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.
What's New
Federal Reserve Web Sites
Other Bank Regulatory Sites
Take On Payments
« Is a national data breach notification law on the horizon? | Main | Dispelling prepaid card myths: Not all cards are created equal »
June 27, 2011
What are you signing away with a signature instead of a PIN on card transactions?
Recent years have witnessed the commercial banking industry making some surprising risk management decisions. For instance, many financial institutions encourage their customers to choose the credit/signature option of their debit cards rather than the debit option. But the credit option is more vulnerable to fraud, so ultimately is more costly to the industry. In addition, signature debit transactions are processed through the credit card networks, which means the banks earn the higher interchange fee that comes from credit transactions as opposed to debit transactions.
The point of this discussion is not to look at the anticipated effect of the Durbin amendment on interchange practices, but instead to focus on the moral hazard presented by these practices in the context of our nation’s retail payment systems. The reason that signature debit carries a higher interchange fee is that it is less secure than PIN debit transactions. In a recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, financial institutions reported that signature debit fraud attempts eclipse fraud with other payment types. The report also says that debit cards along with checks are the payment types most often attacked by fraud schemes, and as a result sustain the highest losses.
Source: 2010 Payments Fraud Survey: Summary of Results,
The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
However, the study also reported that most financial institutions and other organizations report that actual fraud losses as a percent of their annual revenues are relatively small, at less than 1 percent. This information sheds light on the risk-versus-return decision-making rationale.
As the incidence of payment card fraud in general is on the rise, it is time to take a proactive view of the risk management practices for debit card programs. While persuading customers to process debit card payments on card networks may be more profitable in the short run, the industry may realize an increase in fraud and risk in the retail payments system as a result.
By Cindy Merritt, assistant director of the Retail Payments Risk Forum
June 27, 2011 in consumer protection , fraud , interchange , risk | Permalink
Comments
Google Search
Recent Posts
- Making the Choice to Use Cash
- We Are Thankful For...
- Will Payments Be Getting REAL?
- Financial Solutions for the Younger Generation
- Encouraging Password Hygiene
- Should We Throw in the Towel When It Comes to Data Breach Prevention?
- Looking for Partners in Safer Payments
- The Range of Un-Friendly Fraud
- Payments Webinar October 10: Cash in the 21st Century
- "Insuring" Ransomware Will Continue to Flourish
Archives
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
Categories
- account takeovers
- ACH
- ATM fraud
- authentication
- bank supervision
- banking regulations
- banks and banking
- biometrics
- card networks
- cards
- check fraud
- checks
- chip-and-pin
- collaboration
- consumer fraud
- consumer protection
- contactless
- credit cards
- crime
- cross-border wires
- currency
- cybercrime
- cybersecurity
- data security
- debit cards
- debt
- emerging payments
- EMV
- financial services
- financial technology
- fintech
- fraud
- identity theft
- innovation
- interchange
- KYC
- law enforcement
- malware
- mobile banking
- mobile money transfer
- mobile network operator (MNO)
- mobile payments
- money laundering
- money services business (MSB)
- online banking fraud
- online retail
- P2P
- Payment Services Directive
- payments
- payments fraud
- payments innovation
- payments risk
- payments study
- payments systems
- phone fraud
- prepaid
- privacy
- PSD2
- regulations
- regulators
- remittances
- remotely created checks
- risk
- risk management
- Section 1073
- skills gap
- social networks
- telecom
- theft
- third-party service provider
- transmitters
- trusted service manager
- Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices (UDAP)
- wire transfer fraud
- workforce development
- workplace fraud