Many compliance regulations such the Red Flags Rule, USA Patriot Act, and ESIGN require specific identity elements to be verified and specific high risk conditions to be detected. However, there is still much variance in how individual institutions reconcile referrals generated from the detection of high risk conditions and/or the absence of identity element verification. With this in mind, risk-based authentication, (defined in this context as the “holistic assessment of a consumer and transaction with the end goal of applying the right authentication and decisioning treatment at the right time") offers institutions a viable strategy for balancing the following competing forces and pressures:   Compliance – the need to ensure each transaction is approved only when compliance requirements are met;   Approval rates – the need to meet business goals in the booking of new accounts and the facilitation of existing account transactions;     Risk mitigation – the need to minimize fraud exposure at the account and transaction level. A flexibly-designed risk-based authentication strategy incorporates a robust breadth of data assets, detailed results, granular information, targeted analytics and automated decisioning. This allows an institution to strike a harmonious balance (or at least something close to that) between the needs to remain compliant, while approving the vast majority of applications or customer transactions and, oh yeah, minimizing fraud and credit risk exposure and credit risk modeling. Sole reliance on binary assessment of the presence or absence of high risk conditions and identity element verifications will, more often than not, create an operational process that is overburdened by manual referral queues. There is also an unnecessary proportion of viable consumers unable to be serviced by your business. Use of analytically sound risk assessments and objective and consistent decisioning strategies will provide opportunities to calibrate your process to meet today’s pressures and adjust to tomorrow’s as well.

By: Staci Baker There has been a lot of talk in the news about the Dodd-Frank Act lately. According to the Dodd-Frank Resource Center of the American Financial Services Association (AFSA), “The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, which passed on July 21, 2010, is unprecedented in magnitude, and will impact every sector of the financial services industry.”  The aim of the Act is to put measures in place that address the issues that led to the financial crisis. This is done by setting up new regulatory bodies, and limiting the dealings of banks and other financial institutions. For the purpose of this blog, I will focus on describing the new regulatory agencies.  The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB), is an independent watchdog housed within the Federal Reserve. The CFPB has the authority to “regulate consumer financial products and services in compliance with federal law.”[ii] They are responsible for the accuracy of information, hidden fees and deceptive practices for consumers from within the following industries – mortgage, credit cards and other financial products. The Financial Stability Oversight Council is “charged with identifying threats to the financial stability of the United States, promoting market discipline, and responding to emerging risks to the stability of the United States financial system.”ii Through the Treasury, this council will create a new Office of Financial Research, which will be responsible for collecting and analyzing data to identify and monitor emerging risks to the economy, and publish the findings in periodic reports.  These new regulatory agencies are critical to US business processes, as they will more closely monitor business practices, create new tighter legislation, and report findings to the public. The legislation that is created will decrease risk levels posed by large, complex companies, as well as address discrepancy that has been raised throughout the financial crisis.     What are your views of the Dodd-Frank Act? Do you believe this is the legislation needed to stem future financial crisis? If not, what would help you and your business?  

Increased incidence of “involuntary renters” According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, one out of every 200 homes will be foreclosed. The incidence of “involuntary renters” will increase as a high foreclosure rate continues, in turn, fueling the current trend of consumers who rely solely on mobile service instead of landlines. Implications for communications companies Does it necessarily follow that foreclosure equals bad risk? I don’t think so. For example, many consumers who have undergone foreclosure were subjected to a readjusted ARM that doubled or even tripled their mortgage payments. While taking a mortgage out of a consumer’s credit file can negatively impact the overall credit score, it can also potentially generate a more positive cash flow. The consumer’s new rent payments would be lower than the readjusted mortgage would have been, making the consumer a potentially good customer for communications services. Wireless companies, in particular, prefer to approve customers for regular installment plans (as opposed to prepaid plans). The goal, for nearly all communications companies, is to qualify customers for service without the need for a deposit. The key, when assessing credit risk, is to look at the total credit/payment history, not just the credit score alone. Best Practices for qualifying involuntary renters: Validate ID/authenticate. Checking the credit application information against several data sources will help avoid potential fraud. Look at the overall credit picture, especially the current debt-to-income ratio. Review third-party data for payment history. Along with the typical payment data, Experian now offers rental histories through RentBureau. This data has the ability to increase credit report accuracy for renters. Consider the basic lender mentality. Consumers who have exhibited good payment history on utilities, credit cards, and other debt in the past are likely to continue that behavior despite having lost their house to foreclosure.   Considering the total credit picture allows you to rank-order customers and group them into populations that are lower risk, identifying, for example, those who can be serviced without an upfront deposit. In future posts, I’ll provide some guidance for rank-ordering customers as to their credit-worthiness.