Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Op-Ed: Stablecoin 'rewards' are a risk to financial stability
Congress has long recognized that stablecoins should not function as unregulated bank deposits. The intent of the recently enacted GENIUS Act is clear: to prohibit stablecoin issuers from paying interest or yield to holders, maintaining a distinction between payment instruments and bank deposits which are not only used for payment purposes but also as a store value. Yet loopholes have already emerged. Some crypto exchanges and affiliated platforms now offer “rewards” to stablecoin holders that work much like interest, potentially undermining the stability of the traditional banking system and constraining credit in local communities. Terminology matters. Credit card rewards are funded by interchange fees and paid to encourage spending — you earn points for using your card. Stablecoin “rewards” are different. They’re funded by investing the reserves backing stablecoins, typically in Treasury bills or money market funds, and passing that interest income to holders. You earn returns for holding the stablecoin, not for using it. Economically, this is indistinguishable from a bank deposit paying interest. When a platform advertises “5% rewards” on stablecoin holdings, it’s generally backing those tokens with Treasuries yielding about 4.5%, then passing that yield to users. Whether labeled rewards, yield or dividends, the function is the same: interest on deposits. Banks perform a similar activity — taking deposits, investing in loans and paying depositors a return — but face far higher costs, including FDIC insurance, capital requirements and compliance obligations that stablecoin issuers largely avoid. This dynamic has a precedent. In the 1970s and early 1980s, Regulation Q capped bank deposit rates at 5.25% while inflation and Treasury yields soared above 15%. Money market funds filled the gap, offering market rates directly to consumers. Deposits fled smaller banks, which lost their funding base, while large money-center institutions gained reserves. The result was widespread disintermediation, the collapse of the savings and loan industry and the farm-credit crisis of the 1980s. Stablecoin “rewards” risk repeating that history. Just as money market funds exploited the gap between regulated deposit rates and market rates, stablecoin platforms exploit the difference between what banks can profitably pay and what lightly regulated issuers can offer by passing through Treasury yields with minimal overhead. Some ask why banks can’t just raise deposit rates. The answer lies in structure. Banks operate under a fundamentally different business model and cost framework. They pay FDIC premiums, maintain capital reserves and comply with extensive supervision — costs most stablecoin issuers don’t bear. Banks also use deposits to make loans, which requires holding capital against potential losses. Stablecoin issuers simply hold reserves in ultra-safe assets, allowing them to pass through nearly all the yield they earn. To match 5% “rewards,” banks would need to earn 6% to 7% on their loan portfolios — an unrealistic target in today’s environment, especially for smaller community banks. The consequence is not fair competition, but a structural disadvantage for regulated depository institutions. The Consumer Bankers Association warns this loophole could trigger a massive shift of deposits from community banks to global custodians. Citing Treasury Department estimates, the Association notes that as much as $6.6 trillion in deposits could migrate into stablecoins if yield programs remain permissible. Because the GENIUS Act’s prohibition applies narrowly to issuers, exchanges and intermediaries may still offer financial returns under alternate terminology. This opens the door to affiliate arrangements that replicate the essence of interest payments without legal accountability. Those reserves don’t stay in local economies. The largest stablecoin issuers hold funds at global custodians such as Bank of New York Mellon, in money market funds managed by firms like BlackRock or — if permitted — directly with the Federal Reserve. When a community-bank depositor moves $100,000 into stablecoins, that capital exits the local bank and concentrates at systemically important institutions. The community bank loses lending capacity; the megabank or the Fed gains reserves. The result is disintermediation with a concentrated risk profile reminiscent of the money-market fund crisis. The Progressive Policy Institute estimates that community banks — responsible for roughly 60% of small-business loans and 80% of agricultural lending nationwide — could be among the most affected. In Louisiana, where local banks finance small businesses and family farms, that risk is especially relevant. If deposits migrate to unregulated digital assets, community-bank lending could tighten, particularly in rural parishes and underserved communities. Research from the Brookings Institution reinforces the need for regulatory parity. The label “rewards” doesn’t change the fact that these payments are economically interest. Allowing intermediaries to generate yield without deposit insurance or prudential oversight could recreate vulnerabilities similar to those seen during the 2008 money market fund crisis. To preserve financial stability, policymakers should move to close the stablecoin-interest loophole. Clarifying that the prohibition on interest applies to all entities— not just issuers — would uphold Congress’ intent. Regulators such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, Commodities Futures Trading Commission and federal banking agencies could also treat “reward” programs as equivalent to deposit interest for supervisory purposes. Stablecoins offer genuine efficiencies in payments, but unchecked yield features risk turning them into unregulated banks. History shows what happens when regulatory arbitrage allows competitors to offer deposit-like products without oversight: deposit flight, institutional instability and capital flowing away from community lenders. Acting now could help sustain stability, protect depositors and preserve the credit channels that support community lending — especially in states like Louisiana, where community banks remain the backbone of Main Street.
Beyond the Repo Headlines: What the Liquidity Signals are Really Saying
In late October and early November 2025, usage of the Federal Reserve's Standing Repo Facility (SRF) reached elevated levels exceeding $50 billion at month-end -- the highest utilization since March 2020. Simultaneously, the Overnight Reverse Repo (ON RRP) facility has collapsed to approximately $24 billion, down from peak levels exceeding $2 trillion in 2023. This combination signals structural stress in U.S. money markets extending beyond seasonal factors. These two facilities serve opposite functions in the Fed's monetary policy framework. The SRF is an emergency lending facility where banks can borrow reserves overnight by pledging Treasury or agency securities as collateral, paying the SRF rate (currently 4.50%). It acts as a ceiling on overnight rates. The ON RRP works in reverse: money market funds and other institutions lend cash to the Fed overnight, earning the ON RRP rate (currently 4.30%). It provides a floor on rates. The depletion of ON RRP removes a critical shock absorber. When the facility held trillions in 2021-2023, it functioned as a deployable liquidity reservoir. During stress events, as repo rates in private markets rose above the ON RRP rate, money market funds would withdraw their cash from the Fed and deploy it into higher-yielding private repo markets. This automatic flow of liquidity would stabilize rates without Fed intervention. With ON RRP now depleted to $24 billion, this reservoir is empty. When liquidity shocks occur, there is no pool of cash to flow into stressed markets. Instead, all pressure falls directly on bank reserves, currently at approximately $2.8 trillion. The elevated SRF usage indicates that despite aggregate reserves appearing adequate, banks are unable to efficiently reallocate liquidity across the system. The core problem is that banks with surplus reserves face prohibitive costs to intermediating due to post-2008 regulations, particularly the Supplementary Leverage Ratio (SLR) and G-SIB capital surcharges. The SLR requires capital against all balance sheet assets, including reserves. For a large bank to lend $1 billion overnight, it expands its balance sheet by that amount, increasing SLR denominators and potentially triggering higher surcharge brackets. The capital costs of holding additional assets on the balance sheet often exceed repo market spreads, rendering arbitrage unviable. Banks with surplus reserves therefore park them at the Fed rather than lending to institutions that need them. Current conditions reveal that while dealer behavior around period-ends follows established patterns, the magnitude of rate effects has grown substantially. Recent Federal Reserve research documents that SOFR rose as much as 25 basis points above the ON RRP rate at recent quarter-ends, far exceeding the 5-10 basis point moves typical in 2017. The Fed's analysis attributes this to "growing tightness in the repo market and a diminishing elasticity of supply and demand" as reserves decline. Critically, the research shows that dealer quarter-end behavior -- reducing triparty borrowing and shifting to central clearing -- has remained "remarkably stable," yet rate impacts have intensified. This indicates the problem is not changing behavior but deteriorating underlying conditions. The pattern mirrors 2018-2019, when similar dynamics preceded the September 2019 crisis. Academic work from that episode documented that foreign banks reached minimum reserve levels while domestic G-SIBs maintained surpluses but declined to intermediate due to balance sheet constraints.¹ November 2025 differs critically from September 2019: the ON RRP buffer is now depleted. In 2021-2023, that buffer absorbed surpluses and prevented repo rate collapse. Its near-zero level means the system lacks this stabilizer precisely when QT has reduced reserves and Treasury issuance remains elevated. Additional liquidity pressure falls directly on reserves, leaving repo markets vulnerable to quarter-end dynamics, tax payments, or Treasury settlement volatility. Chairman Powell announced that QT will slow dramatically, with Treasury runoff ending while mortgage-backed securities continue maturing. However, this addresses only aggregate levels, not the structural issues driving period-end stress. The question remains whether current reserve levels are sufficient given elevated post-pandemic deposits, outstanding credit line commitments, tighter balance sheet constraints, and the expired Bank Term Funding Program. What do these signals indicate? Three interpretations emerge. The most likely is that quarterend and month-end rate effects will continue intensifying as reserves decline further, with the spread between SOFR and ON RRP at period-ends serving as a barometer of underlying tightness. Federal Reserve research suggests that as Treasury issuance continues and reserves decline, "the repo market is likely to tighten further and the effects of quarter- or month-ends on repo rates may grow, providing another potential indicator that reserves are becoming less abundant." This would manifest as larger SRF usage at period-ends and persistent elevated Fed facility usage, though system functioning would remain generally stable between these events. A more adverse interpretation sees a triggering event during an already-stressed period-end causing broader repo market seizure, forcing the Fed to resume asset purchases and confirming that meaningful balance sheet normalization is impossible under current structures. An optimistic interpretation requires regulatory reform -- SLR exemptions for reserves or changes to quarter-end reporting requirements -- to reduce incentives for balance sheet window dressing, though this appears politically unlikely. For banks, the implication is that reserve buffers need to be higher than pre-2019 benchmarks, and the ratio of demandable claims to liquid assets requires closer monitoring. For investors, continued volatility in short-term interest rates should be expected, particularly around periodends. The Fed's weekly H.4.1 release tracking SRF and ON RRP levels provides leading indicators. Money market fund flows have outsized impact as their allocation decisions directly affect system liquidity buffers. The transformation underway represents a fundamental shift from bank-intermediated to partially Fed-intermediated money markets. Post-2008 regulations strengthened individual bank resilience but broke private intermediation chains. The central bank now serves as both lender and borrower of last resort, with private markets unable to efficiently connect flows. September 2019, March 2020, March 2023, and November 2025 episodes demonstrate a pattern: reserves appear adequate until buffers thin, after which modest events trigger outsized disruptions. 1. Bostrom, E., Bowman, D., Rose, A., and Xia, A. (2025), "What Happens on Quarter-Ends in the Repo Market," FEDS Notes, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; Copeland, A., Duffie, D., and Yang, Y. (2021), "Reserves Were Not So Ample After All," Federal Reserve Bank of New York. 2. Du, W. (2022), "Bank Balance Sheet Constraints at the Center of Liquidity Problems," Jackson Hole Economic Symposium.
Motor vehicle crashes remain one of the leading causes of death among teenagers. For the youngest drivers, getting behind the wheel marks freedom but also comes with measurable risk. At the University of California, Irvine, Dr. Federico Vaca, professor and executive vice chair of emergency medicine, is determined to change that trajectory. “Driving licensure among our youngest drivers remains a major life milestone, and it allows for newfound freedom and opportunity for not only youth but their parents as well. At the same time, learning to drive and licensure come at a time when youth are rapidly moving through life with new transitions in school, with friends, and likely exposure to alcohol and drugs,” he says. “Our priority … is to examine the complexities of young driver behavior and to thoroughly understand crash injury risk and crash prevention among this special group of drivers.” Vaca’s work is at the intersection of health, transportation science and policy. A fellow of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine and a researcher at UC Irvine’s Institute of Transportation Studies, he previously served as a medical fellow at the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in Washington, D.C. His long-standing goal is to prevent the injuries he has seen and treated in emergency departments and trauma centers through rigorous research, using the findings to inform and advance evidence-based programs and policies that save lives on the road. Innovating safety science UC Irvine is home to a new hub for understanding and preventing crash injuries among young drivers, the Brain, Body & Behavior Driving Simulation Lab, founded by Vaca and his interdisciplinary team. At the heart of the B3DrivSim Lab is a high-fidelity, half-cab driving simulator capable of replicating real-world conditions with precision. It uses advanced software to design customized driving scenarios – from complex roadway environments to the inclusion of such human elements as distraction and fatigue – all while capturing real-time video and driving behavior as well as vehicle control metrics. This integration of medicine, behavioral science and engineering enables researchers to measure how developmental and socioecological factors shape driver decisions in unique and consequential ways. The B3DrivSim Lab also represents a growing mentorship ecosystem at UC Irvine. In mid-June, the facility welcomed Siwei Hu, a postdoctoral scholar who earned a Ph.D. in civil and environmental engineering, with a focus on transportation studies, at UC Irvine. Hu works closely with Vaca to combine engineering and modeling analytics with behavioral and crash risk insights. The half-cab driving simulator uses advanced software to replicate real-world conditions and design customized driving scenarios – from complex roadway environments to the inclusion of such human elements as distraction and fatigue – all while capturing real-time video and driving behavior as well as vehicle control metrics. Steve Zylius / UC Irvine From the lab to policy Beyond simulation, Vaca’s latest National Institutes of Health-funded study, separate from his lab’s work, takes this philosophy to the national level. His project, “Modeling a National Graduated-BAC Policy for 21- to 24-Year-Old Drivers,” explores whether lowering the legal blood alcohol limit for young adults could reduce alcohol-related crashes and deaths. “When you turn 21, at that very moment, the application of several alcohol-related prevention laws changes in the blink of an eye,” Vaca says. “Before that, the minimum legal drinking age and zero-tolerance laws are in place to protect young drivers from alcohol-impaired driving. Effectively, the second you turn 21, those prevention policies don’t apply, and you’re suddenly allowed to have a much higher blood alcohol concentration in your body that’s intimately tied to serious and fatal crash risk. It’s a very dangerous disconnect.” The study will use national crash data, behavioral surveys and system dynamics modeling to examine how a “graduated BAC policy” might bridge that gap, giving young adult drivers a safer transition into full legal responsibility and saving many more lives. Bridging science, education and prevention Earlier this year, Vaca and his B3DrivSim team joined prevention program educators, policymakers, engineers and law enforcement professionals in Anaheim at a Ford Driving Skills for Life event, part of a Ford Philanthropy-sponsored national effort teaching teens hands-on safe driving techniques – from hazard recognition to impaired-driving awareness. Speaking to more than 130 high school students and their parents from local and distant communities, Vaca emphasized the connection among driving, independence, opportunity and responsibility. That message aligns with his broader initiative, Youth Thriving in Life Transitions with Transportation, which introduces high school students to traffic safety and transportation science and their role in promoting health, education and employment in early adulthood. By linking research and real-world experience, the project empowers youth to see mobility as a foundation for opportunity with safety as its cornerstone. With overall young driver crash fatalities rising 25 percent nationally over the last decade and a 46 percent increase in fatal crashes where a young driver had a BAC of ≥ .01/dL, Vaca’s work represents a crucial step toward reversing that trend. Through a combination of clinical insight and prevention, transportation and data science underscored by community collaboration, he and his team are redefining how researchers and policymakers think about youth driver safety.
From classrooms to communities: Rethinking civic engagement in K–12 education
When national headlines focus on school board battles and political polarization, James Bridgeforth, assistant professor of educational leadership at the University of Delaware, is focused on what’s possible instead: building a more inclusive, participatory model of democracy through public education. His research in UD's College of Education and Human Development explores how community voice, equity and local leadership intersect to shape education policy – and how school boards can serve as vital engines for rebuilding public trust in government. "Despite the often sensationalized stories of chaotic school board meetings and the influence of more national "culture war" issues, I still believe that it's possible for people from different backgrounds, experiences, and points of view to come together to figure out how to best serve the needs of all of our children." – Bridgeforth Bridgeforth’s work centers on education governance, policy and leadership, with particular attention to how racism and anti-Blackness manifest in schools and policymaking spaces. His scholarship highlights the importance of inclusive decision-making, arguing that effective education policy must be representative of the diverse communities it serves. He recently published the report "Navigating Democracy in Divided Times" with co-authors on this topic. As part of his work with the Getting Down to Facts III project at Stanford University, Bridgeforth collaborates with researchers studying how to improve California’s TK–12 system and inform the next governor’s education policy agenda. His work documents the complex realities faced by local school board members – often minimally paid community leaders navigating contentious public discourse, social media pressure and limited resources. He notes that this research can be applied to school boards around the country. The next frontier: Youth civic engagement Over the next several years, Bridgeforth aims to deepen understanding of how schools can nurture young people’s civic skills and leadership capacity through participation in governance. One proposed project – "Strengthening Opportunities for Youth Civic Engagement and Student Voice in Educational Governance" – uses participatory action research to explore how student board member policies and engagement practices foster civic agency and democratic mindsets. This collaborative work brings together youth-led community organizations and education researchers to study how these experiences shape long-term civic behavior – from voting to public service. Why it matters Bridgeforth’s research arrives at a pivotal time for American democracy. As trust in public institutions erodes, local school boards remain one of the spaces where citizens can directly shape policy. His work points to a hopeful truth: democracy’s renewal may begin in classrooms, communities and the local school board meetings shaping them. For journalists covering education, race or civic engagement, Bridgeforth offers data-driven insight, lived experience and policy expertise – helping make sense of one of the most pressing questions of our time: How can we build systems that truly serve all students and communities? This work collectively demonstrates a number of promising opportunities to foster more inclusive, community-connected forms of governance, particularly in a time of eroding trust in government institutions." – Bridgeforth ABOUT JAMES BRIDGEFORTH Assistant Professor, College of Education and Human Development James Bridgeforth is an educator, researcher and policy advocate whose work focuses on community voice in education policy and the politics of educational leadership. His scholarship has appeared in top journals including Journal of School Leadership, Education Policy Analysis Archives, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis and Educational Administration Quarterly, and he has contributed to Education Week and The Washington Post. A recipient of the National Academy of Education/Spencer Foundation Dissertation Fellowship, Bridgeforth holds a Ph.D. in Urban Education Policy from the University of Southern California, an M.Ed. in Educational Administration and Policy from the University of Georgia, and a B.A. in Political Science and Sociology from Georgia College & State University. Expert available for: Interviews on K–12 school governance, education policy and democracy Commentary on community voice and equity in education decision-making Analysis of youth civic engagement and participatory leadership To contact Bridgeforth, email mediarelations@udel.edu.
Local Elections and Early Voting Turnout
Dr. Meena appeared on WNYW-TV Fox 5 to discuss the New York City mayoral race and the New Jersey gubernatorial race, the high turnout for early voting, and why the nation will be closely monitoring the election results in our area. Dr. Bose is a Hofstra University professor of political science, executive dean of the Public Policy and Public Service program, and director of the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency.
Everyone from farmers to Fortune 500 companies are now feeling the impact of Trump administration tariffs aimed primarily at reducing the trade deficit and reviving domestic manufacturing. University of Delaware experts offer insight into the economic, political and social impacts of these tariffs and what the future of U.S. trade policy may hold. Experts available: Alice Ba, associate professor, International Relations and Comparative Politics – Topic: Economic implications of tariffs on domestic industries and global supply chains. Dan Green, associate professor, International Relations and Political Theory – Topic: Political dynamics of U.S. trade policy and congressional responses. Dan Kinderman, professor, Comparative Politics and International Relations – Topic: Impacts on international business relationships and corporate strategy. Robert Denemark, professor, International Relations – Global geopolitical implications and international relations perspectives. Stuart Kaufman, professor, Political Science and International Relations – Historical context and comparative analysis of past U.S. trade policies. Journalists who would like to speak with these experts can click on their profiles or email mediarelations@udel.edu.
Why Brokers Are Canada’s New Mortgage Rockstars
There’s a quiet revolution happening in Canadian mortgage lending—well, as “quiet” as anything can be when two-thirds of Canadians are shouting, “We’d rather deal with a broker than a bank!” According to the most recent Mortgage Professionals Canada (MPC) Consumer Survey, 67% of Canadians now say they’d rather work with a mortgage broker than a bank. Among those who already have? A whopping 81% would do it again. That’s not just a statistic. That’s a standing ovation. The Great Mortgage Broker Boom According to recent MPC data, broker market share reached 33% in 2024—a four-point increase in just two years. Nearly half of all borrowers now choose brokers. The message is clear: Canadians are tired of sales reps; they want advocates who speak human, not policy manual. And who can blame them? With 1.2 million mortgages renewing in 2025 and average payments increasing by $513 a month, people aren’t just rate-shopping anymore—they’re seeking guidance, reassurance, and maybe a bit of hope. Let’s face it: they want their cake and still be able to heat their home too. Why This Matters—Especially for Seniors I work with Canadians aged 55+ every day, and about three-quarters of them are homeowners. They’ve done everything right: worked hard, paid off debt, raised families, and built wealth through their homes. But now, many feel… trapped by them. Here’s the reality: Mortgage renewals are costing hundreds more monthly (some facing 15–20% jumps) Inflation is eating into fixed incomes; and downsizing, aging in place, or tapping into home equity all feel like high-stakes decisions. Almost 80% of Canadians over 55 say their savings and pensions aren’t enough. (Source: Home Equity Bank Ipsos Survey) According to this same survey, half of respondents believe home equity is crucial for retirement—yet 76% feel pressured to downsize even if they’d rather not trade their garden for a balcony (or their favourite hairdresser for whoever’s closest to the condo). What they don’t need: A one-size-fits-all sales pitch from someone who thinks “retirement” means early-bird specials and Sudoku marathons. What they do need: A mortgage broker who listens, educates, compares options, and helps them sleep at night—not just sign on the dotted line. The Missing Link: Transactional vs. Conversion Sales Traditional mortgages are what we call commodities, sold using a transactional method. In this approach, the need is obvious—the customer wants a mortgage—and the focus is on competing for the best price and terms. It’s fast, efficient, and, let’s be honest, a little impersonal. It’s the classic hammer-and-nail approach: every client looks like a nail, and the broker just keeps swinging rates and terms until something sticks. That may work for a first-time buyer chasing the cheapest five-year fix—but for seniors? It’s about as effective as putting a Band-Aid on a broken arm. The 55+ demographic doesn’t want a hammer. They want a conversation. They want to understand how to stretch their pension income, cover rising expenses, and prepare for life’s curveballs—like healthcare costs or home repairs—without feeling like they’re going backwards financially. That’s why this is not a transactional sale; it’s a conversion sale. A transactional sale happens when someone already wants what you’re selling—you’re just facilitating the purchase. A conversion sale, however, is when the client doesn’t yet believe they need or want what you’re offering. You’re not closing a deal; you’re changing a mindset. And that’s the secret sauce for brokers working with older Canadians. You’re not selling debt—you’re offering financial flexibility. You’re helping people reframe home equity from a “last resort” into a retirement resource. How Brokers Can Shift the Conversation Lead with empathy, not economics. Ask about life goals, not loan size. Do they want to age in place, help kids, or reduce financial stress? Start with why, then move to how. Rebrand the conversation. Words matter. “Mortgage” can feel like failure. Try “home-equity strategy” or “retirement cash-flow plan.” You’re not adding debt—you’re unlocking options. Talk cash flow, not contracts. Focus on income versus expenses, inflation resilience, and emergencies. Discuss how home equity can supplement pensions, create predictable, guaranteed income (like our parents had), and—most importantly—boost that all-important sleep score. Include the family. Adult children often play a major role. Involve them early—these are emotional, multi-generational conversations, not just financial ones. Educate, don’t sell. Show examples, calculators, and real-life case studies. Transparency earns trust—and trust is the true currency in a conversion sale. When brokers shift from “rate pitching” to “retirement planning,” they go from hammer-swingers to problem-solvers—and that’s where the real magic (and business growth) happens. What Mortgage Brokers Bring to the Table The broker market is projected to grow at a 5% CAGR through 2030, driven by consumers demanding personalization over cookie-cutter lending. And the reverse-mortgage space just got a serious glow-up. Home Trust Bank has just entered the market, announcing its new Equity Access Reverse Mortgage product at this week's Mortgage Professionals Conference in Ottawa. That brings the total to four active lenders in Canada’s reverse-mortgage space: HomeEquity Bank, Equitable Bank, Home Trust Bank, and Bloom Finance Company. More lenders mean more credibility—or, as I like to call it, street cred for seniors. The kind that lets retirees walk down the street (or the fairway) with a little swagger, knowing their financial toolkit has options. With more players in the mix comes more choice, sharper pricing, and—most importantly—a sense that reverse mortgage products have finally crossed over from “fringe” to financially fashionable. Reverse mortgages are no longer the “we-don’t-talk-about-that” cousin at the financial family dinner—they’re sitting proudly at the adult table. The product is being normalized—treated as the legitimate, strategic retirement tool it has always been. So, brokers—be honest. Isn’t it time you caught up to the trend? Reverse mortgages have gone from taboo to totally credible. And if your clients still say, “We’re just not reverse-mortgage people,” that’s your cue to help them unpack that posture of financial marginalization. Because what they often mean is, “We don’t want to feel old, desperate, or dependent.” That’s not who they are—and that’s not what this product is. It’s not about retreating; it’s about reframing. Helping them see home equity as strength, not surrender. Because empowering clients to live comfortably, confidently, and cash-flow secure isn’t just good business—it’s the kind of advocacy that gives everyone involved a little swagger. Older Canadians Need Advocates—Not Just Advisors As a spokesperson for this group, I urge brokers to master Equity Literacy—the ability to explain complex tools like reverse mortgages and HELOCs in plain language. It’s about helping retirees access equity wisely, preserve benefits, and create peace of mind. Canadian reverse-mortgage debt reached $8.2 billion in mid-2024—an 18.3% year-over-year increase. (Source: Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions - OSFI). Canadians are catching on: their house can help them, not haunt them (could not resist the Halloween joke). Help seniors understand the range of uses for Reverse Mortgages like paying off high-interest debt, helping family through early inheritance or gifting, and supplementing retirement income to maintain independence. And here’s where brokers can really shine—by guiding family conversations about inheritance, housing, and aging in place. According to CMHC’s 2025 Mortgage Consumer Survey, 41% of first-time buyers used a gift or inheritance to cover mortgage costs. That's up from 30% the year before. Those gifts averaged nearly $80,000. The Bank of Mom & Dad just got promoted to Wealth Management HQ. To the Canadian mortgage broker industry You’re not just in the mortgage business—you’re in the dignity business. You help Canadians stay in their homes, reduce stress, and live comfortably in retirement. With home sales slowing and fewer purchase deals, this is your moment. Building expertise in the 55+ market isn’t just good karma—it’s good business. How to start: educate your database about equity-release benefits and tax-free cash flow; host workshops on “Aging in Place with Equity”; partner with financial planners, lawyers, healthcare providers—and yes, Realtors—to build a holistic approach to retirement housing. Involve adult children in every conversation; they’re tomorrow’s clients. The data says Canadians need you more than ever. And I’ll say it louder: so do I. Let’s make retirement planning better, smarter, and more human—one conversation at a time. So here’s the truth: the 55+ crowd doesn’t need rescuing—they need respect. They’re not clinging to the past; they’re funding their future. They don’t want pity; they want power—and they’ve earned it. This generation built Canada’s equity base—literally—and now it’s time they get to use it wisely, proudly, and on their own terms. Whether that means a new roof, a family gift, or finally taking that long-postponed trip to Italy, it’s not about borrowing money—it’s about buying freedom. So, brokers, financial pros, and anyone guiding retirees—remember: your role isn’t to sell products. It’s to spark possibilities. To help older Canadians move from fear to freedom, from “we’re not those people” to “why didn’t we do this sooner?” Because the real revolution in retirement isn’t about rates or renewals. It’s about reclaiming confidence, creating financially viable futures, and knowing you’ve made a real difference—something your clients will remember long after the ink dries. Trust me, that’s far more gratifying than handing out a 4.99% five-year fixed. I want to know what you think. Send me your feedback. Want more insights like this? Subscribe to my free newsletter here, where I share practical strategies, real-world stories, and straight talk about navigating retirement with confidence—not confusion. Plus, all subscribers get exclusive early access to advance chapters from my upcoming book. For Canadians 55+: Get actionable advice on making your home equity work for you, understanding your options, and living retirement on your terms. For Mortgage Brokers and Financial Professionals: Learn how to become the trusted advisor your 55+ clients desperately need (and will refer to everyone they know). This isn't just another revenue stream—it's your opportunity to build lasting relationships in Canada's fastest-growing demographic. Sue Don’t Retire…Re-Wire!
New Poll Measures Presidential Popularity
Dr. Meena Bose was interviewed by Newsweek regarding a new poll from Marquette University that found Americans view former President Barack Obama more favorably than President Donald Trump. Dr. Bose explained that Obama’s “personal appeal, inspirational rhetoric, and unanticipated success in the 2008 presidential race continue to have strong public support.” “The promise of hope and change are defining features of the Obama presidential campaign and still influence assessments of his presidency,” she said. Dr. Bose is a Hofstra University professor of political science, executive dean of the Public Policy and Public Service program, and director of the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency.
Nursing researcher receives over $500K in prestigious grants
For the first time in nearly 15 years, a faculty member from Augusta University’s College of Nursing has been awarded a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Blake McGee, PhD, has secured an R03 award of $176,331 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to study Medicaid’s expanded role in late postpartum maternal health. But he hasn’t stopped there as McGee is also part of the fifth cohort of Betty Irene Moore Fellows, a prestigious program for nurse leaders and innovators that has awarded CON half a million dollars to support his research project and leadership development. McGee, the prelicensure department chair and an associate professor, is collaborating with colleagues from other Georgia universities on both studies, which are occurring simultaneously. “I began my career as an ER nurse and have always wanted to ask bigger questions about the challenges facing patients and how we might best address them as a society,” said McGee, who was recently selected for publication in Blood Advances, the American Society of Hematology’s journal. “As nursing scientists, we are uniquely poised to ask questions about healthcare policy, specifically from the vantage point of the impact that policy choices have on patients and their health outcomes.” This century, the United States has seen rising maternal mortality rates with alarming racial disparities. Over half of these deaths occur in the postpartum period, with 23% occurring more than six weeks after delivery. Medicaid expansion covers pregnant women in households below 138% of the Federal poverty level through postpartum day 60, which has been associated with decreased mortality and reduced racial disparity in maternal death. At the time of grant submission, pregnancy Medicaid eligibility traditionally lapsed 60 days after delivery, leaving postpartum people vulnerable to disruptions in care. McGee’s work aims to identify changes in maternal health care use and health outcomes 60 days to 1 year after delivery that were associated with state Medicaid expansions (2007–19). The team will examine whether the effects of expansion vary by maternal race or ethnicity and will explore whether patient-reported health care access and quality mediate the relationships between expansion and outcomes. “My hope is that after the study we’ll have a better understanding of how health and health care use change for women in this crucial late postpartum period and how they may differ for people of different backgrounds,” said McGee. “Due to the sample design, findings will reliably inform optimal policy for postpartum coverage duration.” He expects this study to provide preliminary data for a future R01-funded study that directly examines the impact of extending the duration of postpartum Medicaid under the American Rescue Plan. As part of the Betty Irene Moore Fellowship, McGee is one of 15 fellows across the nation in a curriculum co-delivered by the UC Davis School of Nursing and Graduate School of Management. A project coordinator from AU’s School of Public Health will also assist with the fellowship project. McGee hopes to involve graduate research assistants or recent alumni as research associates on the team. Specifically, McGee will be studying the Georgia Pathways to Coverage Program, making him one of the only academic researchers in the nation funded to do so. “As a researcher, it is always a privilege to engage in topics that directly impact the current state of health care, and I’m honored to tackle projects that are so relevant to today’s health policy headlines,” he said. Georgia stands out among other states that are exploring an extension of Medicaid to low-income, working-age adults who demonstrate a monthly commitment of 80 hours to an employment-related activity. By studying the effects of this program, McGee predicts the findings will be highly relevant to anticipating the impact of recent Medicaid changes at the federal level and may indicate differences between Pathways participants and those who might qualify but remain uninsured. This focus could provide data that helps the state target enrollment efforts. The state’s own logic model predicts that the program will reduce hospitalizations, and McGee is eager to determine the program’s success. “Our findings should be helpful to the state to better understand those enrolling, what their experience with increased access to care has been and how their health has improved after receiving coverage,” McGee said.
Government Shutdown: LSU Experts Available
As the federal government shutdown continues, LSU finance and economics experts are available to provide insight into its potential consequences—from effects on markets and small businesses to broader economic stability and consumer confidence. Rajesh Narayanan Dr. Narayanan is a leading expert on banking and financial markets whose research and commentary regularly inform policy discussions at central banks and regulatory agencies worldwide. Del Wright Prof. Wright’s research focuses on tax, finance, business, securities, entrepreneurship, and in the last few years, crypto and blockchain regulation.
