Be More Like the DMV

For many banks, first-party fraud has become a silent drain on profitability. On paper, it often looks like classic credit risk: an account books, goes delinquent, and ultimately charges off. But a growing share of those early charge-offs is driven by something else entirely: customers who never intended to pay you back. That distinction matters. When first-party fraud is misclassified as credit risk, banks risk overstating credit loss, understating fraud exposure, and missing opportunities to intervene earlier.  In our recent Consumer Banker Association (CBA) partner webinar, “Fraud or Financial Distress? How to Differentiate Fraud and Credit Risk Early,” Experian shared new data and analytics to help fraud, risk and collections leaders see this problem more clearly. This post summarizes key themes from the webinar and points you to the full report and on-demand webinar for deeper insight. Why first-party fraud is a growing issue for banks  Banks are seeing rising early losses, especially in digital channels. But those losses do not always behave like traditional credit deterioration. Several trends are contributing:  More accounts opened and funded digitally  Increased use of synthetic or manipulated identities  Economic pressure on consumers and small businesses  More sophisticated misuse of legitimate credentials  When these patterns are lumped into credit risk, banks can experience:  Inflation of credit loss estimates and reserves  Underinvestment in fraud controls and analytics  Blurred visibility into what is truly driving performance   Treating first-party fraud as a distinct problem is the first step toward solving it.  First-payment default: a clearer view of intent  Traditional credit models are designed to answer, “Can this customer pay?” and “How likely are they to roll into delinquency over time?” They are not designed to answer, “Did this customer ever intend to pay?” To help banks get closer to that question, Experian uses first-payment default (FPD) as a key indicator. At a high level, FPD focuses on accounts that become seriously delinquent early in their lifecycle and do not meaningfully recover.  The principle is straightforward:  A legitimate borrower under stress is more likely to miss payments later, with periods of cure and relapse.  A first-party fraudster is more likely to default quickly and never get back on track.  By focusing on FPD patterns, banks can start to separate cases that look like genuine financial distress from those that are more consistent with deceptive intent.  The full report explains how FPD is defined, how it varies by product, and how it can be used to sharpen bank fraud and credit strategies. Beyond FPD: building a richer fraud signal  FPD alone is not enough to classify first-party fraud. In practice, leading banks are layering FPD with behavioral, application and identity indicators to build a more reliable picture. At a conceptual level, these indicators can include:  Early delinquency and straight-roll behavior  Utilization and credit mix that do not align with stated profile  Unusual income, employment, or application characteristics High-risk channels, devices, or locations at application Patterns of disputes or behaviors that suggest abuse  The power comes from how these signals interact, not from any one data point. The report and webinar walk through how these indicators can be combined into fraud analytics and how they perform across key banking products.  Why it matters across fraud, credit and collections Getting first-party fraud right is not just about fraud loss. It impacts multiple parts of the bank. Fraud strategy Well-defined quantification of first-party fraud helps fraud leaders make the case for investments in identity verification, device intelligence, and other early lifecycle controls, especially in digital account opening and digital lending. Credit risk and capital planning When fraud and credit losses are blended, credit models and reserves can be distorted. Separating first-party fraud provides risk teams a cleaner view of true credit performance and supports better capital planning.  Collections and customer treatment Customers in genuine financial distress need different treatment paths than those who never intended to pay. Better segmentation supports more appropriate outreach, hardship programs, and collections strategies, while reserving firmer actions for abuse.  Executive and board reporting Leadership teams increasingly want to understand what portion of loss is being driven by fraud versus credit. Credible data improves discussions around risk appetite and return on capital.  What leading banks are doing differently  In our work with financial institutions, several common practices have emerged among banks that are getting ahead of first-party fraud: 1. Defining first-party fraud explicitly They establish clear definitions and tracking for first-party fraud across key products instead of leaving it buried in credit loss categories.  2. Embedding FPD segmentation into analytics They use FPD-based views in their monitoring and reporting, particularly in the first 6–12 months on book, to better understand early loss behavior.  3. Unifying fraud and credit decisioning Rather than separate strategies that may conflict, they adopt a more unified decisioning framework that considers both fraud and credit risk when approving accounts, setting limits and managing exposure.  4. Leveraging identity and device data They bring in noncredit data — identity risk, device intelligence, application behavior — to complement traditional credit information and strengthen models.  5. Benchmarking performance against peers They use external benchmarks for first-party fraud loss rates and incident sizes to calibrate their risk posture and investment decisions.  The post is meant as a high-level overview. The real value for your teams will be in the detailed benchmarks, charts and examples in the full report and the discussion in the webinar.  If your teams are asking whether rising early losses are driven by fraud or financial distress, this is the moment to look deeper at first-party fraud.  Download the report: “First-party fraud: The most common culprit”  Explore detailed benchmarks for first-party fraud across banking products, see how first-payment default and other indicators are defined and applied, and review examples you can bring into your own internal discussions.  Download the report Watch the on-demand CBA webinar: “Fraud or Financial Distress? How to Differentiate Fraud and Credit Risk Early”  Hear Experian experts walk through real bank scenarios, FPD analytics and practical steps for integrating first-party fraud intelligence into your fraud, credit, and collections strategies.  Watch the webinar First-party fraud is likely already embedded in your early credit losses. With the right analytics and definitions, banks can uncover the true drivers, reduce hidden fraud exposure, and better support customers facing genuine financial hardship.

Since 1996, The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has issued more than 27 million individual taxpayer identification numbers (ITINs) –⁠ a 9-digit number used by individuals who are required to file or report taxes in the United States but are not eligible to obtain a Social Security number (SSN). Across the country, ITIN holders are actively contributing to their communities and the U.S. financial system. They pay bills, build businesses, contribute billions in taxes and manage their finances responsibly. Yet despite their clear engagement, many remain underrepresented within traditional lending models.  Lenders have a meaningful opportunity to bridge the gap between intention and impact. By rethinking how ITIN consumers are evaluated and supported, financial institutions can: Reduce barriers that have historically held capable borrowers back Build products that reflect real borrower needs Foster trust and strengthen community relationships Drive sustainable, responsible growth Our latest white paper takes a more holistic look at ITIN consumers, highlighting their credit behaviors, performance patterns and long-term growth potential. The findings reveal a population that is not only financially engaged, but also demonstrating signs of ongoing stability and mobility. A few takeaways include: ITIN holders maintain a lower debt-to-income ratio than SSN consumers. ITIN holders exhibit fewer derogatory accounts (180–⁠400 days past due). After 12 months, 76.9% of ITIN holders remained current on trades, a rate 15% higher than SSN consumers. With deeper insight into this segment, lenders can make more informed, inclusive decisions. Read the full white paper to uncover the trends and opportunities shaping the future of ITIN lending. Download white paper

Unlock the future of fintech by exploring how alternative data is reshaping decision-making and growth strategies.