Take On Payments, a blog sponsored by the Retail Payments Risk Forum of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, is intended to foster dialogue on emerging risks in retail payment systems and enhance collaborative efforts to improve risk detection and mitigation. We encourage your active participation in Take on Payments and look forward to collaborating with you.
Federal Reserve Web Sites
Other Bank Regulatory Sites
October 7, 2019
Payments Webinar October 10: Cash in the 21st Century
As I write this, I am drinking my morning cup of joe. For me, that means half caf/half decaf, then cut in half with microwaved nonfat milk. (Slurp.)
Day in, day out, I want it just that way. No sugar for me. Nonfat milk, not 2 percent. Black only when I open the door to an empty fridge.
Odds are, you're like me when it comes to coffee and payments. Your habits—and mine—are sticky. We've found something that works for us and—day in, day out—we take our coffees and choose to pay the same way. These are our preferences.
What happens when we change our minds about what we prefer? Shaun O'Brien at the San Francisco Fed has been looking into the relationship between our stated preferences for making in-person purchases and the payment instruments we use in the moment.
In an economic model that incorporates consumer demographics, household income, transaction characteristics, and the payee, Shaun finds that, over time, a change in stated preference eventually results in an increased probability of using a newly preferred payment instrument.
Note that word eventually.
For example, say I stated a preference for cash in 2016 and then switched to a stated overall preference for debit card in 2017. It might not be until 2018 that you would start to see a small change in my mix of payments, with relatively less use of cash and more of debit. Like a coffee habit, my preferred payments habit is slow to change. (Keep in mind that, as I have blogged previously, preference is one of a number of factors that are important, including, for example, what a payee is willing to accept.)
Whatever your morning beverage, I hope you'll join Shaun, the Atlanta Fed's Oz Shy, and me for the next Talk About Payments webinar, October 10, 2019.
We'll look at current data from the Survey and Diary of Consumer Payment Choice and new research—including Shaun's findings reported above—to investigate the 5 Ws and also the How of cash:
- WHAT is happening with cash?
- WHO uses cash?
- WHERE do consumers use cash?
- WHEN do consumers use cash?
- WHAT might cause cash users to switch to another payment method?
- HOW do consumers get cash?
This webinar is open to the public but you must register in advance to participate. (Registration is free.) You can register online. Once registered, you will receive a confirmation email with login and call-in information.
Date: Thursday, October 10, 2019
Time: 1–2 p.m. (ET)
September 30, 2019
"Insuring" Ransomware Will Continue to Flourish
Making predictions is a dangerous game. More than two years ago, I predicted that 2017 and 2018 would be the Years of Ransomware. And while I am not willing to admit that I completely missed out on that prediction, it does appear to be a bit short-sighted. If I could go back to May 2017, I would also include 2019 in my prediction. According to the insurance firm Beazley, ransomware attack notifications from clients increased by 105 percent in the first quarter of this year compared to the first quarter of 2018, and the average ransom demand increased to $225,000 from $116,000 during the same period. My colleague Dave Lott wrote two blogs in July highlighting the changing nature of ransomware attacks and suggesting ways to avoid them or minimize their impact.
In just the few weeks since Dave's posts were published, ransomware attacks have continued to flourish. On August 16, 22 Texas municipalities and agencies were hit by an apparent coordinated attack. On August 26, a cloud management provider for the dental industry was stricken with ransomware, impacting approximately 400 of its dental clients. And over Labor Day weekend, a small Pennsylvania school district was attacked.
In both of his posts, Dave noted that law enforcement officials urge ransomware victims not to pay ransom because doing so encourages criminals to continue. Moreover, there is no guarantee that they will send the decryption keys. Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to pay a ransom lies with the organization that has been attacked and its unique situation. The ransom payment dilemma was recently featured in the Wall Street Journal's September 18 Cybersecurity Journal Reports section. Two cybersecurity experts debated whether or not cities affected by ransomware should succumb to the criminals' demands for payment.
But now an interesting twist in ransom payments has emerged: who is making the ransom payment, the attacked organization or an insurance company?
In his last ransomware blog, Dave wrote that entities should evaluate their "cybersecurity insurance policy in terms of its ransomware coverage." This brings us to an interesting question: Are insurers making ransom payments on behalf of their clients under cybersecurity insurance policies? The answer is yes. So this begs a couple of other questions: Will insurers paying ransoms on behalf of ransomware victims guarantee that ransomware attacks will continue? And could they lead to larger ransoms? I believe the answer to both questions is a resounding yes. It's not my place to debate whether or not insurers should be in the business of paying ransoms, but continuing the practice could cause ransomware attacks to continue to flourish.
September 23, 2019
Designing Disclosures to Be Read
Have you ever wondered if consumers actually look at disclosures for payment services? And if they do look at them, how much time do you think they spend reading them? If the average adult reads around 250 words per minute and a disclosure page contains 1,000 words—likely a low estimate—then a consumer would spend four minutes on the page before clicking accept or reject. I am confident that a more realistic estimate of time consumers spend on these pages falls far short of the time required to read the legally required consumer protection information. How many of us just click on the "I Accept" button without reading the disclosure? Maybe it's time to come up with a better way to disclose.
I believe that disclosures are one of the more dreaded elements in designing, launching, and managing financial services. If you haven't experienced the dread first hand, you can find evidence of it in the countless comment letters submitted by payments stakeholders and posted to the Federal Register when a proposed rule could affect disclosure terms. The work and expense of delivering disclosures at precisely the time required by law are completely wasted when consumers fail to read them.
The goal of disclosures is to educate consumers on a product's terms and conditions, to define their responsibilities, and to ultimately protect them from financial harm or surprises. With this information, consumers can make informed decisions. We should hope consumers comprehend and retain the critical information provided.
Opportunities exist to present important consumer protection information in ways that are far more easily digestible than a thousand-word disclosure in a four-point font. For instance, a gamification model could ask the consumer direct questions related to fees in pop-up windows with animated visual representations of the scenarios. You can brainstorm to come up with messages, jotting down quick ideas—for example, "You chose instant transfer, the fee is $1, Accept or Decline." Or, "Help us monitor your transactions daily, instant transfers will be $0, Accept or Decline." A large font and short words can quickly articulate the key points and big risks. Moreover, building the disclosure logic into the technology better protects the consumer.
Here's some good news—you now have the support of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to test your innovative solutions in making disclosures likelier to achieve their aim. The CFPB's Office of Innovation recently issued new policies to encourage innovation. For example, the office instituted a trial disclosure program and has committed to granting or denying applications for these trials within 60 days of submission. Accepted applicants will have up to two years to test their disclosures. They will also have access to state and global regulators through the CFPB's affiliation with the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, the Global Financial Innovation Network, and the newly formed American Consumer Financial Innovation Network.
Applicants and disclosures need not be company- or product-specific, although that is an option. Service providers, trade associations, consumer groups, or other third parties may also use the trial application program. Group applications could help spread trial disclosure development costs such that smaller entities would be able to afford to participate in the program. Such intention has been evidenced in the CFPB's Office of Innovation's first "No-Action Letter," issued to more than 1,600 HUD housing counseling agencies, stating that it will not take enforcement action with agencies that enter into "certain fee-for-service arrangements with lenders for pre-purchase housing counseling services."
Have you considered redesigning a payment product or service disclosure that consumers will be likelier to read? Apply to test it , and good luck!
September 16, 2019
Is There a Generation Gap in Cash Use?
How different are millennials from boomers in their reported payment habits, especially regarding their use of cash? New data from the Survey of Consumer Payment Choice, out this month, lets us look at age segments using the interactive charts accompanying the report.
For example, in 2018, consumers overall made 17 payments a month in cash. Drilling down, consumers aged 25 to 34—that is, millennials—used cash for 15 payments per month. Consumers 55 to 64—the boomers—used cash for 18 payments a month.
It's good to put these numbers in context. Here's a fact that surprised me: the younger group makes more total payments per month (73) than does the older group (67). That means that, as a percentage share of all payments, the difference by age is more pronounced:
- Millennials: 21 percent of their payments in cash
- Boomers: 27 percent of their payments in cash
The differences are similar when we look at paper checks, which the younger group used for 2 payments per month (3 percent of their payments) and the older group for 4 payments per month (6 percent).
You'll notice in the chart that payments instrument usage has been relatively stable for all the age groups since 2015.
Millennials' relatively lower use of cash doesn't mean, however, that the cashless society is going to arrive any time soon. In 2018, 85 of 100 consumers used cash in a typical month. And, in an analysis that incorporates a complete set of demographic variables plus income, differences by age could prove not so relevant. So, is there a generation gap in cash use? Yes. Does it mean the end of cash? No.
The charts at the website let you look at consumer payment choice by household income group and by the type of transaction. For example, you can examine how consumers' use of payment instruments is different for P2P payments than for bill payments. Check them out.
By Claire Greene, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed
September 9, 2019
What the Most Convenient Food Tells Us about Payments
I asked some friends to describe their most convenient food. The range of answers tells us how we think about convenience.
Some people think convenience implies flexibility:
- "Can be paired with peanut butter and even make a sandwich."
- "I can put it on a cracker, a slice of bread, or just eat it."
Some say convenience is situational:
- "Do you mean at home or in the car?"
- "It's portable."
- "Everyone in the family eats it, too."
Most say convenience means labor-free:
- "You can pick it up and eat right away."
- "All I have to do is eat it."
- "You need no tool."
- "Doesn't require any prep or even need washing."
This bunch of reasons mostly adds up to...drumroll, please...a banana (five votes of 11) or other fruit (two for apple). Other colleagues chose different foods (delivery pizza, candy bar, pasta, cheese) but often gave the same reasons as those who favored the fruits. That shows that convenience can be a slippery concept.
This is also the case when we talk about convenience and payments. The Survey of Consumer Payment Choice defines convenience as a mix of qualities: "speed, control over payment timing, ease of use, effort to carry, ability to keep or store." It's not just one factor that appeals. This question conforms to Merriam-Webster's definition of the term, which highlights "fitness" and "suitability."
The survey asks consumers to rate the convenience of payment instruments on a five-point scale. The payment instruments that are rated include cash, paper checks, debit cards, prepaid cards, credit cards, online banking bill payments, and bank account number payment (that is, when you provide your bank's routing number and your account number at a third-party website). From the collected responses a relative ranking is then calculated.
In every year from 2010 through 2018, debit cards and credit cards traded the top convenience ranking back and forth. Cash ranked third for convenience in all those years.
This ranking is important. Research shows that assessments of characteristics like convenience, setup, record keeping, and security matter for a consumer's choice to own a payment instrument or for his or her decision to use it. When we talk about "frictionless" payments, aren't we talking about convenience? Flexible, works anywhere, labor free—just like a banana.
In a New York Times opinion piece titled "The Tyranny of Convenience," Columbia professor Tim Wu wrote that "[p]articularly in tech-related industries, the battle for convenience is the battle for industry dominance." For the tech-related payment industry, I agree. Doug King recently wrote about the dominance of payment cards. Here's another indicator that cards, like bananas, are a long-lasting favorite.
The latest data from the Survey of Consumer Payment Choice provide detail on these rankings (Table 14 in the report).
By Claire Greene, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed
September 3, 2019
Is Friction in Payments Always Bad?
Numerous posts in this blog have noted the conventional wisdom that the less friction there is for a consumer in making a payment, the likelier it is that the consumer will have a good experience. Merchants, especially ecommerce retailers, point to studies consistently showing that when customers are required, for stronger authentication, to enter more information than they're used to during a payment, the cart abandonment rate increases and merchants lose sales. I have learned from my own conversations with merchants that some have backed away from adding more risk management tools because they would rather take the financial loss from a fraudulent transaction than discourage an otherwise legitimate sale. This balancing act between reducing friction for the customer and reducing fraud risk to the merchant or payment card issuer is a constant challenge.
Many merchants have incorporated mobile devices' biometric authentication features into their mobile apps to keep the customer from having to provide additional authentication data. Some other vendors have recently developed risk mitigation and authentication tools that work completely in the background and give them more confidence that the individual conducting the transaction is legitimate. These tools range from behavioral analytics that rely on patterns of previous transactions—whether they're based on a specific customer or on a group of customers with a similar profile—to electronic device information, called device fingerprinting, that validates that the device being used is actually the customer's. The customer is unaware that these tools are being used, so experiences lower friction.
A new term being used for what is regarded as an improved payment experience is the invisible payment transaction. This happens when a payment is triggered automatically without any customer intervention at the time of the transaction. The best examples of invisible transactions are in the sectors of subscription or card-on-file services. Subscription services include any service where the customer has provided, for example, a payment card or deposit account for a transaction and authorized the merchant or service provider to make future payments using that account. Online retailers, rideshare services, and recurring payments for health clubs, parking garages, utility companies, and charitable organizations are all types of businesses that use subscription services. A relatively recent entrant in the invisible payment segment is the computer/camera monitored shopping experience at some retailers.
So do invisible payments mean we've achieved nirvana? While they certainly provide the lowest level of customer interaction, they also have some possible disadvantages. Consumer advocates are concerned about the impact such payments might have on an individual's budget management. What if they forget about a subscription payment, and when it's deducted from their account, it creates an overdraft or insufficient funds return? Will invisible payments result in increased spending by the consumer? And then there is the bother of updating a bunch of subscriptions if the consumer changes the funding account.
While research has shown that consumers see convenience as a positive factor, they also want to be confident that there is a security process that will make them less likely to be victims of fraud. Will we ever reach the place of total payments peace and happiness with the right balance of security and convenience? Please let us know what you think.
By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed
August 19, 2019
Why Should You Care about PSD2?
The revised Payment Services Directive (PSD2) is major payments legislation in the European Union (EU) that is intended to provide consumers increased competition, innovation, and security in banking and payment services. PSD2 specifications were released by the European Banking Authority in November 2017 and requires all companies in the EU to be in compliance by September 14, 2019. Earlier this year, the European Banking Authority had refused a request by numerous stakeholders in the payments industry for a blanket delay of the regulation, citing a lack of legal authority to do so, although it announced it would permit local regulatory authorities to extend compliance deadlines a "limited additional time." In the United Kingdom, however, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announced on August 7 that it was deferring general enforcement of the PSD2 authentication provisions until March 2021, and allowing the industry an additional six months beyond that to develop more advanced forms of authentication. The Central Bank of Ireland has also granted an extension that is expected to be similar to the FCA's, but one has not been announced as of this writing.
The PSD2 has two major requirements: offer open banking and strong customer authentication (SCA). With open banking, consumers can authorize financial services providers to access and use their financial data that another financial institution is holding. (Application programming interfaces, or APIs, allow that access.) The FCA had mandated that open banking for U.K. banks be in place by early 2018 while the rest of the EU kept the open banking compliance deadline the same as that for SCA compliance. While open banking represents a major change in the EU's financial services landscape, the rest of this post focuses on the PSD2's strong customer authentication requirements.
Generally, PSD2 requires financial service providers to implement multi-factor authentication for in-person and remote financial transactions performed through any payment channel. As we have discussed before in this blog, there are three main authentication factor categories:
- Something you know (for example, PIN or password)
- Something you have (for example, chip card, mobile phone, or hardware token)
- Something you are (for example, biometric modality such as fingerprints or facial or voice recognition)
PSD2 compliance requires the user to be authenticated using elements from at least two of these categories. For payments that are transacted remotely, authentication tokens linking the specific transaction amount and the payee's account number are an additional requirement.
The regulation provides for a number of exemptions to the SCA requirement. Key exemptions include:
- Low-value transactions (under €30, approximately $33)
- Transactions with businesses that the consumer identifies as trusted
- Recurring transactions for consistent amounts after SCA is used for the first transaction. If the amount changes, SCA is required.
- "Low-risk" transactions based on the acquirer's overall fraud rate calculated on a 90-day basis. Transaction values can be as high as €500 (about $555).
- Mail-order and telephone-order payments, since they are not considered electronic payments covered by the regulation
- Business-to-business (B2B) payments
Since PSD2 does not apply to payments where the acquirer or the issuer is not based in the EU, why would understanding this regulation be important to non-EU consumers and payment system stakeholders? From 2015 through 2018, the Federal Reserve established and provided leadership for the Secure Payments Task Force as it identified ways to enhance payments security, especially for remote payments. One critical need the task force identified is stronger identity authentication. So far, the United States has avoided any legislation concerning authentication, but will actions like the PSD2 create pressures to mandate such protections here? Or will the industry continue to work together through efforts like the FedPayments Improvement Community to develop improved authentication approaches? Please let us know what you think.
By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed
August 12, 2019
At the Intersection of FinTech and Financial Inclusion
Technological innovation is booming, and many financial institutions and financial service providers, including mobile phone providers, are increasingly adopting financial technology, or fintech, to offer easier and faster payments to consumers. In other words, the consumers who have traditional banking services such as checking and savings accounts naturally have access to solutions such as online or mobile bill pay, account and P2P money transfers, and customized saving options. But what about the people who don't have a bank account?
According to the Federal Reserve's Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2018, approximately 6 percent of adults do not have a bank account, and approximately 22 percent are either unbanked or underbanked (having a bank account but relying on alternative financial services). How does the payments industry make sure that, in the words of the World Bank, all "individuals and businesses have access to useful and affordable financial products and services that meet their needs"? How can the industry help boost financial inclusion, which is "a key enabler to reducing poverty and boosting prosperity" (also in the words of the World Bank)?
Join us for the Atlanta Fed's latest episode in our Talk About Payments webinar series on Thursday, August 22, from 1 to 2 p.m. (ET). A panel of payments experts will focus on how fintech aims to improve financial inclusion by giving people who are un- or underbanked access to the payments system. Panel members will also discuss current research on financial inclusion and programs intended to support economic mobility.
Panel members are:
- Dr. Sophia Anong, associate professor, financial planning, housing and consumer economics, University of Georgia
- Nancy Donahue, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
- Catherine Thaliath, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
Participation is free, but you must register in advance. After you've registered, you'll receive a confirmation email with the login and toll-free call-in information. We hope you and your colleagues will join us and be part of the discussion as we delve into the ways financial technology is helping to meet the needs of the underserved.
By Catherine Thaliath, project management expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed
August 5, 2019
A Call to Action on Friendly Card Fraud and Loss?
I have recently had two conversations about the topics of friendly fraud and loss, one from a merchant's perspective and another from a financial institution's issuer perspective. Friendly fraud is often used interchangeably with first-party fraud, as was the case in the conversations, but they are quite different. First-party, sometimes called "bust-out," fraud occurs when an individual applies for and receives a loan or credit line with no intention of ever making a payment. (The term "bust-out" comes from when the individual maxes out the credit, getting as much "free" stuff as possible and making no plans to pay.) First-party fraud is generally considered credit fraud and not payment fraud.
Friendly fraud occurs when a cardholder disputes a transaction that the cardholder never intended to pay even though products or services were properly rendered. Sometimes cardholders dispute legitimate transactions that they honestly do not recognize or remember—think of an annual recurring charge that might slip a cardholder's mind, or the merchant name on the statement is the parent company and not the more easily recognized d/b/a store name. If the resolution of such a dispute is such that either the merchant or issuer takes a loss, this is not true payment card fraud but should be classified as a loss rather than fraud.
The two conversations were clearly around friendly fraud and loss situations that are transaction fraud rather than credit account fraud. Both the merchant and financial institution claimed that friendly fraud and loss transactions are growing rapidly yet are not necessarily being properly captured or categorized. One of the organizations even went so far as to suggest that third-party card fraud is being greatly overstated because a significant portion of that fraud is actually friendly fraud and loss, and this mismeasurement is directing fraud discussions and mitigation decisions away from creating ways to better identify and mitigate friendly card fraud and loss.
So I issue a call to action for Take on Payments readers with multiple questions:
- What is your experience with friendly fraud and loss?
- Are you able to track these independently of third-party fraud?
- If so, are you seeing growth in friendly fraud and loss, as the merchant and financial institution stated was happening?
- What's the driving force in the friendly fraud and loss that you are experiencing?
- Does this particular fraud warrant more discussion by the industry, and in particular the Risk Forum, as it has not been an area of focus of ours relative to third-party card fraud?
Feel free to email me at firstname.lastname@example.org or use the comment button below. I would greatly value your thoughts on this topic.
By Douglas A. King, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed
July 29, 2019
You Can't Manage What You Can't Measure
Peter Drucker famously applied the adage you can't manage what you can't measure to widgets at General Motors. Researchers, fintech entrepreneurs, elected leaders, and others who are trying to ensure economic mobility for all would do well to remember this advice. To be able to interpret or conclude that real improvements are occurring due to financial innovation, it is important to understand the metrics used for assessing economic mobility.
One important resource for data on financial inclusion is the Group of Twenty (G20) Global Partnership for Financial Inclusion (GPFI). This group has produced a number of excellent documents on financial inclusion. I want to bring special attention to the G20 Financial Inclusion Indicators and the interactive dashboard.
These indicators grew out of the original Basic Set of Financial Inclusion Indicators, which was created in 2012. Updated this past April, the indicators are meant to measure achievements and disparities in the use of digital financial services along with the technology or environment that is needed to enable use of these services. The dashboard interprets recent data collected for certain indicators. You can download country-level raw data based on variables that you customize. Also on the G20 site is an interactive data visualizer that will let you see how the United States compares to other countries by each indicator.
There are three dimensions to the measurement: (1) access to financial services, (2) use of financial services, and (3) quality of products and service delivery. Here are some indicator categories related specifically to payments:
- Retail cashless transactions
- Adults using digital payments
- Mobile phone or Internet-based payments
- Payments using a bank card
- Debit card ownership
- Proximity to physical points of service (i.e. branches, ATMs, access to internet)
- Enterprises that send or receive digital payments
- Received wages or government transfers into an account
The GPFI encourages individual countries to supplement the G20 Indicators with country-specific metrics. Following are several additional sources contributing to measurements of financial inclusion for the United States:
- U.S. Financial Health Pulse by the Financial Health Network: Measures financial health using the Center for Financial Services Innovation Financial Health Score measurement methodology, consumer surveys, and transactional records.
- The Opportunity Atlas by the U.S. Census Bureau and Opportunity Insights: Maps the neighborhoods in the United States that offer children the best chance to rise out of poverty.
- Small City Economic Dynamism Index by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta: Provides a snapshot of the economic trajectory and current conditions of 816 small and midsized cities across the United States. It includes 13 indicators of economic dynamism for metropolitan and micropolitan areas with populations above 12,000 and below 500,000.
- Payment Volume Charts Treasury-Disbursed Agencies> by Bureau of the Fiscal Service:: Offers downloadable reports that compare monthly and cumulative electronic funds transfer payment volumes for different time periods.
- Model Safe Accounts by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: Offers an overview and report of a pilot program designed to evaluate the feasibility of financial institutions offering safe, low-cost transactional and savings accounts that are responsive to the needs of underserved consumers.
Keeping data at the forefront of the discussion on financial inclusion will better inform strategies, help organizations and entrepreneurs build better products and services, and help policymakers and many others monitor the effect of initiatives.
By Jessica Washington, AAP, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed
- 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
- Designing Disclosures to Be Read
- Is There a Generation Gap in Cash Use?
- What the Most Convenient Food Tells Us about Payments
- Is Friction in Payments Always Bad?
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- account takeovers
- ATM fraud
- bank supervision
- banking regulations
- banks and banking
- card networks
- check fraud
- consumer fraud
- consumer protection
- credit cards
- cross-border wires
- data security
- debit cards
- emerging payments
- financial services
- financial technology
- identity theft
- law enforcement
- mobile banking
- mobile money transfer
- mobile network operator (MNO)
- mobile payments
- money laundering
- money services business (MSB)
- online banking fraud
- online retail
- Payment Services Directive
- payments fraud
- payments innovation
- payments risk
- payments study
- payments systems
- phone fraud
- remotely created checks
- risk management
- Section 1073
- skills gap
- social networks
- third-party service provider
- trusted service manager
- Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices (UDAP)
- wire transfer fraud
- workforce development
- workplace fraud