Tag: Decisioning
To calculate the expected business benefits of making an improvement to your decisioning strategies, you must first identify and prioritize the key metrics you are trying to positively impact. For example, if one of your key business objectives is improved enterprise risk management, then some of the key metrics you seek to impact, in order to effectively address changes in credit score trends, could include reducing net credit losses through improved credit risk modeling and scorecard monitoring. Assessing credit risk is a key element of enterprise risk management and can addressed as part of your application risk management processes as well as other decisioning strategies that are applied at different points in the customer lifecycle. In working with our clients, Experian has identified 15 key metrics that can be positively impacted through optimizing decisions. As you review the list of metrics below, you should identify those metrics that are most important to your organization. • Approval rates • Booking or activation rates • Revenue • Customer net present value • 30/60/90-day delinquencies • Average charge-off amount • Average recovery amount • Manual review rates • Annual application volume • Charge-offs (bad debt & fraud) • Avg. cost per dollar collected • Average amount collected • Annual recoveries • Regulatory compliance • Churn or attrition Based on Experian’s extensive experience working with clients around the world to achieve positive business results through optimizing decisions, you can expect between a 10 percent and 15 percent improvement in any of these metrics through the improved use of data, analytics and decision management software. The initial high-level business benefit calculation, therefore, is quite important and straightforward. As an example, assume your current approval rate for vehicle loans is 65 percent, the average value of an approved application is $200 and your volume is 75,000 applications per year. Keeping all else equal, a 10 percent improvement in your approval rates (from 65 percent to 72 percent) would generate $10.7 million in incremental business value each year ($200 x 75,000 x .65 x 1.1). To prioritize your business improvement efforts, you’ll want to calculate expected business benefits across a number of key metrics and then focus on those that will deliver the greatest value to your organization.
By: Wendy Greenawalt Given the current volatile market conditions and rising unemployment rates, no industry is immune from delinquent accounts. However, recent reports have shown a shift in consumer trends and attitudes related to cellular phones. For many consumers, a cell phone is an essential tool for business and personal use, and staying connected is a very high priority. Given this, many consumers pay their cellular bill before other obligations, even if facing a poor bank credit risk. Even with this trend, cellular providers are not immune from delinquent accounts and determining the right course of action to take to improve collection rates. By applying optimization, technology for account collection decisions, cellular providers can ensure that all variables are considered given the multiple contact options available. Unlike other types of services, cellular providers have numerous options available in an attempt to collect on outstanding accounts. This, however, poses other challenges because collectors must determine the ideal method and timing to attempt to collect while retaining the consumers that will be profitable in the long term. Optimizing decisions can consider all contact methods such as text, inbound/outbound calls, disconnect, service limitation, timing and diversion of calls. At the same time, providers are considering constraints such as likelihood of curing, historical consumer behavior, such as credit score trends, and resource costs/limitations. Since the cellular industry is one of the most competitive businesses, it is imperative that it takes advantage of every tool that can improve optimizing decisions to drive revenue and retention. An optimized strategy tree can be easily implemented into current collection processes and provide significant improvement over current processes.
In my previous two blogs, I introduced the definition of strategic default and compared and contrasted the population to other types of consumers with mortgage delinquency. I also reviewed a few key characteristics that distinguish strategic defaulters as a distinct population. Although I’ve mentioned that segmenting this group is important, I would like to specifically discuss the value of segmentation as it applies to loan modification programs and the selection of candidates for modification. How should loan modification strategies be differentiated based on this population? By definition, strategic defaulters are more likely to take advantage of loan modification programs. They are committed to making the most personally-lucrative financial decisions, so the opportunity to have their loan modified - extending their ‘free’ occupancy – can be highly appealing. Given the adverse selection issue at play with these consumers, lenders need to design loan modification programs that limit abuse and essentially screen-out strategic defaulters from the population. The objective of lenders when creating loan modification programs should be to identify consumers who show the characteristics of cash-flow managers within our study. These consumers often show similar signs of distress as the strategic defaulters, but differentiate themselves by exhibiting a willingness to pay that the strategic defaulter, by definition, does not. So, how can a lender make this identification? Although these groups share similar characteristics at times, it is recommended that lenders reconsider their loan modification decisioning algorithms, and modify their loan modification offers to screen out strategic defaulters. In fact, they could even develop programs such as equity-sharing arrangements whereby the strategic defaulter could be persuaded to remain committed to the mortgage. In the end, strategic defaulters will not self-identify by showing lower credit score trends, by being a bank credit risk, or having previous bankruptcy scores, so lenders must create processes to identify them among their peers. For more detailed analyses, lenders could also extend the Experian-Oliver Wyman study further, and integrate additional attributes such as current LTV, product type, etc. to expand their segment and identify strategic defaulters within their individual portfolios.
By: Wendy Greenawalt In my last blog on optimization we discussed how optimized strategies can improve collection strategies. In this blog, I would like to discuss how optimization can bring value to decisions related to mortgage delinquency/modification. Over the last few years mortgage lenders have seen a sharp increase in the number of mortgage account delinquencies and a dramatic change in consumer mortgage payment trends. Specifically, lenders have seen a shift in consumer willingness from paying their mortgage obligation first, while allowing other debts to go delinquent. This shift in borrower behavior appears unlikely to change anytime soon, and therefore lenders must make smarter account management decisions for mortgage accounts. Adding to this issue, property values continue to decline in many areas and lenders must now identify if a consumer is a strategic defaulter, a candidate for loan modification, or a consumer affected by the economic downturn. Many loans that were modified at the beginning of the mortgage crisis have since become delinquent and have ultimately been foreclosed upon by the lender. Making optimizing decisions related to collection action for mortgage accounts is increasingly complex, but optimization can assist lenders in identifying the ideal consumer collection treatment. This is taking place while lenders considering organizational goals, such as minimizing losses and maximizing internal resources, are retaining the most valuable consumers. Optimizing decisions can assist with these difficult decisions by utilizing a mathematical algorithm that can assess all possible options available and select the ideal consumer decision based on organizational goals and constraints. This technology can be implemented into current optimizing decisioning processes, whether it is in real time or batch processing, and can provide substantial lift in prediction over business as usual techniques.
In my last post I discussed the problem with confusing what I would call “real” Knowledge Based Authentication (KBA) with secret questions. However, I don’t think that’s where the market focus should be. Instead of looking at Knowledge Based Authentication (KBA) today, we should be looking toward the future, and the future starts with risk-based authentication. If you’re like most people, right about now you are wondering exactly what I mean by risk-based authentication. How does it differ from Knowledge Based Authentication, and how we got from point A to point B? It is actually pretty simple. Knowledge Based Authentication is one factor of a risk-based authentication fraud prevention strategy. A risk- based authentication approach doesn’t rely on question/answers alone, but instead utilizes fraud models that include Knowledge Based Authentication performance as part of the fraud analytics to improve fraud detection performance. With a risk-based authentication approach, decisioning strategies are more robust and should include many factors, including the results from scoring models. That isn’t to say that Knowledge Based Authentication isn’t an important part of a risk-based approach. It is. Knowledge Based Authentication is a necessity because it has gained consumer acceptance. Without some form of Knowledge Based Authentication, consumers question an organization’s commitment to security and data protection. Most importantly, consumers now view Knowledge Based Authentication as a tool for their protection; it has become a bellwether to consumers. As the bellwether, Knowledge Based Authentication has been the perfect vehicle to introduce new and more complex authentication methods to consumers, without them even knowing it. KBA has allowed us to familiarize consumers with out-of-band authentication and IVR, and I have little doubt that it will be one of the tools to play a part in the introduction of voice biometrics to help prevent consumer fraud. Is it always appropriate to present questions to every consumer? No, but that’s where a true risk-based approach comes into play. Is Knowledge Based Authentication always a valuable component of a risk based authentication tool to minimize fraud losses as part of an overall approach to fraud best practices? Absolutely; always. DING!
The value of a good decision can generate $150 or more in customer net present value, while the cost of a bad decision can cost you $1,000 or more. For example, acquiring a new and profitable customer by making good prospecting and approval and pricing decisions and decisioning strategies may generate $150 or much more in customer net present value and help you increase net interest margin and other key metrics. While the cost of a bad decision (such as approving a fraudulent applicant or inappropriately extending credit that ultimately results in a charge-off) can cost you $1,000 or more. Why is risk management decisioning important? This issue is critical because average-sized financial institutions or telecom carriers make as many as eight million customer decisions each year (more than 20,000 per day!). To add to that, very large financial institutions make as many as 50 billion customer decisions annually. By optimizing decisions, even a small 10-to-15 percent improvement in the quality of these customer life cycle decisions can generate substantial business benefit. Experian recommends that clients examine the types of decisioning strategies they leverage across the customer life cycle, from prospecting and acquisition, to customer management and collections. By examining each type of decision, you can identify those opportunities for improvement that will deliver the greatest return on investment by leveraging credit risk attributes, credit risk modeling, predictive analytics and decision-management software.
Well, here we are nearly at the beginning of November and the Red Flags Rule has been with us for nearly two years and the FTC’s November 1, 2009 enforcement date is upon us as well (I know I’ve said that before). There is little value in me chatting about the core requirements of the Red Flags Rule at this point. Instead, I’d like to shed some light on what we are seeing and hearing these days from our clients and industry experts related to this initiative: Red Flags Rule responses clients 1. Most clients have a solid written and operational Identity Theft Prevention Program in place that arguably meets their interpretation of the Red Flags Rule requirements. 2. Most clients have a solid written and operational Identity Theft Prevention Program in place that creates a boat-load of referrals due to the address mismatches generated in their process(es) and the requirement to do something with them. 3. Most clients are now focusing on ways in which to reduce the number of referrals generated and procedures to clear the remaining referrals via a cost-effective and automated manner…of course, while preventing fraud and staying compliant to Red Flags Rule. In 2008, a key focus at Experian was to help educate the market around the Red Flags Rule concepts and requirements. The concentration in 2009 has nearly fully shifted to assisting the market in creating risk-based authentication programs that leverage holistic views of a consumer, flexible tools that are pointed to a consumer based on that person’s authentication and risk profile. There is also an overall decisioning strategy that balances risk, compliance, and resource constraints. Spirit of Red Flags Rule The spirit of the Red Flags Rule is intended to ensure all covered institutions are employing basic identity theft prevention procedures (a pretty good idea). I believe most of these institutions (even those that had very robust programs in place years before the rule was introduced) can appreciate this requirement that brings all institutions up to speed. It is now, however, a matter of managing process within the realities of, and costs associated with, manpower, IT resources, and customer experience sensitivities.
In my previous two blog postings, I’ve tried to briefly articulate some key elements of and value propositions associated with risk-based authentication. In this entry, I’d like to suggest some best-practices to consider as you incorporate and maintain a risk-based authentication program. 1. Analytics – since an authentication score is likely the primary decisioning element in any risk-based authentication strategy, it is critical that a best-in-class scoring model is chosen and validated to establish performance expectations. This initial analysis will allow for decisioning thresholds to be established. This will also allow accept and referral volumes to be planned for operationally. Further more, it will permit benchmarks to be established which follow on performance monitoring that can be compared. 2. Targeted decisioning strategies – applying unique and tailored decisioning strategies (incorporating scores and other high-risk or positive authentication results) to various access channels to your business just simply makes sense. Each access channel (call center, Web, face-to-face, etc.) comes with unique risks, available data, and varied opportunity to apply an authentication strategy that balances these areas; risk management, operational effectiveness, efficiency and cost, improved collections and customer experience. Champion/challenger strategies may also be a great way to test newly devised strategies within a single channel without taking risk to an entire addressable market and your business as a whole. 3. Performance Monitoring – it is critical that key metrics are established early in the risk-based authentication implementation process. Key metrics may include, but should not be limited to these areas: • actual vs. expected score distributions; • actual vs. expected characteristic distributions; • actual vs. expected question performance; • volumes, exclusions; • repeats and mean scores; • actual vs. expected pass rates; • accept vs. referral score distribution; • trends in decision code distributions; and • trends in decision matrix distributions. Performance monitoring provides an opportunity to manage referral volumes, decision threshold changes, strategy configuration changes, auto-decisioning criteria and pricing for risk based authentication. 4. Reporting – it likely goes without saying, but in order to apply the three best practices above, accurate, timely, and detailed reporting must be established around your authentication tools and results. Regardless of frequency, you should work with internal resources and your third-party service provider(s) early in your implementation process to ensure relevant reports are established and delivered. In my next posting, I will be discussing some thoughts about the future state of risk based authentication.
In a recent article, www.CNNMoney.com reported that Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, said that the pace of recovery in 2010 would be moderate and added that the unemployment rate would come down quite slowly, due to headwinds on ongoing credit problems and the effort by families to reduce household debt.’ While some media outlets promote an optimistic economic viewpoint, clearly there are signs that significant challenges lie ahead for lenders. As Bernanke forecasts, many issues that have plagued credit markets will sustain themselves in the coming years. Therefore lenders need to be equipped to monitor these continued credit problems if they wish to survive this protracted time of distress. While banks and financial institutions are implementing increasingly sophisticated and thorough processes to monitor fluctuations in credit trends, they have little intelligence to compare their credit performance to that of their peers. Lenders frequently cite that they are concerned about their lack of awareness or intelligence regarding the credit performance and status of their peers. Marketing intelligence solutions are important for management of risk, loan portfolio monitoring and related decisioning strategies. Currently, many vendors offer data on industry-wide trends, but few vendors provide the information needed to allow a lender to understand its position relative to a well-defined group of firms that it considers its peers. As a result, too many lenders are performing benchmarking using data sources that are biased, incomplete, inaccurate, or that lack the detail necessary to derive meaningful conclusions. If you were going to measure yourself personally against a group to understand your comparative performance, why would you perform that comparison against people who had little or nothing in common with you? Does an elite runner measure himself against a weekend warrior to gauge his performance? No; he segments the runners by gender, age, and performance class to understand exactly how he stacks up. Today’s lending environment is not forgiving enough for lenders to make broad industry comparisons if they want to ensure long-term success. Lenders cannot presume they are leading the pack, when, in fact, the race is closer than ever.
The term “risk-based authentication” means many things to many institutions. Some use the term to review to their processes; others, to their various service providers. I’d like to establish the working definition of risk-based authentication for this discussion calling it: “Holistic assessment of a consumer and transaction with the end goal of applying the right authentication and decisioning treatment at the right time.” Now, that “holistic assessment” thing is certainly where the rubber meets the road, right? One can arguably approach risk-based authentication from two directions. First, a risk assessment can be based upon the type of products or services potentially being accessed and/or utilized (example: line of credit) by a customer. Second, a risk assessment can be based upon the authentication profile of the customer (example: ability to verify identifying information). I would argue that both approaches have merit, and that a best practice is to merge both into a process that looks at each customer and transaction as unique and therefore worthy of distinctively defined treatment. In this posting, and in speaking as a provider of consumer and commercial authentication products and services, I want to first define four key elements of a well-balanced risk based authentication tool: data, detailed and granular results, analytics, and decisioning. 1. Data: Broad-reaching and accurately reported data assets that span multiple sources providing far reaching and comprehensive opportunities to positively verify consumer identities and identity elements. 2. Detailed and granular results: Authentication summary and detailed-level outcomes that portray the amount of verification achieved across identity elements (such as name, address, Social Security number, date of birth, and phone) deliver a breadth of information and allow positive reconciliation of high-risk fraud and/or compliance conditions. Specific results can be used in manual or automated decisioning policies as well as scoring models, 3. Analytics: Scoring models designed to consistently reflect overall confidence in consumer authentication as well as fraud-risk associated with identity theft, synthetic identities, and first party fraud. This allows institutions to establish consistent and objective score-driven policies to authenticate consumers and reconcile high-risk conditions. Use of scores also reduces false positive ratios associated with single or grouped binary rules. Additionally, scores provide internal and external examiners with a measurable tool for incorporation into both written and operational fraud and compliance programs, 4. Decisioning: Flexibly defined data and operationally-driven decisioning strategies that can be applied to the gathering, authentication, and level of acceptance or denial of consumer identity information. This affords institutions an opportunity to employ consistent policies for detecting high-risk conditions, reconcile those terms that can be changed, and ultimately determine the response to consumer authentication results – whether it be acceptance, denial of business or somewhere in between (e.g., further authentication treatments). In my next posting, I’ll talk more specifically about the value propositions of risk-based authentication, and identify some best practices to keep in mind.
By: Wendy Greenawalt In my last blog post I discussed the value of leveraging optimization within your collections strategy. Next, I would like to discuss in detail the use of optimizing decisions within the account management of an existing portfolio. Account Management decisions vary from determining which consumers to target with cross-sell or up-sell campaigns to line management decisions where an organization is considering line increases or decreases. Using optimization in your collections work stream is key. Let’s first look at lines of credit and decisions related to credit line management. Uncollectible debt, delinquencies and charge-offs continue to rise across all line of credit products. In response, credit card and home equity lenders have begun aggressively reducing outstanding lines of credit. One analyst predicts that the credit card industry will reduce credit limits by $2 trillion by 2010. If materialized, that would represent a 45 percent reduction in credit currently available to consumers. This estimate illustrates the immediate reaction many lenders have taken to minimize loss exposure. However, lenders should also consider the long-term impacts to customer retention, brand-loyalty and portfolio profitability before making any account management decision. Optimization is a fundamental tool that can help lenders easily identify accounts that are high risk versus those that are profit drivers. In addition, optimization provides precise action that should be taken at the individual consumer level. For example, optimization (and optimizing decisions) can provide recommendations for: • when to contact a consumer; • how to contact a consumer; and • to what level a credit line could be reduced or increased... …while considering organizational/business objectives such as: • profits/revenue/bad debt; • retention of desirable consumers; and • product limitations (volume/regional). In my next few blogs I will discuss each of these variables in detail and the complexities that optimization can consider.
By: Kari Michel This blog completes my discussion on monitoring new account decisions with a final focus: scorecard monitoring and performance. It is imperative to validate acquisitions scorecards regularly to measure how well a model is able to distinguish good accounts from bad accounts. With a sufficient number of aged accounts, performance charts can be used to: • Validate the predictive power of a credit scoring model; • Determine if the model effectively ranks risk; and • Identify the delinquency rate of recently booked accounts at various intervals above and below the primary cutoff score. To summarize, successful lenders maximize their scoring investment by incorporating a number of best practices into their account acquisitions processes: 1. They keep a close watch on their scores, policies, and strategies to improve portfolio strength. 2. They create monthly reports to look at population stability, decision management, scoring models and scorecard performance. 3. They update their strategies to meet their organization’s profitability goals through sound acquisition strategies, scorecard monitoring and scorecard management.
By: Kari Michel This blog is a continuation of my previous discussion about monitoring your new account acquisition decisions with a focus on decision management. Decision management reports provide the insight to make more targeted decisions that are sound and profitable. These reports are used to identify: which lending decisions are consistent with scorecard recommendations; the effectiveness of overrides; and/or whether cutoffs should be adjusted. Decision management reports include: • Accept versus decline score distributions • Override rates • Override reason report • Override by loan officer • Decision by loan officer Successful lending organizations review this type of information regularly to make better lending policy decisions. Proactive monitoring provides feedback on existing strategies and helps evaluate if you are making the most effective use of your score(s). It helps to identify areas of opportunity to improve portfolio profitability. In my next blog, I will discuss the last set of monitoring reports, scorecard performance.
By: Tracy Bremmer In our last blog (July 30), we covered the first three stages of model development which are necessary whether developing a custom or generic model. We will now discuss the next three stages, beginning with the “baking” stage: scorecard development. Scorecard development begins as segmentation analysis is taking place and any reject inference (if needed) is put into place. Considerations for scorecard development are whether the model will be binned (divides predictive attributes into intervals) or continuous (variable is modeled in its entirety), how to account for missing values (or “false zeros”), how to evaluate the validation sample (hold-out sample vs. an out-of-time sample), avoidance of over-fitting the model, and finally what statistics will be used to measure scorecard performance (KS, Gini coefficient, divergence, etc.). Many times lenders assume that once the scorecard is developed, the work is done. However, the remaining two steps are critical to development and application of a predictive model: implementation/documentation and scorecard monitoring. Neglecting these two steps is like baking a cake but never taking a bite to make sure it tastes good. Implementation and documentation is the last stage in developing a model that can be put to use for enhanced decisioning. Where the model will be implemented will determine the timeliness and complexity for when the models can be put into practice. Models can be developed in an in-house system, a third-party processor, a credit reporting agency, etc. Accurate documentation outlining the specifications of the model will be critical for successful implementation and model audits. Scorecard monitoring will need to be put into place once the model is developed, implemented and put into use. Scorecard monitoring evaluates population stability, scorecard performance, and decision management to ensure that the model is performing as expected over the course of time. If at any time there are variations based on initial expectations, then scorecard monitoring allows for immediate modifications to strategies. With all the right ingredients, the right approach, and the checks and balances in place, your model development process has the potential to come out “just right!”
By: Wendy Greenawalt On any given day, US credit bureaus contain consumer trade data on approximately four billion trades. Interpreting data and defining how to categorize the accounts and build attributes, models and decisioning tools can and does change over time, due to the fact that the data reported to the bureaus by lenders and/or servicers also changes. Over the last few years, new data elements have enabled organizations to create attributes to identify very specific consumer behavior. The challenge for organizations is identifying what reporting changes have occurred and the value that the new consumer data can bring to decisioning. For example, a new reporting standard was introduced nearly a decade ago which enabled lenders to report if a trade was secured by money or real property. Before the change, lenders would report the accounts as secured trades making it nearly impossible to determine if the account was a home equity line of credit or a secured credit card. Since then, lender reporting practices have changed and, now, reports clearly state that home equity lines of credit are secured by property making it much easier to delineate the two types of accounts from one another. By taking advantage of the most current credit bureau account data, lenders can create attributes to capture new account types. They can also capture information (such as: past due amounts; utilization; closed accounts and derogatory information including foreclosure; charge-off and/or collection data) to make informed decisions across the customer life cycle.
Learn More Image
