All posts by Guest Contributor

According to Experian’s State of the Automotive Finance Market report, the average amount financed for a new vehicle in Q4 2015 was $29,551 — up $1,170 from 2014 and the highest amount on record since Experian began tracking auto loan amounts in 2008.

According to a recent Experian study, women handle money, debt and financial decisions better than men.

Whether it is an online marketplace lender offering to refinance the student loan debt of a recent college graduate or an online small-business lender providing an entrepreneur with a loan when no one else will, there is no doubt innovation in the online lending sector is changing how Americans gain access to credit. This expanding market segment takes great pride in using “next-generation” underwriting and credit scoring risk models. In particular, many online lenders are incorporating noncredit information such as income, education history (i.e., type of degree and college), professional licenses and consumer-supplied information in an effort to strike the right balance between properly assessing credit risk and serving consumers typically shunned by traditional lenders because of a thin credit history. Regulatory concerns The exponential growth of the online lending sector has caught the attention of regulators — such as the U.S. Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Congress and the California Business Development Office — who are interested in learning more about how online marketplace lenders are assessing the credit risk of consumers and small businesses. At least one official, Antonio Weiss, a counselor to the Treasury secretary, has publicly raised concerns about the use of so-called nontraditional data in the underwriting process, particularly data gleaned from social media accounts. Weiss said that “just because a credit decision is made by an algorithm, doesn’t mean it is fair,” citing the need for lenders to be aware of compliance with fair lending obligations when integrating nontraditional credit data. Innovative and “tried and true” are not mutually exclusive Some have suggested the only way to assuage regulatory concerns and control risk is by using tried-and-true legacy credit risk models. The fact is, however, online marketplace lenders can — and should — continue to push the envelope on innovative underwriting and business models, so long as these models properly gauge credit risk and ensure compliance with fair lending rules. It’s not a simple either-or scenario. Lenders always must ensure their scoring analytics are based upon predictive and accurate data. That’s why lenders historically have relied on credit history, which is based upon data consumers can dispute using their rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Statistically sound and validated scores protect consumers from discrimination and lenders from disparate impact claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency guidance on model risk management is an example of regulators’ focus on holding responsible the entities they oversee for the validation, testing and accuracy of their models. Marketplace lenders who want to push the limit can look to credit scoring models now being used in the marketplace without negatively impacting credit quality or raising fair lending risk. For example, VantageScore® allows for the scoring of 30 million to 35 million more people who currently are unscoreable under legacy credit score models. The VantageScore® credit score does this by using a broader, deeper set of credit file data and more advanced modeling techniques. This allows the VantageScore® credit score model to capture unique consumer behaviors more accurately. In conclusion, online marketplace lenders should continue innovating with their own “secret sauce” and custom decisioning systems that may include a mix of noncredit factors. But they also can stay ahead of the curve by relying on innovative “tried-and-true” credit score models like the VantageScore® credit score model. These models incorporate the best of both worlds by leaning on innovative scoring analytics that are more inclusive, while providing marketplace lenders with assurances the decisioning is both statistically sound and compliant with fair lending laws. VantageScore® is a registered trademark of VantageScore Solutions, LLC.

When checking access accounts were first introduced, it wasn’t uncommon for banks to provide new customers “basic” transaction services in starter checking accounts. These services typically included an automatic teller machine (ATM) access card and the ability to withdraw cash at their local branch. As consumers developed a relationship and established financial trust with their bank, they eventually would get a checkbook, which allowed check-writing access. This took time and a consumer demonstrating both the willingness and ability to manage finances to the bank’s expectations. Establishing the financial relationship was a trust-building process. With the onset of general-purpose debit cards and a host of other digital money-movement capabilities, such as online banking, the majority of banks now offer just basic and preferred checking. A minimum acceptance standard leaves many consumers out of the financial transaction system, which is something that concerns regulatory bodies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Approval criteria vary across financial institutions, but a typical basic checking account has some form of overdraft feature enabled, and some consumers may not be able to afford these fees even if they elect to opt in for overdraft functionality. Nonetheless, banks still screen applicants to ensure prior accounts at other institutions were managed with no losses incurred by other banks. In today’s modern world, it is difficult to participate fully in our credit-driven society without a checking account at a recognized bank or credit union. The answer in many cases would be checking accounts for consumers that have either overdraft functionality assigned based on the consumer’s wish to opt in or overdraft access that matches that same consumer’s ability to pay. In early February, the CFPB passed new guidelines to increase access to basic check products. While a step towards making checking accounts available to all, the most recent actions still leave unresolved regulatory actions regarding what the CFPB refers to as “affordable” checking access. For instance, for those consumers without disposable income, the issue of fees for overdraft and nonsufficient funds is still an unresolved regulatory matter. In the most recent announcement, the CFPB took several actions related to its focus on increasing consumer access to checking transaction accounts with banks: Sending a letter to CEOs of the top 25 banks encouraging them to take steps to help consumers with affordable checking account access such as “no fee” and/or “no overdraft” checking accounts Providing several new resources to consumers such as a guide to “Low Risk Checking, Managing Checking and Consumer Guide to Checking Account Denial” Introducing the Consumer Protection Principles, which include a drive toward: Faster funds availability Improved consumer transparency into checking account fee structure, funds availability and security Tailoring products to reach a larger percentage of consumers Developing no-overdraft type checking products, which only a handful of large banking institutions had What lurks ahead for banks is the need to develop products that are designed to reach a larger population that includes under banked and unbanked consumers with troubled financial repayment history. Coupling this product development effort with the CFPB desire for no-overdraft-fee type products makes me wonder if we should look to account features from several decades ago, such as creating a 21st century version of the checking account with digital money-movement features that protects consumers’ privacy, but doesn’t put them in a position to rack up large amounts of overdraft fees they can’t afford to pay in the event they overdraw the checking account. Experian® suggests taking the following steps: Conduct a Business Review to ensure that your product offering includes the type of account the CFPB is advocating and your existing core banking platform can operationalize this account Align your checking account prospect and opening procedures to key segments to ensure more consumers are approved and right-sized to the appropriate checking product Enhance your business profitability by cross-selling credit products that fit the affordability and disposable income of various consumer segments you originate These steps will make your journey “back to the future” much less turbulent and ensure you don’t break the bank in your efforts to address CFPB’s well-intentioned focus on check access for consumers.

Millions of people around the world are wearing green to celebrate St. Patrick's Day today. Some interesting facts on the color: Green is associated with St. Patrick's Day because it is the color of spring, Ireland and the shamrock Green ink originally was used in U.S. currency to prevent counterfeiting and because of its resistance to chemical and physical changes The Chicago River is colored green for the St. Patrick's Day parade each year using 45 pounds of vegetable dye >> Gain insights and earn more green with the Market Intelligence Brief

Identity management traditionally has been made up of creating rigid verification processes that are applied to any access scenario. But the market is evolving and requiring an enhanced Identity Relationship Management strategy and framework. Simply knowing who a person is at one point in time is not enough. The need exists to identify risks associated with the entire identity profile, including devices, and the context in which consumers interact with businesses, as well as to manage those risks throughout the consumer journey. The reasoning for this evolution in identity management is threefold: size and scope, flexible credentialing and adaptable verification. First, deploying a heavy identity and credentialing process across all access scenarios is unnecessarily costly for an organization. While stringent verification is necessary to protect highly sensitive information, it may not be cost-effective to protect less-valuable data with the same means. A user shouldn’t have to go through an extensive and, in some cases, invasive form of identity verification just to access basic information. Second, high-friction verification processes can impede users from accessing services. Consumers do not want to consistently answer multiple, intrusive questions in order to access basic information. Similarly, asking for personal information that already may have been compromised elsewhere limits the effectiveness of the process and the perceived strength in the protection. Finally, an inflexible verification process for all users will detract from a successful customer relationship. It is imperative to evolve your security interactions as confidence and routines are built. Otherwise, you risk severing trust and making your organization appear detached from consumer needs and preferences. This can be used across all types of organizations — from government agencies and online retailers to financial institutions. Identity Relationship Management has three unique functions delivered across the Customer Life Cycle: Identity proofing Authentication Identity management Join me at Vision 2016 for a deeper analysis of Identity Relationship Management and how clients can benefit from these new capabilities to manage risk throughout the Customer Life Cycle. I look forward to seeing you there!

Top states for billing and shipping e-commerce fraud With more than 13 million fraud victims in 2015, assessing where fraud occurs is an important layer of verification for e-commerce. Experian® analyzed millions of e-commerce transactions from 2015 to identify fraud attack rates across the United States. With the switch to chip-enabled credit card transactions and possible growth of card-not-present fraud, online businesses should utilize advanced fraud solutions to monitor their riskiest locations and prevent losses. >> View the Experian map to see 2015 e-commerce attack rates for all states  

Bankcard origination volumes reached $97.5 billion in Q4 2015, the highest level on record since Q3 2008 and an increase of 22% over the same quarter in 2014. The 60–89-days-past-due bankcard delinquency rate came in at .53% for Q4 2015 — significantly lower than the 1.22% delinquency rate back in Q3 2008. The increase in bankcard originations combined with lower delinquencies points to a positive credit environment. Lenders should stay abreast of the latest bankcard trends in order to adjust lending strategies and capitalize on areas of opportunity. >> Key steps to designing a profitable bankcard campaign

2015 data shows where billing and shipping e-commerce fraud attacks occur in the United States Experian e-commerce fraud attacks and rankings now available Does knowing where fraud takes place matter? With more than 13 million fraud victims in 2015,[1] assessing where fraud occurs is an important layer of verification when performing real-time risk assessments for e-commerce. Experian® analyzed millions of e-commerce transactions from 2015 data to identify fraud-attack rates across the United States for both shipping and billing locations. View the Experian map to see 2015 e-commerce attack rates for all states and download the top 100 ZIP CodeTMrankings. “Fraud follows the path of least resistance. With more shipping and billing options available to create a better customer experience, criminals attempt to exploit any added convenience,” said Adam Fingersh, Experian general manager and senior vice president of Fraud & Identity Solutions. “E-commerce fraud is not confined to larger cities since fraudsters can ship items anywhere. With the switch to chip enabled credit card transactions, and possible growth of card-not-present fraud, our fraud solutions help online businesses monitor their riskiest locations to prevent losses both in dollars and reputation in the near term.” For ease of interpretation, billing states are associated with fraud victims (the address of the purchaser) and shipping states are associated with fraudsters (the address where purchased goods are sent). According to the 2015 e-commerce attack rate data: Florida is the overall riskiest state for billing fraud, followed by Delaware; Washington, D.C.; Oregon and California. Delaware is the overall riskiest state for shipping fraud, followed by Oregon, Florida, California and Nevada. Eudora, Kan., has the overall riskiest billing ZIP Code (66025). The next two riskiest ZIPTM codes are located in Miami, Fla. (33178) and Boston, Mass. (02210). South El Monte, Calif., has the overall riskiest shipping ZIP Code (91733). The next four riskiest shipping ZIP codes are all located in Miami. Overall, five of the top 10 riskiest shipping ZIP codes are located in Miami. Defiance, Ohio, has the least risky shipping ZIP Code (43512). The majority of U.S. states are at or below the average attack rate threshold for both shipping and billing fraud, with only seven states — Florida, Oregon, Delaware, California, New York, Georgia and Nevada — and Puerto Rico ranking higher than average. This indicates that attackers are targeting consumers equally in the higher-risk states while leveraging addresses from both higher- and lower-risk states to ship and receive fraudulent merchandise. Many of the higher-risk states are located near a large port-of-entry city, including Miami; Portland, Ore.; and Washington, D.C., perhaps allowing criminals to move stolen goods more effectively. All three cities are ranked among the riskiest cities for both measures of fraud attacks. Neighboring proximity to higher-risk states does not appear to correlate to any additional risk — Pennsylvania and Rhode Island are ranked as two of the lower-risk states for both shipping and billing fraud. Other lower-risk states include Wyoming, South Dakota and West Virginia. Experian analyzed millions of e-commerce transactions to calculate the e-commerce attack rates using “bad transactions” in relation to the total number of transactions for the 2015 calendar year.   View the Experian map to see 2015 e-commerce attack rates for all states and download the top 100 ZIP Code rankings.       [1]According to the February 2016 Javelin study 2016 Identity Fraud: Fraud Hits an Inflection Point.

Time to dust off those compliance plans and ensure you are prepared for the new regulations, specifically surrounding the Military Lending Act (MLA). Last July, the Department of Defense (DOD) published a Final Rule to amend its regulation implementing the Military Lending Act, significantly expanding the scope of the existing protections. The new, beefed-up version encompasses new types of creditors and credit products, including credit cards. While the DOD was responsible for implementing the rule, enforcement will be led by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The new rule became effective on October 1, 2015, and compliance is required by October 3, 2016. Compliance, however, with the rules for credit cards is delayed until October 3, 2017. While there is no formal guidance yet on what federal regulators will look for in reviewing MLA compliance, there are some insights on the law and what’s coming. Why was MLA enacted? It was created to provide service members and their dependents with specific protections. As initially implemented in 2007, the law: Limited the APR (including fees) for covered products to 36 percent; Required military-specific disclosures, and; Prohibited creditors from requiring a service member to submit to arbitration in the event of a dispute. It initially applied to three narrowly-defined “consumer credit” products: Closed-end payday loans; Closed-end auto title loans; and Closed-end tax refund anticipation loans. What are the latest regulations being applied to the original MLA implemented in 2007? The new rule expands the definition of “consumer credit” covered by the regulation to more closely align with the definition of credit in the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z. This means MLA now covers a wide range of credit transactions, but it does not apply to residential mortgages and credit secured by personal property, such as vehicle purchase loans. One of the most significant changes is the addition of fees paid “for a credit-related ancillary product sold in connection with the credit transaction.”  Although the MAPR limit is 36 percent, ancillary product fees can add up and — especially for accounts that carry a low balance — can quickly exceed the MAPR limit. The final rule also includes a “safe harbor” from liability for lenders who verify the MLA status of a consumer. Under the new DOD rule, lenders will have to check each credit applicant to confirm that they are not a service member, spouse, or the dependent of a service member, through a nationwide CRA or the DOD’s own database, known as the DMDC. The rule also permits the consumer report to be obtained from a reseller that obtains such a report from a nationwide consumer reporting agency. MLA status for dependents under the age of 18 must be verified directly with the DMDC. Experian will be permitted to gain access to the DMDC data to provide lenders a seamless transaction. In essence, lenders will be able to pull an Experian profile, and MLA status will be flagged. What is happening between now and October 2016, when lenders must be compliant? Experian, along with the other national credit bureaus, have been meeting with the DOD and the DMDC to discuss providing the three national bureaus access to its MLA database. Key parties, such as the Financial Services Roundtable and the American Bankers Association, are also working to ease implementation of the safe harbor check for banks and lenders. The end goal is to enable lenders the ability to instantly verify whether an applicant is covered by MLA by the Oct. 1, 2016 compliance date. --- If you have inquiries about the new Military Lending Act regulations, feel free to email MLA.Support@experian.com or contact your Experian Account Executive directly. Next Article: A check-in on the latest Military Lending Act news

A recent survey commissioned by VantageScore® Solutions, LLC found that among consumers who are unable to obtain credit, 27% attribute the situation to lack of a credit score. Most consumers support newer methods of calculating credit scores 49% feel that consistent rental, utility and telecommunications payments should count in determining credit scores 50% agree that competition in the credit scoring marketplace is beneficial Lenders can help solve the credit gap by using advanced risk models that can accurately score more consumers. The result is a win-win: More consumers get access to mainstream credit, and lenders gain more customers. >> Infographic: America’s Giant Credit Gap VantageScore® is a registered trademark of VantageScore Solutions, LLC.

Loyalty fraud and the customer experience Criminals continue to amaze me. Not surprise me, but amaze me with their ingenuity. I previously wrote about fraudsters’ primary targets being those where they easily can convert credentials to cash. Since then, a large U.S. retailer’s rewards program was attacked – bilking money from the business and causing consumers confusion and extra work. This attack was a new spin on loyalty fraud. It is yet another example of the impact of not “thinking like a fraudster” when developing a program and process, which a fraudster can exploit. As it embarks on new projects, every organization should consider how it can be exploited by criminals. Too often, the focus is on the customer experience (CX) alone, and many organizations will tolerate fraud losses to improve the CX. In fact, some organization build fraud losses into their budgets and price products accordingly — effectively passing the cost of fraud onto the consumers. Let’s look into how this type of loyalty fraud works. The criminal obtains your login credentials (either through breach, malware, phishing, brute force, etc.) and uses the existing customer profile to purchase goods using the payment method on file for the account. In this type of attack, the motivation isn’t to receive physical goods; instead, it’s to accumulate rewards points — which can then be used or sold. The points (or any other form of digital currency) are instant — on demand, if you will — and much easier to fence. Once the points are credited to the account, the criminal cashes them out either by selling them online to unsuspecting buyers or by walking into a store, purchasing goods and walking right out after paying with the digital currency. A quick check of some underground forums validates the theory that fraudsters are selling retailer points online for a reduced rate — up to 70 percent off. Please don’t be tempted to buy these! The money you spend will no doubt end up doing harm, one way or another. Now, back to the customer experience. Does having lax controls really represent a good customer experience? Is building fraud losses into the cost of your products fair to your customers? The people whose accounts have been hacked most likely are some of your best customers. They now have to deal with returning merchandise they didn’t purchase, making calls to rectify the situation, having their personally identifiable information further compromised and having to pay for the loss. All in all, not a great customer experience. All businesses have a fiduciary responsibility to protect customer data with which they have been entrusted — even if the consumer is a victim of malware, phishing or password reuse. What are you doing to protect your customers? Simple authentication technologies, while nice for the CX, easily can fail if the criminal has access to the login credentials. And fraud is not a single event. There are patterns and surveillance activities that can help to detect fraud at every phase of your loyalty program — from new account opening to account logins and updates to transactions that involve the purchase of goods or the movement of currency. As fraudsters continue to evolve and look for the least-protected targets, loyalty programs have come to the forefront of the battleground. Take the time to understand your vulnerability and how you can be attacked. Then take the necessary steps to protect your most profitable customers — your loyalty program members. If you want to learn more, join us MRC Vegas 16 for our session “Loyalty Fraud; It’s Brand Protection, Not Just Loss Prevention” and hear our industry experts discuss loyalty fraud, why it’s lucrative, and what organizations can do to protect their brand from this grey-area type of fraud.

According to Experian’s latest State of the Automotive Finance Market report, auto loan balances reached an all-time high of $987 billion in Q4 2015 — an increase of 11.5% over Q4 2014.

A recent Experian survey shows a growing concern over identity theft and tax fraud. 42% of consumers are concerned that someone could access their personal data through their tax return, compared with 35% in 2014 and 38% in 2015 28% of consumers have been a victim or know someone who has been a victim of tax fraud Tax season is a busy time of year for identity thieves. While consumers should take steps to protect themselves, businesses also need to employ ID theft protection solutions in order to safeguard consumer information. >> Identify and prevent multiple types of fraud

According to the latest Experian–Oliver Wyman Market Intelligence Report, HELOC originations came in at $43 billion for Q4 2015 — a 22% increase over Q4 2014. HELOC originations for all of 2015 totaled $160 billion — a 21% increase year over year. As HELOC originations continue their growth trend, lenders can stay ahead of the competition by using advanced analytics to target the right customers and increase profitability. >> Revamp your mortgage and HELOC acquisitions strategies