Open Banking & Financial AI
On March 5, I’ll be speaking at Open Banking Expo Canada in Toronto as part of the Women in Open Banking series, on a panel titled: “AI: Threat or opportunity – friend or foe?” alongside my esteemed panelists:
- Nadia de Villa, Executive Director, Business Development & Innovation Solutions, GFT Technologies
- Megha Sharma, Head of Fintech, Lazer Technologies
- Joyce Wong, Vice President, Product, Payments & Open Banking, Symcor
- Moderated by: Mariela McComb, Senior Manager, Digital Payments Initiatives, Scotiabank
As a woman who studies how Canadians use financial services, how Open Banking policy turns into lived experience, and how people actually feel about AI, this one is special. International Women’s Day is often about representation. This year, it feels like it’s also about influence. Who gets to shape the systems that are about to shape all of us? For years, I’ve asked questions about trust. What makes someone try a new fintech tool? What makes them hesitate? What makes policy work in theory but stumble in practice?
Now those questions are playing out in real time.
Consumer-Driven Banking is no longer a policy memo. Data-sharing systems are being built. Consent flows are being tested. AI is already part of underwriting decisions, fraud detection and the way customers interact with their money. The technology is moving quickly. But trust is moving at a different speed.
Men are more likely than women to say they’ve experimented firsthand with AI tools such as ChatGPT. The gap isn’t dramatic, but it’s telling. Exposure alone doesn’t erase caution.
Women are not unfamiliar with AI. They are engaging with it. But engagement does not automatically translate into endorsement. That distinction matters.
I’ve experimented firsthand with artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT
The Delegation Question
One of the clearest patterns in the data is about delegation. Many men are comfortable with the idea that automated financial systems can manage money more efficiently than they can. Women are significantly less convinced.
Perception towards artificial intelligence in financial services by gender
I believe that automated financial management systems (‘self-driving’ money to pay bills, transfer funds, invest, and budget based on predefined rules) can enhance the accuracy and efficiency of my financial management compared to manual methods.
I’m willing to allow artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze my financial behaviour so it could help me save more money.
Likewise, men are far more open to letting AI analyze their financial behaviour to optimize savings. Women are much more hesitant to hand over that kind of insight. It’s tempting to label that hesitation as skepticism. But what if it’s something else?
What if women are not questioning whether AI can do the math, but whether they are comfortable giving up the steering wheel? There’s a difference between using a calculator and turning on autopilot. If we design financial AI assuming most people are comfortable with autopilot, we may be misunderstanding half the market.
Risk Feels Different Depending on Your Margin
When asked whether the benefits of AI outweigh the risks, men are much more likely to say yes. They are also much more likely to believe technology will improve the financial industry overall.
Tech & AI for good?
The benefits of using artificial intelligence (AI) tools outweighs the risks.
I believe technology will change the financial industry for the better.
Women are more measured. That’s not necessarily about being anti-innovation. It may be about lived reality. Women, on average, retire with less wealth. They are more likely to experience career interruptions. They live longer. The financial consequences of a mistake can stretch further.
If your margin for error is thinner, you may not rush toward opaque systems that promise efficiency. Maybe what we’re seeing isn’t resistance to technology. Maybe it’s a sharper assessment of downside risk.
The Consent Moment in Open Banking
Open Banking sounds empowering on paper. Consumer-led Data Control gives individuals the ability to direct where their financial data goes in exchange for better products.
In theory, that’s progress.In practice, support for the concept drops significantly among women. A much larger share of women say they are unsure about it. More say they simply would not support it at all.
How likely will you support con consumer-directed banking (aka Open Banking)
“Consumer-led Data Control” is a concept where individuals can direct where their own financial data (such as transaction history, credit scores, etc.) goes via secure online channels. Individuals can authorize their financial institution to transfer this data to third party financial institutions in order to gain access to better products.
That uncertainty is important. Open Banking depends on consent. AI depends on data. If a meaningful portion of women are unsure whether they even support the underlying idea, then implementation isn’t just a technical challenge. It’s a trust challenge.
We have spent years designing the pipes. Have we spent enough time designing confidence?
When Data Sharing Becomes Concrete
The gap widens when data sharing becomes specific. Across scenarios involving small financial institutions, fintech companies, global banks and large tech platforms, men are consistently more willing to authorize transactional data transfers. Women are much more likely to say none.
How likely will you authorize your bank to share transactional data via secure online channel with…
Small Licensed Canadian Financial Institution
Large tech company (e.g. Google or Amazon)
None
A strong majority of women would not authorize their transactional data to any of the listed institutions. That’s not a minor gap. That’s a structural one.
If AI systems rely on rich, portable data ecosystems, and if Open Banking assumes consumers will actively share that data, what happens when a large segment opts out? Are we overestimating comfort with data mobility?
What We’re Not Talking About
In industry conversations, we talk about model accuracy. We talk about faster onboarding. We talk about interoperability. We rarely talk about psychological safety. Consider customer service.
Even in a digital-first world, women are significantly more likely to say it’s important that a human customer service representative answer their questions instead of an AI chatbot, even if it means waiting longer.
It’s important that I have a human customer service representative answer my questions, instead of an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot, even if it means I won’t get a response until later.
It’s important that I have a human customer service representative answer my questions, instead of an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot, even if it means I won’t get a response until later.
Both men and women value human support. But women lean even more strongly toward it. That’s not nostalgia. It’s about accountability.
A chatbot can be efficient.
A human can be responsible.
If something goes wrong with your mortgage approval, your credit score or your retirement savings, speed is not the only thing that matters. Maybe this isn’t resistance to AI. Maybe it’s a demand that humans remain visible in the loop. We don’t often talk about what it feels like to trust an invisible system with your financial life. We don’t often ask whether frictionless always means better. Sometimes friction is a signal. A signal that something needs more explanation, more transparency, more accountability.
A Different Way to Read the Data
It would be easy to read these findings as a gap to close. How do we increase women’s adoption? How do we build more enthusiasm? But maybe the better question is this:
What would AI look like if we designed it for the most cautious user in the room? What would change if we assumed that explainability, human override and clear recourse were not optional features, but non-negotiable ones?
Maybe women’s hesitation isn’t slowing progress. Maybe it’s setting a higher standard.
Why This Matters to Me
As I prepare to step onto that Open Banking Expo stage, this is the tension I’m carrying with me.
AI is not inherently friend or foe. Open Banking is not inherently empowering or dangerous.
The outcome depends on design.
If we build systems that prioritize speed over clarity, adoption may plateau quietly.
If we build systems that earn trust, especially from those who are most cautious, we may create something far more durable.
On International Women’s Day, I find myself thinking less about whether women will adapt to financial AI. And more about whether financial AI will adapt to women.
