All posts by Guest Contributor
Fraudsters are more sophisticated than ever. Just when you think you’ve filled the gaps, a new fraud threat emerges. Here are five strategic recommendations from Juniper Research for businesses that accept online payments: Invest in top-of-the-range fraud detection and prevention solutions Implement mobile security as soon as possible Develop a fraud prevention investment strategy Empower cross-industry collaboration to reduce online fraud effectively Fraud continues to evolve from individual rogues to organized global networks. Is your fraud prevention strategy keeping up? >>Juniper Research: Online payment fraud whitepaper
Did you know that identities can shift (for better or worse) in just 30 days? To succeed in today’s multichannel, mobile environment, businesses must have a broader, more dynamic identity management strategy that includes: Identity proofing: Point-in-time verification (e.g., account opening) Authentication: Ongoing verification (e.g., account login) Identity management: Continual monitoring throughout the Customer Life Cycle Minimize your identity fraud risk, increase customer engagement and provide a satisfying customer experience by shifting to a strategy focused on identity relationship management. >>The three pillars of identity relationship management
Consumer card balance transfer activity is estimated to be $35 billion to $40 billion a year. How do lenders identify these consumers before they make transfers? By using trended data. While extremely valuable, trended data is very complex and difficult to work with. For example, with 24 months of history on five fields, a single account includes 120 data points. That’s 720 data points for a consumer with six accounts on file and 72 million for a file with 100,000 consumers — not to mention the other data fields in the file. Trended data allows lenders to effectively predict where a consumer is going based on where they’ve been. And that can make all the difference when it comes to smart lending decisions. >>What is trended data?
As regulators continue to warn financial institutions of the looming risk posed by HELOCs reaching end of draw, many bankers are asking: Why should I be concerned? What are some proactive steps I can take now to reduce my risk? This blog addresses these questions and provides clear strategies that will keep your bank on track. Why should I be concerned? Just a quick refresher: HELOCs provide borrowers with access to untapped equity in their residences. The home is taken as collateral and these loans typically have a draw period from five to 10 years. At the end of the draw period, the loan becomes amortized and monthly payments could increase by hundreds of dollars. This payment increase could be debilitating for borrowers already facing financial hardships. The cascading affect on consumer liquidity could also impact both credit card and car loan portfolios as borrowers begin choosing what debt they will pay first. The breadth of the HELOC risk is outlined in an excerpt from a recent Experian white paper. The chart below illustrates the large volume of outstanding loans that were originated from 2005 to 2008. The majority of the loans that originated prior to 2005 are in the repayment phase (as can be seen with the lower amount of dollars outstanding). HELOCs that originated from 2005 to 2008 constitute $236 billion outstanding. This group of loans is nearing the repayment phase, and this analysis examines what will happen to these loans as they enter repayment, and what will happen to consumers’ other loans. What can you do now? The first step is to perform a portfolio review to assess the extent of your exposure. This process is a triage of sorts that will allow you to first address borrowers with higher risk profiles. This process is outlined below in this excerpt from Experian’s HELOC white paper. By segmenting the population, lenders can also identify consumers who may no longer be credit qualified. In turn, they can work to mitigate payment shock and identify opportunities to retain those with the best credit quality. For consumers with good credit but insufficient equity (blue box), lenders can work with the borrowers to extend the terms or provide payment flexibility. For consumers with good credit but sufficient equity (purple box), lenders can work with the borrowers to refinance into a new loan, providing more competitive pricing and a higher level of customer service. For consumers with good credit but insufficient equity (teal box), a loan modification and credit education program might help these borrowers realize any upcoming payment shock while minimizing credit losses. The next step is to determine how you move forward with different customers segments. Here are a couple of options: Loan Modification: This can help borrowers potentially reduce their monthly payments. Workouts and modification arrangements should be consistent with the nature of the borrower’s specific hardship and have sustainable payment requirements. Credit Education: Consumers who can improve their credit profiles have more options for refinancing and general loan approval. This equates to a win-win for both the borrower and lender. HELOCs do not have to pose a significant risk to financial institutions. By being proactive, understanding your portfolio exposure and helping borrowers adjust to payment changes, banks can continue to improve the health of their loan portfolios. Ancin Cooley is principal with Synergy Bank Consulting, a national credit risk management and strategic planning firm. Synergy provides a rangeof risk management services to financial institutions, which include loan reviews, IT audits, internal audits, and regulatory compliance reviews. As principal, Ancin manages a growing portfolio of clients throughout the United States.
For years, organizations have used data to improve operational efficiencies and cost savings. Now they are beginning to use data to optimize or improve nearly every aspect of their organization. When justifying the return on investment for managing data quality, consider these findings from a recent Experian Data Quality survey of U.S. organizations: 23% of customer data is believed to be inaccurate 75% think inaccurate data is undermining their ability to provide an excellent customer experience 79% say it is difficult to predict when and where the next data challenge will arise 77% believe data management is driven by multiple stakeholders in their organization rather than by a single data specialist >>Download: The 2016 global data management benchmark report
Fraudsters invited into bank branches The days of sending an invitation in the mail have for the most part gone by the wayside. Aside from special invitations for weddings and milestone anniversaries, electronic and email invitations have become the norm. However, one major party planner has refused to change practices — banks inviting fraudsters into their banking centers. As a fraud consultant I have the privilege of meeting many banking professionals, and I hear the same issues and struggles over and over again. It’s clear that the rapid increase of fraudulent account-opening applications are top of mind to many. What the executives making policy don’t realize is they’re facing fraud because they’re literally inviting the fraudsters into their branches. Think I’m exaggerating? Let me explain. I often encounter bank policymakers who explain their practice of directing a suspicious person into a banking center. Yes, many banks still direct applicants who cannot be properly verified over the phone or online into their banking center to show proof of identity. Directing or inviting criminals into your bank instead of trying to keep them out is an outdated, high-risk practice — what good can possibly come of it? The argument I typically hear from non-fraud banking professionals: “The bad guys know that if they come into the bank we will have them on film.” Other arguments include that the bad guys are not typically bold enough to actually come into the banking center or that their physical security guards monitor high-traffic banking centers. But often that is where bank policies and employee training ends. Based on my years of experience dealing with banks of all sizes, from the top three global card issuers to small regional banks, let me poke a few holes in the theory that it is a good deterrent to invite perpetrators into your banking center. Let’s role-play how my conversation goes: Me: “When an underwriter with limited fraud training making the decision to direct a suspicious applicant into a banking center, what is the policy criteria to do so?” Bank policymaker: (typical response) “What do you mean?” Me: “What high-risk authentication was used by the underwriter to make the decision to extend an invitation to a high-risk applicant to come into the banking center? If the applicant failed your high-risk authentication questions and you were not able to properly identify them, what authentication tools do the branch managers have that the underwriters do not?” Bank: “Nothing, but they can usually tell when someone is nervous or seems suspicious.” Me: “Then what training do they receive to identify suspicious behaviors?” (You guessed it …) Bank: “None.” (I then switch to the importance of customer experience.) Me: “How do you notify the banking center in advance that the suspicious applicant was invited to come in to provide additional verification?” Bank: “We do not have a policy to notify the banking center in advance.” Me: “What is considered acceptable documentation? And are banking center employees trained on how to review utility statements, state ID cards, drivers’ licenses or other accepted media?“ Bank: “We do not have a list of acceptable documentation that can be used for verification; it is up to the discretion of the banking center representative.” Me: “How do you ensure the physical safety of your employees and customers when you knowingly invite fraudsters and criminals into your banking center? How do you turn down or ask the suspicious person to leave because they do not have sufficient documentation to move forward with the original application for credit? If a suspicious person provides your employee with a possible stolen identification card, is that employee expected to keep it and notify police or return it to the applicant? Are employees expected to make a photocopy of the documentation provided?” The response that I usually receive is, “I am not really sure.” I hope by now you are seeing the risk of these types of outdated practices on suspicious credit applications. The fact is that technology has allowed criminals to make fairly convincing identification at a very low cost. If employees in banking centers are not equipped, properly trained, and well-documented procedures do not exist in your fraud program — perhaps it’s time to reconsider the practice or seek the advice of industry experts. I have spent two decades trying to keep bad guys out of banks, but I can’t help but wonder — why do some still send open invitations to criminals to come visit their bank? If you are not yet ready to stop this type of bad behavior, at the very least you must develop comprehensive end-to-end policies to properly handle such events. This fraud prevention tactic to invite perpetrators into banks was adopted long before the age of real-time decisions, robust fraud scores, big data, decision analytics, knowledge-based authentication, one-time passcodes, mobile banking and biometrics. The world we bank in has changed dramatically in the past five years; customers expect more and tolerate less. If a seamless customer experience and reducing account-opening and first-party fraud are part of your strategic plan, then it is time to consider Experian fraud solutions and consulting.
Experian’s annual global fraud report reveals trends that can help organizations mitigate fraud and improve the customer experience: Apply the right-sized fraud solutions to reduce unnecessary customer disruption Ensure you have a universal consumer view Select fraud solutions that are future-proof As fraudsters evolve, losses are climbing and the status quo is no longer effective. Organizations should be as forward-looking in fighting fraud as they are in business operations and marketing. >> Global Business Trends: Protecting Growth Ambitions Against Rising Fraud Threats
In an attempt to stay ahead of fraud, systems have become more complex, more expensive and even more difficult to manage, leading to more friction for customers. How extensive is this impact? 30% of online customers are interrupted to catch one fraudulent attempt One in 10 new applicants may be an imposter using breached data $40 billion of legitimate customer sales are declined annually Businesses must continue their efforts to protect all parties’ interests if they are to thrive in this new world of rapid technological growth. >> Infographic: Global fraud trends
As credit behavior and economic conditions continue to evolve, using a model that is validated regularly can give lenders greater confidence in the model’s performance. VantageScore Solutions, LLC validates all its models annually to promote transparency and support financial institutions with model governance. The results of the most recent validation demonstrate the consistent ability of VantageScore® 3.0 to accurately score more than 30 million to 35 million consumers considered unscoreable by other models — including 9.5 million Hispanic and African-American consumers. The findings reinforce the importance of using advanced credit scoring models to make more accurate decisions while providing consumers with access to fair and equitable credit. >> VantageScore Annual Validation Results 2016 VantageScore® is a registered trademark of VantageScore Solutions, LLC
A recent national survey by Experian revealed opportunities for businesses to build relationships with future homebuyers before they’re ready to obtain a loan. Insights include: 35% of future buyers said they don’t know what steps to take to qualify for a larger loan 75% of future buyers are not preapproved for a home loan 29% of those surveyed would purchase a more expensive home if they had better credit and could qualify for a larger loan A large portion of near-future homebuyers are millennials. Building relationships with this generation now will benefit financial institutions in the future. >> White paper: Building lasting relationships with millennials
Many fraud and compliance teams are struggling to keep pace with new business dynamics. Here are several of the many mobile device trends affecting business today: 35% year-over-year growth in mobile commerce from 2014-2015 Value of mobile payment transactions is forecasted to reach more than $27 billion in 2016 45% of smartphone owners use a mobile device to make a purchase every month This rapid growth only reinforces the need for aggressive fraud prevention strategies and the adoption of new technologies to prepare for the latest emerging cybersecurity threats. >> Forrester\'s 2016 Vendor Landscape: Mobile Fraud Management Solutions Report
Every day, millions of new things get connected online, such as toasters, heart monitors and cars. Many of these things have weak security controls that create vulnerabilities in critical private networks. As more products get connected, the casual mindset about the security risks inherent in the Internet of Things must begin to change. Here are 12 tips to help safeguard your systems from the Internet of Things. >> Securing the Internet of Things
According to a national survey by Experian, college students may be receiving their degrees, but their financial management knowledge still needs some schooling. The survey reveals some troubling data about recent graduates: Average student loan debt is $22,813 31% have maxed out a credit card 39% have accepted credit card terms and conditions without reading them Learning to manage debt and finances properly is key to young adults’ future financial success. Since students aren’t receiving credit and debt management education in college, they need to educate themselves proactively. Credit education resources are available on Experian\'s Website. >> Experian College Graduate Survey Report
On June 2, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) proposed a rule aimed at “payday lending” that will apply to virtually all lenders, with request for comments by Sept. 14. Here is a summary of the basic provisions of the proposed rule. However, with comments, the proposal is more than 1,300 pages in length, and the proposed rule and examples are more than 200 pages long. It is necessary to review the details of the proposed rule to understand its potential impact on your products and processes fully. You may wish to review your current and future offerings with your institution’s counsel and compliance officer to determine the potential impact if major provisions of this proposed rule are finalized by the CFPB. Coverage The proposal generally would cover two categories of loans. First, the proposal generally would cover loans with a term of 45 days or less. Second, the proposal generally would cover loans with a term greater than 45 days, provided that they have an all-in annual percentage rate greater than 36 percent and either are repaid directly from the consumer’s account or income or are secured by the consumer’s vehicle. Ability to repay For both categories of covered loans, the proposal would identify it as an abusive and unfair practice for a lender to make a covered loan without reasonably determining that the consumer has the ability to repay the loan. Or if the lender does not determine if the consumer can make payments due, as well as meet major financial obligations and basic living expenses during and for 30 days after repayment. Lenders would be required to verify the amount of income that a consumer receives, after taxes, from employment, government benefits or other sources. In addition, lenders would be required to check a consumer’s credit report to verify the amount of outstanding loans and required payments. “Safe Harbor” The proposed rule would provide lenders with options to make covered loans without satisfying the ability-to-repay and payment notice requirements, if those loans meet certain conditions. The first option would be offering loans that generally meet the parameters of the National Credit Union Administration “payday alternative loans” program, where interest rates are capped at 28 percent and the application fee is no more than $20. The other option would be offering loans that are payable in roughly equal payments with terms not to exceed two years and with an all-in cost of 36 percent or less, not including a reasonable origination fee, so long as the lender’s projected default rate on these loans is 5 percent or less. The lender would have to refund the origination fees any year that the default rate exceeds 5 percent. Lenders would be limited as to how many of either type of loan they could make per consumer per year. Outstanding loans The proposal also would impose certain restrictions on making covered loans when a consumer has — or recently had — certain outstanding loans. These provisions are extensive and differ between short- and long-term loans. For example: Payday and single-payment auto title: If a borrower seeks to roll over a loan or returns within 30 days after paying off a previous short-term debt, the lender would be restricted from offering a similar loan. Lenders could only offer a similar short-term loan if a borrower demonstrated that their financial situation during the term of the new loan would be materially improved relative to what it was since the prior loan was made. The same test would apply if the consumer sought a third loan. Even if a borrower’s finances improved enough for a lender to justify making a second and third loan, loans would be capped at three in succession followed by a mandatory 30-day cooling-off period. High-cost installment loans: For consumers struggling to make payments under either a payday installment or auto title installment loan, lenders could not refinance the loan into a loan with similar payments. This is unless a borrower demonstrated that their financial situation during the term of the new loan would be materially improved relative to what it was during the prior 30 days. The lender could offer to refinance if that would result in substantially smaller payments or would substantially lower the total cost of the consumer’s credit. Payments Furthermore, it would be defined as an unfair and abusive practice to attempt to withdraw payment from a consumer’s account for a covered loan after two consecutive payment attempts have failed, unless the lender obtains the consumer’s new and specific authorization to make further withdrawals from the account. The proposal would require lenders to provide certain notices to the consumer before attempting to withdraw payment for a covered loan from the consumer’s account unless exempt under one of the “safe harbor” options. Registered information systems Finally, the proposed rule would require lenders to use credit reporting systems to report and obtain information about loans made under the full-payment test or the principal payoff option. These systems would be considered consumer reporting companies, subject to applicable federal laws and registered with the CFPB. Lenders would be required to report basic loan information and updates to that information. The proposed regulation may be found here.
According to the most recent State of the Automotive Finance Market report, the total balance of open automotive loans increased 11.1% in Q1 2016, reaching $1.005 trillion — up from $905 billion in Q1 2015. This is the first time on record that automotive loans have passed the $1 trillion mark. The report also revealed that subprime loan volumes experienced double-digit growth and overall delinquencies remained low. With more consumers relying on financing, lenders should monitor credit and delinquency trends in order to adjust strategies accordingly. >>Webinar: Hear about the latest consumer credit trends
Learn More Image
