Account, transaction and bill-pay data inside the Clear Fork Bank app

Six Texas branches — Albany, Breckenridge, Abilene, Gordon, Strawn and Mineral Wells — feed one online-banking back end. The mobile app just renders it: a current balance, a searchable transaction feed, transfers between a member's own accounts, and a bill-pay queue. That back end is what an integrator actually wants to reach. Getting at it cleanly, under the member's consent, is the whole job.

What sits behind the login

The app's own feature list names the surfaces. Each maps to a record an integration can normalize and hand downstream.

Ways in

A bank this size keeps everything member-facing behind one authenticated portal. Three routes genuinely apply, and they differ mostly in where the credential comes from and how fresh the data needs to be.

Authorized interface integration of the authenticated session

We map the login, token and cookie chain the app uses, then the JSON or markup it consumes for accounts, transactions, transfers and bill pay. Reachable: everything the member can see. Effort is moderate — most of it is reading the auth handshake correctly and pinning the transaction-search parameters. Durability tracks the front end, so we monitor it and refresh the parser when a response shape drifts. Setup runs against a consenting member account or a sandbox, arranged with you during onboarding.

User-consented credential access

The member supplies their own online-banking credential under explicit consent and we drive the same flows headless. Same surfaces, same durability. This is how we run it when a live member account, not a test fixture, is the only realistic test bed — which for a small community bank is common.

Native export as backfill

Where the online-banking portal offers a statement or transaction download (CSV, OFX/QFX or PDF are the usual shapes), that export is a durable way to seed history before the live integration was switched on. It is batch and coarser than the live feed, so it complements rather than replaces it.

For Clear Fork Bank the route worth building is the first one: balances and the searchable transaction feed come back in the same structured form the app renders, under the member's consent, and that covers most of what people ask for. Consented-credential access is simply how that same build gets exercised against a real account, and the export path earns its place only for loading the back-history once.

Where it gets used

• A bookkeeping tool pulls a Clear Fork business-checking account each night, keyed by posting date, and matches debits against open invoices.
• A treasury view folds this bank's balances in with accounts at other institutions to show one cash position across the lot.
• An accounts-payable workflow reads recent and scheduled bill payments to confirm which vendors have been paid and which are still queued.
• A personal-finance app lets a member link their Clear Fork accounts, under consent, alongside the rest of their financial picture.

What you receive

The output is a working integration for this app's surfaces, not a report about it. Concretely:

• An OpenAPI/Swagger spec describing normalized endpoints for accounts, transaction search, transfers and bill pay.
• A protocol and auth-flow report: the online-banking login, the token or cookie chain, how biometric re-auth sits over it, and session-refresh behavior.
• Runnable source — Python and Node.js — for the key calls: authenticate, list accounts, query transactions by date / amount / check number, list recent and scheduled bill payments.
• A normalized schema so a transaction from here lines up with transactions from any other institution you integrate.
• Automated tests that run against a consenting account or sandbox.
• Interface documentation, plus compliance and data-retention guidance — consent records, logging, and keeping the pull minimized to what each use case needs.

A query, sketched

This is the shape of the transaction call, mirroring the app's own search by date range, amount, or check number. Exact paths and field names get confirmed during the build, not guessed from outside.

# Illustrative. Paths and field names are pinned during the build.
import requests

BASE = "https://<clear-fork-online-banking-host>"

def login(member_id, secret):
    # The app reuses the member's online-banking credential;
    # Touch ID / Face ID is a device-local shortcut over this same exchange.
    r = requests.post(f"{BASE}/auth/session", json={
        "user": member_id, "credential": secret, "channel": "integration",
    })
    r.raise_for_status()
    return r.json()["session_token"]      # short-lived

def transactions(token, account_id, since, until, check_no=None, amount=None):
    # Mirrors the in-app search: date window, amount, or check number.
    params = {"from": since, "to": until}
    if check_no: params["check"]  = check_no
    if amount:   params["amount"] = amount
    resp = requests.get(
        f"{BASE}/accounts/{account_id}/transactions",
        params=params,
        headers={"Authorization": f"Bearer {token}"},
    )
    if resp.status_code == 401:
        raise SessionExpired("token aged out; call login() again")
    resp.raise_for_status()
    # each item: date, amount, check_no, description, running_balance
    return resp.json()["items"]
      

Data rights

Clear Fork Bank answers to the OCC as a national association and carries FDIC deposit insurance — certificate #3067, per the FDIC's BankFind record. The footing that holds today for reaching a member's records is that member's own authorization: explicit, scoped to the data the use case needs, and revocable. The federal open-banking rule that would otherwise sit underneath this, the CFPB's Section 1033 Personal Financial Data Rights rule, is not something to build on yet — its enforcement is currently enjoined and the CFPB has reopened it for reconsideration. The compliance schedule it set out, as finalized and since stayed, front-loaded the largest data providers, not a roughly $0.8 billion Texas community bank. So we treat §1033 as the direction the rules may travel, not as current law. Everything we run is logged, consent is recorded, the data pulled is minimized, and an NDA covers the work when you want one.

Engineering notes

Two things about this specific app shape the build, and we plan for both rather than leave them to chance.

• Enrollment is a prerequisite the app enforces, so we start from it. The app re-uses online-banking credentials and a member has to enroll mobile through their online account first. We design the auth flow to begin from that enrolled state and run it against a consenting member, set up with you during onboarding.
• Biometrics are a convenience, not the real gate. Touch ID and Face ID sign-on is a device-local shortcut over the credential and token exchange. We target that underlying token chain, so the integration never depends on a phone's secure enclave.
• Small-bank front ends change without a changelog. A community bank can ship a portal update quietly, so we keep a monitored canary against the live flows and refresh the parser the moment a response shape drifts, which keeps the transaction-search mapping honest.

Screens

The store screenshots we mapped against — accounts, transaction search, transfers and bill pay. Tap to enlarge.

Similar apps

Other Texas community-bank apps hold the same shape of data behind a member login, so they tend to land in the same integration set when someone needs more than one institution covered.

• First Financial Bank Texas — a multi-branch Texas bank app exposing balances, transaction history and transfers behind an online-banking login.
• Prosperity Bank — Texas-and-Oklahoma retail and business banking with account, payment and transfer records per member.
• Texas Community Bank — mobile banking covering balances, transfers and routine transactions for its account holders.
• Texas First Bank — online and mobile banking holding account balances, history and bill-pay records.
• First State Bank — Texas community-bank app with account management, transfers and mobile deposit data.
• First National Bank Texas / First Convenience Bank — digital banking spanning accounts, payments and transfers across a wide branch network.
• First Texas Bank — local-bank digital services covering balances, transactions and payments per account.

Sources

Checked and written up on 2026-06-15. The app's surfaces come from its store listing and the bank's own mobile-services page; the charter, deposit insurance and the data-rights picture come from primary regulatory sources, opened directly:

• Clear Fork Bank on Google Play (package com.fdc.fnbatxsub)
• FDIC BankFind — Clear Fork Bank, N.A. (cert #3067)
• Clear Fork Bank — Mobile Services
• CFPB — Personal Financial Data Rights (Section 1033) status

Mapped by the OpenBanking Studio integration desk · reviewed 2026-06-15.

Questions

Can the app's transaction search — by date, amount, or check number — be driven programmatically?

Yes. Each filter the app exposes maps to a parameter on the underlying query, so an integration can request a single check number or a tight date-and-amount window instead of pulling a whole history and filtering after the fact.

Does the Touch ID and Face ID sign-on get in the way of an automated integration?

No. Biometric sign-on is a device-local shortcut sitting over the real credential and token exchange. We target that token chain, so the integration does not depend on a phone's fingerprint or face sensor.

What is the legal footing for pulling a Clear Fork Bank member's data in the United States right now?

The member's own authorization. Clear Fork Bank is an OCC-chartered national bank with roughly $0.8 billion in assets, and member-consented access to their own records is the basis we work from. The federal Section 1033 data-rights rule is not in force — its enforcement is currently enjoined and the rule is back with the CFPB — so it is treated here as where the rules may head, not as today's law.

Clear Fork Bank runs six Texas branches on one online-banking back end — does an integration cover all of them?

Yes. The Albany, Breckenridge, Abilene, Gordon, Strawn and Mineral Wells branches share one online-banking system, and access is keyed to the member's accounts rather than to a branch, so a single integration reaches a member's data wherever the account was opened.

Start a build

You give us the app name and what you want out of its data; we arrange access and the compliance footing with you and do the rest. Source-code delivery starts at $300 — runnable source for the accounts, transaction-search and bill-pay calls, plus the spec, tests and documentation — and you pay after delivery once it works for you. Prefer not to host anything? Run against our hosted endpoints and pay per call, with nothing upfront. The cycle is one to two weeks either way. Tell us about your Clear Fork Bank integration and we will scope it.