Deposit pricing that answers every rate exception while the member waits, priced against other funding and decided by someone who did not ask
Every rate exception answered while the member waits, priced against other funding.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Deposit pricing is how a bank or credit union sets the rates it pays on certificates, money market and savings accounts: the board rate sheet, and the exception pricing approved when a customer or member asks for more. Deposit Pricing gives treasury and retail leaders rate recommendations and a governed way to approve exceptions: six agents answer each request with a cited counteroffer, and a named approver who did not ask decides.
AI use cases in banking: a buyer's guide to agentic AI for bank and credit union operations →
Updated
Deposit pricing has two halves: the board rate sheet the Rate Committee sets each week, and the exception pricing approved when a member brings a better offer. Today an exception arrives by phone or email. The pricing desk looks up the member in the core banking system, finds the latest rate survey and last week's FHLB sheet, often in three windows and a spreadsheet, and answers while the member waits at the branch, or after the member has left with the money.
The risk is in how the answer is reached. Exceptions are priced against the board rate, not against what the same money would cost from the FHLB or the brokered market. Two members with the same balance, term and offer can get different answers from different branches, which is what examiners ask about under UDAAP. The branch keys the override into the core and prints the certificate disclosure from a template, so what the member signs can differ from what was approved, and once a month someone rebuilds the exception count for ALCO from inboxes.
Estimated split of the working time on one certificate exception, by phone and email today and in the thread with the solution. On the sample request the decision came 29 minutes after the branch asked.
Six agents answer each request with a cited counteroffer; a named approver decides, and the requester never can.
Thursday, October 22, 2026, at the Harbor Point branch of Norrell Federal Credit Union, a sample $6.8 billion credit union with 38 branches. A member's $350,000 certificate matures on Saturday and an online bank has offered more. Here is how the deposit pricing decision is made, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Ellen Marchetti, a member for 17 years, sits at Dana's desk with a written offer of 4.60% APY for 12 months. Dana writes one sentence and attaches the letter. Twenty-three seconds later six agents have replied with a counteroffer of 4.45%, one plain line each with a source, and the request waits on Marisol Ortega with a 2-hour clock.
“Member asks 4.60% on a $350,000 12-month certificate to match an offer.”
The agent reads 14 of 212 member fields from the core banking system: $1,200,000 in deposits across six accounts, a $410,000 mortgage, 17 years of membership, and earlier exceptions of +20 bp in October 2024 and +25 bp in October 2025. Tax ID, date of birth, address, transactions, credit score and income are never read for pricing, and every view is logged.
Access log: Dana Whitfield 9:50 AM, Relationship agent 9:52 AM, Marisol Ortega 10:16 AM.
For 12 months the cheapest other money is a 4.38% FHLB advance, from the 8:00 AM rate sheet; brokered certificates cost 4.52%. The 4.45% counteroffer costs $1,050 a year over the 4.15% board rate and $245 a year more than borrowing from the FHLB; the 4.60% ask would cost $770 more. Borrowing would also take $15,750 of FHLB activity stock.
Rates read today only, each with the time it was read.
Model RET-3.2 puts the chance the $350,000 stays at 84% at 4.45% (78–90%), 91% at the 4.60% ask and 31% at the board rate. Its back-test is on the same screen: in Q3 2026 it predicted 79% and 81% stayed, across 1,180 certificates. It never uses age, sex, race or national origin, marital status, ZIP code or branch location.
The agent recommends only when the band is ±10 points or narrower.
Marisol opens the Consistency agent's comparison: 46 like requests in 90 days, 43 approved at +20 to +40 bp, with a median of +30 bp, the same as the counteroffer. The 4.60% ask, at +45 bp, is above all 43 approvals. No branch differs from the median by more than 5 bp, and phone, branch and online requests are approved at the same median.
Compared on product, amount, term and offer only. An outlier is flagged, never blocked.
Set to the full 4.60% ask, the dial shows what it would mean: $1,575 a year over the board rate, $770 against FHLB funding, a 91% chance the money stays (±6 points), and a Rate Committee decision. The rate ladder moves with the dial, and a counter at another rate carries a reason code and an override code.
“+45 bp is above your +40 bp authority. Counter lets you send it to the Rate Committee as an urgent e-vote.”
Marisol approves 4.45% as checker with reason code PX-02, “Matches a verified written offer, within the like-circumstances range”, and a note. The dialog names who requested the exception, who approves it and what happens next: the disclosure is generated from these terms and the core books the rate under this approval. Dana requested it, so Dana never could.
“Verified written offer at 4.60%; counter at the like-circumstances median.”
The Disclosure agent posts TIS-26-10418: 4.45% APY, dividend rate 4.36%, maturing October 24, 2027, 9 of 9 required items checked. At 10:26 Dana writes that Ellen accepted; at 10:27 the core banking system renews certificate ··7741-C03 at 4.45% under approval A-26-10418. Marisol's waiting list drops from 7 to 6.
“Member accepted 4.45%. She is signing the disclosure now.”
Generated only after approval and only from the approved terms: dividend rate 4.36%, APY 4.45%, compounded and credited monthly, a 180-day early withdrawal penalty and automatic renewal with a 10-day grace period. Before release the agent checks each item 12 CFR 707.4(b) lists, that the terms equal the approval, and recomputes the APY. Dana delivered it at 10:24 and Ellen e-signed at 10:26.
Kept seven years, at least two under 12 CFR 707.9(c).
The trail for REQ-26-10418 holds 10 entries, from Dana opening the request at 9:52:08 AM, through each agent's reason and evidence, to Marisol's approval and the core booking. One export pack serves NCUA examiners, internal audit, the Supervisory Committee or ALCO, with member numbers masked.
The same rate exception, seen by the people who ask for it, decide it, fund it and audit it: what their day looked like, and what it looks like now.
Six agents answer each request with a cited counteroffer; a named approver decides, and the requester never can.
Reads the competing offer a member brings (letter, screenshot or rate sheet) and checks it is like for like: rate, APY, term, minimum, new-money rule, penalty and expiry.
Reads the member's deposits, loans, tenure and products from the core banking system, only the 14 fields pricing needs.
Compares the requested rate with other funding of the same term: FHLB advances, brokered certificates and the ALM model's marginal cost.
Estimates the chance the money stays at each rate, with a confidence band and the model version, and is back-tested against what happened each quarter.
Applies the pricing authority matrix by product, amount and spread, and routes the request to the right approver; the requester is never an approver.
Shows how members in like circumstances were treated in the last 90 days and flags an ask above the 90th percentile before anyone approves.
Generates the Truth in Savings disclosure for an approved certificate from the approved terms, checks every required item and recomputes the APY.
Drafts the monthly exception report for ALCO from the decision log, the general ledger and the ALM model, and turns exception patterns into board-rate signals.
Approves within authority, never their own request. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Ask in plain words about a request, a member, a rate or a decision. Every answer cites its source and opens the right screen.
Why 4.45% and not the 4.60% she asked for?
4.45% keeps most of the chance and stays in your authority. At 4.60% the chance the $350,000 stays is 91%; at 4.45% it is 84%. The extra 15 bp would cost $525 a year for 7 points of retention, and +45 bp needs the Rate Committee. FHLB funding of the same 12 months costs 4.38%, so 4.45% costs $245 a year more than borrowing it.
How have we treated members like Ellen?
In the last 90 days, 46 members asked for an exception on a 12-month certificate of $250,000 to $500,000 with a written outside offer. 43 were approved, at +20 to +40 bp; the median was +30 bp, the same as the counteroffer. No branch differs from the median by more than 5 bp.
Draft the October exception summary for ALCO
Drafted from October 1 to 21: 2,046 requests, 67% decided at the branch within authority, 589 by Deposit Pricing, 86 by the Rate Committee. 96.8% met their SLA. It is in the ALCO report for your review; Theresa Lindqvist signs it.
Which branches ask above their authority most?
Harbor Point: 214 requests in September, up 38% on August; 61 of them cite the same online offer at 4.60%. Then Lakeview (166) and Cedar Falls (151).
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
The authority matrix, clocks, thresholds and codes are settings. Each is versioned, on the audit trail, and changed by a maker and a checker.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Deposit Pricing Manager approves certificates up to | +40 bp up to $1,000,000; +25 bp over | Set by product, amount and spread in the authority matrix (v14); a change is proposed and the CFO checks it |
| Branch manager approves staff requests up to | +15 bp on certificates; +10 bp on money market | Pending change MC-26-07: +20 bp on 3- and 6-month certificates, waiting for the CFO |
| Clock for a member at the branch | 2 hours | Phone and online chat 4 hours · Rate Committee e-vote 2 hours, 2 votes |
| Reminder and escalation | Reminder at 60 minutes left; escalation at 30 | Escalation to the backup approver and the VP Treasury & ALM; over the clock, the VP Retail Delivery |
| Retention recommendation | Only when the band is ±10 points or narrower | Wider than that, the agents show the numbers and recommend nothing |
| Like-circumstances flag | Above the 90th percentile of like decisions | Flags and never blocks; compared on product, amount, term and offer only |
| Reason codes | PX for approve or counter, DX for decline, OV for override | One required on every decision; an override code when the approver differs from the agents |
| Record retention | Decisions 7 years; disclosures 7 years | At least 2 years for disclosures under 12 CFR 707.9(c); deletion only by a logged job at the end of retention |
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 estimate ($4 billion × 0.05% for the pricing value; the minutes split) · “typical” = published figures (American Banker, December 2013, quoting a deposit pricing vendor: the average bank manages about 30,000 distinct deposit prices). Rules named on this page: Truth in Savings, 12 CFR Part 707; Regulation DD, 12 CFR Part 1030; the CFPB UDAAP examination procedures; GLBA. Norrell Federal Credit Union, its people, members, branches and accounts named on this page are fictional: characters and sample data in the working solution.
Deposit pricing is how a bank or credit union sets the rates it pays on certificates, money market and savings accounts: the board rate sheet, and the exception pricing approved when a customer or member asks for more. Deposit Pricing gives treasury and retail leaders rate recommendations and a governed way to approve exceptions: six agents answer each request with a cited counteroffer, and a named approver who did not ask decides.
The branch manager writes one sentence and attaches the member's offer. Six agents reply in the thread with the member's relationship, whether the offer is like for like, the cost against same-term funding, the chance the money stays, how like members were treated and who may approve. The approver approves, counters with the rate dial or declines with a reason, inside a 2-hour clock for a member at the branch.
The Funding agent compares the requested rate with an FHLB advance and brokered certificates of the same term, read that day, and the ALM model's marginal cost. On the sample request, a 4.45% counteroffer costs $245 a year more than a 4.38% FHLB advance on $350,000, and the 4.60% ask $770 more.
The Consistency agent shows how like requests were decided in the last 90 days, compared on product, amount, term and offer only, and flags an ask above the 90th percentile before anyone approves. It flags and never blocks: the approver decides, and the flag stays on the record.
Yes, only after approval and only from the approved terms. The Disclosure agent checks each item 12 CFR 707.4(b) lists, that the terms equal the approval, and recomputes the APY; the branch delivers it and the member e-signs. The sample institution is a credit union; at banks the same disclosures fall under Regulation DD.
Yes. The agents read each month's exceptions by product against same-term funding and retention and draft a board-rate proposal, with its estimated effect, which the Deposit Pricing Manager proposes, the Rate Committee votes on and the CFO checks. The same log feeds a one-page exception report for ALCO.
Yes. The agents price, cite and recommend; they never approve, change the authority matrix or write to the core without an approval number. A named approver decides within the matrix, the requester never can, and above authority the Rate Committee votes.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents, such as your deposit pricing policy, authority matrix, board rate sheets and a sample of past exception requests, and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own exceptions first.
Every risk rating grounded in the incidents, losses and tests behind it, then signed.
1-min demoOperational Risk Loss Data CollectionEvery loss in the ledger captured, and the loss database tied to the GL each month.
1-min demoAudit Issue & MRA TrackingClosures asked for only when the proof is there, and MRA dates kept on the record.
1-min demoWe'll run Deposit Pricing on a sample of your own past rate exception requests and board rate sheets.