Financial Services
I’ve talked (sorry, blogged) previously about taking a risk-based approach to reconciling initial Red Flag Rule conditions in your applications, transactions, or accounts. In short, that risk-based approach incorporates a more holistic view of a consumer in determining overall risk associated with that identity. This risk can be assessed via an authentication score, alternate data sources and/or verification results. I also want to point out the potential value of knowledge-based authentication (a.k.a. out-of-wallet questions) in providing an extra level of confidence in progressing a consumer transaction or application in light of an initially detected Red Flag condition. In Experian’s Fraud and Identity Solutions business, we have some clients who are effectively embedding the use of knowledge-based authentication into their overall Red Flags Identity Theft Prevention Program. In doing so, they are able to identify the majority of higher risk conditions and transactions and positively authenticate those initiating consumers via a series of interactive questions designed to be more easily answered by a legitimate individual -- and more difficult for a fraudster. Using knowledge-based authentication can provide the following values to your overall process: 1. Consistency: Utilizing a hosted and standard process can reduce potential subjectivity in decisioning. Subjectivity is not a friend to examiners or to your bottom line. 2. Measurability: Question performance and reporting allows for ongoing monitoring and optimization of decisioning strategies. Plus, examiners will appreciate the metrics. 3. Customer Experience: This is a buzzword these days for sure. Better to place a customer through a handful of interactive questions, than to ask them to fax in documentation --or to take part in a face-to-face authentication. 4. Cost: See the three values above…Plus, a typical knowledge-based authentication session may well be more cost effective from an FTE/manual review perspective. Now, keep in mind that the use of knowledge-based authentication is certainly a process that should be approved by your internal compliance and legal teams for use in your Red Flags Identity Theft Prevention Program. That said, with sound decisioning strategies based on authentication question performance in combination with overall authentication results and scores, you can be well-positioned to positively progress the vast majority of consumers into profitable accounts and transactions without incurring undue costs.
Hello Red Flaggers! I’m still getting some questions from our clients these days around the FTC enforcement extension. My concern is that there seems to be a perception that May 1, 2009 is the enforcement date for all of the guidelines in the Red Flags Rule. In reading through the recently released FTC Enforcement Policy (Identity Theft Red Flags Rule, 16 CFR, 681.2), it clearly states the following: This delay in enforcement is limited to the Identity Theft Red Flags Rule (16 CFR 681.2), and does not extend to the rule regarding address discrepancies applicable to users of consumer reports (16 CFR 681.1), or to the rule regarding changes of address applicable to card issuers (16 CFR 681.3). So, while you may be breathing a sigh of relief as far as the implementation of your overall Identity Theft Prevention Program is concerned, be advised that the May 1, 2009 extension does not cover the need to detect and/or respond to address discrepancies on consumer reports or during address changes on card accounts. As previously mentioned in an earlier blog of mine (see Nov. 13 blog), responding to address discrepancies on consumer reports may be the biggest challenge for many of our clients, as (depending on market served) the percentage of consumer reports with an address discrepancy can number over 20 percent. This can create an operational burden from the perspective of cost, customer experience, and the ability to quickly book legitimate and profitable customers. Have a look at my previous blog on a risk based approach to address discrepancies for a refresher on this subject. Good luck!!
By: Tom Hannagan Here’s a further review of results from the Uniform Bank Performance Reports, courtesy of the FDIC, through the third quarter of this year. (See my Dec. 18 post.) The UBPR is based on quarterly call reports that insured banks are required to submit. I wanted to see how the various profit performance components compare to the costs of credit risks discussed in my previous post. The short of it is that banks have a ways to go to be fully pricing for both expected and unexpected risk. (See my Dec. 5 blog dealing with risk definitions.) The FDIC compiles peer averages for various bank size groupings. Here are some findings for the two largest groups, covering 490 reporting banks. Here are the results: Peer Group 1 consists of 186 institutions with over $3 billion in average total assets for the first nine months. • Net interest income was 5.34 percent of average total assets for the period. This is down, as we might expect based on this year’s decline in the general level of interest rates, from 6.16 percent in 2007. • Net interest expense was also down from 2.98 percent in 2007 to 2.16 percent for the nine months to September 30th. • Net interest margin, the difference between the two metrics, was down slightly from 3.16 percent in 2007 to 3.14 percent so far in 2008, or a loss of 2 basis points. It should be noted that net interest margins have been in steady decline for at least ten years, with a torturous regular drop of 2 to 5 basis points per annum in recent years. This year’s drop is not that bad, although it does add to the difficulty in generating bottom-line profits. To find out a bit more about the drop in margins, especially in light of the steady increase in lending over the same past decade, I looked at loans yields. • Loan yields averaged 6.22 percent for 2008, down (again, expectedly) from 7.32 percent in 2007. This is a drop of 110 basis points or a decline of 15 percent. • Meanwhile, rates paid on interest-earning deposits dropped from 3.41 percent in 2007 to 2.48 percent so far in 2008. This 93 basis point decline represents a 27 percent lower cost of interest-bearing deposits. It seems as though margins should have improved somewhat -- not declined for these banks. Digging a bit deeper, I see two possible reasons. • First, total deposit balances declined from 72 percent of average assets to 70 percent, meaning a larger amount had to be borrowed to fund assets. • Second, non-interest bearing demand deposits declined from 4.85 percent of average assets to 4.49 percent. So, fewer deposit balances relative to total asset size, along with a lower proportion of interest-cost-free deposits, appear to have made the difference. Unfortunately, the ”big news” is that margins were only down a bit. Let’s move on to fee income. Non-interest income, again, as a percent of average total assets, was down to 1.14 percent from 1.23 percent in 2007. For this bank group, fees have also been steadily declining relative to asset size, down from 1.49 percent of assets in 2005. A lot of fee income is deposit based, and largely based on non-interest bearing deposits – and, thus, a source of pressure on fee income. Operating expenses constituted some good news as they declined from 2.63 percent to 2.61 percent of average assets. That’s 2 basis points to the good. Hey, an improvement is an improvement. Historically this metric has generally moved down, but irregularly from year to year. The number stood at 2.54 percent in 2006, for instance. As a result of the slight decline in margins and the larger percentage decline in fee income, the Peer Group 1 efficiency ratio lost ground from 57.71 percent in 2007 to only 58.78 percent in 2008. That means the every dollar in gross revenue [net interest income plus fee income] cost them almost 58 cents in administrative expenses so far this year. This metric averaged 55 cents in 2005/2006. The total impact of margin performance, fee income and operating expenses, if you’ve been tallying along, is a net decline of 0.09 percent on total assets. When we add this to the 2008 increase in provision expense of 57 basis points, we arrive at a total decline in pre-tax operating income of 0.66 percent on total assets. (See my Dec. 18 post.) That is a total decline of 44 percent from the pre-tax performance in 2007 for banks over $3 billion in assets. It would appear that banks are not pricing enough risk into their loan rates yet – for their own bottom line performance. This would be further confirmed if you compared bank loan rates to the historic risk spreads and absolute rates that the market currently has priced into investment grade and other corporate bonds. They are probably at extremes but still they say more credit risk is present than bank lending rates/yields would indicate. For Peer Group 2, consisting of 304 reporting banks between $1 billion and $3 billion in assets: • Net interest income was 5.87 percent of average total assets for the period. This is also down, as expected, from 6.73 percent in 2007. • Net interest expense was also down from 3.07 percent in 2007 to 2.39 percent for the nine months to September 30th. • Net interest margin, was down from 3.66 percent in 2007 to 3.48 percent so far in 2008, or a loss of 18 basis points. These margins are at somewhat higher levels than found in Peer Group 1, but the drop of .18 percent was much larger than the decline in Peer Group 1. As with all banks, net interest margins have been in steady chronic decline, but the drops for Peer Group 2 have been coming in larger chunks the last two years, down 18 points this year so far, after dropping 16 points from 2006 to 2007. Behind the drop in margins, loans yields are 6.69 percent for 2008, down from 7.82 percent in 2007. This is a drop of 113 basis points or a decline of 14 percent. Meanwhile rates paid on interest-earning deposits dropped from 3.70 percent in 2007 to 2.85 percent so far in 2008. This 85 basis point decline represents a 23 percent lower cost of interest-bearing deposits. Again, with a steeper decline in interest costs, you’d think margins should have improved somewhat. That didn’t happen. I notice the same two culprits. • Total deposit balances declined from 78 percent of average assets to 76 percent, meaning, again, a larger amount had to be borrowed to fund assets. • Also, non-interest bearing demand deposits continued an already steady decline from 5.58 percent of average assets in 2007 to 5.08 percent. Fewer deposit balances relative to total asset size…along with a lower proportion of interest-cost-free deposits…and we know the result. Now, about fee income for these banks… Non-interest income, again as a percent of average total assets, was down to 0.92 percent from 0.95 percent in 2007. For this bank group, fees have also been steadily declining relative to asset size, down from 1.04 percent of assets in 2005. A smaller non-interest bearing deposit base, without other new and offsetting sources of fee income, will mean pressure on this metric. Operating expenses constituted some good news here as well. They declined from 2.79 percent to 2.75 percent of average assets. That’s 4 basis points to the good. Historically this metric has been flatter for this size bank, moving up or down a bit from year to year. As a result of the not-so-slight decline in margins and the continued decline in fee income, the Peer Group 2 efficiency ratio lost ground from 59.52 percent in 2007 to only 61.86 percent in 2008. That means the every dollar in gross revenue cost these banks almost 62 cents in administrative expenses so far this year. This metric averaged 56 cents in 2005/2006. The total impact of margin performance, fee income and operating expenses is a net decline of 0.17 percent on total assets. When we add this to the 2008 increase in provision expense of 36 basis points, we arrive at a total decline in pre-tax operating income of 0.53 percent on total assets. (See my Dec. 18 post.) That is a total decline of 34 percent from the pre-tax performance in 2007. As I concluded above, more credit risk is present than bank lending rates/yields would indicate. Although all 490 banks are declining in efficiency, the larger banks have a scale edge in this regard. The somewhat smaller banks seem to have an edge in pricing loans, but not regarding deposits. Although up dramatically in 2007 and even more this year for both groups, the Peer Group 2 banks seem to be suffering fewer credit losses relative to their asset size than their larger brethren. Both groups have resulting huge profit declines, but the largest banks are under the most pressure through this period. It’s interesting to note that, with higher loan yields and fewer apparent losses, Peer Group 2 banks are somewhat better at risk-adjusted loan pricing than the largest bank group. Results are results. The fourth quarter numbers aren’t expected to show a lot of improvement as the general economy continues to slow and credit issues continue. I’ll comment on entire year’s results in posts early next year. Next year, too, look for my comments on risk management solutions especially relevant to enterprise risk management.
By: Tom Hannagan I reviewed the Uniform Bank Performance Reports (UBPR: (http://www2.fdic.gov/ubpr/ReportTypes.asp ) for selected clients through the third quarter of this year. The UBPR is a compilation of the FDIC, based on the call reports submitted by insured banks. The FDIC reports peer averages for various bank size groupings. Here are a few findings for the two largest groups, covering 490 banks. Peer Group 1 consists of 186 institutions over $3 billion in average total assets for the first nine months. Net loans accounted for 67.59 percent of average total assets, up from 65.79 percent in 2007. Loans, as a percent of assets, have increased steadily since at least 2005. The loan-to-deposit ratio for the largest banks was also up to 97 percent, from 91 percent in 2007 and 88 percent in both 2006 and 2005. So, it appears these banks are lending more, at least through the September quarter, as an allocation of their asset base and relative to their deposit source of funding. In fact, net loans grew at a rate of 11.51 percent for the group through September, which is down from the average growth rate of 15.07 percent for the years 2005 through 2007. But, it is still growth. For Peer Group 2, consisting of 304 reporting banks between $1billion and $3 billion in assets, net loans accounted for 72.57 percent of average total assets, up from 71.75 percent in 2007. Again, the loans as a percent of assets have increased steadily since at least 2005. The loan-to-deposit ratio for these banks was up to 95 percent, from 92 percent in 2007 and an average of 90 percent for 2006 and 2005. So, these banks are also lending more, at least through the September quarter, as a portion of their asset base and relative to their deposit source of funding. In fact, net loans grew at a rate of 12.57 percent for the group through September, which is up from 11.94 percent growth in 2007 and down from an average growth of 15.04 percent for 2006 and 2005. Combined, for these 490 largest institutions, loans were still growing through September. More loans probably mean more credit risk. Credit costs were up. The Peer Group 1 banks reported net loan losses of 0.67 percent of total loans, up from 0.28 percent in 2007, which was up from an average of 18 basis points on the portfolio in 2006/2005. The Group 2 banks reported net loan losses of 0.54 percent, also up substantially from 24 basis points in 2007, and an average of 15 basis points in 2006/2005. Both groups also ramped up their reserve for future expected losses substantially. The September 30th allowance for loan and lease losses (ALLL) as a percent of total loans stood at 1.52 percent for the largest banks, up from 1.20 percent in 2007 and an average of 1.11 percent in 2006/2005. Peer Group 2 banks saw their allocation for losses up to 1.40 percent from 1.22 percent in 2007 and 1.16 percent in 2006. So, lending is up even in the face of increased write-offs, increased expected losses and the burden of higher expenses for these increased loss reserves. Obviously, we would expect this to negatively impact earnings. It did, greatly. Peer Group 1 banks saw a decline in return on assets to 0.42 percent, from 0.96 percent in 2007 and an average of 1.26 percent in 2006/2005. That is a decline in return on assets (ROA) of 56 percent from 2007 and a decline of 68 percent from the 2006/2005 era. Return on equity declined even more. ROE was at 5.21 percent through September for the large bank group, down from 11.97 percent in 2007. ROE stood at 14.36 percent in 2005. For the $1 billion to $3 billion banks, ROA stood at 0.66 percent for the nine months, down from 1.08 percent in 2007, 1.30 percent in 2006 and 1.33 percent in 2005. The decline in 2008 was 39 percent from 2007. Return on equity (ROE) for the group was also down at 7.71 percent from 12.37 percent in 2007. The drops in profitability were not entirely the result of credit losses, but this was by far the largest impact from 2007 and earlier. The beefed-up ALLL accounts would seem to indicate that, as a group, the banks expect further loan losses in the remainder of 2008 and into 2009. All of these numbers pre-dated the launch of the TARP program, but it is clear that banks had not contracted lending through the first three quarter of 2008, even in the face of mounting credit issues, cost of credit, challenges regarding loan pricing and profitability, net interest margins, and the generally declining economic picture. It will be interesting to see how things unfold in the next several quarter [See my December 5th post about ROE versus ROA.] Disclosure: No positions.
We continue to receive inquiries from our clients, and the market in general, around whether they are required to comply with the Red Flag Rule or not. That final decision can be found with the legal and compliance teams within your organization. I am finding, however, that there generally seems to be too literal and narrow an interpretation of the terms ‘creditor’ or ‘financial institution’ as described in the guidelines. I often hear an organization state that they don’t believe they’re covered because they are not one of those types of entities. Ultimately, as I said, that’s up to your internal team(s) to establish. I would recommend, however, that you ensure that opinion and ultimate determination is well researched. It may sound simple, but reach out to your examining agencies or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and discuss any ambiguities you feel exist related to covered accounts. There is some great clarifying language out there beyond the initial Red Flag Rule. For example, the FTC provided a very useful article (www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/articles/art11.shtm) that described how even health care providers can be covered under the Red Flag Rule. At first glance, they may not seem to fall under the umbrella of a ‘creditor or financial institution.’ As stated in the article, the extension of credit “means an arrangement by which you defer payment of debts or accept deferred payments for the purchase of property or services. In other words, payment is made after the product was sold or the service was rendered. Even if you’re a non-profit or government agency, you still may be a creditor if you accept deferred payments for goods or services.” Maybe it’s just me, but that description is arguably much broader-reaching than one might initially think. Long story short: do your research, and don’t assume you or your accounts are not covered under the guidelines. Better to find out now instead of after your first examination….for obvious reasons.
We have talked about: the creation of the vision for our loan portfolios (current state versus future state) – e.g. the strategy for moving our current portfolio to the future vision. Now comes the time for execution of that strategy. In changing portfolio composition and improving credit quality, the discipline of credit must be strong (this includes in the arenas of commercial loan origination, loan portfolio monitoring, and credit risk modeling of course). Consistency, especially, in the application of policy is key. Early on in the change/execution process there will be strong pressure to revert back to the old ways and stay in a familiar comfort zone. Credit criteria/underwriting guidelines will have indeed changed in the strategy execution. In the coming blogs we will be discussing: • assessment of the current state in your loan portfolio; • development of the specific strategy to effect change in the portfolio from a credit quality perspective and composition; • business development efforts to affect change in the portfolio composition; and • policy changes to support the strategy/vision. More to come.
In my last blog, I talked about the overall need for a vision for your loan portfolio and the similarity of a loan portfolio to that of an investment portfolio. Now that we have that vision in place, we can focus on the overall strategy to achieve that vision. A valuable first step in managing an investment portfolio is to establish a targeted value by a certain time (say, our targeted retirement age). Similarly, it’s important that we establish our vision for the loan portfolio regarding overall diversification, return and risk levels. The next step is to create a strategy to achieve the targeted state. By focusing on the gaps between our current state and the vision state we have created, we can develop an action plan for achieving the future/vision state. I am going to introduce some rather unique ideas here. Consider which of your portfolio segments are overweight? One that comes to mind would be the commercial real estate portfolio. The binge that has taken place over the past five plus years has resulted in an unhealthy concentration of loans in the commercial real estate segment. In this one area alone, we will face the greatest challenge of right-sizing our portfolio mix and achieving the appropriate risk model per our vision. We have to assess our overall credit risk in the portfolios next. For small business and consumer portfolios, this is relatively easy using the various credit scores that are available to assess the current risk. For the larger commercial and industrial portfolios and the commercial real estate portfolios, we must employ some more manual processes to assess risk. Unfortunately, we have to perform appropriate risk assessments (current up-to-date risk assessments) in order to move on to the next stage of this overall process (which is to execute on the strategy). Once we have the dollar amounts of either growth or divestiture in various portfolio segments, we can employ the risk assessment to determine the appropriate execution of either growth or divestiture. Stick with me on this topic because in my next blog we will discuss appropriate risk assessment methodologies and determine appropriate portfolio distributions/segmentations.
By: Tom Hannagan I was hoping someone would ask about this. Return on Equity (ROE) is generally net income divided by equity, while Return on Assets (ROA) is net income divided by average assets. There you have it. The calculations are pretty easy. But, what do they mean? ROA tends to tell us how effectively an organization is taking earnings advantage of its base of assets. This used to be the most popular way of comparing banks to each other -- and for banks to monitor their own performance from period to period. Many banks and bank executives still prefer to use ROA…though typically at the smaller banks. ROE tends to tell us how effectively an organization is taking advantage of its base of equity, or capital. This has gained in popularity for several reasons and has become the preferred measure at larger banks. One huge reason for the growing popularity of ROE is, simply, that it is not asset-dependent. ROE can be applied to any line of business or any product. You must have “assets” for ROA, since one cannot divide by zero. This flexibility allows banks with differing asset structures to be compared to each other, or even for banks to be compared to other types of businesses. The asset-independency of ROE also allows a bank to compare internal product line performance to each other. Perhaps most importantly, this permits looking at the comparative profitability of lines of business like deposit services. This would be difficult, if even possible, using ROA. If you are interested in how well a bank is managing its assets, or perhaps its overall size, ROA may be of assistance. Lately, what constitutes a good and valid portrayal of assets has come into question at several of the largest banks. Any measure is only as good as its components. Be sure you have a good measure of asset value, including credit risk adjustments. ROE on the other hand looks at how effectively a bank (or any business) is using shareholders’ equity. Many observers like ROE, since equity represents the owners’ interest in the business. Their equity investment is fully at risk compared to other sources of funds supporting the bank. Shareholders are the last in line if the going gets rough. So, equity capital tends to be the most expensive source of funds, carrying the largest risk premium of all funding options. Its deployment is critical to the success, even the survival, of the bank. Indeed, capital allocation or deployment is the most important executive decision facing the leadership of any organization. If that isn’t enough, ROE is also Warren Buffet’s favorite measure of performance. Finally, there are the risk implications of the two metrics. ROA can be risk-adjusted up to a point. The net income figure can be risk adjusted for mitigated interest rate risk and for expected credit risk that is mitigated by a loan loss provision. The big missing element in even a well risk-adjusted ROA metric is unexpected loss (UL). Unexpected loss, along with any unmitigated expected loss, is covered by capital. Further, aside from the economic capital associated with unexpected loss, there are regulatory capital requirements. This capital is left out of the ROA metric. This is true at the entity level and for any line-of-business performance measures internally. Since ROE uses shareholder equity as its divisor, and the equity is risk-based capital, the result is, more or less, automatically risk-adjusted. In addition to the risk adjustments in its numerator, net income, ROE can use an economic capital amount. The result is a risk-adjusted return on capital, or RAROC. RAROC takes ROE to a fully risk-adjusted metric that can be used at the entity level and that can also be broken down for any and all lines of business within the organization. As discussed in the last post, ROE and RAROC help a bank get to the point where they are more fully “accounting” for risk – or “unpredictable variability”. Sorry about all of the alphabet soup, but there is a natural progression that I’m pointing to that we do see banks working their way through. That progression is being led by the larger banks that need to meet more sophisticated capital reporting requirements, and is being followed by other banks as they get more interested in risk-adjusted monitoring as a performance measurement. The better bank leadership is at measuring risk-adjusted performance, using ROE or RAROC, the better leadership can become at pricing for all risk at the client relationship and product levels.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) suspended enforcement of the new Red Flag Rule until May 1, 2009. According to the FTC’s Enforcement Policy, “…during the course of the Commission’s education and outreach efforts following publication of the rule, the Commission has learned that some industries and entities within the FTC’s jurisdiction have expressed confusion and uncertainty about their coverage under the rule. These entities indicated that they were not aware that they were undertaking activities that would cause them to fall within FACTA Sections 114 and 315 definitions of ‘creditor’ or ’financial institution’.” So, depending upon which enforcement entity (or entities) will be knocking on your door in the coming months, you may (and I emphasize “may”) have some extra time to get your house in order. While many of you are likely confident that you have a compliant written and operational Identity Theft Prevention Program, this break in the action can be a great time to take care of setting up some ongoing procedures for keeping your program up to date. Here are some ideas to keep in mind along the way: 1. Make sure you have clear responsibilities and accountabilities identified and assigned to appropriate persons. Lack thereof may lead to everyone thinking someone else is keeping tabs. 2. Start setting the stage for a process to update your program based on: a. Your new experiences with identity theft; b. Changes in methods of identity theft; c. Changes in methods to detect, prevent, and mitigate identity theft; d. Changes in the types of accounts you offer or maintain; and e. Changes in your business arrangements, including mergers, acquisitions, alliances, joint ventures and service provider arrangements. 3. Set up a process for program review at the board level. Remember that your program does not have to be approved by your board of directors annually, but the board (or a committee of the board) or senior management must review reports regarding your program each year. They must approve any material changes to your program should they occur. 4. Prepare now for follow up actions associated with your first Red Flag Rule examination(s). There will surely be suggestions or mandates stemming from that exercise, and now is a good time to start securing appropriate resources and time. My key message here is that, while there may be lull in the world of Red Flags activity, this is a great time to keep momentum in your program development and upkeep by planning for the next wave of updates and your impending examinations. Best of luck.
I’m working with many of our clients in reviewing their existing or evolving Red Flags Identity Theft Prevention Programs. While the majority of them appear to be buttoned up from the perspective of identifying covered accounts and applicable Red Flag conditions, as well as establishing detection methodologies, I often still see too much subjectivity in their response and reconciliation procedures. Here are a few reasons why the “response” portion of a strong Red Flags Identity Theft Prevention program needs to employ consistent and objective process, decisioning, and actions: 1. Inconsistent or subjectively varied responses and actions greatly reduce the ability to measure process effectiveness over time. It becomes increasingly difficult for retro-analysis to identify which processes and specific steps in those processes were successful in either positively or negatively reconciling potential fraudulent activity. Subsequently, it clouds any ability to make effective or necessary changes to specific activities that may not be working well. 2. Examiners may focus heavily on the response portion of your program. During operational side by sides, or even written program reviews, the less ambiguity and inconsistency identified or perceived, the better. A quick rule of thumb for any examination: preempt any questions with exhaustive information and clarity. Examiners that don’t need to ask many, or any, questions are happy examiners. 3. Objective and consistent process allows for more manageable staff training. It is much easier to educate your staff around a justified and effective uniform process than around intuitive and haphazard procedures and consumer interactions. It is tough to set expectations with your staff if there are gaping holes in the activities they are expected to execute. 4. Customer experience will certainly be more positive, and less of a worry for managers, as inequity of treatment is removed from the equation. It is better to have each customer progress through similar steps toward authentication than varied ones from the perspective of time, perception, effectiveness, and convenience. Now, certainly, a risk-based approach allows for varied treatment based on that risk. The point here is more toward the need to apply those varied techniques consistently. 5. Social engineering. Fraudsters are pretty good at figuring out if an operational process is open to interpretation and manipulation. They’ll continue to engage in a process with the goal of landing with the right associate who may be following a more easily penetrable fraud detection method. Bottom line: keep the walls around your business the same height throughout. Until next time, best of luck as you continue to develop and improve your Red Flags programs.
As someone heavily engaged with the market and our clients discussing Red Flag Rule compliance, Red Flag guidelines, etc...this question has come up over and over again. You’d think by now I’d have a simple, clever, and strategically created product name to throw out there. Well, I don’t, and here’s why: we had Red Flag relevant products before Red Flags were in vogue. So, why didn’t we just rename them under the Red Flag brand? Because honestly, that would border on irresponsibility. Let me explain briefly… If you recall, the Red Flags Rule requires that covered institutions employ a written and operational Program that addresses the four mandatory elements of: • Identifying Red Flags applicable to covered accounts and incorporating them into the Program; • Detecting and evaluating the Red Flags included in the Program; • Responding to the Red Flags detected in a manner that is appropriate to the degree of risk they pose; and • Updating the Program to address changes in the risks to customers, and to the financial institution’s or creditor’s safety and soundness, from identity theft. You read in these requirements words like “applicable” and “appropriate” and “degree of risk.” You don’t read words like “use this tool” or “detect this specific set of conditions.” My point here is that, over the past year, we’ve been working with our clients to map in the “appropriate” and “applicable” set of products and services to allow them to become Red Flag compliant. These products and services range in data leverage and provision, predictive power, decisioning, and of course, cost. That is a good thing, as our clients require individualized tool sets and processes based on their serviced market, gathered information, consumer relationships, products offered, and risk associated with all of those factors. We don’t offer an unlimited or overwhelming number of Red Flag relevant products, but we do offer a diverse enough set that has afforded our clients an opportunity to select the best fit. Whether you choose to adopt Experian as your Red Flag partner or another service provider, keep in mind that one size does not fit all, and be wary of those claiming to be just that. As Red Flag examinations start rolling out in the coming months, there will be a focus on ensuring that your programs are comprehensive and effective. Examiners will be looking at your programs, not your service provider. Be sure to collaborate with your partners to meticulously apply the best solution. At Experian, we’ve taken this collaborative approach with each of our clients, and have employed products ranging from our robust Precise ID SM consumer authentication platform to our Fraud Shield SM risk warning product. Time spent up front in identifying your Red Flag requirements and working with your service provider to determine the best course of action will pay dividends down the road, and ensure you implement a compliant process once….not twice.
By: Tom Hannagan In previous posts, we’ve dealt with the role of risk-based capital, measuring performance based on risk characteristics and the need for risk-based loan pricing. What about risk mitigation? Some of the greatest sins of the financial industry in the current malaise have been the lack of transparency, use of complex transactions to transfer risk and the creation of off-balance-sheet entities to house dodgy investments. Much has been made of the role of Credit Default Swaps (CDSS) as one of the unregulated markets (and therefore guilty parts) of the current credit meltdown. The regulatory agencies and the media are aghast at the volume (peak of some $62 trillion in notional value) of CDSS that have resulted from a totally private market. The likes of Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns and AIG were all big issuers of CDSS. And the trillions of notional value of open CDSS is as much as 100 times the underlying value of the actual debt being insured. There are problems here, but it may be worth clarifying the useful risk management activities from the potentially abusive excesses involving such instruments. CDSS are derivative contracts whereby one party buys credit protection from a counterparty. The buyer pays a premium to the seller either in a lump sum or periodically over the life of the contract. If a credit event such as a default on a loan or a bond occurs, the seller of the CDSS pays the holder for the loss or purchases the initial debt, the reference obligation, at a pre-set price. So, a CDSS is in effect a put option that is deep-out-of-the-money. They expire upon termination and most are never exercised. They are subject to fair-value accounting and can change in value from month to month as the credit markets premiums for similar cover moves up or down. Banks and others can use CDSS to, in effect, adjust the nature of credit risk in their portfolios by both buying and selling such contracts. Asset securitizations, whether mortgage-backed securities or other formulations, are in fact broken-down and re-packaged forms of assets that can be sold -- transferring certain rights, values and risk to another party for payment received. They are complex and therefore mostly opaque to the general public and even many practitioners. They often involve the use of special purpose entities or trusts that can further confuse investors. These tactics have added to the difficulty of the credit crisis and the collapse of capital markets. But, CDSS are contingent in nature and act more like fire insurance or a back-up data center. Such operational expenses are intended to control risks. The accounting treatment is complex and, to an extent (especially as regards the tax treatment), still not well defined by accounting authorities. For most banks, and most CDSS contract, the premium is amortized over the life of the contract. The premium expense entry in their general ledgers is an expense of doing business that is intended to alleviate some credit risk. We are now talking about a covered CDSS, where the bank has extended credit or invested in a debt instrument. Those who purchased uncovered CDSS are gambling on a default occurrence and used CDSS as a more cost-effective (and secretive) alternative to shorting securities. It is somewhat like a naked short. So, a covered CDSS is ultimately an expense associated with protecting the net asset value of a credit transaction. Importantly, this expense should be included in any performance analysis or pricing of the risk-adjusted profitability of the credit obligation and/or client relationship involved. This risk mitigation exercise may be in lieu of a higher required rate or fee on an otherwise uncovered/unmitigated credit transaction, or being satisfied with a lower risk-adjusted return where the bank assumes (self-insures) all of the credit risk. CDSS quotes/costs, similar to rate spreads on corporate bonds, are the open market’s current feeling regarding an entity’s credit quality or relative probability of default. There are some 400 or so participants in the CDSS market, including writers and dealers. Market data is published for many obligations. Even the previously risk-free Treasury securities now have CDSS quotes – and they have gone up considerably in recent months. It is always the buyers’ responsibility to decide if the quoted prices make sense or not and how such quotes should be used in evaluating credit and negotiating lending opportunities in addition to whether or not to purchase this insurance. Finally, the quality of the seller is a consideration. There is no good reason to buy fire insurance from someone that might not be able to pay for your building if it burns down. CDSS have been private party transactions and, as stated earlier, there have been solvency problems with some of the sellers of such instruments. There is now a move under way to create a central exchange for such transactions with both regulations governing the sellers, more standardized contracts and financial backing of the instruments from the exchange. Such an exchange will address both the transparency of the process and the efficiency of market prices. Risk mitigation strategies (risk-based pricing, portfolio risk management, credit risk modeling, etc.) need to be carried out thoughtfully. If something sounds too good to be true, it deserves a deeper look. Your bank’s credit regimen may well be better at evaluating default probability than a marketplace that is prone to feed on its own fears. But, CDSS “insurance” quotes are an outside point of reference and an option to mitigate some credit risk…no pun intended. Here are two interesting sources of information: * BNET Business Network * Georgetown University -- Law Center
One of the more significant operational concerns around Red Flags compliance centers on the management of resultant referral volumes, i.e., the potential that the account origination or maintenance process will get bogged down due to a significant number of red flags detected. These concerns are not without merit, and are arguably the most frequently discussed Red Flag issue with our client base. Organizations may be able to control referral volumes through the use of automated tools that evaluate the level of identity theft risk in a given transaction. For example, customers with a low-risk authentication score can be moved quickly through the account origination process absent any additional red flags detected in the ordinary course of the application or transaction. In fact, using such tools may allow organizations to speed up the origination process for these customers and identify and focus resources on those transactions that pose the greatest potential for identity theft. A risk-based approach to Red Flags compliance affords an institution the ability to reconcile the majority of detected Red Flag conditions efficiently, consistently and with minimal consumer impact. Detection of Red Flag conditions is literally only half the battle. In fact, responding to those Red Flag conditions is a substantial problem to solve for most institutions. A response policy that incorporates scoring, alternate data sources and flexible decisioning can reduce the vast majority of referrals to real-time approvals without staff intervention or customer hardship. Rather than implementing a “rules-based” program (one in which particular Red Flags are identified, detected and used in isolation or near isolation in decisioning), many institutions are opting to approach Red Flag compliance from a “risk-based” perspective. This “risk-based” approach assumes that no single Red Flag Rule or even set of rules provides a comprehensive view of a consumer’s identity and associated fraud risk. Instead, a “risk-based” systematic approach to consumer authentication employs a process by which an appropriately comprehensive set of consumer data sources can provide the foundation for highly effective fraud prediction models in combination with detailed consumer authentication conditions (such as address mismatches or Social Security number inconsistencies). A risk-based fraud detection system allows institutions to make consumer relationship and transactional decisions based not on a handful of rules or conditions in isolation, but on a holistic view of a consumer’s identity and predicted likelihood of associated identity theft. Many, if not all, of the suggested Rules in the published guidelines are not “silver bullets” that ensure the presence or absence of identity theft. A substantial ratio of false positives will comprise the set of consumers and accounts being reviewed as having met one or more of the suggested Red Flag rule conditions. These rules and guidelines are intended neither to prevent legitimate consumers from establishing relationships with institutions nor create a burdensome and prohibitive volume of consumer “referrals.” While those rules incorporated into an institution’s Program must be addressed when detected, a risk-based system allows for an operationally efficient method of reconciliation in tandem with identity theft mitigation.
Whenever an industry encounters problems, the natural tendency is to play the blame game. In the banking industry, credit risk managers are looking for who or what to blame for the tide of charge offs and delinquencies in their under-performing loan portfolios and in their commercial loan origination operations. Credit scoring has definitely taken it on the chin as an easy target during 2008. Is credit scoring the problem? Absolutely not! As with anything, the more complacent we become…and the more we “turn off our brains” and stop thinking…the more risk we assume. The more we solely rely upon the credit score alone, the more we subject ourselves to the risks inherent in “score and go” lending. We are all well aware that credit scoring measures propensity to repay and not capacity to repay. Over the past several years, the propensity to repay has been boosted by ever-increasing real estate values and by the refinance boom. For example, some consumers have been able to survive on a 50 percent debt–to- income due to constant use of credit cards …by paying off those cards with a home mortgage refinance. That set of behaviors would have shown a propensity to repay…but was it ever acceptable to have 50 percent of your income go to debt payments?! Statistically it may have worked for a few years, but once real estate values stopped escalating, the problem with lack of capacity to repay reared its ugly head. When it comes to risk management, let’s get back to reality and sound principles.
By: Tom Hannagan In my last post, I addressed the need for banks to advance their management of risk to include the relationship between capital and risk in their internal decisions and actions. While it is difficult for me to make this topic very exciting, it can’t be ignored. It very nearly resulted in bankrupting the global financial system. Beyond profitability, bank executives must measure and monitor their risk-based capital because: 1) equity capital represents the ownership interest in a bank; 2) equity capital is by far the most expensive source of funding; and 3) the risk associated with capital sufficiency and continued solvency is important. As Colonel Jessup might confirm, “Yes, we’re talking about mortal danger”. Many are scrambling to apply for the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) capital infusion – and most are getting approved for these windfall funds. (Today’s investment advice from the experts: don’t buy common shares in any bank that applied and was turned down.) Let’s take a look at the impact of these funds. If we were, for example, a $10 billion total asset bank, with say $800 million in equity capital prior to TARP and had roughly $700 million in risk-weighted assets, we might get approved for $200 million in TARP-related preferred shares at a cost of 5 percent (after tax) for the next five years. If, our make believe $10 billion bank was earning an average pre-2008 economic-and-credit-crisis return on assets of 1 percent, or $100 million per annum, what are the implications of the added $200 million in capital on future earnings? That $100 million in “pre-crisis” earnings represented a return on equity of 12.5 percent on our original capital of $800 million. (Stay with me, now…) Since we need to pay the Feds (our new shareholders) $10 million in preferred dividends per annum in after-tax money, we need to earn an added $16 million in pre-tax operating income just to break even on the deal. That would mean, in our otherwise static model, that earnings need to move from $100 million to $110 million. More importantly, pre-tax income needs to move from say $150 million to $166 million, assuming about a 33 percent effective tax rate. We’ve got the fresh $200 million to work with, assuming we don’t need part of it to cover credit charge-offs or other asset write-downs. To earn $16 million from that $200 million investment, we would need an 8 percent pre-tax operating income (that’s after expenses, folks). I’m open to suggestions at this point...And you thought banking was easy. You do that the old fashion way -- with leverage. You use the $200 million to get someone (depositors, the Federal Home Loan Bank, a Federal Reserve Bank, or anyone else) to give you more money to invest (at a critically important tax-deductible cost) along with your fresh $200 million in preferred equity. Remember, our bank is already operating with leverage, supporting $7 billion in risk-weighted assets, and $10 billion in total assets, with the pre-existing $800 million in capital. Unfortunately, leverage involves at least liquidity risk, and probably market risk -- on top of whatever direct (credit, market, operational) risks are associated with whatever end investment you choose (…and the Feds hope you choose loans). Obviously, the fastest way to get the added leverage, along with a quick addition to earnings assets, is to go buy another bank (and absorb them more successfully than the two of you ran separately). Thus, a new round of consolidation has begun. Regardless of the method used to grow into the TARP money, any bank that doesn’t take into account the risks associated with these decisions/actions is merely kidding itself. TARP funding will not make any real headway in improving risk-adjusted earnings going forward. There is (and always has been) a direct relationship between actual risk and risk-adjusted return. It is now more important than ever for bank management to monitor and measure their organization’s activities (loan pricing and profitability, investing, deposit taking, investment management, credit risk modeling, buying other banks...and anything else they do) based on the relative risk of those activities and based on the equity capital realistically required to support those risks. This means using return on equity measurement internally as well as at the entity level. I look forward to your comments.
Learn More Image
