About


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.

Take On Payments

June 12, 2017


Watching Your Behavior

Customer authentication has been at the core of the Retail Payments Risk Forum's payments risk education efforts from the beginning. We've stressed not only that there are legal and regulatory requirements for certain parties to "know your customer," but also that it is in the best interest of merchants and issuers to be sure that the party on the other end of a given transaction is who he or she claims to be and is authorized to perform that transaction. After all, if you allow a fraudster in, you have to expect that you or someone else will be defrauded. That said, we also know that performing this authentication, especially remotely, has several challenges.

The recently released 2017 Identity Fraud Study from Javelin Strategy & Research estimated that account takeover (ATO) fraud losses in 2016 amounted to $2.3 billion—a 61 percent increase over 2015's losses. (ATO fraud occurs when an unauthorized individual performs fraudulent transactions through a victim's account.) Additionally, new-account fraud on deposit and credit accounts has increased significantly and generated several public warnings from the FBI.

In payments, the balancing act between imposing additional customer authentication requirements and maintaining a positive, low-friction customer experience has always been a challenge. Retailers, especially online merchants, have been reluctant to add authentication modalities in their checkout process for fear that customers will abandon their shopping carts and move their purchase to another merchant with lower security requirements. Some merchants have recently introduced physical biometrics modalities such as fingerprint or facial recognition for online orders through mobile phones. Although these modalities have gained a high acceptance rate, they still require the consumer to actively participate in the authentication process.

Enter behavioral biometrics for online transactions. Behavioral biometrics develops a pattern of a user's unique, identifiable attributes from when the user is online at a merchant's website or using the merchant's proprietary mobile app. Attributes measured include such elements as typing speed, pressure on the keyboard, use of keyboard shortcuts, mouse movement, phone orientation, and screen navigation. Coupled with device fingerprinting for the customer's desktop, laptop, tablet, or mobile phone, behavioral biometrics gives the merchant and issuer a higher level of confidence in the customer's authenticity. Another benefit is that behavioral biometrics is passive—it is performed without the user's involvement, which eliminates additional friction in the overall customer experience. Proponents claim that while it takes several sessions to develop a strong user profile, they can often spot fraudsters' attempts because fraudsters often exhibit certain recognizable traits.

Behavioral biometrics is still fairly new to the market but over the last couple of years, some major online retailers have adopted it as an additional authentication tool. Like any of the physical biometric modalities, no single behavioral authentication methodology is a silver bullet, and multi-factor authentication is still recommended for moderate- and higher-risk transactions.

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

June 12, 2017 in authentication, banks and banking, consumer fraud, fraud, mobile banking, payments | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

June 5, 2017


Responsible Innovation Part 1: Can Community Banks Remain Competitive?

The Atlanta Fed's Retail Payments Risk Forum recently co-hosted a summit with the United Kingdom's Department for International Trade to discuss faster payments and their effects on community financial institutions (FIs). In a series of three posts, I will share summaries of the lessons and implications that payments industry stakeholders discussed at the summit. A major theme of these discussions was whether community FIs can remain competitive independent of how they access a faster payments network. This post tackles this theme.

What networks were discussed at the summit?
United States United Kingdom
ACH (NACHA) ACH (Bacs)
Real-Time Payments (The Clearing House) Faster Payments (Faster Payments Scheme Ltd.)

The Faster Payments Scheme, or FPS, opened in the United Kingdom in 2008. The summit was a good opportunity to hear first-hand from one community banker's experience with the still-new system. A panelist from the first retail community bank to join the FPS discussed how access options played a role in the bank's ability to compete with large FIs.

  • In the beginning, the only way a community bank could access the FPS was through a sponsoring bank.
  • This option was expensive, hindering, and much like a newborn baby who needed attention all day and night (even on weekends), according to the panelist.
  • The FPS sends messages 24/7, in near-real time, but her bank's access model often caused a delay of 15 to 30 minutes, making the bank less than competitive.
  • Last year, the bank was able to join as a "Direct Participant" under the New Access Model,, an experience that the panelist compared to parenting a toddler who allows her to sleep through the night, even as it runs 24/7/365. The new model was also much more affordable and provided her community bank the near-real time model larger banks received. (The New Access Model that gives payment service providers and community FIs direct connection began in 2014, six years after the FPS began.)
  • The panelist did note a serious obstacle to this access model for the smaller banks: the onerous 12-month certification process to become a Direct Participant is tailored to large banks. The process required significant resources and strained other areas of her bank. She suggested that the certification take a risk-based approach.

Two developments on the way may affect future access options: (1) plans are set to consolidate Bacs, FPS, and Cheque; and (2) the Bank of England plans to grant settlement services to nonbank payment service providers.

The United States is facing a similar challenge: community FIs will have to choose how to access faster payment systems. Some community FIs have begun to offer same-day ACH and will likely consider real-time payments later this year.

Representatives from the Clearing House's Real-Time Payments initiative shared some details on their access model:

  • FIs of all sizes will be able to connect directly or through third-party service providers.
  • Regional payments associations will play an important role as they collectively represent all U.S. financial institutions plus third-party processors.
  • The speed will be the same for all participants.
  • Indirect participation will not be available.
  • Payments can be made 24/7/365.

While direct access is available for both same-day ACH and Real-Time Payments, some FIs may choose to use a sponsor or correspondent access model. To remain competitive, community FIs will have to understand the advantages and limitations that each access model provides.

The next installment in this series will discuss the U.S. market appetite for faster payments; the one after that will look at the impacts of adoption.

Photo of Jessica Washington  By Jessica Washington, AAP, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

June 5, 2017 in banks and banking, financial services, innovation | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

May 15, 2017


What Canada Knows That We Don't

In a previous post, I made reference to the pending release of a Bank of Canada study on the costs of point-of-sale payments in Canada. Last month, the study was released. This study covers cash as well as debit and credit card payments. It's a fascinating read that highlights what little comprehensive knowledge we have about comparable costs of payments in the United States.

The scope of the study was limited to the following parties in the payment chain:

  • Bank of Canada and Royal Canadian Mint (prints and distributes currency)
  • Financial institutions (FIs) and infrastructure providers (includes cash transport companies, payment networks and payment card acquirers)
  • Retailers (covers retail trade, accommodation, food services, and personal service providers)
  • Consumers

As background, the study categorizes costs of payments from the parties above into social (or resource) and private costs. Social costs include all internal and outsourced costs to parties outside the scope of the study. Excluded are transfer fees paid among parties within the scope of the study (for example, fees paid by retailers to FIs serving as card acquirers). This exclusion avoids overstating total social costs since fees paid to one party in the payments chain are revenue to another party in the payments chain. With this adjustment, aggregating social costs across all parties reflects the total resources expended for the entire country to facilitate payments. True or private costing from a particular party in the payment chain is simply the sum of its social costs plus any transfer fees paid to other parties within the scope of the study. Knowing private costs provides insight into which payment instruments are preferred from a costing perspective.

Here are some selected highlights from the study:

  • Total annual social costs clocked in at 15.3 billion (Can$), which comprises 0.78 percent of Canada's gross domestic product (GDP). In comparison, a paper from the Kansas City Fed highlights GDP figures ranging from 0.5 percent to 0.9 percent for other developed countries. Unfortunately, no comparable comprehensive study has been conducted in the United States. Using indirect approaches based on assumptions, some sources have estimated that the cost of the payments system in the United States could be as high as 2 percent of GDP. Unfortunately, we don't have any definitive sources on what the figure really is.
  • Below are the average social costs, transfer fees, and private costs (that is, sum of social costs and transfer fees) per transaction across the payment chain (in Can¢) by payment instrument.

    Table-one


    We can see that transfer fees among the parties in the payments chain are relatively minimal for cash. Consumers proportionally pay higher transfer fees for debit card payments due to transaction fees paid to FIs. Transfer fees that retailers pay are proportionally high for debit cards and significantly higher for credit cards. Based on private costs alone, credit cards costs are less costly to consumers, while retailers incur the highest cost in accepting credit cards. These findings are generally consistent with studies conducted in other countries.
  • Lastly, the study further subdivides costs into fixed costs and variable costs based on the number of payments and by the value of payments. Along with the number and value of payments, costing components in Canadian dollars are itemized below:

    Table-two


    The proportion of variable costs to overall costs for cash, debit cards and credit cards comprise 55 percent, 64 percent, and 64 percent, respectively.

Because of the central and significant role payments play in any economy, many current payments policy questions circulate around payments—in particular the costs associated with adopting and accepting various payment methods, fraud experience and prevention, and compliance with security standards and requirements. What are your views on the value of a comprehensive cost survey in this country?

Photo of Steven Cordray  By Steven Cordray, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk  Forum at the Atlanta Fed

 

May 15, 2017 in banks and banking, cards, debit cards, payments | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

January 23, 2017


Mobile Banking and Payments Survey Results

In the fall of 2016, the Atlanta Fed and six other Federal Reserve Banks asked financial institutions (FI) in their districts to participate in a survey to determine the level and type of mobile financial services they were currently offering or planning to offer. The Atlanta Fed conducted a similar survey in the district in 2014.

Financial institutions completed 117 surveys; they represent FIs of all sizes and types operating in the district (see chart below). The response rate of 8 percent should provide financial institutions with good directional information when comparing their own mobile banking and payments strategy. You can find the full report here. The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston will be preparing a consolidated report for all seven districts later this year.

Chart-one

Key learnings from the responses to this survey include:

  • Mobile banking has become a standard service of financial institutions, with 98 percent indicating they currently or plan to offer mobile banking.
  • Competitive pressure and the retention of existing customers are the primary reasons for offering mobile banking.
  • Consistent with the 2014 survey and numerous other mobile research reports, FIs cite security concerns by consumers as the greatest barrier to mobile banking adoption.
  • FIs identify biometric methodologies as the security tool most likely to be used in their program.
  • Over half (59 percent) currently or plan to support at least one mobile wallet. Their primary reason for offering the service was competitive pressure as mobile payments appear to be gaining traction among some consumers.
  • Most of the survey respondents have a long-term outlook (three years or more) for mobile payments to reach a customer participation level of 50 percent.

Supplemental results breaking the data into the six asset-size segments will be made available in early February. If you have any questions about the survey results, please let us know.

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

January 23, 2017 in banks and banking, biometrics, mobile banking | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

November 7, 2016


The Downside of a Wide Paintbrush

Fall is the time of the year that I normally do my exterior home painting and touchup. During the summer, I noticed that my deck and stair metal support poles were a bit dull and had some rust spots, so that was to be my project. The poles have a 4-inch diameter, so I was in a bit of a quandary over the best width paintbrush to use—a 2-inch or a 4-inch. The 4-inch brush would provide faster coverage so my football-game-watching time wouldn't be compromised, but the 2-inch brush would give me greater control and reduce drips and splatters. I went with the expedient choice, and it turned out to be a mistake, as my coverage was uneven with plenty of drips and splatters.

I mention this story because I recently appeared at the National ATM Council's (NAC) annual conference. NAC is an industry trade organization representing nonfinancial-institution ATM owners/operators in the United States. I was asked to speak primarily about the Fed's research into the use of cash as well as the current chip card and terminal deployment status. After my presentation and in the subsequent days of the conference, I was approached by a number of owners/operators telling me that their banks had recently terminated their longstanding relationships; they were deemed to be "high risk" since they were in the currency business. Many were scrambling to establish new banking relationships and wondering why this was happening.

Being an old ATM guy, I was a bit surprised hearing about this action due to the built-in controls on ATM currency settlement and reconciliation that severely limit the ability for an ATM owner/operator to launder money through an ATM. It would be very easy for the bank to spot an imbalance if the money being replenished far exceeded the currency paid out by the ATM. There is still the concern, of course, regarding the initial load (deposit) to establish the account to ensure that those are legitimate funds, but that concern exists with the establishment of all banking relationships by any type of business.

Financial institutions certainly have the obligation to develop a risk management strategy and determine which types of business activities they deem acceptable versus those considered high risk. Supporting ATM operators with their currency needs could be considered a niche business with some unique requirements and may not be the best allocation of resources for all financial institutions. At the same time, bankers may not want to paint a business with the wide brush of "high risk" just because they deal with currency as a major part of their business operation. To do so may force many of these operators to shutter their units, which often are located in areas where there is not a wide choice of ATM locations.

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

November 7, 2016 in ATM fraud, banks and banking, currency | Permalink

Comments

Good article, Thank you for your comments.

Chris Waters
National ATM
NAC Board member

Posted by: Chris Waters | November 23, 2016 at 08:49 AM

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

October 31, 2016


Of Piggy Banks and Bank Branches

Fall is my favorite time of the year. Football season cranks into high gear, pumpkins replace chocolate in my desserts, and excellent payment-related events take place with great published content. On the content front, this fall has not disappointed. I have recently read several excellent reports, including the FDIC's 2015 National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households. Although the focus of the survey is on the unbanked and underbanked population, there are some interesting findings concerning banked households, including their methods used for accessing their accounts. After seeing these findings, I began pondering the question, why do I still visit a bank branch for my deposit account needs?

According to the FDIC survey, 75 percent of banked households use a bank teller to access their accounts. However, a teller is the primary or main access method for only 28 percent of banked households, suggesting that over 70 percent of households prefer to interact through a non-face-to-face channel. The other physical channel, the ATM, is the primary access method for only 21 percent of banked households. The FDIC found that online and mobile banking usage is lower than the physical channels; however, nearly 50 percent of banked households' primary method of access to their account is digital (online or mobile). So while a majority of banked households still visit a physical location to access their accounts, almost half of them prefer to access their account digitally.

As I think about my own banking practices, I visit physical banking locations less and less. I will drop in to make a check deposit, but only if I am running errands and a physical location just happens to fall on my route. Or sometimes my kids want a sucker and I know my local branch will come through. They have even provided my children with piggy banks during visits! I use mobile check deposit more often than not. I still visit ATMs, but those interactions are substantially fewer today thanks in large part to being able to obtain cash back via my debit card at a number of retailers.

So I will visit a branch for my deposit account needs if it is convenient for me while running errands or if my kids want candy or some other treat. And these two reasons aren't necessarily sustainable. I am running fewer errands as more of my shopping takes place in the digital world (and my phone is becoming more convenient for check depositing). And unfortunately, I am not getting any younger, which means my children are growing up, and as they do, suckers and piggy banks will more than likely not stir up as much excitement as they currently do.

As a traditionalist, my past thinking led me to believe that the demise of bank branches was overblown. However, my thinking has changed. The bank branch will not disappear overnight or completely in the long term, though indications are that the number of branches will decline. As I contemplate the results of the FDIC study coupled with observations from my own behavior, it becomes obvious to me that the physical importance from a deposit account perspective is being diminished in this digital age. I am not sure what the branch of the future will look like, but I feel confident in saying that tellers, and even ATMs, focusing on deposit accounts will not be primary reasons for consumers to visit. Why will you visit your local branch in the future?

Photo of Douglas King By Douglas A. King, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

October 31, 2016 in banks and banking, mobile banking | Permalink

Comments

As a person who works in a retail branch, I have noted that aging members are coming inside because they are fearful of on-line fraud and that the technology has gotten to be too complex for them. This is just as true for the 55 year old engineer as it is for the 80 year old former school teacher.

Posted by: Kevin B. O'Neill | November 7, 2016 at 12:25 PM

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

September 19, 2016


Mobile Banking and Payments—What's Changed?

This week, the Federal Reserve Banks of Atlanta, Boston, Cleveland, Dallas, Kansas City, Minneapolis, and Richmond are launching an online mobile banking and payments survey to financial institutions based in their respective districts. The purpose of the survey is to achieve better understanding of the status of mobile banking and payments initiatives, products, and services that financial institutions offer in the various regions of the country. The results of the survey at the individual district level should be available to participants by mid-December; a consolidated report for all the districts will be published in early 2017.

The last survey, which had 625 participants, was conducted in the fall of 2014. That was before the launch of the various major mobile wallets operating today, so it will be interesting to see what level of impact these wallets have had on the mobile payments activity of financial institutions. You can find the results of the 2014 Sixth District survey on our website. This survey effort complements the 2016 Consumer and Mobile Financial Services survey conducted by the Federal Reserve Board's Division of Consumer and Community Affairs.

First designed by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston in 2008, the survey has been updated over the years to reflect the many changes that have taken place in the mobile landscape in the United States. Similar to past surveys, the 2016 survey looks to capture:

  • Number of banks and credit unions offering mobile banking and payment services
  • Types of mobile services offered or planned
  • Mobile technology platforms supported
  • Features of mobile services offered or planned
  • Benefits and business drivers associated with mobile services
  • Consumer and business adoption/usage of mobile services
  • Barriers to providing mobile services
  • Future plans related to mobile payment services

If your financial institution is based in one of the participating districts and has not received an invitation to participate in this year's survey, please contact your district's Federal Reserve Bank. For the Sixth District, you can contact me via email or at 404-498-7529. You can also contact me if you need assistance in locating your district's lead survey coordinator.

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

September 19, 2016 in banks and banking, financial services, mobile banking, payments | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

September 12, 2016


Risk Mitigation Isn't Just for Banks

My summer in Atlanta wouldn't be complete without "shooting the Hooch." Friends and family gather upriver on the Chattahoochee River, bringing rafts, tubes, or kayaks for a chance to beat the pervasive southern heat. This year, towards the end of our two-hour float, we came upon Diving Rock, a crowded swimming hole where people stop to watch cliff jumpers. A jumper can choose either a 20- or a 30-foot freefall into the river below. As the family's "chief risk officer," when my eight-year-old son asked me if he could jump, I quickly assessed the inherent and residual risks of such an activity at this location. I concluded that our family was risk-averse in this situation and there would be no jumping.

Conversely, when my son asked if he could play tackle football, I decided we had an appetite for this type of risk. I don't want to detail all of the risk factors compared to the mitigation controls that went into my assessments and ultimate decisions. But looking at these two personal examples made me wonder: in a business context, who else is faced with important risk decisions? And who, besides banks, should be conducting constant risk assessments for their organization?

A tax preparer faces fines and, in extreme cases, jail time for filing returns with errors. Those who receive return-related penalties can also face suspension or expulsion of themselves or their entire firm, or other enforcement action by the IRS. Can a tax preparer be held liable for filing returns with errors even if unaware that the taxpayer was acting illegally? The tax preparer is held to the reasonable person standard, so if it is something he or she should have known, yes. But if the client omitted pertinent details, the tax preparer might have no way of knowing. Since the consequences are severe, should the tax preparer dig deeper and try to catch fraudulent client activity prior to submitting a return or keep blinders on?

I pay for monthly parking at a city garage. This week I found out that they monitor my activity closely with the access card I use. They know whether or not my car is in or out of the garage. They have triple-factor authentication to prevent parking space fraud. In order to get in or out, you need the weight of a vehicle at the gate with an authorized access card and the correct in and out record on the card in order to be provided pass through.

Doesn't it stand to reason that all organizations—whether they're responsible for tax preparation, parking space provision, or payment network access—in pursuit of success, whatever that is for them, should conduct assessments and implement mitigation controls in order to understand how customers engage in their services, especially if they can be held liable for those activities? Should payment services be any different and if so to what extent?

Photo of Jessica Trundley By Jessica J. Trundley, AAP, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

September 12, 2016 in banks and banking, risk management | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

August 1, 2016


FFIEC Weighs In On Mobile Channel Risks

In late April, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) released new guidance regarding mobile banking and mobile payments risk management strategies. Titled "Appendix E: Mobile Financial Services," the document becomes part of the FFIEC's Information Technology Examination Handbook. While the handbook is for examiners to use to "determine the inherent risk and adequacy of controls at an institution or third party providing MFS" (for mobile financial services), it can also be a useful tool for financial institutions to better understand the expectations that examiners will have when conducting an exam of an institution's MFS offering.

Consistent with examiners' focus on third-party relationships for the last several years, the document points out that MFS often involves engagement with third parties and that the responsibilities of the parties in those relationships must be clearly documented and their compliance closely managed. Other key areas the document reviews include:

  • Mobile application development, maintenance, security, and attack threats
  • Enrollment controls to authenticate the customer's identity and the payment credentials they are adding to a mobile wallet
  • Authentication and authorization, emphasizing that financial institutions should not use mobile payment applications that rely on single-factor methods of authentication.
  • Customer education efforts to support the adoption of strong security practices in the usage of their mobile devices

The document also identifies and reviews strategic, operational, compliance, and reputation risk issues for the various elements of a financial institution's MFS offering. The final section of the document outlines an examiner's work plan for reviewing an MFS program with seven key objectives. I believe that it would be time well spent for the institution's MFS team to assume the role of examiner and use the work plan as a checklist to help effectively identify and manage the risks associated with an MFS program.

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

August 1, 2016 in bank supervision, banks and banking, financial services, mobile banking, mobile payments, regulations, regulators, third-party service provider | Permalink

Comments

Looking forward to welcoming David Lott to our upcoming Next Money Tampa Bay meetup.

David will be our keynote on Wednesday, Sept 21, 2016 6:00 ~ 8:00 PM

Tampa Bay Wave Venture Center
500 East Kennedy Boulevard 3rd FL
Tampa Florida 33602

All are welcome to attend RSVP at

https://www.meetup.com/NextMoneyTPA/events/233171815/

Posted by: Bruce Burke | August 6, 2016 at 05:22 PM

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

July 11, 2016


Surviving the Emerging Payments Providers

Predictions abound that emerging companies will dominate the remittance and person-to-person (P2P) payments space and financial institutions will be relegated to being a bystander. While I am not sold on their eventual dominance, I do think that emerging companies are creating positive changes. These changes have included new business models for financial institutions and traditional remittance providers who are able to offer their existing and prospective customers new, efficient payment choices. And as recently released financial and transaction figures show, some traditional players embracing change are poised to remain in their leadership positions.

I recently saw a speaker who said that one particular emerging digital remittance provider is the largest digital remittance business in the United States. However, I think the honor of the largest digital remittance transfer provider goes to a long-term remittance incumbent, Western Union. Though payments volume data are not available, revenue data do provide us with some insight into the size of these providers. According to Western Union's 2015 annual report, its digital money transfer services generated $274 million in revenues in 2015. As a point of comparison, three emerging companies (Xoom, Worldremit, and TransferWise) had combined revenues of $230 million. Though Western Union's online service represents only 6.3 percent of its consumer-to-consumer revenues, the segment grew by 26 percent in 2015.

In June, Chase announced changes to its digital P2P solution that will allow Chase customers to send and receive money in real time through ClearXchange with customers of Bank of America, U.S. Bank, and several other financial institutions. Chase's digital P2P solution has been a feature on the Chase mobile application and online banking website for several years now and was used in 2015 to send $20 billion in P2P payments. As a point of reference, the wildly popular emerging mobile and online P2P provider, Venmo, reported $1 billion in transfers during the month of January, up 250 percent from the prior January. With the additional reach of ClearXchange participants, Chase customers will now be able to digitally send and receive payments to 65 percent of the digital banking population in the United States, placing it in a position to experience significant growth to its digital solution.

With both remittances and P2P payments, online and mobile channels are seizing share from traditional channels. Even though the in-person agent model in remittances and P2P payments via cash and checks will remain a viable solution for many consumers, today's growth is being driven by digital models.

No doubt emerging players are threatening traditional companies for remittance and P2P dollars. However, financial institutions and established money transmitters are evolving, and based on the numbers, remain valuable payments providers. Given this environment, financial institutions and traditional remittance providers that don't evolve to embrace the digital remittance and P2P economy are at serious risk of losing share. And the threat isn't just coming from emerging companies. In fact, you can call me a traditionalist, but I think evolving traditional financial institutions and remittance providers are positioning themselves to remain the dominant providers of P2P and remittance payments.

Photo of Douglas King By Douglas A. King, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

July 11, 2016 in banks and banking, emerging payments, financial services | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

Google Search



Recent Posts


June 2017


Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Archives


Categories


Powered by TypePad