Fraud & Identity Management

By: Kennis Wong It's true that intent is difficult to prove. It's also true that financial situations change. That's why financial institutions have not, yet, successfully fought off first-party fraud. However, there are some tell-tale signs of intent when you look at the consumer's behavior as a whole, particularly across all his/her financial relationships. For example, in a classic bust out case, you would see that the consumer, with pristine credit history, applies for more and more credit cards while maintaining a relatively low balance and utilization across all issuers. If you graph the number of credit cards and number of credit applications over time, you would see two hockey-stick lines. When the accounts go bad, they do so at almost the same time. This pattern is not always apparent at the time of origination, that's why it's important to monitor frequently for account review and fraud database alerts. On the other hand, consumers with financial difficulties have different patterns. They might have more credit lines over time, but you would see that some credit lines may go delinquent while others don't. You might also see that consumers cure some lines after delinquencies…you can see their struggle of trying to pay. Of course the intent "pattern" is not always clear. When dealing with fraudsters in fraud account management, even with the help of the fraud database, fraud trends and fraud alert, change their behaviors and use new techniques.  

On Friday, October 30th, the FTC again delayed enforcement of the “Red Flags” Rule – this time until June 1, 2010 – for financial institutions and creditors subject to the FTC’s enforcement.   Here’s the official release: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/redflags.shtm. But this doesn’t mean, until then, businesses get a free pass.  The extension doesn’t apply to other federal agencies that have enforcement responsibilities for institutions under their jurisdiction.  And the extension also doesn’t alleviate an institution’s need to detect and respond to address discrepancies on credit reports. Red Flag compliance Implementing best practices to address the identity theft under the Red Flags Rule is not just the law, it’s good business.  The damage to reputations and consumer confidence from a problem gone unchecked or worse yet – unidentified – can be catastrophic.  I encourage all businesses – if they haven’t already done so – to use this extension as an opportunity to proactively secure a Red Flags Rule to ensure Red Flag compliance.  It’s an investment in protecting their most important asset – the customer.  

As I wrote in my previous posting, a key Red Flags Rule challenge facing many institutions is one that manages the number of referrals generated from the detection of Red Flags conditions.  The big ticket item in referral generation is the address mismatch condition. Identity Theft Prevention Program I’ve blogged previously on the subject of risk-based authentication and risk-based pricing, so I won’t rehash that information.  What I will suggest, however, is that those institutions who now have an operational Identity Theft Prevention Program (if you don’t, I’d hurry up) should continue to explore the use of alternate data sources, analytics and additional authentication tools (such as knowledge-based authentication) as a way to detect Red Flags conditions and reconcile them all within the same real-time transaction. Referral rates Referral rates stemming from address mismatches (a key component of the Red Flags Rule high risk conditions) can approach or even surpass 30 percent.  That is a lot.  The good news is that there are tools which employ additional data sources beyond a credit profile to “find” that positive address match.  The use of alternate data sources can often clear the majority of these initial mismatches, leaving the remaining transactions for treatment with analytics and knowledge-based authentication and Identity Theft Prevention Program. Whatever “referral management” process you have in place today, I’d suggest exploring risk-based authentication tools that allow you to keep the vast majority of those referrals out of the hands of live agents, and distanced from the need to put your customers through the authentication wringer.  In the current marketplace, there are many services that allow you to avoid high referral costs and risks to customer experience.  Of course, we think ours are pretty good.  

In my last entry, I talked about the challenges clients face in trying to meet multiple and complex regulatory requirements, such as FACT Act’s Red Flags Rule and the USA Patriot Act.  While these regulations serve both different and shared purposes, there are some common threads between the two: 1. You must consider the type of accounts and methods of account opening: The type of account offered - credit or deposit, consumer or business – as well as the method of opening – phone, online, or face-to-face – has a bearing on the steps you need to take and the process that will be established. 2. Use of consumer name, address, and identification number:The USA Patriot Act requires each of these – plus date of birth – to open a new account.  Red Flags stops short of “requiring” these for new account openings, but it consistently illustrates the use of these Personally Identifiable Information (PII) elements as examples of reasonable procedures to detect red flags. 3. Establishing identity through non-documentary verification:Third party information providers, such as a credit reporting agency or data broker, can be used to confirm identity, particularly in the case where the verification is not done in person. Knowing what’s in common means you can take a look at where to leverage processes or tools to gain operational and cost efficiencies and reduce negative impact on the customer experience.  For example, if you’re using any authentication products today to comply with the USA Patriot Act and/or minimize fraud losses, the information you collect from consumers and authentication steps you are already taking now may suffice for a large portion of your Red Flags Identity Theft Prevention Program. And if you’re considering fraud and compliance products for account opening or account management – it’s clear that you’ll want something flexible that, not only provides identity verification, but scales to the compliance programs you put in place, and those that may be on the horizon.  

While the FACT Act’s Red Flags Rule seems to capture all of the headlines these days, it’s just one of a number of compliance challenges that banks, credit unions, and a myriad of other institutions face on a daily basis.  And meeting today’s regulatory requirements is more complicated than ever.  Risk managers and compliance officers are asked to consider many questions, including: 1. Do FACTA Sections 114 and 315 apply to me? 2. What do I have to do to comply? 3. What impact does this have on the customer’s experience? 4. What is this going to cost me in terms of people and process? Interpretation of the law or guideline – including who it applies to and to whom it does not - varies widely.  Which types of businesses are subject to the Red Flags Rule?  What is a “covered account?”  If you’re not sure, you’re not alone - it’s a primary reason why the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) continues to postpone enforcement of the rule, while this healthy debate continues. And by the way, FTC – it’s almost November 1st…aren’t we about due for another delay? But we’re not talking about just protecting consumers from identity theft and reducing fraud and protecting themselves using the Identity Theft Prevention Program. The USA Patriot Act and “Know Your Customer” requirements have been around much longer, but there are current challenges of interpretation and practical application when it comes to identifying customers and performing due diligence to deter fraud and money laundering.  Since Customer Identification Programs require procedures based on the bank’s own “assessment of the relevant risks,” including types of accounts opened, methods of opening, and even the bank’s “size, location, and customer base,” it’s safe to say that each program will differ slightly – or even greatly. So it’s clear there’s a lack of specificity in the regulations of the Red Flags Rule which cause heartburn for those tasked with compliance…but are there some common themes and requirements across the two?  The short answer is Yes.  In my next post, I’ll talk about the elements in common and how authentication products can play a part in addressing both.  

In my previous three postings, I’ve covered basic principles that can define a risk-based authentication process, associated value propositions, and some best-practices to consider. Finally, I’d like to briefly discuss some emerging informational elements and processes that enhance (or have already enhanced) the notion of risk-based authentication in the coming year.  For simplicity, I’m boiling these down to three categories: 1. Enterprise Risk Management – As you’d imagine, this concept involves the creation of a real-time, cross channel, enterprise-wide (cross business unit) view of a consumer and/or transaction.  That sounds pretty good, right?  Well, the challenge has been, and still remains, the cost of developing and implementing a data sharing and aggregation process that can accomplish this task.  There is little doubt that operating in a more silo’d environment limits the amount of available high-risk and/or positive authentication data associated with a consumer…and therefore limits the predictive value of tools that utilize such data.  It is only a matter of time before we see more widespread implementation of systems designed to look at a single transaction, an initial application profile, previous authentication results, or other relationships a consumer may have within the same organization -- and across all of this information in tandem.  It’s simply a matter of the business case to do so, and the resources to carry it out. 2. Additional Intelligence – Beyond some of the data mentioned above, some additional informational elements emerging as useful in isolation (or, even better, as a factor among others in a holistic assessment of a consumer’s identity and risk profile) include these areas:  IP address vs. physical address comparisons; device ID or fingerprinting; and biometrics (such as voice verification).  While these tools are being used and tested in many organizations and markets, there is still work to be done to strike the right balance as they are incorporated into an overall risk-based authentication process.  False positives, cost and implementation challenges still hinder widespread use of these tools from being a reality.  That should change over time, and quickly to help with the cost of credit risk. 3. Emerging Verification Techniques – Out-of-band authentication is defined as the use of two separate channels, used simultaneously, to authenticate a customer.  For example: using a phone to verify the identity of that person while performing a Web transaction.  Similarly, many institutions are finding success in initiating SMS texts as a means of customer notification and/or verification of monetary or non-monetary transactions.  The ability to reach out to a consumer in a channel alternate to their transaction channel is a customer friendly and cost effective way to perform additional due diligence.  

By: Kennis Wong In Part 1 of Generic fraud score, we emphasized the importance of a risk-based approach when it comes to fraud detection. Here are some further questions you may want to consider. What is the performance window? When a model is built, it has a defined performance window. That means the score is predicting a certain outcome within that time period. For example, a traditional risk score may be predicting accounts that are decreasing in twenty-four months. That score may not perform well if your population typically worsens in two months. This question is particularly important when it relates to scoring your population. For example, if a bust-out score has a performance window of three months, and you score your accounts at the time of acquisition, it would only catch accounts that are busting-out within the next three months. As a result, you should score your accounts during periodic account reviews in addition to the time of acquisition to ensure you catch all bust-outs.  Therefore, bust out fraud is an important indicator. Which accounts should I score? While it’s typical for creditors to use a fraud score on every applicant at the time of acquisition, they may not score all their accounts during review. For example, they may exclude inactive accounts or older accounts assuming those with a long history means less likelihood of fraud. This mistake may be expensive. For instance, the typical bust-out behavior is for fraudsters to apply for cards way before they intend to bust out. This may be forty-eight months or more. So when you think they are good and profitable customers, they can strike and leave you with seriously injury. Make sure that your fraud database is updated and accurate.  As a result, the recommended approach is to score your entire portfolio during account review. How often do I validate the score? The answer is very often -- this may be monthly or quarterly. You want to understand whether the score is working for you – do your actual results match the volume and risk projections? Shifts of your score distribution will almost certainly occur over time. To meet your objectives over the long run, continue to monitor and adjust cutoffs.  Keep your fraud database updated at all times.    

By: Kennis Wong In this blog entry, we have repeatedly emphasized the importance of a risk-based approach when it comes to fraud detection. Scoring and analytics are essentially the heart of this approach. However, unlike the rule-based approach, where users can easily understand the results, (i.e. was the S.S.N. reported deceased? Yes/No; Is the application address the same as the best address on the credit bureau? Yes/No), scores are generated in a black box where the reason for the eventual score is not always apparent even in a fraud database. Hence more homework needs to be done when selecting and using a generic fraud score to make sure they satisfy your needs. Here are some basic questions you may want to ask yourself: What do I want the score to predict? This may seem like a very basic question, but it does warrant your consideration. Are you trying to detect these areas in your fraud database? First-party fraud, third-party fraud, bust out fraud, first payment default, never pay, or a combination of these? These questions are particularly important when you are validating a fraud model. For example, if you only have third-party fraud tagged in your test file, a bust out fraud model would not perform well. It would just be a waste of your time. What data was used for model development? Other important questions you may want to ask yourself include:  Was the score based on sub-prime credit card data, auto loan data, retail card data or another fraud database? It’s not a definite deal breaker if it was built with credit card data, but, if you have a retail card portfolio, it may still perform well for you. If the scores are too far off, though, you may not have good result. Moreover, you also want to understand the number of different portfolios used for model development. For example, if only one creditor’s data is used, then it may not have the general applicability to other portfolios.

In my previous two blog postings, I’ve tried to briefly articulate some key elements of and value propositions associated with risk-based authentication.  In this entry, I’d like to suggest some best-practices to consider as you incorporate and maintain a risk-based authentication program. 1. Analytics – since an authentication score is likely the primary decisioning element in any risk-based authentication strategy, it is critical that a best-in-class scoring model is chosen and validated to establish performance expectations.  This initial analysis will allow for decisioning thresholds to be established.  This will also allow accept and referral volumes to be planned for operationally.  Further more, it will permit benchmarks to be established which follow on performance monitoring that can be compared. 2. Targeted decisioning strategies – applying unique and tailored decisioning strategies (incorporating scores and other high-risk or positive authentication results) to various access channels to your business just simply makes sense.  Each access channel (call center, Web, face-to-face, etc.) comes with unique risks, available data, and varied opportunity to apply an authentication strategy that balances these areas; risk management, operational effectiveness, efficiency and cost, improved collections and customer experience.  Champion/challenger strategies may also be a great way to test newly devised strategies within a single channel without taking risk to an entire addressable market and your business as a whole. 3. Performance Monitoring – it is critical that key metrics are established early in the risk-based authentication implementation process.  Key metrics may include, but should not be limited to these areas: • actual vs. expected score distributions; • actual vs. expected characteristic distributions; • actual vs. expected question performance; • volumes, exclusions; • repeats and mean scores; • actual vs. expected pass rates; • accept vs. referral score distribution; • trends in decision code distributions; and • trends in decision matrix distributions. Performance monitoring provides an opportunity to manage referral volumes, decision threshold changes, strategy configuration changes, auto-decisioning criteria and pricing for risk based authentication. 4. Reporting – it likely goes without saying, but in order to apply the three best practices above, accurate, timely, and detailed reporting must be established around your authentication tools and results.  Regardless of frequency, you should work with internal resources and your third-party service provider(s) early in your implementation process to ensure relevant reports are established and delivered. In my next posting, I will be discussing some thoughts about the future state of risk based authentication.  

In my last blog posting, I presented the foundational elements that enable risk-based authentication.  These include data, detailed and granular results, analytics and decisioning.  The inherent value of risk-based authentication can be summarized as delivering an holistic assessment of a consumer and/or transaction with the end goal of applying the right authentication and decisioning treatment at the right time.  The opportunity, especially, to minimize fraud losses using fraud analytics as part of your assessment is significant. What are some residual values of risk-based authentication? 1. Minimized fraud losses involves the use of fraud analytics, and a more comprehensive view of a consumer identity (the good and the bad), in combination with consistent decisioning over time.  This analysis will outperform simple binary rules and more subjective decisioning. 2. Improved consumer experience.  By applying the right authentication and  treatment at the right time, consumers are subjected to processes that are proportional to the risk associated with their identity profile.  This means that lower-risk consumers are less likely to be put through more arduous courses of action, preserving a streamlined and often purely “behind the scenes” authentication process for the majority of consumers and potential consumers.  In other words, you are saving the pain for the bad guys -- and that can be a good thing. 3. Operational efficiencies can be successful with the implementation of a well-designed program. Much of the decisioning can be done without human intervention and subjective contemplation.  Use of score-driven policies affords businesses the opportunity to use automated authentication processes for the majority of their applicants or account management cases.  Fewer human resources will be required which usually means lower costs.  Or, it can mean the human resources you possess are more appropriately focused on the applications or transactions that warrant such attention. 4. Measurable performance is critical because understanding the past and current performance of risk-based authentication policies allows for the adjustment over time of such policies.  These adjustments can be made based on evolving fraud risks, resource constraints, approval rate pressures, and compliance requirements, just to name a few.  Given its importance, Experian recommends performance monitoring for our clients using our authentication products. In my next posting, I’ll discuss some best practices associated with implementing and managing a risk-based authentication program.    

By: Kristan Keelan Most financial institutions are well underway in complying with the FTC’s ID Theft Red Flags Rule by: 1.  Identifying covered accounts 2.  Determining what red flags need to be monitored 3.  Implementing a risk based approach However, one of the areas that seems to be overlooked in complying with the rule is the area of commercial accounts.  Did your institution include commercial accounts when identifying covered accounts?  You’re not alone if you focused only on consumer accounts initially. Keep in mind that commercial credit and deposit accounts also can be included as covered accounts when there is a “reasonably foreseeable risk” of identity theft to customers or to safety and soundness. Start by determining if there is a reasonably foreseeable risk of identity theft in a business or commercial account, especially in small business accounts.   Consider the risk of identity theft presented by the methods used to open business accounts, the methods provided to access business accounts, and previous experiences with identity theft on a business account. I encourage you to revisit your institution’s compliance program and review whether commercial accounts have been examined closely enough.  

By: Kristan Keelan What do you think of when you hear the word “fraud”?  Someone stealing your personal identity?  Perhaps the recent news story of the five individuals indicted for gaining more than $4 million from 95,000 stolen credit card numbers?  It’s unlikely that small business fraud was at the top of your mind.   Yet, just like consumers, businesses face a broad- range of first- and third-party fraud behaviors, varying significantly in frequency, severity and complexity. Business-related fraud trends call for new fraud best practices to minimize fraud. First let’s look at first-party fraud.  A first-party, or victimless, fraud profile is characterized by having some form of material misrepresentation (for example, misstating revenue figures on the application) by the business owner without  that owner’s intent or immediate capacity to pay the loan item.  Historically, during periods of economic downturn or misfortune, this type of fraud is more common.  This intuitively makes sense — individuals under extreme financial pressure are more likely to resort to desperate measures, such as misstating financial information on an application to obtain credit. Third-party commercial fraud occurs when a third party steals the identification details of a known business or business owner in order to open credit in the business victim’s name.  With creditors becoming more stringent with credit-granting policies on new accounts, we’re seeing seasoned fraudsters shift their focus on taking over existing business or business owner identities. Overall, fraudsters seem to be migrating from consumer to commercial fraud.   I think one of the most common reasons for this is that commercial fraud doesn’t receive the same amount of attention as consumer fraud.  Thus, it’s become easier for fraudsters to slip under the radar by perpetrating their crimes through the commercial channel.   Also, keep in mind that businesses are often not seen as victims in the same way that consumers are.  For example, victimized businesses aren’t afforded the protections that consumers receive under identity theft laws, such as access to credit information.   These factors, coupled with the fact that business-to-business fraud is approximately three-to-ten times more “profitable” per occurrence than consumer fraud, play a role in leading fraudsters increasingly toward commercial fraud.

The term “risk-based authentication” means many things to many institutions.  Some use the term to review to their processes; others, to their various service providers.  I’d like to establish the working definition of risk-based authentication for this discussion calling it:  “Holistic assessment of a consumer and transaction with the end goal of applying the right authentication and decisioning treatment at the right time.” Now, that “holistic assessment” thing is certainly where the rubber meets the road, right? One can arguably approach risk-based authentication from two directions.  First, a risk assessment can be based upon the type of products or services potentially being accessed and/or utilized (example: line of credit) by a customer.  Second, a risk assessment can be based upon the authentication profile of the customer (example: ability to verify identifying information).  I would argue that both approaches have merit, and that a best practice is to merge both into a process that looks at each customer and transaction as unique and therefore worthy of  distinctively defined treatment. In this posting, and in speaking as a provider of consumer and commercial authentication products and services, I want to first define four key elements of a well-balanced risk based authentication tool: data, detailed and granular results, analytics, and decisioning. 1.  Data: Broad-reaching and accurately reported data assets that span multiple sources providing far reaching and comprehensive opportunities to positively verify consumer identities and identity elements. 2.  Detailed and granular results: Authentication summary and detailed-level outcomes that portray the amount of verification achieved across identity elements (such as name, address, Social Security number, date of birth, and phone) deliver a breadth of information and allow positive reconciliation of high-risk fraud and/or compliance conditions.  Specific results can be used in manual or automated decisioning policies as well as scoring models, 3.  Analytics:  Scoring models designed to consistently reflect overall confidence in consumer authentication as well as fraud-risk associated with identity theft, synthetic identities, and first party fraud.  This allows institutions to establish consistent and objective score-driven policies to authenticate consumers and reconcile high-risk conditions.  Use of scores also reduces false positive ratios associated with single or grouped binary rules.  Additionally, scores provide internal and external examiners with a measurable tool for incorporation into both written and operational fraud and compliance programs, 4.  Decisioning: Flexibly defined data and operationally-driven decisioning strategies that can be applied to the gathering, authentication, and level of acceptance or denial of consumer identity information.  This affords institutions an opportunity to employ consistent policies for detecting high-risk conditions, reconcile those terms that can be changed, and ultimately determine the response to consumer authentication results – whether it be acceptance, denial of business or somewhere in between (e.g., further authentication treatments). In my next posting, I’ll talk more specifically about the value propositions of risk-based authentication, and identify some best practices to keep in mind.      

By: Kennis Wong As I said in my last post, when consumers and the media talk about fraud and fraud risk, they are usually referring to third-party frauds. When financial institutions or other organizations talk about fraud and fraud best practices, they usually refer to both first- and third-party frauds. The lesser-known fraud cousin, first-party fraud, does not involve stolen identities. As a result, first-party fraud is sometimes called victimless fraud. However, being victimless can’t be further from the truth. The true victims of these frauds are the financial institutions that lose millions of dollars to people who intentionally defraud the system. First-party frauds happen when someone uses his/her own identity or a fictitious identity to apply for credit without the intention to fulfill their payment obligation. As you can imagine, fraud detection of this type is very difficult. Since fraudsters are mostly who they say they are, you can’t check the inconsistencies of identities in their applications. The third-party fraud models and authentication tools will have no effect on first-party frauds. Moreover, the line between first-party fraud and regular credit risk is very fuzzy. According to Wikipedia, credit risk is the risk of loss due to a debtor's non-payment of a loan or other line of credit. Doesn’t the definition sound similar to first-party fraud? In practice, the distinction is even blurrier. That’s why many financial institutions are putting first-party frauds in the risk bucket. But there is one subtle difference: that is the intent of the debtor.  Are the applicants planning not to pay when they apply or use the credit?  If not, that’s first-party fraud. To effectively detect frauds of this type, fraud models need to look into the intention of the applicants.

By: Kennis Wong When consumers and the media talk about fraud and fraud risk, nine out of ten times they are referring to third-party frauds. When financial institutions or other organizations talk about fraud, fraud best practices, or their efforts to minimize fraud, they usually refer to both first- and third-party frauds. The difference between the two fraud types is huge. Third-party frauds happen when someone impersonates the genuine identity owner to apply for credit or use existing credit. When it’s discovered, the victim, or the genuine identity owner, may have some financial loss -- and a whole lot of trouble fixing the mess. Third-party frauds get most of the spotlight in newspaper reporting primarily because of large-scale identity data losses. These data losses may not result in frauds per se, but the perception is that these consumers are now more susceptible to third-party frauds. Financial institutions are getting increasingly sophisticated in using fraud models to detect third-party frauds at acquisition. In a nutshell, these fraud models are detecting frauds by looking at the likelihood of applicants being who they say they are. Institutions bounce the applicants’ identity information off of internal and external data sources such as: credit; known fraud; application; IP; device; employment; business relationship; DDA; demographic; auto; property; and public record. The risk-based approach takes into account the intricate similarities and discrepancies of each piece of data element. In my next blog entry, I’ll discuss first-party fraud.