March 5, 2026

MARCH Supervisor Boot CampMarch 17-18Lincoln, NE Advanced Cash Flow Analysis WorkshopMarch 25Virtual APRIL Principles of BankingApril 1Lincoln, NE NBA Membership UpdateApril 1Virtual Spring Agribusiness ConferenceApril 7-8Kearney, NE New Account Documentation & Compliance SeminarApril 9Virtual School of Banking FundamentalsApril 13-17Manhattan, KS MAY NBA Membership UpdateMay 6Virtual Annual ConventionMay 6-8La Vista, NE Operations SchoolMay 12-14Lincoln, NE Relationship […]

Relationship-driven banking has long been a defining feature of community, independent and traditionally rooted financial institutions. While technology, regulations and customer expectations continue to evolve, one constant remains: Knowledge is passed most effectively from one banker to another. For banks with leaner teams or decentralized decision-making, mentorship is not just a professional courtesy — it is a strategic necessity.

Most bank boards struggle with cybersecurity oversight because they don’t know what questions to ask, how to interpret the answers or whether their security measures are working. Directors may approve cybersecurity budgets without understanding if those investments actually reduce risk, or they may review incident reports without grasping whether response times meet industry standards. They can describe their cybersecurity framework but often can’t explain what their institution does with the results.

As AI continues to advance, fraudsters are leveraging these tools to exploit one of the most vulnerable groups in our communities, older adults. According to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) data, there were
$4.88 billion in losses from seniors in 2024. These numbers continue to trend upwards, and the rise of AI-driven elder fraud presents new risks to victims and financial institutions. AI-driven elder fraud involves scams that use artificial intelligence to make attacks against older adults more convincing, harder to detect and easier to carry out on a large scale. The increased threat requires both awareness and proactive mitigation by banks and credit unions to protect clients and maintain trust in their communities.

The 10th Circuit’s recent decision in National Association of Industrial Bankers, et al. v. Weiser, et al. (24-1293) marks the first major judicial interpretation of a state’s ability to “opt out” of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA or DIDA) in over 40 years, and it’s a striking departure from some long-held (and well-cemented) industry assumptions. For several decades, state-chartered banks relied on DIDMCA’s “rate-exportation” framework, which allowed them to charge interest based on the laws of the state where the bank is located (which, in this context, has historically been interpreted to mean something broader than where its main offices are located by the FDIC in the past). Colorado’s 2023 Opt-Out Law disrupted that model, but few expected the court to go further and hold that a loan is made wherever either the lender or the borrower is located — or, more specifically, that “loans made in such State” refers to “loans in which either the lender or the borrower is located in the opt-out state.”

Digital transformation in banking is reshaping how financial institutions operate and engage with customers. However, as digital capabilities expand, so does the attack surface. From mobile banking to AI-powered automation, the modernization of the financial sector requires a cybersecurity strategy that keeps pace — and one that’s integrated at every stage of transformation.

In just the first few weeks of 2026, the banking industry faced two separate and significant policy challenges.

NBA Annual Convention