Take On Payments, a blog sponsored by the Retail Payments Risk Forum of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, is intended to foster dialogue on emerging risks in retail payment systems and enhance collaborative efforts to improve risk detection and mitigation. We encourage your active participation in Take on Payments and look forward to collaborating with you.
Federal Reserve Web Sites
Other Bank Regulatory Sites
November 13, 2017
The Future of Wearables
My wife and I took our children to a Florida theme park for their recent fall break. While I would love to spend the next few paragraphs opining on why I think our school calendar is crazy or giving a review of the most phenomenal ride that I have ever experienced, it doesn't really fit the mission or purpose of Take On Payments. Fortunately, the trip did provide some fodder and thought for a blog post, thanks to a much-discussed and written-about wearable NFC—or near-field-communication—device that the theme park offers.
These bands were introduced in 2013 to create an awesome customer experience. This experience is much bigger than a payment platform and has absolutely nothing to do with a rewards program around which so many mobile wallet and payment applications are being developed. The band's functionality certainly includes payments, but the device also replaces room keys, park entry cards, and ride-specific tickets known as fast passes. As an additional feature, it is waterproof, which proves handy for a trip to the water park. I was able to spend the week without ever having anything in my pockets (yes, I even left my phone in the room). My wife commented how fantastic it would be to take the NFC band experience outside of the park because it was just so easy and convenient.
Ease and convenience–isn't that what a lot of us are after? If you have to give me something to get me to open an application and tap my phone in place of a payment card, is that really providing ease and convenience? I am now 100 percent convinced that rewards programs aren't going to drive mobile commerce to any significant degree. Experiences that provide ease and convenience will drive mobile commerce. Hello, mobile order-ahead. Hello, grocery delivery. And hello, wearable of the future.
It isn't hard to imagine a wearable device, like an open-loop band, transforming our lives. After my theme park experience, I long for the day when a wearable will be the key to my vehicle—which I won't have to drive, either—and to my house, my communication device, and my payment device (or wallet). Of course, we'll have to consider the security issues. Even the bands incorporate PINs and fingerprint biometrics in some cases to ensure that the legitimate customer is the one wearing the band.
Is this day really so far-fetched? I can already order a pizza through a connected speaker, initiate a call from the driver's seat of my car without touching my phone, or tap my phone to pay for a hamburger. The more I think about these possibilities, I have to ask myself, is it crazy to question whether or not using mobile phones for payments just might become obsolete before long? Or maybe mobile phones will provide that band functionality?
By Douglas A. King, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed
November 6, 2017
My Fingertips, My Data
I am not a user of old-style financial services. While I remember learning how to balance a checkbook, I never had to do it, since I never had checks. Recently, my financial adviser suggested several mobile applications that could help me manage my finances in a way that made sense to me. I researched them, evaluated a few, and decided which one I thought would be the best. I'm always excited to try new apps, hopeful that this one will be the one that will simplify my life.
As I clicked through the process of opening an account with my new financial management app, I entered the name of my financial institution (FI), where I have several accounts: checking, savings, money market, and line of credit. The app identified my credit union (which has over $5 billion in assets and ranks among the top 25) and entered my online banking credentials—and then I was brought up short. The app was asking for my routing and account number. As I said, I don't own any checks and I don't know how to find this information on my credit union's mobile app. (I do know where to find it using an internet browser.) I stopped creating my account at this point and have yet to finish it up.
I later discovered that if I banked with one of the larger banks, for which custom APIs have been negotiated, I would not have been asked for a routing and account number. I would have simply entered my online login details, and I'd be managing my finances with my fingertips already. I started digging into why my credit union doesn't have full interoperability.
In the United States, banking is a closed system. APIs are built as custom integrations, with each financial institution having to consent for third parties to access customer data. However, many FIs haven't been approached, or integration is bottlenecked at the core processor level. It is bottlenecked because if they deny access to customer data (which some do), the FI has no choice in the matter.
New Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) guidance on data sharing and aggregation addresses the accessibility and ownership issue. The upshot of the CFPB's guidance is that consumers own their financial data and FIs should allow sharing of the data with third-party companies. But should doesn't equal will or can.
The CFPB guidance, though not a rule, is in the same vein as the European Union's PSD2 (or Directive on Payments Services II) regulation, whereby FIs must provide access to account information with the consumer's permission. This platform, which represents an open banking approach, standardizes APIs that banks can proactively make available to third parties for plug-and-play development.
While open banking is a regulatory requirement in Europe, market competition is driving North American banks to be very interested in implementing open banking here. An Accenture survey recently found that 60 percent of North American banks already have an open banking strategy, compared to 74 percent of European banks.
It is no surprise that bankers are becoming more comfortable with the shift-in-ownership concept. FIs have been increasingly sharing their customers' data with third parties. Consumer data are what fuel organizations like credit agencies, payment fraud databases, identity and authentication solutions, and anomaly detection services, to name a few. As these ownership theories change, we will also need to see new approaches to security. What are your thoughts about open banking?
By Jessica Washington, AAP, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed
October 30, 2017
Why the Explosion in Household Payments?
In a post last August, I analyzed some of the data from the inaugural release of the entire aggregated data set of estimated noncash payments from the latest Federal Reserve payments study. In this go-round, I will discuss the household payment figures in the report that accompanied the data set. These figures reflect core noncash payment types—including ACH transfers, check, nonprepaid and prepaid debit cards, and credit cards— that consumers in the United States use today.
The two pie charts show the distribution of household noncash payments for 2000, when the payments study began, and for 2015. Over this period, the number of consumer payments increased to 117.5 billion in 2015 from 50.7 billion in 2000. The area of each pie chart reflects the proportional difference in the average monthly household noncash payments for the two periods. In 2000, households made on average 40.3 noncash payments per month, compared to 78.6 monthly payments in 2015, a 95 percent increase.
Besides the near doubling of monthly payments per household, the other striking difference is the distribution of payments by type over time. Most dramatically, checks written decreased 6.4 percent per year over this time while debit cards, with an annual increase of 13.7 percent, were on a tear.
As the report notes, and according to my own speculations, increases in the number of monthly household noncash payments could be attributed to the following factors:
- Some payments that historically would have been made with cash are now made with mostly noncash forms of payment. Debit cards snagged the greatest share, given their high growth rate and relatively low average ticket amount, which aligns with payments typically made with cash.
- Storefront merchants and consumers have expanded their acceptance of card payments as a substitute for cash and check.
- The growth of remote payments such as ecommerce have reduced check and cash usage.
- Many people have migrated from using cash and check to using payment cards so they can gain points and other benefits from card rewards programs.
- Online purchases of digital content such as games and music have brought about increases in micropayments.
We might surmise that increases in the number of payments in 2015 are also due to increases in household expenditures since 2000, though this is hard to quantify by number of payments. World Bank data show aggregated U.S. household consumption expenditures of $12.284 trillion and $6.792 trillion (in current dollars) in 2015 and 2000, respectively. Unlike the payments study data, these figures include both cash and noncash payments, and some of the expenditures are derived from imputed income related to high-ticket items such as purchases of homes and automobiles. With these caveats in mind, dividing these figures by the number of households during each of these years shows that the per-household expenditures in current dollars is about 52 percent higher in 2015 than it was in 2000. Not all of this gain came about from more payments—some payments may be higher ticket amounts than in previous periods due to luxury purchases.
What are your views on other factors contributing to the near doubling of monthly household noncash payments since 2000?
By Steven Cordray, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed
October 23, 2017
ACH and Consumer-Only Payments: Will the Twain Ever Meet?
For many years, person-to-person (P2P) payment providers have touted the emergence of compelling P2P mobile-based products that exploit some combination of financial institutions (FIs) and fintech providers. Several players have made notable inroads into P2P with certain demographics and use cases, but the overall results in terms of absolute numbers are far from ubiquitous. This post uses hard numbers to explore what progress ACH has made with P2P payments.
During a payments conference earlier this year that showcased findings from the Fed's triennial payments study (here and here), the table below was presented showing the number and value shares of domestic network ACH payments in 2015. The table is complicated because it shows both debit pull and credit push payments by consumer and business counterparties. Despite the complexity, the table distills ACH to its essence by removing details associated with the 14 transaction payment types (known as Standard Entry Class codes) that carry value for domestic payments. Many of these individual codes reflect similar types of payments (for example, three codes are used for converting first presentment checks to ACH). As expected, virtually all payments involve at least one business party to each payment. Consumer-only payments are negligible.
In a typical use case for consumer-only ACH, a consumer transfers funds from one account to another account across financial institutions. As shown in the solid red oval, 0.04 percent of all domestic payments were consumer-to-consumer payments, where the payee initiated a debit to the payer's bank account. For consumer credit push payments, the figure is 0.3 percent. The combined figure rounds to 0.3 percent. On the value side for consumer-only payments (in the dashed red oval), debit pulls, credit pushes, and the combined figure were 0.02 percent, 0.2 percent, and 0.2 percent, respectively. These types of payments typically reflect P2P payments1, when one consumer pushes funds to another consumer.
The next table shows the figures that prevailed in 2012. Given the modest share by both number and value across both years, it is apparent—and interesting—that ACH has made little progress in garnering consumer-only payments. Although ACH is ubiquitous on the receipt side across all financial institutions, it is not so for consumers, given the lack of widely promoted and compelling service offerings from FIs and no standardized form factor like there is for card payments. Additionally, many small FIs do not offer ACH origination services.
This lack of adoption is not unique to ACH. Although some of the electronic P2P entrants are experiencing significant growth, it will be some time before they supplant the billions of P2P cash and check payments. P2P players on the FI-centric side include Zelle, which a large consortium of banks owns. Non-FI providers include PayPal and its associated Venmo service. Given the lack of ubiquity with the new offerings, the fallback option for consumer-only payments is cash and checks. As the payments study reports, check use is still declining, though the most recent trend shows that this decline has slowed. ACH or other electronic options still seem a good bet to continue to erode paper options, but perhaps the market is signaling that paper options have ongoing utility and are still preferred if not optimal for some users in some instances.
So what would it take for ACH to gain some traction in the consumer payments space? Perhaps the presence of same-day ACH, in which credits were mandated in September of 2016 and debits followed in September 2017, offers some opportunity for compelling service offerings coupled with a user-friendly way to send an emergency payment to your ne'er-do-well son.
What are your views on the viability of ACH garnering more P2P payments?
By Steven Cordray, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed
1 Sometimes account-to-account (A2A) transfers are lumped in with P2P payments.
- The Future of Wearables
- My Fingertips, My Data
- Why the Explosion in Household Payments?
- ACH and Consumer-Only Payments: Will the Twain Ever Meet?
- No Magic Bullet for Preventing Data Breaches
- A Record-Breaking Season of Hurricanes and Data Breaches
- Fed Payments Webinar Series Launching
- The Rising Cost of Remittances to Mexico Bucks a Trend
- Identity Theft Part 2: Prevention
- Identity Theft: A Growing Epidemic
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- account takeovers
- ATM fraud
- bank supervision
- banks and banking
- card networks
- check fraud
- consumer fraud
- consumer protection
- cross-border wires
- data security
- debit cards
- emerging payments
- financial services
- identity theft
- law enforcement
- mobile banking
- mobile money transfer
- mobile network operator (MNO)
- mobile payments
- money laundering
- money services business (MSB)
- online banking fraud
- payments risk
- payments study
- payments systems
- phone fraud
- remotely created checks
- risk management
- Section 1073
- social networks
- third-party service provider
- trusted service manager
- Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices (UDAP)
- wire transfer fraud
- workplace fraud