the National Association for College Admission Counseling's Assembly, the governing body that sets national admissions-practice standards. He has chaired Texas ACAC's Government Relations and Advancement committees, received the association's Founders' Award, and served as Board Chair of ACCEPT: Admissions Community Cultivating Equity and Peace Today. His expertise spans cultural humility, shared governance, crisis management, staff development, and data analytics.  Einstein was recently featured in The Wall Street Journal article “Colleges Juice Application Numbers by Letting Students Write Fewer Essays” by Roshan Fernandez (July 10, 2026), which examines how cutting supplemental essays is reshaping admissions strategy nationally. “TCU said responses to the questions it cut—about its values and inclusivity—lacked originality. ‘You still see a narrowing to the mean,’ said Heath Einstein, vice provost of enrollment management. ‘Students are still going to respond in ways that they think we want to hear.’ Einstein said the school's aim in expanding application numbers is simply to increase enrollment, not lower its admit rate.” Einstein is available to speak with media on college admissions strategy, the impact of AI on application review, supplemental essays and holistic review, enrollment management, and higher-education leadership through crisis and change — all live issues as the 2026-27 application cycle takes shape. To arrange an interview or request a comment, click through to Heath Einstein's profile below.

Canadian Retirement Expert Susan Pimento Co-Authors Newly Released EY Report on the Future of Retirement in Canada

Former bank executive and Retire with Equity founder says "fear of running out" reflects a structural gap in retirement system design — not a failure of individual planning TORONTO, ON — July 23, 2026 — Susan Pimento, founder of Retire with Equity, is a co-author to The Canadian retirement evolution: Why financial institutions and policymakers must rethink retirement, a new report published today by EY examining how Canada's retirement landscape is changing — and why the systems built to support retirees are struggling to keep pace. The report arrives amid a structural shift in how Canadians fund retirement: in 1990, over 70 percent of Canadian workplace pension plans were defined-benefit schemes providing predictable lifelong income; by 2022, that figure had fallen to 37 percent — shifting investment risk, and the fear of running out onto individuals. Drawing on more than 30 years of senior leadership in Canadian banking and frontline lending, including serving as Vice President at a Schedule I bank, Pimento contributed a framework that groups Canadian retirees into three primary categories, each with distinct financial circumstances and priorities — a lens designed to help financial institutions and policymakers move beyond one-size-fits-all retirement planning. Sue Pimento is also the author of the forthcoming Your Retirement Reset: How to Convert Home Equity into Financial Security (ECW Press, to be released September 2026), "Fear of running out — FORO — reflects a structural gap in retirement system design, not a failure of individual planning," said Pimento. "Most retirement frameworks were built for accumulation rather than sustainable income in later life. Canadians aren't failing their retirement plans. In many cases, the plans were never designed for the retirement they're actually living." Pimento's contribution reflects the research focus of Retire with Equity, which provides retirement intelligence to Canada's financial sector on its fastest-growing and wealthiest demographic: adults 55 and over. Her forthcoming book examines how home equity — the largest asset most Canadian households hold — can be strategically converted into retirement income, and argues it belongs in every retirement conversation and product roadmap. "The industry has spent decades perfecting how Canadians save," Pimento added. "The next decade will be judged on how well we help them spend — sustainably, confidently, and without fear." The EY Report: "Canadian Retirement Evolution" is publicly available at: https://www.ey.com/en_ca/insights/financial-services/canadas-retirement-evolution Media availability: Susan Pimento is available for interviews and commentary on: retirement income design the three categories of Canadian retirees financial strategies for aging in place Intergenerational financial conversations about money (between seniors and their adult children) home equity strategies new ways for government and banks to serve the 55+ demographic About Susan Pimento Susan Pimento brings deep experience to the conversation on modern retirement strategies in Canada. With over 30 years of senior leadership in banking and frontline lending — including serving as Vice President at a Schedule I bank — she now advises financial institutions and policymakers on how to modernize retirement solutions and engage Canada's fastest-growing, wealthiest demographic: adults 55+. She is the founder of Retire with Equity and author of Your Retirement Reset: How to Convert Home Equity into Financial Security (ECW Press, September 2026). . Media Contact: Susan Pimento Website: www.retirewithequity.ca Email: sue@retirewithequity.ca

How Virtual Reality Is Teaching Long Island to Survive a Rip Current

There are times when following your instincts in an emergency can put you in even greater danger. A swimmer caught in a rip current fights desperately toward shore, exhausting themselves when swimming parallel to the beach would carry them in seconds to safety. A driver caught in a sudden whiteout may instinctively slam on the brakes, turning a single dangerous moment into an multi-car pileup. Jase Bernhardt, director of Hofstra's meteorology program and associate professor of geology, environment, and sustainability, is Hofstra's lead voice on rip current safety at Long Island beaches — what causes them, how to spot one before wading in, and the counterintuitive escape move that keeps swimmers from panicking themselves under. He's taken that safety mission past the beach-flag-and-pamphlet stage: Bernhardt builds virtual reality simulations that put students and the public inside a rip current, a Category 3 hurricane, a storm surge, and a snow squall, so the correct response is already muscle memory before anyone's actually in danger. What he can speak to: Rip currents: how to identify one at a beach and why swimming parallel to shore (not against the current) is the move that saves lives Why VR training changes real-world behavior in a way a warning sign never does Hurricane risk — what his VR simulation teaches about wind and storm danger that a forecast graphic can't convey Snow squalls and storm surges: why "stay off the road" is the single best piece of advice, and why drivers still ignore it until conditions turn deadly Reach Dr. Bernhardt through the Contact button on his profile below.

New Gallup–Lumina Study Data Suggests Parents Can't See What a University Degree Is Really Worth

Sixty-three percent of Americans say four-year colleges are doing a poor job of making education affordable. Twelve percent say they're doing well. That figure is getting a lot of attention along with other results in the latest Gallup and Lumina Foundation survey of 2,043 adults. Ironically, this data will surprise very few people working in the sector who are paying attention. When you look at the data, one number stands out and provides hope for institutions. Among parents who hold a college degree, 48 percent want a four-year university for their child. And among parents with some college or a high school diploma, fewer than 20 percent do. Both groups want education after high school. What separates them is whether the parent has personally experienced what a degree does to employment, earnings and job satisfaction. So the case for the four-year degree is currently being carried by "lived experience", which, by definition, does not reach families who haven't had it. These are the families four-year institutions most need to reach. Community colleges, by contrast, show what the alternative looks like when it's explained well. They're rated good or excellent by 68 percent on access, 61 percent on quality, 54 percent on affordability and 52 percent on workforce preparation. Four-year institutions lead in one category: advancing knowledge and new discoveries, 53 percent to 46. Price is where institutions have hurt themselves most directly. Net prices have fallen across income brackets and institution types over six years, yet colleges continue publishing sticker figures that most enrolled students never pay. Courtney Brown calls transparency “the missing link in rebuilding trust.” A family that can't determine the price before applying will assume the advertised number is the price. The 3 Themes Run Through this Data Evidence has to Connect with Audiences Who Have No Reference Point: Institutions often position for families who already understand how higher education works. And the survey suggests the persuadable audience is the one that doesn't. Unexplained Value Doesn't Count: A college credential that costs less, takes two years, and ends in a job explains itself. A benefit that compounds over thirty years does not, and most institutions have responded by falling back on median starting salary. Universities need to show other evidence of value.  Scattered Evidence Isn't Discoverable: Aid data, outcomes, faculty expertise, and research impact each live in a different department, in different faculties, and in different systems. It’s challenging for CMO’s to unify all this information. But the market isn’t waiting for that to happen. Students and families now hand that assembly job to an AI search tool, and whatever it retrieves and attributes is functionally what the institution has said. None of this starts with a campaign. Write down the ten questions families ask most often, then check what your website, your faculty pages and an AI assistant currently return for each one. Most institutions find the evidence exists and nobody can locate it. At ExpertFile we understand we can’t fix all of these problems. Nonetheless, we’re working hard to make faculty expertise and research more findable and relatable to a variety of audiences - this includes the students and families that have important questions about the value of university. Americans have not given up on higher education. They just want clearer evidence of what it costs and what it returns, and they want it from credible voices willing to put their names to it.

Summer slide isn't just about academics

As summer reaches its midpoint, many parents are wondering how to keep their children engaged without turning the rest of the break into summer school. University of Delaware professors from the College of Education and Human Development say "summer slide" is real. However, preventing summer learning loss doesn't require expensive camps, tutors or educational apps. Instead, simple everyday activities can help children build academic skills, executive functioning and social-emotional development before they head back to school. Roberta Michnick Golinkoff, internationally recognized expert in child development and early learning can comment on: Why children lose academic skills over the summer – and why the effects are greatest for under-resourced families Why parents shouldn't rely on "educational" apps Free, research-backed ways to keep preschoolers and elementary-age children learning through play, reading and everyday activities like grocery shopping, puzzles and scavenger hunts Andrea Glowatz, expert in special education and child development can comment on: Why boredom is actually good for children – and how it builds creativity, problem-solving and independence How summer routines help children, particularly those with learning differences or neurodivergence Why chores, calendars and family routines strengthen executive functioning, not just responsibility Sara Goldstein, expert in adolescent development and parent-teen relationships can comment on: Why teenagers experience a version of the summer slide through increased screen time, disrupted sleep and reduced activity Healthy ways parents can encourage independence before college, from managing money to building life skills Research showing that strengthening parent-teen relationships during the summer benefits both parents and young adults These experts can also comment on broader parenting topics including screen time, executive functioning, preparing children for the new school year, supporting neurodivergent learners, and helping teens transition to college. If you're planning back-to-school or parenting coverage and want to speak with any of these experts, click on their profiles or email mediarelations@udel.edu.