Take On Payments

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.

June 13, 2016


What Is GPR Feeding On? Part 2 of 2

In part 1, I shared several studies on the appetite for general-purpose reloadable (GPR) prepaid cards. It turns out there is little public data covering the fraud portion of the industry. I look forward to results from the Federal Reserve's 2016 Payments Study, which added a number of questions related to GPR card fraud.

Last week, LexisNexis® released a fraud study titled Issuers Confront Application Fraud and Account Takeover in a Post-EMV U.S. The study reports that issuers annually lose $10.9 billion to card fraud overall, with 4 percent attributed to all types of prepaid cards (not just GPR), 25 percent to debit cards, and 71 percent to credit cards. The study examines what types of fraud schemes are responsible for losses, but the data is aggregated and not broken down by card type. We will look at these results and I will describe how fraudsters could use prepaid to perpetrate that type of fraud.

Lost/stolen cards: 28 percent of total card fraud

GPR card information can be lost or stolen in a variety of ways—as can happen with all payment card instruments. When the fraudster acquires the account numbers, he or she can then sell, clone, or counterfeit new cards to make fraudulent purchases. The most common schemes include:

  • Skimming magnetic stripes via compromised ATM or POS terminals
  • Cyberattacks/data breaches
  • Simply lost or stolen cards

"Lost or stolen" also include information obtained from extortion by coercive measures and deceptive marketing. Fraudsters trick consumers into loading funds on a prepaid card and then handing over the account information. Some prepaid issuers have included warnings about this type of crime on their packaging. Some recent schemes include:

  • Pretending to represent a creditor or utility and convincing victims they are overdue on bills and must immediately make a payment using a prepaid card
  • Money-winning schemes (I always win cruises) whereby a consumer must pay taxes on the winnings with a prepaid card

Account takeover: 20 percent

These schemes typically involve business bank accounts. However, a blog by Kreb’s on Security describes a well-known case involving prepaid. Cybercriminals allegedly breached a number of payment processors over a two-year period. They acquired account information and changed account balances and daily withdrawal limits. The criminals then used the breached payment card information to clone cards to use at ATMs all over the world and withdrew nearly $55 million in cash.

Application fraud: 20 percent

Ultimately, this scheme involves the criminal opening a GPR account under a stolen or false ID, using stolen funds to open the account. Schemes that fit into this category are:

  • Filing fraudulent tax returns and sending refunds to prepaid accounts. (I recently blogged on this.)
  • Buying prepaid cards with stolen or counterfeit cards, a growing scheme that essentially creates free money out of stolen funds

Counterfeit cards: 16 percent

Counterfeiting usually occurs in conjunction with other fraud schemes. Counterfeit cards (and even lost or stolen cards) can be sold, often at a discount to the purchaser, potentially making their way into the hands of law-abiding citizens through wholesale websites.

Maybe fraudsters stock their pantry with prepaid cards, but are these common schemes unique to GPR cards or prepaid accounts? Although it's easier to open a prepaid account with little direct human contact, couldn't we substitute debit card or credit line accounts in any of these fraud schemes? Every type of monetary instrument experiences fraud but the prepaid industry has worked diligently to address these common areas. The vast majority of prepaid customers are legitimate users that have chosen this type of product for economic or payment preference reasons.

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

June 13, 2016 in cards, debit cards, fraud, identity theft | 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 16, 2016


Improving Customer Authentication: Is the PIN Past Its Prime?

The Financial Fraud Action UK recently released its Year-End 2015 Fraud Update. This report, filled with fraud-related figures from a fully EMV(chip)-migrated country, provides insight into what the future of fraud in the United States might look like as we are approximately eight months into our EMV journey. And if indeed the United Kingdom’s experience is a harbinger of things to come in the United States, then I think there will be disappointment for anyone who thought EMV by itself would be a magic bullet. After I spent time studying this report, it became evident that customer authentication is the latest low-hanging fruit and fraudsters are having a feast.

Fraud losses on payment cards in the United Kingdom (£567.5m) are approaching pre-EMV migration levels, and fraud loss rates have increased above 8 basis points (0.08%), hitting a level last seen in 2009. Diving deeper, we find that:

  • As expected, card-not-present (CNP) fraud losses represent a majority of card fraud losses (70 percent). Interestingly though, ecommerce spend volume grew faster than ecommerce fraud losses in 2015, suggesting that the industry made headway in its efforts to mitigate ecommerce fraud.
  • Lost and stolen card fraud (remember, the United Kingdom is a PIN environment) increased more than 24 percent in 2015, reaching levels last seen in 2006. The report highlights distraction thefts through cameras or simply shoulder surfing as methods of fraudulently obtaining PINs.
  • Card ID theft fraud losses, defined as losses from spend on fraudulently opened or obtained cards through stolen personal information, increased by 28 percent and are now approaching counterfeit card levels.
  • A bit of good news is that counterfeit card fraud losses remain well below pre-EMV levels and fell even further in 2015—perhaps, as the report suggests, driven partly by the increased acceptance of EMV cards in the United States.
  • Beyond cards, remote banking fraud losses (losses from Internet, telephone, and mobile banking) increased by more than 134 percent during the last two years, totaling nearly £169 million.

EMV is performing exactly as expected and doing a phenomenal job of authenticating payment cards in the card-present environment. Why are fraud losses increasing in a mature EMV environment? Because customer authentication remains a challenge, as is evident by rising fraud losses from lost and stolen cards, card applications with stolen identities, and remote banking.

Whether on the front end of authenticating the user during the account opening process or the back end of authenticating the user at the time of payment, authentication measures are coming up short, and these measures include PINs and passwords. Replacing passwords has been an ongoing conversation and likely may continue to be a conversation piece rather than a prolific action item. Yet there is a growing push for the use of PINs coupled with EMV cards here in the United States. While PIN authentication is an improvement over signature authentication, it, too, has its flaws. With improvements and advancements in new technologies such as biometrics, perhaps it's time for the industry to advance beyond PINs. Because of the current signature-laden EMV environment in the U.S., the timing is perfect.

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

May 16, 2016 in chip-and-pin, EMV, fraud | 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

April 25, 2016


Be Careful, Be Very Careful

Less than halfway through the spring season of banking and payments conferences, the dominant theme of cybercrime is ringing loud and clear. In the 2015 conferences, it was virtual currency, but this year, it is the threat of cyberattacks against individuals and business in both widespread and singular manners. At a payments conference last week, a representative of the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) told the session audience about her center's work. The IC3 has served since 2000 as a conduit for the public to provide information to the FBI regarding suspected Internet-facilitated criminal activity. IC3 tracks and investigates hacking, money laundering, identity theft, advanced fee, and ransomware schemes. It also tracks and investigates efforts to steal intellectual property and trade secrets.

In its latest annual report, IC3 provides detailed statistics on Internet-related complaints and trends. In 2014, the center received almost 270,000 complaints, accounting for more than $800 million in losses. Average monthly complaints received were 22,452. Complaint volume peaked in July at 24,521; the month with the fewest was February, with 20,888.

I asked the IC3 representative about the top complaints the unit was currently seeing. She indicated that email compromise of targeted businesses was the primary complaint and the one that generally resulted in the highest financial loss per complaint. It is common for employees in accounting areas to be targeted. They receive spoofed emails instructing them to initiate wire transfers or to change invoice remittance payments to fraudulent parties and locations, often accounts at financial institutions located in eastern Europe or the Asian-Pacific region. Although representing less than 1 percent of the total complaints filed in 2014, the losses from business email compromise accounted for 28 percent of the total losses reported, and from January 2015 to January 2016 the loss rate increased 270 percent.

Advanced fee schemes involving home rentals or sales, automobile sales, dating services, and lottery/prize winnings are also common. As the name implies, the criminals gain the confidence of victims and demand upfront payment as a sign of good faith. Once they receive the first payment, they will often try for additional payments before disappearing.

Finally, intimidation or extortion schemes are becoming more prevalent. The criminal generally contacts the victims by phone, accuses them of being past due on tax payments or utility bills, and says if immediate payment is not made, their property will be confiscated or they will be arrested. Often the criminal has used social engineering or public records to obtain legitimate data to make their representation of the agency seem more legitimate.

The size and frequency of data breaches of financial institutions, retailers, health care and insurance companies, and government agencies have led some people to conclude that just about everyone's personal identification information has been compromised to some level. I believe it is sensible to be a bit distrustful and apprehensive about the legitimacy of offers or information you might receive through emails or websites, especially those with which you are unfamiliar. Many of the attempts are easy to spot but many others involve highly sophisticated techniques, so one should be extremely careful when on the Internet.

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

April 25, 2016 in cybercrime, data security, fraud, identity theft | 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

April 11, 2016


Combat Gear for Tax Season

Recently, a local newspaper reported on two ex-bankers who were sentenced for their roles in a two-year-long fraud scheme. These ex-bankers created fraudulent bank accounts, then generated more than 2,000 false tax returns totaling more than $2.8 million in fraudulent refunds. The IRS has plenty more stories of tax fraud to tell.

Currently, "file taxes" is number one on my to-do list, and maybe yours. Do you shiver considering the possibility a tax return in your name has already been filed by someone else? Criminals, organized or not, know they can earn a living by filing fake returns. Even a legitimate taxpayer who owes taxes can be a victim of identity theft tax (IDT) refund fraud, as defined by the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) Security Summit. (Note: The Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee, which reports to Congress, calls IDT refund fraud stolen identity refund fraud, or SIRF).

Formed on March 19, 2015, the Security Summit joins the IRS, state departments of revenue, and members of the tax refund ecosystem to discuss ways to combat IDT refund fraud. The Summit currently has seven working groups, including one focused on refund authentication and fraud detection. We have blogged before on the importance of data analytics in detecting fraudulent filings; this working group is attempting to strengthen these data tools. The working group also laid out best practices for software providers in enhancing identity requirements and strengthening validation procedures. At the end of last year, Congress provided a big assist in these efforts by passing the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes, or PATH, Act of 2015, which closes one of the biggest loopholes in the tax refund process by requiring employers to electronically file W-2 forms and 1099 forms with the IRS by January 31 of each year instead of March 31. This new requirement, which becomes effective in 2017, will allow federal and state taxing authorities to match returns with actual W-2s for the first time.

The Security Summit also has a Financial Services Working Group, which explores ways to prevent criminals from using stolen identification credentials to establish financial services products such as checking accounts and prepaid cards that would allow the criminal to access the proceeds of fraudulent returns. After all, fraud may not be realized until after processing the tax return. Refunds are distributed either by check or direct deposit via ACH, which can be sent to a prepaid account (card) or traditional bank account. The IRS can't determine which account type an ACH refund is destined for since routing number and account number aren't standardized by account type, nor is there a database of routing numbers to identify prepaid accounts. Some have suggested that knowing when it is a prepaid account could be helpful in risk rating the return before sending the refund. The Financial Services Working Group has developed a standard state ACH file-naming convention so that state tax refunds can be identified by the industry in order to apply enhanced fraud filtering. Suspicious state tax refund deposits can be detected based on amounts, name matching, account type, length of relationship, and volume of deposits or withdrawals. The new format standard will strengthen fraud control systems in that all tax refund deposits will be able to be further scrutinized.

The Security Summit has a total of seven working groups, and they have their work cut out for them. While I shiver to think I could be a victim to identity theft, I support the progressive efforts to stop this crime, especially in the pre-filing and pre-refund stages so the criminals can't see a reward for their efforts.

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

April 11, 2016 in ACH, consumer fraud, fraud, identity theft | 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

February 1, 2016


Putting All Our Payment Eggs in a Single Basket

More than 60 percent of risk managers at financial services firms believe the probability of a global, "high-impact event" has increased of late, according to a new survey from the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation. Worry over actual or potential cyberattacks underpins this belief. In a discussion about the survey, a colleague lamented the invention of computers and wished that our financial transactions hadn't become so dependent on technology. At first I thought to agree until it dawned on me that this thinking is tantamount to tossing the baby with the bathwater.

The problem revolves around thieves, not their tools. We have never been free from worry over theft, and this was true when our best computer was an abacus. When the Aztecs used chocolate for money, counterfeiters of the day took the cacao bean, separated the original contents from the husk, and repacked it with mud. And still, in any place where commerce is overly cash-based, thieves tend to concentrate their efforts, targeting the most vulnerable with everything from counterfeit notes to outright theft. The digital age did not usher in larceny; thieves have always stolen, and hiding from computers won't insulate us from bad guys.

But hold up, you say. A block chain—the part of bitcoin technology that ensures anonymity—just might insulate you. Not to take away hope, but what have we ever invented that hasn't been hacked, cracked, or abused? I can think of nothing, no matter how cleverly conceived or well defended, that isn't eventually defeated.

I don't despair over it all and will say why in a moment, but first I need to note that even with a long list of advances, both in how and what we exchange, the new has not eradicated the old. Coins survived the advent of paper. And despite decades-old, recurring predictions of their looming demise, both coins and paper have survived the magic of computing. As a result, despair gives way to cheer. There are options, and plenty of them.

Options—different forms of payments based on diverse platforms and premises—make for textbook risk mitigation. First of all, what survives gets better. It must so that it can survive. Consider what bills look like today, with their numerous anticounterfeiting elements, compared to what they looked like 20 years ago. Or consider when checks dominated fraud conversations and contrast that to their relative (un)importance in fraud conversations today. Moreover, multiple payment channels and options mean less concentration of risk. To the extent that cash, checks, and more remain—"cyberstuff" too, but with the cyber-world diversified, not overly consolidated—risk can be spread and hence reduced.

An advanced society that wants to endure, stay resilient and strong cannot rely on only one means of exchange based on only one platform. For those wishing for one or just fewer, more modern payment solutions (with apologies to all paper haters), my advice is be careful what you wish for. For the average consumer, my advice is pay attention to the "payments intelligentsia" and be wary of pushes for an advanced, universal, singular way to do payments. Be particularly wary of changes that aren't being called for by the market itself. We can never eliminate risk but we can mitigate it and minimize the extent that bad people can create widespread trouble.

Photo of Julius Weyman By Julius Weyman, vice president, Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

February 1, 2016 in cybercrime, fraud, identity theft, innovation, payments risk | 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 30, 2015


Half Full or Half Empty?

My colleagues and I in the Retail Payments Risk Forum participate as speakers or attendees in what sometimes seems to be a nonstop stream of banking and payments conferences that run from mid-September to mid-November. This effort is part of our mission to support the education of the stakeholders in the payments ecosystem with a focus on payments risk. We also use the opportunity to network with other attendees and vendors to stay on top of the latest developments and market solutions that are being deployed to combat payments fraud. These events also give us a chance to provide our perspective on trends and key issues involving payment risk.

At a recent fraud conference, I was on a panel discussing fraud trends and key threat vectors. The moderator of the panel revealed some results from Information Security Media Group's 2014 Faces of Fraud survey of financial institutions (FIs). There was a specific question about whether FIs had seen a change in the level of losses from account takeover fraud since the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council issued its supplemental guidance on Internet banking authentication in 2011. That guidance directed financial institutions to evaluate "new and evolving threats to online accounts and adjust their customer authentication, layered security, and other controls as appropriate in response to identified risks." The survey results are shown in the chart below.

graphic-chart

Source: 2014 Faces of Fraud Survey, Information Security Media Group

While the moderator and some of the other panelists seemed to focus on the 20 percent who said they had seen an increase in fraud, I had the perspective of the glass being half full by the 55 percent who indicated that the fraud had stayed about the same or decreased. Given the certainty that the number and magnitude of data breaches have increased and that the number of attempts by criminals to commit some sort of payment fraud through account takeovers was significantly up, I opined that since the fraud levels for the majority of the FIs had stayed at the same level or declined should be considered as a victory.

Certainly, I am not saying the tide has turned and the criminals are on their way to retirement, but I think the payments industry stakeholders should take some pride that its efforts to combat payment fraud are making some progress through the continuing development and deployment of anti-fraud tools. Am I being too Pollyannaish?

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

November 30, 2015 in banks and banking, crime, cybercrime, fraud, 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 21, 2015


Mimicking Mother Nature

A few months ago, we had a large colony of bats take up residence in our house. With the issue now resolved, and with everything we had to do to get rid of them, I realize how the whole experience was similar to the tactics of fraudsters and the challenges faced by their victims in taking preventive, detective and corrective action.

We learned of the initial intrusion purely by accident. Previously, we have never had any sign of vermin being able to gain entry, so I thought we had a solid defense. My wife had noticed a small amount of droppings on the back porch but we thought they were from squirrels. Imagine my shock when my adult son informed me we had been invaded by bats. He had discovered them one morning following an overnight stay. Departing for an early tee time, he noticed a swarm of bats flying into a soffit vent crevice. Incredulous, I waited for dusk only to see for myself a constant stream of small brown bats exiting the soffit crevice.

My wife went a little bat crazy as she imagined hoards bats swooping down to carry off one of our grandkids. Actually, she was more concerned about the real threat of respiratory disease from their droppings as well as the potential for rabies. We began to do some research, and I soon learned that bats are a protected species, so they cannot be disturbed unless they are posing an immediate health threat. They weren’t, since they were not in our living space. But the problem intensified, which I realized one evening when I saw an even larger colony emerging from our chimney.

We began contacting companies that specialize in wildlife removal. We found a wide variety of suggested courses of action and prices. We selected one company based on its reputation, process, guaranteed results, and pricing. The company’s first step was to inspect the entire house to identify any other potential points of entry and to seal them. We notified our neighbors so they could be on the lookout to make sure the bats didn’t settle inside their houses. The next step was to install one-way excluders that would permit the bats to leave but not get back in. This seemed to be working well until a group of the bats somehow got word they were being evicted. Trying to find another way into the house, they navigated an interior wall and became trapped. Without water, they soon died and a putrid smell began to emerge. After cutting several holes in the wall, the technicians were able to locate the source and remove the carcasses. After a couple of weeks, the excluders were removed and the entry points sealed so we thought the problem was resolved.

Imagine our further surprise when we returned from vacation and found about 50 dead bats in our unfinished basement. It seems a group had remained and found a chase route from the attic to the basement seeking water. With the disposal of those bats, the problem seems to have finally been resolved. As fall approaches and bats migrate to warmer climates, the threat diminishes, but I can assure you we will be on the alert next spring.

So how does this relate to the payments fraud environment? Some similarities:

  • We thought we had a strong defense perimeter and were safe, but the bats found a way inside given they require an opening of only three-eighths of an inch.
  • While our discovery came shortly after their initial entry, it was only by sheer luck. We could have acted earlier if we had not ignored the early warning sign of their droppings.
  • We thought we had identified the sole location of the problem, but they then migrated to a second entry point.
  • Regulations limited the potential range of actions we could take to deal with the issue.
  • We shared information about the situation with our neighbors so they could be on the alert.
  • We analyzed several different options for dealing with the issue and preventing its recurrence.
  • Despite what we thought was a successful process, other issues arose and required action before there was a final resolution.

This experience with Mother Nature has provided us a learning opportunity and we are better informed and on the alert for future such events.

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

September 21, 2015 in fraud, regulations, risk, 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

September 8, 2015


Why Is the U.S. Card-Present Fraud Breakout Not Present?

Before answering the question the title poses, let me introduce myself. I'm the newest blogger in the Risk Forum. Recently, I was the faster-payments-product guy in the Retail Payments Office (RPO) at the Atlanta Fed. While in the RPO, I was a cheerleader who pushed and cajoled the industry to get same-day ACH off the ground. Incidentally, same-day ACH is due to become available universally as early as September 2016 due to a recent rule change passed by NACHA.

Back to my question—while doing some research on expanding fraud data coverage in the Fed's upcoming triennial payments study, I came across a gap in publicly available detailed fraud data for the United States compared to other geographies. As the table shows, the gap is evident from the Fourth Report on Card Fraud published in July 2015 by the European Central Bank. You probably see the "Not available" designation in the card-present subcategory.

Percentage-of-total-card-table

What gives? What could be gained if this information were made available? As the footnote shows, the high-level data is taken from the Fed's last triennial payments study published in 2014. And as a previous post notes, the United States does not have a publicly available, single, uniform repository for payments fraud data. Back in 2009, the problem was covered in detail in the briefing paper "The Benefits of Collecting and Reporting Payment Fraud Statistics for the United States" by my colleague Rick Sullivan from the Kansas City Fed. In fairness, it should be noted that information is available in the United States to varying levels of detail as a paid service or through surveys conducted by such organizations as the Association of Financial Professionals and is typically distributed only to the organization's membership.

So that you know what we are missing out on in the United States, here are capsule descriptions of each card-present fraud type:

  • Counterfeit/Skimming: Fraud is perpetrated using an altered or cloned card.
  • Lost/Stolen: Fraudulent transactions result from the use of a lost or stolen card.
  • Card not received: A newly issued card in transit to a card holder is intercepted and used to commit fraud.
  • Fraudulent application: A new card is issued based on a faked identity or using someone else's identity.
  • Other: This is a catchall category for fraud not covered above.

The card-not-present subcategory, which is fully reported on in the triennial study, generally covers fraudulent payments initiated online, or by mail or telephone. Unlike card-present fraud, this type of fraud is not usually subdivided any further.

It should be noted that the current study was the first of the triennial series to report on fraud. Unfortunately, scope limitations precluded breaking out fraud further. As it is, the current study offers a wealth of payment and fraud data for cards and all other forms of noncash payments.

Adding a level of specificity for card-present fraud in the United States will help in tracking the movement of fraud from one type to another and the migration of fraud to other countries. In the United States, fraud is likely to further shift from card present to card not present due to increased counterfeiting controls at the point of sale from the anticipated broad adoption of EMV (chips) for cards and POS terminals. The Federal Reserve, in partnership with other payment system stakeholders, hopes to track these and other developments by collecting additional fraud data for the next triennial study due to be published in 2017.

What suggestions do you have for identifying and collecting other fraud data?

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

September 8, 2015 in EMV, fraud | 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 17, 2015


Pigskin and Payments

For those who know me well, they know that I find August to be the slowest-moving month of the year. It's not because of the oppressive southern heat and humidity, but rather it's my anticipation for football season. To help speed along the "dog days of summer," I generally read my fair share of prognostication publications. Alongside the predictions, improving player safety has become a key discussion topic as the season approaches.

Armed with data showing an increase in injuries as well as long-term negative effects from playing the sport, football's governing bodies on both the collegiate and professional levels are instituting rule changes to make the game safer. Equipment manufacturers are introducing new gear to improve safety and individual teams are adding new experts to their medical staffs all in the name of player safety.

Ironically, while there is a focus on improving player safety, football players continue to get stronger and faster aided by advancements in nutrition and workout regimes. As player strength and speed improves, this contact sport becomes more vicious and dangerous. And as a fan, I'll admit that I find watching a game featuring stronger and faster players more exciting. I do not want to see players injured, but at the same time I enjoy the excitement that comes with hard tackles and big hits.

Does this state of football sound at all like the current state of the U.S. payments industry? To make payments safer, public and private entities are leading literally hundreds of initiatives across various payments rails. Network rule changes are taking place and new technologies are being harnessed all in an effort to better secure payments. At the same time, start-ups, established payment companies, payment associations, and the Federal Reserve are collaborating to improve the speed of payments.

It's hard not to get excited about the possibilities of faster payments, from important just-in-time supplier payments to simple repayments for borrowing money from a friend or family member. However, can securing payments better derail the speed of payments? By way of example and personal experience, my more secure EMV (chip) credit card has clearly reduced the speed at the point-of-sale for my card payment transactions.

But just as player strength and speed has evolved alongside safety through rule-making and technology (think about leather football helmets here), I think we have seen the same progression within the payments industry. I think football remains as exciting as ever, and the payments expert in me is clearly excited about the future of payments.

Speed and safety are not to be viewed as mutually exclusive, and I am confident that the payments industry supports this view. In both football and payments, elements of risk will exist, regardless of safety measures in place. Finding the right balance between speed and safety should be the goal in order to maintain an exciting football game or efficient payments system. I can't wait to see what lies ahead on the gridiron and within the payments industry.

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

August 17, 2015 in emerging payments, EMV, fraud, innovation, 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 3, 2015


Friendly Fraud: Nothing to Smile About (Part 2)

Last week's post discussed the increasing frequency of friendly fraud and the problems it presents for e-commerce merchants. A transaction that could be classified as friendly fraud might actually be one the customer just forget about, or one involving a family member using the customer's card without permission, or one with the customer actually not receiving the goods. So the merchant really can't just assume the customer is out to commit fraud and take an aggressive approach in dealing with the customer. The merchant would probably then have lost the customer's business altogether. But with the burden of proof on the merchant, the merchant must adopt a number of best practices to help minimize losses.

A company that works with merchants to both prevent chargeback disputes and respond to them has published a detailed guide (the site requires e-mail registration for access to the guide) to help merchants deal with friendly fraud. The following list includes some of the guide's best practices:

  • Promote a clear and fair refund policy that encourages customers to contact the merchant directly instead of the card issuer.
  • Make sure that the name of the business is on all billing statements—clearly, to avoid confusion.
  • Ensure that the customer communication channels—such as a call center or e-mail—are accessible.
  • Be responsive to customer inquiries.
  • Clearly communicate shipping charges and delivery timeframes to avoid misunderstandings about the total cost or delivery date of orders.
  • Always obtain the card security code and use address validation services. For larger-value purchases, consider the use of delivery confirmation and other validation services.
  • With digital goods or services, consider using a secondary verification tool—an activation code or purchase confirmation page—to ascertain that the customer received the goods.
  • When there is a chargeback, make every effort to contact the customer directly to attempt to resolve the matter. While the contact may not resolve this particular situation, it may offer a lesson that might help prevent future chargebacks from other customers.
  • Keep a database of customers who initiate chargebacks that appear fraudulent. Research shows that customers who deliberately defraud merchants and succeed at it are very likely to do it again.

As with all efforts to fight payments fraud, merchants must study their own customer base. They should identify their particular risks and then employ the practices that will help them best mitigate their fraud losses.

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

August 3, 2015 in cards, consumer fraud, fraud | 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


July 2016


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
31            

Archives


Categories


Powered by TypePad