Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Global Honors Highlight J.S. Held’s Unmatched Technical and Advisory Expertise

J.S. Held proudly celebrates the numerous industry and expert recognitions earned throughout 2025. As a global consulting firm, J.S. Held continues to be acknowledged for its deep financial, technical, and scientific expertise, with leading outlets highlighting the firm’s capabilities across investigations, risk advisory, forensics, turnaround and restructuring, business intelligence, and litigation support. The firm’s curated team of entrepreneurs — each with an unrivaled understanding of both tangible and intangible assets — reflects a collective strength that is recognized worldwide. Beyond organizational achievements, J.S. Held’s experts received individual distinctions that further demonstrate their standing as leaders within their respective fields. Industry publications and ranking bodies honoured these specialists for excellence in arbitration, construction and engineering, environmental consulting, forensic accounting, investigations, litigation support, intellectual property, specialty finance, and a wide range of other highly specialized domains. Together, these recognitions underscore J.S. Held’s commitment to delivering trusted insight and unparalleled expertise as clients navigate increasingly complex challenges. In a rapidly evolving business landscape, the firm remains dedicated to providing informed, innovative, and practical solutions that enable organizations to move forward with confidence. Click on the link below to learn more about our recognition and respective areas of expertise: Expert recognition by notable organizations serves as a further testament to J.S. Held's agile, collaborative, creative, and client-centric team, reflecting the trusted advisor role the firm has earned over the last 50 years. For any media inquiries, contact: Kristi L. Stathis, J.S. Held +1 786 833 4864 Kristi.Stathis@JSHeld.com

Decoding Crypto

As interest in cryptocurrencies move from the fringes to mainstream conversation and public policy debate, Derek Mohr, clinical associate professor of finance at the Simon Business School at the University of Rochester, offers a clear-eyed voice on the subject. Mohr specializes in financial innovation and digital assets, and he’s been in demand with reporters looking to understand the economics behind everything from “Bitcoin-powered” home heaters to gas stations offering discounts for crypto purchases. His message? Not everything that markets itself as a breakthrough actually adds up. For instance, some companies have pitched devices that promise to heat a home using excess energy generated from bitcoin mining. Mohr recently told CNBC the idea might sound clever, but that its practicality collapses under basic financial and engineering realities. “The bitcoin heat devices I have seen appear to be simple space heaters that use your own electricity to heat the room . . . which is not an efficient way to heat a house,” Mohr said. “Yes, bitcoin mining generates a lot of heat, but the only way to get that to your house is to use your own electricity.” Bitcoin mining, he explained, has become so specialized that home computers have virtually zero chance of earning a mining reward. Industrial mining farms operate on custom-built chips far more powerful than any consumer device. In other words, consumers who think they’re heating their homes and earning crypto are, in reality, just paying for electricity and getting no real mining benefit. A pragmatic voice in a volatile space Mohr’s research and commentary help explain not just what is happening in the crypto world, but why it matters for consumers, businesses, and regulators. Whether evaluating the economics of mining or the viability of crypto payments, he brings a steady, analytical perspective to a domain dominated by hype and fast-moving news cycles. For journalists covering cryptocurrency, fintech, and the future of financial transactions, Mohr is available for interviews on digital payments, bitcoin mining economics, crypto regulation, and emerging trends in financial technologies. Top contact him, reach out to University of Rochester media relations liaison David Andreatta at david.andreatta@rochester.edu.

Budget 25 – initial reactions related to personal financial wellbeing

As the director of the Aston Centre for Personal Financial Wellbeing, and a professor of taxation, I obviously take particular interest in the annual budget day as it sets a tone for much of the personal finance changes that are likely to occur in the near future. The lead up to this year’s budget had unprecedented levels of speculation with much of the press and commentators trying to get attention with ever more it seemed wilder guessing of what the chancellor might do – largely unhelpfully and worrying people and the markets unnecessarily. Almost all of this proved wide of the mark as the budget didn’t increase any of the main taxes at all, and where it might nudge National Insurance contributions (NICs) up for some, this won’t be for a few years and only in a small area (pension payments for employees) that won’t actually affect most people. Small and cautious steps to reform The reason for all this speculation of key changes needed was that everyone suspected there was a big hole in the national finances. This was shown not to be the case. In fact, predictions provided in the budget documents are we’d in fact be in budget surplus by the end of this parliament period even before the changes announced take effect. This was a surprise to many and meant the chancellor could actually focus on at least some small and cautious steps towards reforming how our tax, benefit and government spending systems work. What she proposed therefore is currently predicted will raise circa £26bn and give the government ‘head-room’ to cope with economic changes later rather than needed to fill a feared financial black hole now – good news all round! This meant what we actually got was lots of smaller changes with fewer ‘rabbit out of a hat’ big tax surprises than we have had in recent years – a welcome steadying trend I hope will continue. She also promised some short-term spending that can be paid for with a combination of extra borrowing now and with increased taxes later – again a trend of recent budgets. If these tax changes actually happen in the end, then it will be down to what happens between now and when these were proposed to commence – by no means a guarantee these will ever happen. Later budgets, or other rule changes in the future, could easily retract or counter them (all chancellors like to announce planned tax changes aren’t going to happen for obvious political gain reasons!). Income tax changes The largest share of the extra £26bn raised will come from extending the income tax thresholds for a further period – now to 2031. These have been fixed (at £12,570 for example for the point at which income tax starts to need to be paid on personal incomes) since at least 2023, some well before this. This matters, as, when wages rise due to inflation, people are not better off in reality (you get more income but things cost more), but may end up paying more tax than before as the thresholds haven’t increased with inflation to the same degree (what we call ‘fiscal drag’). As such, holding these thresholds fixed for longer will raise extra money for the government (predicted to be over £12bn a year in 2030-31 for example) – largely unnoticed as to many it doesn’t feel like the tax rise it clearly is. The threshold fixing extension announced today will mean that as many as 700,000 more people will start to pay some income tax when they wouldn’t currently, and up to 1 million more people will start to pay higher rates of tax than currently – all without being actually better off in real terms. Some call this stealth tax, but it feels very real when it starts to affect you if your total taxable incomes fall near these threshold levels. There were in total more than 70 other tax measure changes in this budget – a huge number and lots to get your head around. However, most of these will not affect most people and are relatively small in nature – targeted at making the tax system a little fairer (i.e. those on higher incomes, with more savings, dividends, receiving additional income from property they own etc – paying more taxes as a proportion of the total amount raised in tax from all sources). This is clearly welcome news (at least for those not being asked to pay this extra) in the current climate. The biggest changes for financial wellbeing As a research centre focusing on individual and family financial wellbeing, what do we think are the specifics announcements made that are most likely to affect people – several headline announcements are worth highlighting: -  1. The removal of the two-child limit on benefit eligibility is obviously a key headline – long touted as a key reason larger families are much more likely to be in poverty than smaller families. This is a key change that many Labour MPs wanted to see happen and the chancellor has delivered on it. This is very welcome news – although it won’t start to affect these families until after April 2026 to give time to bring these measures into place – but then predicted to lift 450,000 children out of poverty. 2. As part of making the tax system more progressive, a brand-new tax was announced on very expensive houses in England – to be snappily called the High Value Council Tax Surcharge (or HVCTS) – although expect it to be called the ‘mansion tax’ by everyone! The UK’s main local tax (council tax) isn’t going to be reformed as such in this change – despite being the target of much speculation that it is just too regressive to leave unreformed any longer after we haven’t revalued houses in most of the UK since 1991. This will instead be an additional tax, commencing in April 28, on those whose properties are valued (now) at £2m or more – with higher rates rising to those with properties over £5m. Clearly this will affect relatively few in most of the UK (only expected to affect 1% of properties nationally), but will affect some and will raise extra revenues (expected to raise circa £400m+ a year) to directly support provision of local services – much needed in many parts of the UK. 3. New taxes on electric cars – given fuel duty is not paid by those who drive electric cars (as they don’t buy petrol or diesel) there have been calls for new taxes to be charged to electric car drivers. While these cars may be better for the environment when driven, they continue to wear roads and contribute to congestion. The government is proposing a per mile charge from April 28 (to be called the Electric Vehicle Excise Duty or eVHD) for these vehicles which will be painful for electric car divers – not least as this cost as not known when purchase decisions were made. No-one likes a tax charged on something you have already made the decision to buy so expect this to be unpopular. It is proposed currently to cost EV drivers around £20/month – about half the rate of fuel duty on average – and expected to raise circa £2bn a year by 2030-31. I expect this tax will become more nuanced in future perhaps as technology enables perhaps different charges to be applied to use of congested city roads compared to open rural driving perhaps - we will see.  4. National Insurance deductibility for pension contributions via salary sacrifice schemes operated by many employers for their employees is to be capped at £2,000 (although only from April 29 – so no immediate effect). This now very widely used approach to making pension contributions if you are an employee that in effect avoids you having to pay NIC on this income going into your pension. For those with larger pension contributions the bit that can be made before NIC is due on the extra this will be capped in the future to £2,000 per year – again affecting those who receive higher pension contributions most and affecting those at the bottom of the income spectrum, little if at all (74% of employees are predicted not to be affected). Is this a breach of the Labour manifesto promises not to increase the main taxes? For some it certainly seems that way. What didn’t happen? There are many smaller measures to explore, or ones that are not coming into effect for the next year or more that might have been missed from the news headlines but that will almost certainly affect lots of people. To name just a few (including highlighting several things NOT going to happen – which will obvious not save people money per se, but help by not costing them more): - above inflation increases to national minimum (‘living’) wage for all age groups from April 2026 (+4.1% for those over 21)– although still not raising this to ‘real living wage’ levels. further extension of holding off on the 5p/litre fuel duty rise not increasing prescription charges (staying at £9.90 for the next year) confirming state pension rises by 4.8% from next April (worth £575/year) confirming £150 winter fuel payments again this winter to over 6 million homes freezing regulated rail fares – preventing the usual annual increases from January (the first time this has happened in 30 years) extending the government’s Help to Save scheme to more benefit recipients than previously No immediate impact for most Overall, this is therefore probably a welcome budget for many, those on lower incomes will likely get the most from these measures, if all are applied as proposed, but most won’t see much of an immediate impact immediately – and with the largest benefit likely to all on larger families in receipt of benefits from next April.

Government Plays Catch Up After End of Shutdown

Dr. Anoop Rai, professor of finance at Hofstra’s Frank G. Zarb School of Business, was interviewed by Newsday about the lasting economic impact of the recent federal government shutdown, the longest in the history of the United States. Dr. Rai told Newsday that the period of economic uncertainty caused by this latest shutdown is a “blip” and he expects a quick rebound as government spending resumes. “In the broad scheme of things, everything will come back to normal with a slight dip in [gross domestic production], but the question is — was it necessary?” he said. “The disruption the shutdown has caused should be measured in terms of the pain it has inflicted on a lot of people.”

Canada's First Lifetime Fixed-Rate Reverse Mortgage: A Game-Changer or Just Another Option?

Every so often, a retirement product emerges that makes even a seasoned boomer take notice and remark, "Well, isn't that interesting?" The Globe and Mail reported that Bloom Finance has introduced Canada's first "lifetime fixed-rate reverse mortgage." What’s a Lifetime Fixed-Rate Reverse Mortgage? A Fixed Rate Reverse Mortgage is a financing option that gives you a permanently locked-in interest rate for as long as you hold the loan—not just for a typical five-year term. This could appeal to many Canadians entering retirement: It means you can unlock tax-free equity from your home without worrying that future rate hikes will eat into your cash flow or erode your long-term plans. What makes this even more appealing is the nature of a reverse mortgage itself. You’re not required to make monthly payments You retain full ownership of your home Your rate simply determines how your balance grows over time. When that rate is fixed for life, it removes one of the biggest sources of uncertainty, allowing retirees to plan confidently, protect more of their equity, and use their home as a stable financial tool rather than a source of stress. In short, a fixed-rate reverse mortgage combines the predictability retirees crave with the flexibility they need—something increasingly hard to find in today’s jittery rate environment. Bloom's New Lifetime Reverse Mortgage: Why People Are Talking Reverse mortgages allow homeowners aged 55+ to access up to roughly 55% of their home's equity without taxes, without monthly payments, and without affecting OAS or GIS. In the past, concerns have centred on the compounded interest and the uncertainty of future rates. Bloom's new Lifetime Reverse Mortgage offering aims to ease this stress by offering a fixed rate for life. Currently, that rate is 6.69%.  The rates are a bit higher than other reverse mortgage products on the market.  For comparison here are some current rates at the time of publication: Home Trust's (6.44% for a 5-year fixed rate) Equitable Bank (6.54%) HomeEquity Bank's (6.64%) 5-year fixed rates. Looking Beyond the Rates of Reverse Mortgages Bloom's real appeal with this new product is emotional: no more renewal surprises. For retirees on fixed incomes, the stability of a fixed rate feels different. It's like a weighted blanket for your financial nervous system. Think of it as an insurance policy against rising interest rates. And boomers love insurance. We insure our hips, luggage, vacations, eyeglasses, cell phones, and emotions (usually at the spa). So, a mortgage rate that stays stable? Yes, please. But let’s look beyond the mechanics of this product. We need to discuss a force even greater than compound interest: luck. Let's Talk About Luck (aka: The Retirement Wild Card) Here's a truth many boomers seldom admit: financial success isn't only about planning. It's about timing. It's about circumstance. And yes… pure, unfiltered luck. As humans — especially we entitled boomers — we tend to overemphasize our achievements and downplay our faults. And let's be honest: we don't like admitting when we're wrong. Society often rewards the strong and wrong more than the weak and right. (If you're unsure, just watch any political panel for 30 seconds.) Even Warren Buffett — the patron saint of rational investing — made a spectacularly poor decision when he bought Dexter Shoe for $433 million in Berkshire stock. The company later became worthless. Buffett described it as the worst deal of his life. If the Oracle of Omaha can make a mistake, the rest of us can certainly recognize how luck has influenced our real estate stories. And oh, did luck influence the boomer journey. We bought homes when they were affordable; when interest rates were character-building, and avocado appliances were peak chic. Then real estate skyrocketed. Homes doubled, tripled, quadrupled. Not because we were geniuses — but because we were standing in the right place at the right time. Let's be even more honest: A boomer's worst day in real estate is a millennial's dream day. We might not like admitting it, but it's true. And yes — boomers get to show off a little because we also carried the burden of our failures: recessions, layoffs, 19% mortgage rates, renovation disasters, and property taxes that still make us weep into our soup. But luck? She was definitely in the room. Now that we've named her, we can begin speaking honestly about how to use the equity we possess — wisely, deliberately, and with eyes wide open. Let's Discuss the Numbers (Because We Ought To) Here's where the real impact happens. Say you're 70 and you take out a $200,000 reverse mortgage at Bloom's lifetime rate of 6.69%. Over 20 years, with compounding interest and no payments, you'd owe approximately $724,000. Now, if you took out a traditional reverse mortgage at 6.54% over those same 20 years (not including rate hikes, though they're likely), you'd owe approximately $707,000. That's a $17,000 difference — not a high price to pay for lifelong comfort. But There Are Trade-Offs The early-exit penalties are steep: · 8% in year one · Decreasing until year five · Then three months' interest thereafter Penalties are waived if you downsize, move to assisted living, or pass away. But if you leave for other reasons? You're responsible for the costs. Translation: Only select this reverse mortgage product if you genuinely plan to stay put. Zooming Out: The Full Menu of Equity Options This lifetime reverse mortgage is just one tool in a broad (and expanding) equity-release toolkit. Others include: ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Units): Build a suite, rent it out, house a caregiver, or create multigenerational living. Offers independence and income potential. Downsizing: The classic move. Big house to small house to building a solid cash cushion. Emotionally complex, financially empowering. HELOCs (Home Equity Lines of Credit): Offer flexible, interest-only repayment options. Manulife One: The Swiss Army knife of HELOCs. Perfect for disciplined retirees. HESA (Home Equity Sharing Agreements): No payments or interest — you exchange future house appreciation for cash today. Traditional Reverse Mortgages: Similar to Bloom in structure but without the lifetime rate. And yes — boomers have more equity-access options than any generation in Canadian history. Not arrogance. Just facts. And increasingly relevant ones. Research shows that 91% of older adults in Canada prefer to age at home rather than move to an institution, with 92.1% of Canadian seniors currently living in private dwellings in the community. Honest Questions to Ask Yourself Before Signing for Any Type of Loan Wondering if you should take the leap?  Before you even consider signing anything, pour yourself something warm (or stronger) and ask a few honest questions. · Am I emotionally ready, or just tired of worrying about money? · Am I genuinely content to remain in this home forever, or am I romanticizing the past? · Where are interest rates heading — and how will that affect my comfort level? · What exactly do I need cash flow for — income, essentials, opportunities, legacy, or "finally something for ME"? · Have I thought about how this decision might affect my children and inheritance? · What future choices could this create — or prevent? · And the biggest question of all: if Plan A fails, is Plan B truly realistic… or just wearing yoga pants and pretending? Because here's the real truth: the happiest retirees aren't the ones who got lucky — they're the ones who used their luck with purpose, timing, and emotional clarity. Bloom's lifetime reverse mortgage isn't a miracle cure, nor is it a trap. It's simply one tool — and for the right person, it provides emotional stability and financial predictability. Here's What Matters Before you sign for a reverse mortgage, HELOCs, or anything else with an acronym and a sales commission attached, here's my professional advice: Get the full picture so you can make decisions that truly work for your life — not merely to meet someone else's sales quota.  The "best" financial move isn't the one that appears impressive on a spreadsheet. It's the one that allows you to sleep peacefully at night. The one that grounds you emotionally and supports you financially. Retirement isn't the end of the story. It's the chapter where you finally get to blend strategy with self-awareness, confidence with clarity, and luck with a bit of laughter. And if life insists on being unpredictable? Then outsmart it, outlaugh it, and choose the equity tools that help your future self say, "Nice move." Love, Aunt Equity" aka Sue "Don't Retire… ReWire!!!" Want to become an expert on serving the senior demographic? Just message me to be notified about the next opportunity to become a "Certified Equity Advocate" — mastering solution-based advising that transforms how you work with Canada's fastest-growing client segment.

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.

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!

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.

#Expert Perspective: When AI Follows the Rules but Misses the Point

When a team of researchers asked an artificial intelligence system to design a railway network that minimized the risk of train collisions, the AI delivered a surprising solution: Halt all trains entirely. No motion, no crashes. A perfect safety record, technically speaking, but also a total failure of purpose. The system did exactly what it was told, not what was meant. This anecdote, while amusing on the surface, encapsulates a deeper issue confronting corporations, regulators, and courts: What happens when AI faithfully executes an objective but completely misjudges the broader context? In corporate finance and governance, where intentions, responsibilities, and human judgment underpin virtually every action, AI introduces a new kind of agency problem, one not grounded in selfishness, greed, or negligence, but in misalignment. From Human Intent to Machine Misalignment Traditionally, agency problems arise when an agent (say, a CEO or investment manager) pursues goals that deviate from those of the principal (like shareholders or clients). The law provides remedies: fiduciary duties, compensation incentives, oversight mechanisms, disclosure rules. These tools presume that the agent has motives—whether noble or self-serving—that can be influenced, deterred, or punished. But AI systems, especially those that make decisions autonomously, have no inherent intent, no self-interest in the traditional sense, and no capacity to feel gratification or remorse. They are designed to optimize, and they do, often with breathtaking speed, precision, and, occasionally, unintended consequences. This new configuration, where AI acting on behalf of a principal (still human!), gives rise to a contemporary agency dilemma. Known as the alignment problem, it describes situations in which AI follows its assigned objective to the letter but fails to appreciate the principal’s actual intent or broader values. The AI doesn’t resist instructions; it obeys them too well. It doesn’t “cheat,” but sometimes it wins in ways we wish it wouldn’t. When Obedience Becomes a Liability In corporate settings, such problems are more than philosophical. Imagine a firm deploying AI to execute stock buybacks based on a mix of market data, price signals, and sentiment analysis. The AI might identify ideal moments to repurchase shares, saving the company money and boosting share value. But in the process, it may mimic patterns that look indistinguishable from insider trading. Not because anyone programmed it to cheat, but because it found that those actions maximized returns under the constraints it was given. The firm may find itself facing regulatory scrutiny, public backlash, or unintended market disruption, again not because of any individual’s intent, but because the system exploited gaps in its design. This is particularly troubling in areas of law where intent is foundational. In securities regulation, fraud, market manipulation, and other violations typically require a showing of mental state: scienter, mens rea, or at least recklessness. Take spoofing, where an agent places bids or offers with the intent to cancel them to manipulate market prices or to create an illusion of liquidity. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, this is a crime if done with intent to deceive. But AI, especially those using reinforcement learning (RL), can arrive at similar strategies independently. In simulation studies, RL agents have learned that placing and quickly canceling orders can move prices in a favorable direction. They weren’t instructed to deceive; they simply learned that it worked. The Challenge of AI Accountability What makes this even more vexing is the opacity of modern AI systems. Many of them, especially deep learning models, operate as black boxes. Their decisions are statistically derived from vast quantities of data and millions of parameters, but they lack interpretable logic. When an AI system recommends laying off staff, reallocating capital, or delaying payments to suppliers, it may be impossible to trace precisely how it arrived at that recommendation, or whether it considered all factors. Traditional accountability tools—audits, testimony, discovery—are ill-suited to black box decision-making. In corporate governance, where transparency and justification are central to legitimacy, this raises the stakes. Executives, boards, and regulators are accustomed to probing not just what decision was made, but also why. Did the compensation plan reward long-term growth or short-term accounting games? Did the investment reflect prudent risk management or reckless speculation? These inquiries depend on narrative, evidence, and ultimately the ability to assign or deny responsibility. AI short-circuits that process by operating without human-like deliberation. The challenge isn’t just about finding someone to blame. It’s about whether we can design systems that embed accountability before things go wrong. One emerging approach is to shift from intent-based to outcome-based liability. If an AI system causes harm that could arise with certain probability, even without malicious design, the firm or developer might still be held responsible. This mirrors concepts from product liability law, where strict liability can attach regardless of intent if a product is unreasonably dangerous. In the AI context, such a framework would encourage companies to stress-test their models, simulate edge cases, and incorporate safety buffers, not unlike how banks test their balance sheets under hypothetical economic shocks. There is also a growing consensus that we need mandatory interpretability standards for certain high-stakes AI systems, including those used in corporate finance. Developers should be required to document reward functions, decision constraints, and training environments. These document trails would not only assist regulators and courts in assigning responsibility after the fact, but also enable internal compliance and risk teams to anticipate potential failures. Moreover, behavioral “stress tests” that are analogous to those used in financial regulation could be used to simulate how AI systems behave under varied scenarios, including those involving regulatory ambiguity or data anomalies. Smarter Systems Need Smarter Oversight Still, technical fixes alone will not suffice. Corporate governance must evolve toward hybrid decision-making models that blend AI’s analytical power with human judgment and ethical oversight. AI can flag risks, detect anomalies, and optimize processes, but it cannot weigh tradeoffs involving reputation, fairness, or long-term strategy. In moments of crisis or ambiguity, human intervention remains indispensable. For example, an AI agent might recommend renegotiating thousands of contracts to reduce costs during a recession. But only humans can assess whether such actions would erode long-term supplier relationships, trigger litigation, or harm the company’s brand. There’s also a need for clearer regulatory definitions to reduce ambiguity in how AI-driven behaviors are assessed. For example, what precisely constitutes spoofing when the actor is an algorithm with no subjective intent? How do we distinguish aggressive but legal arbitrage from manipulative behavior? If multiple AI systems, trained on similar data, converge on strategies that resemble collusion without ever “agreeing” or “coordination,” do antitrust laws apply? Policymakers face a delicate balance: Overly rigid rules may stifle innovation, while lax standards may open the door to abuse. One promising direction is to standardize governance practices across jurisdictions and sectors, especially where AI deployment crosses borders. A global AI system could affect markets in dozens of countries simultaneously. Without coordination, firms will gravitate toward jurisdictions with the least oversight, creating a regulatory race to the bottom. Several international efforts are already underway to address this. The 2025 International Scientific Report on the Safety of Advanced AI called for harmonized rules around interpretability, accountability, and human oversight in critical applications. While much work remains, such frameworks represent an important step toward embedding legal responsibility into the design and deployment of AI systems. The future of corporate governance will depend not just on aligning incentives, but also on aligning machines with human values. That means redesigning contracts, liability frameworks, and oversight mechanisms to reflect this new reality. And above all, it means accepting that doing exactly what we say is not always the same as doing what we mean Looking to know more or connect with Wei Jiang, Goizueta Business School’s vice dean for faculty and research and Charles Howard Candler Professor of Finance. Simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview or time to talk today.

The Fed Just Cut interest Rates - What's Mean for Americans and What Does it Say about the Economy?

For the first time since December interest rates are being cut  and all indicators point to even more  signaled more cuts coming this year. The reactions so far have been mixed.  The markets held steady but made no bold moves.  And the opinions on how this will impact housing and home sales was also mixed with President Trump raving that housing will "soar" and others concerned about  volatility. The announcement is getting a lot of media attention with reporters looking for angles, answers and what to expect for the future. And to get those answers - they need experts who understand every aspect of the economy. Dr. Jared Pincin's primary research interests explore the intersection of public choice economics with foreign aid as well as issues in sports economics. Pincin has published in popular publications such as The Hill, Real Clear Markets, Foxnews.com, and USA Today and scholarly journals such as Oxford Development Studies, Applied Economic Letters, and the Journal of Sport and Social Issues. View his profile here Dr. Haymond joined the faculty at Cedarville University in 2010 after a 29-year career in the United States Air Force. He taught at the United States Air Force Academy and was an Air Force Fellow at The Brookings Institution. His research has been published in scholarly journals such as the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Public Choice, the Journal of Public Choice and Public Finance, and Journal of Faith and Economics. His current research interests include economics and religion, as well as monetary theory. View his profile here Looking to know more?  We can help. Jared Pincin and Jeff Haymond are both available to speak with media - simply click on either expert's icon to arrange an interview today.