What banks are actually doing when they reject cannabis accounts

Stacy Litke (Courtesy photo)

(This is a contributed guest column. To be considered as an MJBizDaily guest columnist, please submit your request here.)

The story the cannabis industry tells itself about its longstanding banking woes goes something like this: financial institutions see a cannabis business and quickly walk the other way – driven by stigma, federal risk or a fundamental unwillingness to engage.

But after years of sitting across the table from bank executives and credit union leaders, I can tell you that explanation misses what’s actually happening.

Most of the institutions I talk to aren’t opposed to cannabis. Generally and genuinely, they want to know how to serve the businesses in their market.

A version of the same conversation plays out regularly. A bank’s leadership acknowledges they’ve been watching the market, that they see real opportunity, and that they’re not sure how to transition from watching to doing.

The hesitation isn’t ideological. It’s that nobody in the room can answer the questions that actually matter to a bank board or a risk committee:

• What does offering services to cannabis businesses look like on our balance sheet?
• How much of the legal cannabis market is realistically available to us?
• What does a compliant program look like at scale?

These are all reasonable questions. The cannabis industry has sometimes interpreted these inquiries as rejection, but they’re not.

This is what required due diligence sounds like when nobody has organized the data into a format that banks can actually use to underwrite from

What cannabis questions can banks still not answer?

When a financial institution evaluates any new line of business, the conversation runs along two tracks simultaneously.

The first is risk.

• Do we understand what’s required, and do we have the resources to manage this compliantly?
• What does the regulatory exposure look like?
• How do we demonstrate to examiners that we have appropriate controls in place?

The second is financial.

• Is the opportunity large enough to justify the operational lift?
• What does the return actually look like when you model it honestly – particularly when we’re working with an evolving market?

In most lending categories, both tracks have decades of peer data, benchmarks, and best practices frameworks behind them. A bank evaluating small business lending or agriculture portfolios can pull comparable programs, industry loss rates, and return profiles from institutions that have been doing it for years.

Cannabis has not had that.

Why is cannabis banking so hard?

The regulatory complexity is real. Cannabis is evolving differently in every state, and there’s enough enforcement ambiguity that compliance teams without direct experience in the sector genuinely struggle to assess what adequate controls look like.

On the financial side, the market data that would let a bank build a credible business case has been scattered and hard to translate into the formats their planning and finance teams use and understand.

The result is that cannabis sits in a category that risk committees describe as “high uncertainty” rather than just “high risk,” which sounds like a subtle distinction but produces very different outcomes.

High risk can be managed with the right controls. High uncertainty stalls decisions entirely because there’s no clear framework for evaluating whether the controls are sufficient.

What banks talk about when they talk about cannabis banking

Picture a regional bank’s leadership team sitting down to evaluate whether to launch a cannabis banking program. Nobody in that room is opposed to cannabis on principle. What’s missing isn’t willingness, it’s data.

The team needs to know how many licensed operators are in their market, what those businesses look like financially at different revenue levels, and what a realistic slice of that market would actually contribute to the institution’s bottom line.

That missing information is why the same meeting happens over and over at financial institutions across the country, covering the same ground and reaching the same inconclusive ending.

They move when someone hands them a model they can stress-test and present to a board.

From Uncertainty to a Functioning Program

Once the financial picture is clear, the risk conversation tends to follow a similar pattern.

Institutions that couldn’t previously assess how a cannabis portfolio wouldn’t exceed their appetite for risk find that the question becomes more manageable when it’s attached to real volume data.

They start with a limited pilot, typically a defined number of accounts in one license category, built around a compliance program with clear documentation requirements and monitoring workflows.

Getting it right means building a compliance program around the specific transaction patterns, documentation requirements, and reporting obligations that cannabis accounts actually generate, with monitoring systems behind it that produce a clear record of what the institution reviewed and when.

The institutions that have built functioning cannabis programs share a common turning point: somewhere in the evaluation process, the question stopped being whether cannabis banking was a good idea and started being what a well-run cannabis program would actually require, and operational challenges have answers in a way that philosophical debates generally don’t.

How cannabis sets up banks for future opportunities

The financial institutions that figure out how to turn cannabis uncertainty into a manageable, modeled line of business will be well positioned for what new opportunities comes afterwards.

The same dynamic plays out across a range of complex specialty sectors where traditional banking infrastructure hasn’t kept pace with the market: emerging payment rails, stablecoin-adjacent business activity and other high-complexity verticals where the compliance requirements are real but navigable with the right systems in place.

Cannabis is the current test case for whether financial institutions can move past the uncertainty problem and build programs that serve complex markets responsibly.

The banks and credit unions that solve it now will have developed something that transfers directly to whatever comes next, and the ones still waiting for the uncertainty to resolve on its own will find that the market moved without them.

Stacy Litke is vice president of Banking & Financial Services at cannabis-focused fintech firm Green Check and one of the leading voices shaping how financial institutions approach cannabis banking today. She regularly advises banks, regulators, and cannabis operators on how to move from “trying to get banked” to building relationships that last.