Account analysis fee leakage review: what the client used, what you billed, what you signed — on one line
Every analyzed relationship compared with its signed schedule, every month.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Account analysis fee leakage review is a monthly check of a bank's own treasury billing. For every analyzed relationship it compares what the client actually used, service by service, with what the account analysis statement billed and what the signed pricing schedule says it should cost. The differences — unbilled services, waivers past their end date, off-contract prices and earnings credit errors — become findings with their evidence attached, and a named person decides each one.
AI use cases in banking: a buyer's guide to agentic AI for bank and credit union operations →
Updated
An account analysis fee leakage review asks a question the billing engine cannot ask itself: is this statement what we signed? Every month the account analysis system prices the services it knows about, offsets them with an earnings credit on the client's balances, and produces a statement that adds up. It cannot see the service switched on in the positive pay platform that was never given a service code. It cannot see that a first-year waiver's end date passed nineteen months ago. It bills the lockbox price it was given, not the one an amendment changed in January, and it applies the earnings credit rate in its rate card, not the tiers in Exhibit C.
Nothing errors, so nothing is found. The client pays, and the treasury product line is quietly smaller than the contract says it should be. Finding it today means exporting a statement, counting usage in four other systems, opening a scanned agreement in document imaging and reconciling by hand — for a handful of large relationships, once or twice a year. Fee income is what separates top-performing commercial banks, and this is the part of it nobody checks.
Estimated split for one relationship reviewed by hand, against the same month in the solution, where the agents' cycle ran at 06:10 on the third business day for the whole book.
Six agents count, read and compare every service; a product manager approves and a second specialist keys it.
Arden Ridge Logistics is a freight and warehousing client of a regional bank: nine accounts, two lockboxes, ACH origination for payroll, a treasury relationship since March 2024 and a renewal due in March 2027. Its September statement balanced. This is the month the agents read it against the systems that ran the work and the agreement both sides signed.
The screen opens on one relationship, not a dashboard: $9,197.62 missing this month, $110,371 a year, against treasury revenue of $227,000 a year on this client. Six lines, largest first. Each names the service, what the client used and the system that counted it, what the statement billed, what the signed schedule says it should cost, and the dollars missing.
Wire transfer fees — all types: used 400 outgoing and 112 incoming, billed $0.00 under waiver W-2024-0318, schedule $8.25 and $1.00 an item, missing $3,412.00 a month.
Running the review again shows how the ledger was built. The Usage agent counted 11 services from four systems — 10,024 payments-hub records, 11,500 lockbox items, 460 positive pay reviews, nine accounts. The Pricing agent read the agreement, two exhibits and two amendments, and found two waivers in the register, both past their end date. The Billing agent read the statement: $18,940.00 of service charges, a $7,919.18 earnings credit, $11,020.82 net due.
The last step on the trace is not an action: "Waiting for a person — nothing here is applied by an agent."
The usage figure on the ACH positive pay line opens the positive pay platform's own report: two accounts enrolled on April 3, 2025, 460 exception reviews in September, enrolled by the implementation team under request TMR-2025-0914. One line in that report explains the whole finding — the platform has no field for a billing service code, and no code was created in the account analysis system.
Record 4 of 12 cited on this relationship's month.
A finding opens with its three sources side by side. Used: two accounts and 460 exception reviews from the positive pay platform. Billed: nothing — no service code, so it never reached the statement. The signed schedule: $120.00 an account a month and $3.00 a reviewed item, Exhibit B §4.2, added by amendment on March 20, 2025 — two weeks before the service was switched on. $1,620.00 a month, $29,160 over eighteen months.
Confidence 0.98. Below 0.90 a finding goes to a specialist before it can be proposed at all.
The Fix agent lays out both and chooses neither. Forward-only bills from the November statement and leaves the eighteen months with the client. Recovery adds $9,720 — six months of unbilled charges, the most §7.4 of the treasury services agreement permits. Beside it sits the officer's note: renewal in March 2027, two competitors pitched in August, and a promised no-surprises pricing review.
"The agent lays out both; the limit comes from the agreement. Choosing is the product manager's decision, and it is recorded."
Marisol approves forward-only under reason code CODE-MISSING. The record keeps what she did not do as carefully as what she did: $9,720 of allowed recovery declined, because of the renewal conversation ahead. The chain under it shows who comes next — a second specialist to key it, then the officer, then the November statement on November 7.
Approved · CODE-MISSING · Marisol Vance, Treasury Product Manager, Oct 6, 2026 — forward-only; the recovery the agreement allowed was declined.
The approver cannot key her own change, and the screen says so rather than leaving it to a procedure document. Working as Tobias Lund, the service codes are created and mapped, the wire waiver is ended, and both changes take effect on November 7 with the prices from Exhibit B. What he keys is compared with what was approved, and both names stay on the record.
"Nothing on this screen was keyed by an agent. The Fix agent produced the service code, the price and the dates; a person keys them."
The drafted letter names each service, what is billed now, what will be billed from November 7 and what it adds to the monthly charges — $5,032.00 — and says plainly that earlier months are not being billed. One of the nine accounts belongs to a sole proprietor and is held for personal and household purposes, so the wording and the 30-day date get a conduct review first. Ruth decides how it lands: a call to the treasurer today, then the letter.
Notice period 30 days, from §7.2 of the agreement. Not billed back: $30,192 the agreement allowed, declined.
Arden Ridge is one relationship in a cycle of 3,106 findings on 1,284 of 21,400 analyzed relationships. The queue splits them by who they wait on, counts five business days on each, and escalates what runs out: two findings reached day six overnight. Beside it the watch keeps the register the billing engine never kept — three waivers ending within thirty days, two already past their date, and one with no approver recorded at all, which is referred for review rather than repriced and taken out of client-facing views.
Waiting on you 212 · your checks 96 · with an officer 318 · dismissed 1,062 · past the clock 2.
Across 21,400 analyzed relationships the September cycle found $225,300 a month — $2,703,600 a year, about half a point of $540 million in annual treasury fees. Unbilled services are the largest share, then expired waivers, then off-contract prices, then earnings credit errors. The number is the sum of the findings, not a model, and every finding opens to its evidence.
Approved $103,900 · with an officer $44,100 · waiting on the product manager $38,600 · dismissed with a reason $26,000 · in the checker queue $12,700.
The trail carries people and agents alike: who found it, who proposed it, who approved it and under which reason code, who keyed it, who told the client. The evidence pack gathers the cycle — 3,106 findings, 14,206 cited records, 2,044 decisions with a reason code — redacts account numbers and seals it for internal audit, the examiners and the BSA officer. The auditor builds and downloads it, and can approve nothing anywhere in the solution.
Findings, evidence, decisions and signatures are kept five years, with the account record.
The same relationship, seen by the four people who carry it — what their month looked like, and what it looks like now.
Six agents count, read and compare every service; a product manager approves and a second specialist keys it.
Counts what the client actually used, service by service, from the system that ran it — wires and ACH from the payments hub, remittance items from the lockbox platform, enrollments and exception reviews from the positive pay platform, account services and balances from the core banking system — and cites the file and the record count.
Reads the treasury services agreement, its pricing exhibits, every amendment in date order and the waiver register, and returns the price of record for each service with the exhibit, the clause and the amendment date — plus each waiver's approver and end date.
Compares usage and contract with the account analysis statement and the service codes billed, reports the monthly difference on each service, and re-computes the earnings credit from the average collected balance, the reserve requirement, the days and the agreed rate tiers.
Proposes one correction per finding — add a service code, end a waiver, reprice to contract, correct the earnings credit tier — with the effective date from the notice period, the recovery the agreement allows as an option, the ledger account and a suggested reason code.
Drafts the notice the officer gives the client before a billing change: the service, the price now and from the effective date, the date itself and who to call — and flags any account in the relationship held for personal or household purposes, where consumer rules apply.
Runs every morning: waivers within thirty days of their end date and those already past it, services switched on in a platform with no service code within two business days, and the decision clock on every open finding.
Propose, approve, key, tell the client, test it. The agents propose; a named person decides.
The assistant answers from the same records the ledger is built on, and can act on the answer — open a relationship, filter the queue, or change what the agents watch.
Why is Arden Ridge leaking $9,197 a month?
Six services, and the two biggest are both about a date. A first-year wire waiver with an end date of February 28, 2025 is still active, so 512 wires in September were free: $3,412. ACH positive pay has run on two accounts since April 3, 2025 with no service code, so it has never reached a statement: $1,620. Then lockbox at $0.32 against the amended $0.48, the earnings credit at 2.35% against 1.85%, a courtesy check positive pay waiver fifteen months past its date, and account reconciliation enrolled in July with no code.
How much could we bill back, and should we?
Up to $44,121 across the six findings — and I would not take all of it. §7.4 of the agreement allows unbilled charges for up to six months before notice. The officer's note says the renewal is in March 2027 and she promised a no-surprises pricing review. Forward-only on the two large findings is $5,032 a month, $60,384 a year, and keeps that promise. It is your call, and the reason is recorded either way.
Which waivers end in the next 30 days?
Three, worth $2,330 a month. A wire transfer waiver at 50% ends October 20 ($1,240). A lockbox monthly base waiver at 50% ends October 31 ($610). An ACH origination waiver at 100% ends November 2 ($480). Two more are already past their end date, and one has no approver recorded at all — I have opened the register.
Flag any service switched on without a code within two business days
Done. The watch now compares the enrollment feeds from the payments hub, the lockbox platform, the positive pay platform and the core banking system with the service-code mapping table every morning, and raises a finding when a service has run for two business days with no bank code. You can change the window in settings. On this month's data it would have caught the ACH positive pay in April 2025, not eighteen months later.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
The thresholds, clocks and limits the treasury product administrator owns. Every one of them is visible on the settings screen, and a change is recorded with its reason and applies to the next cycle.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Review cycle starts | 3rd business day | Any business day after the statements close |
| Materiality threshold | $50 a month | Below it a difference is recorded, not queued |
| Confidence floor for a proposal | 0.90 | Below it a specialist reviews before it can be proposed |
| Decision clock | 5 business days | Then the watch escalates to the product manager, then the Head of Treasury Management |
| Flag an uncoded service within | 2 business days | From the enrollment in any connected platform |
| Warn before a waiver ends | 30 days | The officer and the product manager are told |
| Client notice before a billing change | 30 days | Taken from each client's own agreement |
| Recovery of unbilled charges | 6 months | Never more than the client's agreement allows; a person still chooses |
| Second approver above | $5,000 a month | Any amount, or off |
| Retention and redaction | 5 years · account numbers masked | Longer retention; redaction on every export |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution on its sample data · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our arithmetic from the sample cycle, inputs shown on this page · “typical” = a published figure: McKinsey, Turbocharging revenue growth in US treasury management ($15–20 million of revenue-growth potential for an average regional bank's treasury portfolio). People, clients, prices, waivers and account numbers named on this page are characters and sample data in the working solution, not a real bank or its customers. Rules named as context: the earnings credit formula and AFP Service Codes (Association for Financial Professionals), Truth in Savings for consumer accounts, and the five-year record retention under the Bank Secrecy Act.
Account analysis fee leakage review is a monthly check of a bank's own treasury billing. For every analyzed relationship it compares what the client actually used, service by service, with what the account analysis statement billed and what the signed pricing schedule says it should cost. The differences — unbilled services, waivers past their end date, off-contract prices and earnings credit errors — become findings with their evidence attached, and a named person decides each one.
It is the monthly bill a bank gives a commercial client for treasury services: each service with its volume, unit price and charge, offset by an earnings credit on the client's balances. In the example on this page the statement showed $18,940.00 of service charges, a $7,919.18 earnings credit and $11,020.82 net due — and still missed $9,197.62 of services the client used or had agreed to pay for.
The earnings credit is recomputed from the average collected balance, the reserve requirement ratio, the days in the period and the rate tiers in the client's own schedule. On the relationship shown here the system applied 2.35% flat where the agreement sets 1.85% up to $5 million and 2.10% above, so $1,685.62 of service charges were offset that should not have been.
Only as far as the client's agreement allows, and only when a person chooses it. The agreement in the example permits unbilled charges for up to six months before notice. The solution shows the exact amount that would represent, beside the relationship's renewal date and the officer's note, and records which way the product manager went and why — including when the allowed recovery is declined.
One specialist proposes with a reason code, the treasury product manager approves, and a different specialist checks and keys the change into the account analysis system — the approver is never the checker, and the screen refuses it. The relationship officer owns the client conversation and sends the notice. An internal auditor can read everything and build the evidence pack, and can approve nothing.
No. Every connection is read-only. The agents count, read, compare, propose and draft; the one change this solution makes to a system of record is keyed by a named specialist in the account analysis system, after an approval with a reason code, and takes effect only after the client's notice period.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys the solution from your own requirements and documents — your service catalog and AFP code mappings, your agreement and exhibit formats, your statement file, your thresholds and your approval chain — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. The first cycle runs on your own closed statements, so the first findings are your own.
Yes. No notice is drafted before a fix is approved, no notice is sent by an agent, and the officer chooses how the client hears it — a call first, a letter, or a hold until the renewal, each recorded. Where an account in the relationship is held for personal or household purposes, a conduct review happens before anything is sent.
Every user, limit and entitlement change verified before it is made, by two people.
1-min demoACH Originator Risk AssessmentEvery originator measured against all three Nacha levels every day, not once a year.
1-min demoTreasury Management ProposalsA priced proposal in two days, not two weeks, every value cited to a statement line.
1-min demoWe'll run Account Analysis Fee Leakage Review on a sample of your own account analysis statements, agreements and usage.