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.

August 22, 2016


As with Nuclear Disarmament, So with ACH: Trust, but Verify

During his remarks at the signing of a nuclear disarmament treaty with the U.S.S.R. in 1987, President Ronald Reagan drew upon the old Russian maxim, "Doveryai, no proveryai," or "Trust, but verify." As with disarmament, businesses and others that originate automated clearing house (ACH) payments should be offered some way to verify an account, something more than hope and a prayer that the payment recipient's routing/transit number and account number are correct and that the recipient is an owner of the account.

The lack of efficient account validation options is a common complaint against the ACH. Surveys that NACHA conducted in 2012 and 2015 attest that account validation, as judged by a majority of respondents, is ACH's chief improvement need. Failing to perform account validation creates different levels of risk, depending on the payment application, whether a credit is pushed or debit is pulled and whether it is a recurring or one-time payment.

On July 19, NACHA's Payments Innovation Alliance and Board Advisory Group released two papers reviewing and critiquing existing methods for verifying bank accounts by financial institutions and businesses. The papers also suggest that a remedy to the account validation problem may be in the offing.

In both papers, NACHA defined account validation as follows:

A service wherein a business or financial institution can validate the accuracy of the account information received from a consumer or business, and the ability of that account to receive electronic payments.

Following are the various methods that NACHA identifies—and that I've complemented with my own research—that are used today to validate accounts:

  • Manual validation—A consumer's check verifies the account and identification verifies the consumer's identity. Alternatively, the originator can call the recipient's bank to confirm account details, assuming the bank is willing to provide the information, though it is risky for the bank to share such information over the phone.
  • ACH validation, via a zero-dollar prenote verification payment—If the account number is incorrect, the recipient's bank responds within three business days, though this timeframe can be shortened by using same-day ACH. As the papers state, this is a "no news is good news" form of verification. NACHA is exploring opportunities to improve the prenote process beginning in late 2016.
  • Challenge deposit validation—Typically, two micro-deposits of random amounts are made to the recipient's account and subsequently verified by the accountholder to the payment originator. Even if the account is successfully verified, the originator may subsequently be unable to debit the account because that account blocks debit payments. To identify debit blocked accounts, some originators debit the bank account equal to the micro-deposits. This method is fraught with a high abandonment rate by the consumer due to the hassle of verifying the deposits. One large online originator says that about 30 percent of consumers selecting the deposit validation method fail to verify the payment amounts. This method can take from five to seven business days—though, as with prenoting, the process can be expedited by using same-day ACH.
  • Instant validation—The customer logs into his or her bank from the company's website to establish ownership of the account. The same online originator said that 25 percent of its customers selected this validation method over deposit validation. Many consumers hesitate to use this method because the use of a third party increases the chance their banking credentials will be compromised.
  • Validation services—Service providers with access to a large number of accounts, offer scoring services that simulate or predict the likelihood an account number is "good." Though improving, these service offerings are limited for non-financial institution originators.

A solution to the problem may be in store through the World Wide Web Consortium and others working to develop a standardized application programming interface, or API, for account validation. This would allow payment originators or their service providers restricted access to bank data to verify accounts using a universal, standardized process while protecting banking credentials. Let's hope that key stakeholders rally around this important initiative and push for a speedy implementation so that we carry through with a new maxim of "Trust, but truly verify."

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

August 22, 2016 in ACH, authentication | Permalink | Comments (0)

August 15, 2016


The Personal Cost of Fraud

Last week's post by my colleague Doug King described the check fraud that took place after someone burglarized his wife's car and stole her wallet, including her driver's license and credit and debit cards. The frequency and magnitude of data breaches and constantly reading and researching payments fraud as part of my job have probably numbed me to the personal impact of fraud. When discussing the likelihood of becoming victims of some sort of identity theft fraud, we jokingly paraphrase the slogan in the South about termite infestations: "It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when." Given the data breaches and information available through public records, we operate under the assumption that the criminal element has all the information they need to perpetrate fraud against us and, for those of us who haven't already been victimized, it is likely to happen in the near future. A pessimistic outlook for sure, but one I fear is realistic.

I still get frustrated when I see the many studies that show that, despite consumers' concern about the security and privacy of their transaction and personal information, the vast majority do not adopt strong security practices. They use easy-to-guess passwords or PINs and often use the same user ID and password for their various online accounts, from social media to online banking access. I believe that many financial institutions (FI) and ecommerce providers have passively supported this environment in that they often do not require customers to use stronger practices because they don't want to incur the customer service cost associated with password resets or customer abandonment. The lack of consistent password formatting structures adds to the confusion (some require special characters and others don't allow them).

I certainly don't hold myself out as the poster child for strong security, but our family has adopted a number of the recommended stronger security practices. These include using a simple compound password structure that creates a separate password for each application, creating a more complex password structure for financial applications, establishing filter rules designed to spot spam and phishing emails, and conducting a frequent review of financial accounts to spot unauthorized transactions.

While liability protection laws and regulations generally hold a consumer financially harmless, there clearly is a social and individual cost associated with fraud from the time spent dealing with law enforcement and FI representatives to the issue of not being able to access the funds fraudulently taken until reimbursement is made. Perhaps Doug's wife's requirement for her FI to provide a stronger level of authentication reflects a changing sense of the need by the general public for stronger security practices. I certainly hope so.

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

 

August 15, 2016 in consumer fraud, cybercrime, data security, fraud, identity theft | Permalink | Comments (0)

August 8, 2016


When Fraud Hits Home: Questioning Today’s Authentication Methods

My wife was the recent victim of a vehicle burglary. Unfortunately, the bad guys got away with a wallet that included a driver's license along with several debit and credit cards. Since my wife is a cash-averse individual, I thought little harm, if any, would ensue since she reported the cards stolen within minutes of the crime taking place. What I thought could have been a simple stolen card scenario quickly escalated to a major assault on a demand deposit account (DDA) thanks, in large part, to authentication failures by the financial institutions involved.

Two days after the theft and with only a driver's license and a canceled debit card to identify the bank, the burglar, or an associate, was able to withdraw money from my wife's DDA by using a generic withdrawal slip found at most bank and credit union branches. They also cashed a counterfeit check drawn on another financial institution (FI) that, along with the bad check fee, was charged against my wife's account when the payor bank returned the check. While I am not sure whether the employees at the bank followed proper authentication protocols, there clearly was a breakdown as the thief was able to use the stolen driver's license to first obtain my wife's DDA number and then fraudulently withdraw funds.

While the breakdown in authentication is concerning, the FI's solution for improving authentication with my wife's new account is archaic—a password. The FI suggested that she open a new account and password-protect the account. When making an in-person transaction, she will be required to state the password before a transaction can be completed or account information revealed in addition to other authentication measures that were already in place.

My wife, not comfortable with the new proposed account set-up or with the failure in authentication on the old account, decided to seek a new FI relationship. Clearly she believed that a more technology-driven solution would have been substantially better from both a security and user standpoint than the proposed password solution. And this got me wondering. With all the efforts and investments in authentication technologies, why are passwords still being used for banking and payment transactions in 2016? What will it actually take to "kill the password," which we have been talking about for years? We are in the midst of a technology revolution, yet authentication methods from 2,000 years ago are still being suggested for use today as the primary means to protect money and assets.

In Singapore, the government has mandated two-factor authentication while allowing consumers to retain some choice in the authentication factor. In the United States, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, or FFIEC, issued guidance in 2011 regarding the use of multi-factor authentication for Internet transactions. Is guidance concerning authentication enough? Without favoring any particular solution or technology, is it time to adopt better authentication methods in the United States? I am not advocating mandate like in Singapore, but my wife can give you more than 2,500 good reasons why it should be considered.

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

August 8, 2016 in authentication | Permalink | Comments (0)

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 (1)

July 25, 2016


Cash: Reports of Its Pending Death Are Greatly Exaggerated

I usually chuckle when I read an article forecasting the impending elimination of cash from the U.S. payments system. It seems the frequency of these articles is steadily increasing, and I wonder why. What do these people have against cash? Yes, I can somewhat understand the argument about trying to abolish the penny when it costs more to produce it (1.7 cents) than its face value. Canada, New Zealand and Australia have done so, and their citizens' lives don't seem too dramatically altered.

There is no question that consumers continue to embrace card-based payments as an alternative to cash and checks, none more so than the millennials. Critics of cash portray it as a payment method with a number of negatives including harm to personal safety (robbery) and its being expensive to acquire or process. Yet research by the Federal Reserve through its 2013 Consumer Payment Choice Survey project shows that 89 percent of the population continues to have at least some cash, and the number of currency notes that the public holds continues to grow. Additionally, while prepaid cards have made an impact on the un- and under-banked, cash is still an essential form of payment for them.

But as the 1964 Bob Dylan song goes, "the times they are a-changin'." The survey demonstrated the potential increasing influence on the future of cash that millennials might have, as more than 60 percent of those surveyed as "cash-adverse" (they never hold or spend cash) fall into the millennial age range. But will this behavior persist as they grow older and build their financial resources? The survey results provided some conflicting data for this group that hopefully will be resolved in the next survey to be conducted in the fall. For example, while they claim to not hold or use cash, nearly one-fourth indicated that cash was their preferred payment method.

The anonymous nature of cash is often cited by governmental and law enforcement officials as a reason for using it for illegal business transactions or tax avoidance. But perhaps most importantly, cash has almost universal acceptance and, in times of natural disasters, may be the only payment method that can be used for the purchase of goods and services. The reality is that cash is the payment method used by two-thirds of consumers for transactions under $10. While vending machines and parking meters are being enhanced to accept card and mobile payments, and the prepaid gift card has eliminated a lot of $20 bills in birthday cards, it's extremely difficult for me to consider a world without cash. And I believe history is on my side. Although many new payment methods have been introduced, I don't know of any that have been eliminated over the last two hundred years. So I take reassurance as I open my physical wallet and there among my various debit and credit cards, my $23 in cash sits waiting to be spent. I suspect that cash will continue to exist for centuries after my own obituary has been written.

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

July 25, 2016 in currency | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 18, 2016


The 411 on Banning the RCC

Are you proficient in recognizing phone scams? One that I've frequently experienced is when the caller tells me I've won a cruise and all I have to do is pay the taxes. To help combat phone fraud, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) amended the Telemarketing Sales Rule. Part of the amendment prohibits payment types commonly used in deceptive and abusive telemarketing practices. Effective June 13, 2016, telemarketers can't ask for payment by cash-to-cash money transfers, PINs from cash reload cards, or bank account information, which would allow them to create a remotely created check (RCC). Fraudsters prefer RCCs because reversals are more difficult, notes the FTC. In particular, RCCs sail quickly through the clearing and settlement process making for easy collection by fraudsters and clunky adjustment processes for financial institutions.

Financial institutions (FIs) are the gatekeepers to payment systems and, with the amendment to the rule, have a new risk for what their customers do. FIs have always had the compliance risk of understanding their customer's business. As an FI, how would you know if you had a telemarketing customer already on board or one attempting to apply today? Further, how would you know if a current customer is accepting payment via RCC, since RCCs look like traditional checks? If you have third-party processors as customers, these questions become more difficult. Then, the risk is to identify if your customer's customer is a telemarketer processing banned payments through your bank.

Most agreements between FIs and business customers typically include a clause binding their customers to process payments in compliance with applicable laws of the United States. What additional steps should FIs take to manage the risks that apply to different industries and different payment types?

There are limited ways to identify RCCs because such items are cleared like traditional checks. Effective November 2015, the standards for the MICR (magnetic ink character recognition) line were changed to include a "6" in a certain position in the line to indicate an RCC. This is a standard and not a requirement. But if the 6 is used, that is one way to identify an RCC. If the standard is not used, nothing uniquely identifies an item as an RCC unless one examines the signature block on the check, since RCCs have no signature. An FI or a processor may not have the ability to look at every item included in every deposit, but could have random testing in place to attempt to identify the illegal use of RCCs.

Another indicator of deceptive practices by a business customer is anomalies in return rates. A large number of adjustments may signal that abuses are taking place. An RCC is often confused with an ACH entry and some telemarketers may convert their RCCs to ACH to spread out alarming return rates.

It will be all hands on deck to stop abusive RCC practices, but the FTC has charted the course with its new rulemaking.

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

July 18, 2016 in KYC, phone fraud, remotely created checks | Permalink | Comments (0)

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 (0)

June 27, 2016


Between a Rock and a Hard Place?

Customer education encouraging safe payments practices has always been viewed by staff at the Retail Payments Risk Forum as a vital element in mitigating payments-related fraud. We have stressed this need time and time again in our posts as well as our numerous speaking engagements at payments-related conferences and events.

Financial institutions (FIs) have generally been identified as the group that should bear this responsibility as they own the account relationship, but with more intermediaries in the payments process, I think that others should also be involved. The advent of mobile banking and payments has introduced even more challenges since the financial institution doesn't get involved in the acquisition of the mobile device as that is normally handled by the mobile network sales representatives. My personal experience with these sales representatives is that once the device sale is done, they are more interested in selling me accessories or upgrading my data plan than they are teaching me about selecting and setting strong passwords or preventing malware and viruses from finding their way into my phone.

When I raise this issue with others, all too often I hear a pessimistic chorus that getting consumers to adopt strong security practices will always be a losing battle for FIs. They say that consumers will always choose convenience over security—that is, until they fall victim to fraud. And forget about any other player in the ecosystem taking on the education responsibility because if they have no liability for fraud losses, why direct funds to education when they could be deployed elsewhere?

The impact of fraud on a consumer's relationship with his or her financial institution has never been greater. We read every day about the increasing economic importance of the Gen Y or millennial segment. With an estimated 80 million people, they represent the largest segment of our country's bankable population. A late 2015 study by FICO on millennial banking habits revealed that 29 percent of respondents indicated that they would close all their accounts with a financial institution if one of those accounts experienced fraud. To make matters worse, one quarter of the survey participants indicated they would write a negative post on social media about their financial institution if they experienced a fraud incident.

So are financial institutions in a no-win situation? A ray of hope emerges from the same FICO study, which states that 41 percent of the millennials surveyed indicated that they recommended their FI to friends, colleagues, or family members after a positively handled fraud incident. Studies have consistently shown that payment security is a key concern of all customers, not just millennials. So although it may not seem fair that financial institutions have to shoulder most of the security education effort, the impact of not doing so could be significant. Perhaps it is time for a coordinated payments industry campaign to encourage consumers to adopt safer and more secure banking practices.

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

June 27, 2016 in banks and banking, financial services, payments, risk | Permalink | Comments (0)

June 20, 2016


There's an App for That!

Few would question that mobile phones have had a considerable influence in our everyday activities. They provide a level of convenience and connectivity that also generates benefits to our personal safety and the security of our banking accounts and other assets. The Pew Research Center estimates that almost two-thirds of adults in the United States own a smartphone and 15 percent use them as their primary online access device either because they do not have broadband access at their home or have few other online options.

In recent blogs, I highlighted some key findings from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors' recently released Consumers and Mobile Financial Services 2016 report. The report includes a section of questions that probe how consumers use their mobile phones in financial decision making. Within the past year, 62 percent of mobile banking users with smartphones responded that they checked their balance before they made a large purchase. The power of that information is demonstrated in that for those who checked their balance or available credit, half didn't make a purchase as a result of having that information.

Forty-five percent of smartphone owners use their phone for comparison shopping at retail stores. Forty-one percent reported they use their phones to obtain product information while shopping at retail stores, and 28 percent use a barcode scanning application for price comparisons.

Though smartphone owners value the convenience phones bring to financial decision making, security and safety are primary concerns. A little more than half of the mobile banking users take advantage of the feature of receiving some type of alert from their financial institution. The most common alert cited was for a low balance, but 36 percent reported they also receive fraud alerts.

Later this year, a number of the Federal Reserve districts, including the Sixth District, will be conducting a survey of the financial institutions in their districts about the mobile banking and mobile payments services they offer. The Sixth District participated in this effort in 2014; you can find the results here. It will be interesting to see the changes that have taken place over the last two years, especially in light of the launch of the various mobile wallets, so stay tuned.

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

June 20, 2016 in banks and banking, mobile banking, mobile payments | Permalink | Comments (0)

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 (0)

Google Search



Recent Posts


September 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  

Archives


Categories


Powered by TypePad