About


Take On Payments, a blog sponsored by the Retail Payments Risk Forum of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, is intended to foster dialogue on emerging risks in retail payment systems and enhance collaborative efforts to improve risk detection and mitigation. We encourage your active participation in Take on Payments and look forward to collaborating with you.

Take On Payments

June 17, 2019


Performing and Paying in the Gig Economy

Bobby Short at the Café Carlyle in New York City. Hank Williams at Nashville's Grand Ole Opry. A trumpet player in the pit, a pianist at a bar. All these musicians have been gigging—that is, they've performed live for pay. The term gig is thought to be shorthand for engagement and has been around since the early years of the 20th century.

Nowadays, it seems that a lot more workers—not just musicians—gig. In the gig economy, independent workers perform short-term jobs for companies or individuals. Many of us presume that most of those jobs are somehow enabled by technology. Now some counterintuitive data about the gig economy comes from the Federal Reserve's Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (SHED).

The SHED finds that three in 10 U.S. adults did some gig work at least once in the month prior to the survey. The survey defines gigging as selling goods online or renting out property, as well as providing personal services like yard work or ride sharing. Among gig activities, child- and elder-care, cleaning, and property maintenance were most common. Half of gig workers indicated they spent five hours or less on gig work in the month prior.

One finding that surprised me: the gig economy is an offline economy. Compared to the 30 percent of adults who did some gig work, just 3 percent of adults used a website or mobile app to find that work. Said another way, that means that just one in 10 gig workers engage in what this paper from the Boston Fed calls "internet platform-based work."

My immediate reaction: how can that be? I took 15 ride shares in April, one every other day. Surely there are more Uber and Lyft drivers out there. My second thought: my mom gets rides, too. When Mom wants a ride, she makes a call on her landline phone to a gig worker for a local agency that helps seniors live independently. As the SHED report puts it, "Most of [gig] activities predate the internet." Driving, housekeeping, babysitting, and lawn maintenance all have been around for a long time.

And, in fact, the SHED estimate of internet platform-based work is higher than some others, because the work is not limited to providing services. It includes, as noted above, selling stuff via online marketplaces. In comparison, the Contingent Worker Supplement from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) finds that in May 2017, 1 percent of workers engaged in "electronically mediated work," defined as "short jobs or tasks that workers find through websites or mobile apps that both connect them with customers and arrange payment for the tasks." (Note that the SHED estimate is a share of adults and the BLS is a share of workers ["employed persons," defined here].)

Like the gigs, some ways to pay for gig work predate the internet. My mom pays her driver directly on the same day with paper. And, in fact, the 2017 Survey of Consumer Payment Choice found that 70 percent of person-to-person (P2P) payments were made with cash or checks.

I pay the ride-share app with a fingerprint through an intermediary. The driver, paid indirectly by me, gets an ACH credit to a bank account or a prepaid card load. Many get paid the same day or right after the ride. About half of those I speak with don't mind the 50 cent fee to get paid sooner.

Two ways to arrange a ride. Two ways to pay. Both relevant in the 21st century.

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

June 17, 2019 in payments study | 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

March 4, 2019


The Importance of the Small

In Shakespeare's "A Midsummer Night's Dream," Helena said, "Though she be but little, she is fierce," in reference to the power of her romantic foe, Hermia. In today's pop culture, this quote can be found on T-shirts, coffee mugs, inspirational wall hangings, and social media memes touting women's power. But it has a broader meaning to me, one that says small voices are every bit as important as large ones.

In the payments industry, I think of the small voices as being the smaller financial institutions—which are crucial to the success of the Federal Reserve Payments Study, contributing a great deal to the study findings. The study, which estimates the number and value of noncash payments made by U.S. consumers and businesses as well as the data around payments fraud, is intended to inform policymakers, the industry, and the public about aggregate trends in the nation's payments system. Most recently, this work culminated in a benchmark report on U.S. payments fraud from 2012 to 2016.

One important component of the study is to collect data on checks, ACH, wire transfers, cards, cash withdrawals and deposits, third-party fraud, and related information from a nationally representative sample of commercial banks, savings institutions, and credit unions, from the largest to the smallest. So what exactly is meant by a "nationally representative sample"?

In a nutshell, for our estimates to be representative of national payment volumes, we have to account for all sources of volume. If we include only the largest institutions or leave out some segments, the estimates can be biased, either too large or too small. Even though much of payments volume is concentrated in the largest institutions, it is impossible to know how much so without having a good estimate for all segments of the banking population. Past surveys have shown that the segments can exhibit very different trends from study to study. For example, from 1995 to 2000, total checks at large commercial banks fell, while total checks at credit unions and savings institutions grew. (Read more about that in this report from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.) Without the information from credit unions, the decline in checks would have appeared larger than it actually was.

Study participants are selected from among U.S. commercial banks, savings institutions, and credit unions. According to reports filed with the Federal Reserve in 2015, there were approximately 10,600 of these depository institutions (DI) in the United States that met the criteria (see the table). Using Call Report data filed with the Federal Reserve, a sample frame of slightly under 3,800 institutions was determined to be representative of the entire population of U.S. financial institutions. Each institution type is further grouped according to deposit size.

Institution Type Deposit Size (Maximum)* No. of U.S. Institutions No. Invited to Participate in Study
Commercial Banks  
50
50
$10,900,000,000
264
264
$ 799,500,000
247
237
$ 388,000,000
337
237
$ 232,000,000
618
308
$ 139,754,000
872
289
$ 83,909,000
1,190
444
$ 41,980,000
1,382
356
Subtotal  
4,960
2,185
Savings Institutions  
25
24
$ 1,650,000,000
48
48
$ 497,000,000
102
102
$ 195,000,000
132
104
$ 100,500,000
155
116
$ 46,300,000
292
96
Subtotal  
754
490
Credit Unions  
25
25
$ 730,000,000
47
46
$ 365,000,000
137
126
$ 185,000,000
174
143
$ 105,500,000
240
147
$ 58,000,000
399
167
$ 26,680,000
690
201
$11,190,000
3,144
242
Subtotal  
4,856
1,097
Total  
10,570
3,772

*For commercial banks and savings institutions, this is the sum of public checkable deposits (or checking account balances) and money market deposit accounts. For credit unions, this reflects public checkable deposits only.

Source: Table adapted from Geoffrey Gerdes and Xuemei Liu. "Improving Response Quality with Planned Missing Data: An Application to a Survey of Banks," in The Econometrics of Complex Survey Data: Theory and Applications (Advances in Econometrics, volume 39), ed. Kim P. Huynh, David T. Jacho-Chavez, and Gautam Tripathi. Available April 1, 2019.

As the table shows, financial institutions in each category with the lowest maximum deposit size comprise approximately 46 percent of the total number of U.S. institutions. Of this group, consisting of more than 4,800 DIs, just under 700 were invited to participate in the study, or approximately 18 percent of the total sample.

Take, for example, credit unions with a maximum deposit size of $11.2 million. In 2016, there were approximately 3,100 institutions in this category, and 242 were invited to participate in the study to represent that segment. Similarly, 96 savings institutions with a maximum deposit size of $46.3 million were selected to represent the overall segment of just under 300 institutions.

Grouping institutions in this way improves the quality of results, as the institutions within each category share many similar characteristics. The smaller institutions have a unique voice and experience that the larger DIs cannot represent. To develop a true and accurate national picture of the payments landscape, it is important that all voices be heard.

I hope your takeaway from this post is that the contributions of all financial institutions—large and small—are important to the accuracy and representativeness of the data that the Federal Reserve Payment Study reports. And although study participants may sometimes think their institutions are small fish in a big pond, their survey contributions serve as the voice of their peers, and in the collective, that whisper becomes a mighty voice.

Photo of Nancy-Donahue  By Nancy Donahue, project manager in the Retail Payments Risk Forum  at the Atlanta Fed

 

March 4, 2019 in banks and banking, payments study | 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 4, 2019


So, How Often Do You Dip?

Remember how s-l-o-w dipping your payment card seemed when you were shopping back in 2015? Molasses? Honey? The dregs of the ketchup bottle? These days, I'm dipping more—that is, inserting my card into a chip reader—and complaining about it less. (I don't have a contactless card, so tapping isn't yet an option for me.) I still think swiping is faster, but familiarity means that dipping bugs me less. And it's become rare for me to encounter a jerry-rigged chip reader with the insert slot blocked by cardboard or duct tape, forcing me to swipe instead.

Turns out my shopping experiences—dipping more—line up with new data released by the Federal Reserve Payments Study in December 2018. The study reports some information on how in-person general-purpose card payments were authenticated in the United States in 2017.

For the first time, more than half of these payments by value were chip-authenticated in 2017. In contrast, just three percent of general-purpose card payments used chips in 2015—hence, my lack of familiarity with dipping back in the day. Because contactless chip cards were in use before the EMV-based dipping method began to take off in 2015, these data are an approximation of the increasing use of dipping, not an exact measure.

The chart below is based on figure 8 in the Federal Reserve Payments Study: 2018 Annual Supplement; it shows the substantial uptake in chip authentication at the point of sale from 2016 to 2017. (Check out the supplement for more detail.)

By-value-shares-of-in-person-general-purpose

Note: Chip payments were a negligible fraction in 2012.
Source: Federal Reserve Payments Study data (available here and here)

By number, more than 40 percent of general-purpose card payments were chip-authenticated. By card type, credit card payments are most likely to be chip-authenticated and prepaid card payments are least likely to be chip-authenticated (see the chart below). Prepaid cards are less likely to be chip-enabled, certainly a factor in the low shares of chip authentication, in part because of a business decision not to go to the expense of adding chips to low-value cards.

Shares-of-in-person-general-purpose-card-chart

By this time next year, my view of dipping could have changed again. A large card issuer has announced that all its credit cards will be tap-to-pay (that is, contactless) by mid-2019, so it's possible that my dipping will go the way of swiping.

For me, it feels more natural and faster to insert a chip card than it did a year ago. How about you?

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

 

February 4, 2019 in authentication, cards, chip-and-pin, credit cards, debit cards, EMV, payments study | 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

December 17, 2018


Card Fraud Values Often above Average

Recent data from the Federal Reserve Payments Study remind me of my first experience with payments fraud as a 20-something college grad freshly arrived in Boston. I left my wallet in a conference room, and someone lifted my credit card. I still remember the metaphorical punch to the stomach when the telephone operator at the card company asked, "Did you spend $850 at Filene's Basement?" $850! That was more than twice my rent, and far more than I could conceive of spending at Boston's bargain hunters' paradise in a year, let alone on a one-night spree.

Decades later, the first thing I do to check my card and bank statements is to scan the amounts and pay attention to anything in the three digits. For noticing high-value card fraud, this is a pretty good habit.

That's because, on average, fraudulent card payments are for greater dollar values than nonfraudulent card payments. In 2016, the average value of a fraudulent credit card payment was $128, almost 50 percent more than $88 for a nonfraudulent credit card payment. For debit cards, the relationship was more pronounced: $75 for the average fraudulent payment, about twice the $38 average nonfraudulent payment, according to the Federal Reserve Payments Study.

Chart-average-value-per-payment-2016

Even to the noncriminal mind, this relationship makes sense: get as much value from the card before the theft or other unauthorized use is discovered. For a legitimate user, budgetary constraints (like mine way back when) and other considerations can come into play.

Interestingly, this relationship does not hold for remote payments. In 2016, the average dollar values of remote debit card payments, fraudulent and nonfraudulent, were the same: $68. And the average value of a nonfraudulent remote credit card payment, $151, exceeded that of a fraudulent remote credit card payment, $130. Why the switcheroo?

A couple of possibilities: Remote card payments include online bill payments, which often are associated with a verified street address and are of high value. So that could be pushing the non-fraudulent remote payments toward a high value relative to the fraudulent remote payments. Another factor could be that fraud detection methods used by ecommerce sites look for values that could be outliers, so perpetrators avoid making purchases that would trigger detection—and thus average values for remote fraud are closer to average values for remote purchases generally. But this is speculation. What do you think?

The relationships described here are depicted in figures 21 and 28 of the recent report of the Federal Reserve Payments Study, Changes in the U.S. Payments Fraud Landscape from 2012 to 2016. You can explore other relationships among average values of payments, and more, on the payments study web page.

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

December 17, 2018 in cards, cybercrime, cybersecurity, data security, debit cards, mobile banking, mobile payments, payments study | 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 19, 2018


Smaller FIs Weigh In on Mobile Financial Services

I have previously written several posts on the Sixth District's 2016 Mobile Banking and Payments Survey results as well as the consolidated results of the 2016 survey involving financial institutions (FIs) in the Atlanta Fed's district and six other Federal Reserve districts. Readers will recall that the primary goal of the survey was to allow the Federal Reserve and industry stakeholders to better understand the status of financial institutions' strategies with regard to mobile banking and payments products and services.

As a follow-up to this work, the Federal Reserve districts of Atlanta, Boston, Cleveland, Kansas City, Minneapolis, and Richmond conducted a "quick-hit" survey in June 2018 of the FIs that did not respond to the detailed 2016 survey. The survey consisted of just five questions pertaining to mobile financial service offerings. It also gathered some demographic data. A total of 565 FIs responded, representing an 11.7 percent response rate. You can find a report that the Payment Strategies Group at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston prepared on the Boston Fed website.

As a group, the FIs responding to the 2018 survey were smaller in asset size than were respondents to the 2016 survey.

Chart-one

Some of the key takeaways in the report include:

  • Of the 2018 respondents, 88 percent of banks and 81 percent of credit unions currently offer mobile banking services or plan to offer them by the end of 2018.
  • Fifty-five percent of the respondents reported that more than 20 percent of their customers were active mobile banking users.
  • Surprisingly, 14 percent of the respondents indicated they have no plans to offer mobile banking services. All but one of the FIs that have no plans to offer mobile banking had assets under $500 million. These FIs were almost evenly split between credit unions (33) and banks (36).
  • Not tracking or being unwilling to reveal customer usage levels of mobile banking services remains an issue; 29 percent of the respondents did not answer the question. My opinion is that it's the latter reason, given that a standard reporting option of mobile banking systems is to be able to track enrollment and unique sign-on activity.
  • Offerings of mobile payment services continue to lag significantly behind mobile banking. Of the 2018 responses, 57 percent currently offer or plan to offer them, while 43 percent have no plans to offer them or were undecided.

We will be conducting the detailed Mobile Banking and Payments survey in early 2019 and look forward to sharing the results with you.

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

 

November 19, 2018 in mobile banking, mobile payments, payments study | 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 13, 2018


In Payments, What I Say May Not Match What I Do

How do you like to pay your bills? Perhaps you schedule bills to pay automatically by bank account number so you don't miss a due date. Or maybe you would rather review a paper statement and then mail a check.

By number, U.S. consumers report paying 4 in 10 bills by electronic means—for example, by using their online banking bill pay function or providing a bank account number at a biller's website. By dollar value, the practice of using electronic transactions to pay bills is also prevalent: about half of bill payments by dollar value are made using online banking bill pay or bank account number payment. These are among findings from the Diary of Consumer Payment Choice, a survey of U.S. consumers released in September of this year.

Chart-one

Source: 2017 Diary of Consumer Payment Choice

The diary also asks respondents how they prefer to pay bills, so we can look at how consumers' stated preferences compare to what they actually do in specific situations. It turns out that 36 percent of consumers prefer online banking bill pay or bank account number payment, and about the same percentage prefer either a debit card or credit card.

Keep in mind that 38 percent of bill payments and 36 percent of consumers are not comparable. Actual behavior is measured in percentage shares of transactions. Preferences are measured in percentage shares of consumers (about 2,900 U.S. adults responded to this nationally representative survey).

We can see, however, the transactions for which consumers deviate from their stated preferences for bill payments. Of the bill payments recorded in the 2017 DCPC, about half were made using the consumers' preferred payment instrument.

Why do we consumers deviate from what we say we prefer? Think of your own payment choices. You might be constrained by what is feasible. For example, you might prefer to pay most bills with a paper check but for bills you pay online, it's impossible to use paper payment instruments. Your choice could be limited by what the payee prefers to accept. For example, your plumber might prefer payment by cash or check. Or you might deviate from your preferred method to save money. For example, your local municipality might put a surcharge on card payments, so paying with your bank account number is less costly. Or, for larger bills, you might use a credit card to earn points.

To see more about how consumers adjust our payment choices given the situation, take a look at the interactive charts detailing payment choice by dollar value, payment type, and remote or in-person payments, as reported in the 2017 Diary of Consumer Payment Choice.

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

 

November 13, 2018 in cards, payments study | 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

October 29, 2018


Remote Card Fraud: A Growing Concern

Where's the money in card payments? Despite all we hear about e-commerce and other kinds of remote payments, in-person payments remain strong. The total dollar value of in-person card payments exceeded the total dollar value of remote payments in both 2015 and 2016. In-person payments were 56 percent of all card payments by value in 2016, and 58 percent in 2015. By number, the race is not even close: 78 percent of card payments were in person in 2016.

Graph-one

Looking at change from 2015 to 2016, however, another story could be emerging. When we consider the growth in the value of card payments, remote payments grew by 11 percent from 2015 to 2016, compared to about 3 percent growth by value for in-person card payments. By number, in-person card payments increased 5 percent and remote by 17 percent.

It wasn't only remote payments that grew from 2015 to 2016—so did remote fraud. In fact, it grew faster than remote payments did overall. Remote fraud by value grew more than three times faster than the value of remote payments—35 percent compared to 11 percent. By number, remote fraud grew about twice as fast—32 percent compared to 17 percent.

In contrast to the mix of remote and in-person card payments overall, where in-person payments still are the majority, fraudulent remote card payments were more than half of all fraudulent card payments by both value and number in 2016.

Graph-two

These data suggest that remote card payments fraud is likely to be of increasing concern for the U.S. payments system going forward. Additional data are included in the report at www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/fr-payments-study.htm.

To learn more about payments fraud, you can sign up for the Talk About Payments webinar on November 1 at 11 a.m. (ET). This webinar is open to the public but you must register in advance to participate.

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

 

 

October 29, 2018 in cards, consumer fraud, debit cards, fraud, identity theft, mobile payments, online retail, payments study | 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

October 22, 2018


Three Views of Noncash Payments Fraud

Despite what we might gather from the headlines, payments fraud is a small fraction of the value of all payments.In 2015, by value, it was only about 1/200 of 1 percent of noncash payment transactions. The pie chart shows what a tiny slice of the pie that payments fraud is.

Image-one-sm

This view of the value of payments fraud in 2015 is one of three views that today's post will offer, using data from a recently released payments fraud report.

The report, based on data from the Federal Reserve Payments Study, quantifies noncash payments fraud by value and number in 2012 and 2015 and provides information that can help inform efforts to prevent and detect payments fraud. Data include detail on different payment instruments and transaction types.

Fraud value is defined in the report to be the value of unauthorized third-party payments that were cleared and settled, before any chargebacks, returns, or recoveries. It does not include the costs of any prevention, detection, or remediation methods. The report covers noncash payments used for everyday consumer and business transactions, including automated clearinghouse (ACH), check, and card payments. (Wires are excluded.)

Here's the next view of payments fraud by value: most payments fraud is by card. Slightly more than three-quarters of noncash payments fraud by value are credit card, debit card (prepaid and non-prepaid), and ATM withdrawal fraud; almost half is credit card fraud. The second chart shows that by value, ACH fraud is 14 percent of noncash payments fraud and check fraud is 8.6 percent.

Image-two-sm

Finally, fraud rates by value for cards increased from 2012 to 2015 while fraud rates for check payments decreased and fraud rates for ACH stayed flat. That rate increase for cards means that the value of fraudulent card payments grew faster than the dollar-value growth overall, which is concerning. Indeed, card fraud by value grew more than three times faster than the growth in card payments and ATM withdrawals by value—64 percent compared to 21 percent. ACH fraud grew more in line with the growth rate in ACH payments, with fraud by value increasing 11 percent compared to a 13 percent increase in the value of total ACH payments.

Image-three-sm
You can find additional data in the report at https://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/fr-payments-study.htm.

To learn more about the payments fraud report, join our next Talk About Payments webinar on November 1 at 11 a.m. (ET). The webinar is open to the public but you must register in advance to participate. (Registration is free.) Once registered, you will receive a confirmation email with login and call-in information. Also, be sure to check back next Monday for another Take On Payments post about the report.

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

 

October 22, 2018 in cards, consumer fraud, cybercrime, cybersecurity, debit cards, payments study | 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

July 12, 2018


Behind the Growth in Debit Card Payments

U.S. consumers make more payments with nonprepaid debit cards than with other types of cards (credit and prepaid) combined. The 2016 Federal Reserve Payments Study found that consumers made 57.5 billion payments in 2015 using nonprepaid debit cards.

That's a 26 percent increase over 2012, when consumers made 45.7 billion nonprepaid debit card payments.

No doubt, effects of more favorable economic conditions—including declining unemployment, increasing wages, and greater consumer confidence—were important factors in increased consumer spending from 2012 to 2015. But from a payment choice perspective, such as which method or card to use, what might be driving this increase of almost 12 billion? Two factors related to those choices could be at play:

  • Maybe people started using the cards more intensively. That is, people who owned nonprepaid debit cards started using them more often, making more payments per card per month.
  • Maybe people started using the cards more extensively. That is, more people owned and actively used a nonprepaid debit card or more people owned and actively used multiple cards.

For this discussion, an "active" card is defined to be one that is not expired and had purchase activity or bill pay associated with the card during at least one month of the year 2015 or, for the 2012 estimate, at least one transaction during the month of March 2013. Note that the difference between the 2012 and 2015 estimates could, in part, be related to the different definitions of the measurement periods. (The Federal Reserve Payments Study also measures nonprepaid debit, credit, and prepaid cards that are in circulation but not used.)

Let's look at the numbers:

  • In 2012, there were 173.9 million active consumer nonprepaid debit cards in circulation. These cards are linked to a transaction account at a financial institution and can be used to make purchases at the point of sale.
  • In 2015, there were 209.6 million active consumer nonprepaid debit cards. That's an increase of 21 percent over the three years.
  • In 2012, U.S. consumers made 21.9 purchases per month per active nonprepaid debit card. In 2015, on average, across the months, they made 22.8 per card. That's almost flat—an increase of just four percent in the number of payments per card per month over three years.

These numbers overall tell us that increases in payments per card is not the main driver of this phenomenal increase in the number of nonprepaid debit card payments (see the chart). Note that payments per card is an average of various behaviors. Some people could be using their cards more—for example, new debit card owners may be moving from using cash or prepaid cards. Others could be using their cards less—for example, new owners of credit cards may be moving away from debit cards.

Number-of-non-prepaid-debit-cards-increases-chart

Rather, the increased number of active cards seems to be the source of the jump in the number of nonprepaid debit card payments. Here are some factors that could relate to the greater numbers of cards:

  • The U.S. population ages 18 and older grew from 240 million to 247 million during this time, a three percent increase (American FactFinder search).
  • The percentage share of consumers with a bank account (and thus able to own a nonprepaid debit card) increased from 91.8 percent in 2011 to 93 percent in 2015 (FDIC Survey of Banked and Unbanked Consumers [2012 estimate not available]).
  • By birth year, the share of people more likely to own a debit card increased. Young people born between 1995 and 1997 turned 18 between 2012 and 2015—about 14 million of them (American FactFinder search). At the same time, the population of people born before 1940 declined by about 4 million between 2012 and 2015.

Whatever the source of the increase in the number of cards, we see here that typical behavior for an active nonprepaid debt card is around 23 purchases per month. How many times per month do you use your card or cards?

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

July 12, 2018 in cards, debit cards, payments study, prepaid | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

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

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

January 8, 2018


Consolidated Mobile Banking and Payments Survey Results Published

In earlier posts, we published highlights of the 2016 Mobile Banking and Payments Survey of Financial Institutions in the Sixth District results as well as a supplement showing the results by financial institution (FI) asset size. The survey was designed to determine the level and type of mobile financial services that FIs offered and to find out what plans FIs had to offer new services.

Six other Federal Reserve Banks also conducted the survey in their districts, and we've combined all the data into a single report. Marianne Crowe and Elisa Tavilla of the Boston Fed's Payment Strategies group led the team that consolidated the data. The report—now available on the Boston Fed's website—addresses mobile banking and payment services from the perspective of the FI. The report offers additional value with its inclusion of a large number of small banks and credit unions (under $500 million in assets), a group from which data are often difficult to obtain.

Consolidated-survey-respondents-by-asset-size

The seven districts participating were Atlanta, Boston, Cleveland, Dallas, Kansas City, Minneapolis, and Richmond. A total of 706 FIs responded.

Here are some of the key learnings from survey responses regarding mobile banking:

  • Retail mobile banking offerings are approaching ubiquity across financial institutions in the United States. Eighty-nine percent of respondents currently offer mobile banking services to consumers, and 97 percent plan to offer these services by 2018.
  • By the end of 2018, 77 percent of bank and 47 percent of credit union respondents will be providing mobile banking services to nonconsumers including commercial and small businesses, government agencies, educational entities, and nonprofits. Commercial and small businesses will be the most prevalent.
  • Among FIs offering and tracking business mobile banking adoption, more than half still have adoption rates of less than 5 percent.
  • The most important mobile banking security concern that respondents cited is the consumer's lack of protective behavior. In response, FIs have implemented a range of mitigating controls. To enhance security and help change consumer behavior, more than 80 percent of respondents support inactivity timeouts and multi-factor authentication (MFA) as well as mobile alerts.

And here are some important findings regarding mobile payments:

  • Implementation of mobile payment services is growing as FIs respond to competitive pressure and industry momentum. In addition to the 24 percent already offering mobile payments, 40 percent plan to do so within two years. However, the current offering level fell substantially short of the expected 57 percent predicted by the responses to the 2014 survey.
  • Mobile wallet implementations are increasing steadily, with Apple Pay as the current leader.
  • Enrollment and usage remain low. Eighty-one percent of the respondents had fewer than 5 percent of their customers enrolled and actively using their mobile payment services.
  • Asset size makes a difference in many areas: larger FIs have greater resources to expend on new services, implementations, and security technologies and controls.
  • Banks and credit unions often differ in approaches and strategies for mobile payments.

We will conduct the survey again this year and are eager to see how the mobile banking and payments landscape has changed. If you have any questions about the survey results, please let us know.

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

 

January 8, 2018 in banks and banking, mobile banking, mobile payments, payments study | 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


Archives


Categories


Powered by TypePad