Topics

Within the world of cyber security, a great deal of attention has been focused lately on the escalating hazards and frequency of data breaches, with considerable discussion on the high cost of such breaches.  But as the industry has assessed the financial toll of breaches, it has never taken into account how data breaches harm reputations, brand image, and consequently a company's bottom line. Until now. A recently released Ponemon Institute study, sponsored by Experian’s Data Breach Resolution and believed to be the first of its kind, explores the “Reputation Impact of a Data Breach” to provide more context for the full scope of data breaches.  The findings draw enlightening conclusions around the financial toll that data breaches wreak upon harmed corporate reputations, including these key takeaways: Reputation is one of an organization’s most important and valuable assets. Reputation and brand image are perceived as very valuable…and highly vulnerable to negative events, including a data breach. Calculating the value of reputation and brand reveals how valuable these assets are to an organization. The average value of brand and reputation for the study’s participating organizations was determined to be approximately $1.5 billion.  Depending upon the type of information lost as a result of the breach, the average loss in the value of the brand ranged from $184 million to more than $330 million. Depending upon the type of breach, the value of brand and reputation could decline as much as 17 percent to 31 percent. Not all data breaches are equal. Some breaches are more devastating than others to an organization’s reputation and brand image, with the loss or theft of customer information ranked as the most devastating (followed by confidential financial business information and confidential non-financial business information). Data breaches occur in most organizations represented in this study and have at least a moderate or a significant impact on reputation and brand image. According to 82 percent of respondents, their organizations had a data breach involving sensitive or confidential information.  Fifty-three percent say the data breaches had a moderate impact on reputation and brand image and 23 percent say it was significant. Most organizations in the study have had a data breach involving the theft of sensitive or confidential business information. On average these types of breaches have occurred 2.9 times in surveyed organizations, with the theft or loss of confidential financial information having the most significant impact on reputation and brand. Respondents strongly believe in understanding the root cause of the breach and protecting victims from identity theft. When asked what their organizations did following a breach to preserve or restore brand and reputation, the top three steps are: conduct investigations and forensics, work closely with law enforcement and protect those affected from potential harms such as identity theft. The Ponemon study clearly shows that when data breaches occur, the collateral damage of a company’s brand and reputation become significant hard costs that must be factored into the total financial loss. Download the Ponemon Reputation Impact Study

By: Joel Pruis Part I – New Application Volume and the Business Banker: Generating small business or business banking applications may be one of the hottest topics in this segment at this time. Loan demand is down and the pool of qualified candidates seems to be down as well. Trust me, I am not going to jump on the easy bandwagon and state that the financial institutions have stopped pursuing small business loan applications. As I work across the country, I have yet to see a financial institution that is not actively pursuing small business loan applications. Loan growth is high on everyone’s priority and it will be for some time. But where have all the applicants gone? Based upon our data, the trend in application volume from 2006 to 2010 is as follows: Chart displays 2010 values: So at face value, we see that actually, overall applications are down (1,032 in 2006 to 982 in 2010) while the largest financial institutions in the study were actually up from 18,616 to 25,427. Furthermore the smallest financial institutions with assets less than $500 million showed a significant increase from 167 to 276. An increase of 65% from the 2006 levels! But before we get too excited, we need to look a little further. When we are talking about increasing application volume we are focusing on applications for new exposure or a new extension of credit and not renewals. The application count in the above chart includes renewals. So let’s take a look at the comparison of New Request Ratio between 2006 and 2010. Chart displays 2010 values: So using this data in combination with the total application count we get the following measurements of new application volume in actual numbers. So once we get under the numbers, we see that the gross application numbers truly don’t tell the whole story. In fact we could classify the change in new application volume as follows: So why did the credit unions and community banks do so well while the rest held steady or dropped significantly? The answer is based upon a few factors: In this blog we are going to focus on the first – Field Resources. The last two factors – Application Requirements and Underwriting Criteria – will be covered in the next two blogs. While they have a significant impact on the application volume and likely are the cause of the application volume shift from 2006 to 2010, each represents a significant discussion that cannot be covered as a mere sub topic. More to come on those two items. Field Resources pursuing Small Business Applications The Business Banker Focus. Focus. Focus. The success of the small business segment depends upon the focus of the field pursuing the applications. As we move up in the asset size of the financial institution we see more dedicated field resources to the Small Business/Business Banking segment. Whether these roles are called business bankers, small business development officers or business banking specialists, the common denominator is that they are dedicated to the small-business/ business banking space. Their goals depend on their performance in this segment and they cannot pursue other avenues to achieve their targets or goals. When we start to review the financial institutions in the less than $20B segment, the use of a dedicated business banker begins to diminish. Marketing segments and/or business development segmentation is blurred at best and the field resource is better characterized as a Commercial Lender or Commercial Relationship Manager. The Commercial Lender is tasked with addressing the business lending needs across a particular region. Goals are based upon total dollars generated and there is no restriction outside of the legal or in house lending limit of the specific financial institution. In this scenario, the notion of any focus on small business is left to the individual commercial lender. You will find some commercial lenders that truly enjoy and devote their efforts to the small business/business banking space. These individuals enjoy working with the smaller business for a variety of reasons such as the consultative approach (small businesses are hungry for advice while the larger businesses tend to get their advice elsewhere) or the ability to use one’s lending authority. Unfortunately while your financial institution may have such commercial lenders (one’s that are truly working solely in the small business or business banking segment) to change that individual’s title or formally commit them to working only in the small business/business banking segment is often perceived as a demotion. It is this perception that continues to hinder the progress of financial institutions with assets between $500 million and $20 billion from truly excelling in the small business/business banking space. Reality is that the best field resource to generate the small business/business banking application volume available to your financial institution is through the dedicated individual known as the Business Banker. Such an individual is capable of generate up to 250 applications (for the truly high performing) per year. Even if we scale this back to 150 applications in a given year for new credit volume at an average request of $106,929 (the lowest dollar of the individual peer groups), the business banker would be generating total application dollars of $16,039,350. If we imply a 50% approval/closure rate, the business banker would be able to generate a total of $8,019,675 in new credit exposure annually. Such exposure would have the potential of generating a net interest margin of $240,590 assuming a 3% NIM.   Not too bad.

By: Mike Horrocks Earlier this week, my wife and I were discussing the dinner plans for Thanksgiving.  The yams, cranberries, and pumpkin pies were purchased and the secret family recipes were pulled out of the cupboard.  Everything was ready…we thought.  Then the topic of the turkey was brought up.  In the buzz of work, family, kids, etc., both of us had forgotten to get the turkey.   We had each thought the other was covering this purchase and had scratched if off our respective lists.  Our Thanksgiving dinner was at risk!  This made me think of what best practices from our industry could be utilized if I was going to mitigate risks and pull off the perfect dinner.  So I pulled the page from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision that defines operational risk as "the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, people, systems or external events” and I have some suggestions that I think work for both your Thanksgiving dinner and for your existing loan portfolios. First, let’s cover “inadequate or failed processes”.  Clearly our shopping list process failed.   But how are your portfolio management processes?  Are they clearly documented and can they be implemented throughout the organization?  Your processes should be as well communicated and documented as the “Smashed Yam Bake” recipe or you may be at risk. Next, let focus on the “people and systems”.    People make mistakes – learn from them, correct them, and try to get the “systems” to make it so there are fewer mistakes.  For example, I don’t want the risk of letting the turkey cook too long, so I use a remote meat thermometer.  Ok, it is a little geeky; however the turkey has come out perfect every year.    What systems do you have in place to make your quarterly reviews of the portfolio more consistent and up to your standards?  Lastly, how do I mitigate those “external events”?  Odds are I will be able to still get a turkey tonight.  If not, I talked to a friend of mine who is a chef and I have the plans for a goose.   How flexible are your operations and how accessible are you to the subject matter experts that can get you out of those situations?  A solid risk management program takes into account unforeseen events and can make them into opportunities. So as the Horrocks family gathered in Norman Rockwell like fashion this Thanksgiving, a moment of thanks was given to the folks on the Basel committee.  Likewise in your next risk review, I hope you can give thanks for the minimized losses and mitigated risks.  Otherwise, we will have one thing very much in common…our goose will be cooked.

This is last question in our five-part series on the FFIEC guidance on what it means to Internet banking, what you need to know and how to prepare for the January 2012 deadline.   Q: How are organizations responding? Experian estimates that less than half of the institutions impacted by this guidance are prepared for the examinations.   Many of the fraud tools in the marketplace, particularly those that are used to authenticate individuals were deployed as point-solutions.  Few support the need for a feedback loop to identify vulnerabilities, or the ability to employ a risk-based, “layered” approach that the guidance is seeking. _____________ This is the last of our five-part series but we're happy to answer more questions as we know you need to know how to prepare for the January 2012 deadline.    

This is fourth question in our five-part series on the FFIEC guidance and what it means Internet banking. Check back each day this week for more Q&A on what you need to know and how to prepare for the January 2012 deadline.  If you missed parts 1-3, there's no time to waste, check them out here: Go to question one: What does “multi-factor” authentication actually mean? Go to question two: Who does this guidance affect?  And does it affect each type  of credit grantor/ lender differently? Go to question three: What does “layered security” actually mean? Today's Q&A: What will the regulation do to help mitigate fraud risk in the near-term, and long-term? The FFIEC’s guidance will encourage financial institutions to re-examine their processes. The guidance is an important reinforcement of several critical ideas: Fraud losses undermine faith in our financial system by exposing vulnerabilities in the way we exchange goods, services and currencies. It is important that members of the financial services community understand their role in protecting our economy from fraud. Fraud is not the result of a static set of tactics employed by criminals. Fraud tactics evolve constantly and the tools that combat them have to evolve as well.   Considering the impact that technology is having on commerce, it is more important than ever to review the processes that we once thought made our businesses “safe.” The architecture and flexibility of fraud prevention “capabilities” is a weapon unto itself. The guidance provides a perspective on why it is important to be able to understand the risk and to respond accordingly. At the end of the day, the guidance is less about a need to take a specific action---and more about the “capability” to recognize when those actions are needed, and how they should be structured so that high-risk actions are met with strong and sophisticated defenses. _____________ Look for part five, the final in our series tomorrow. 

  This is third question in our five-part series on the FFIEC guidance and what it means Internet banking.  If you missed the firstand second question, you can still view - our answer isn't going anywhere.  Check back each day this week for more Q&A on what you need to know and how to prepare for the January 2012 deadline. Question: Who does this guidance affect? And does it affect each type of credit grantor/ lender differently? The guidance pertains to all financial institutions in the US that fall under the FFIEC’s influence. While the guidance specifically mentions authenticating in an on-line environment, it’s clear that the overall approach advocated by the FFIEC applies to authentication in any environment. As fraud professionals know, strengthening the defenses in the on-line environment will drive the same fraud tactics to other channels. The best way to apply this guidance is to understand its intent and apply it across call centers and in-person interactions as well. _____________ Look for part four of our five-part series tomorrow.  If you have a related question that needs an answer, submit in the comments field below and we'll answer those questions too.  Chances are if you are questioning something, others are too - so let's cover it here!  Or, if you would prefer to speak with one of our Fraud Business Consultants directly, complete a contact form and we'll follow up promptly.  

This is second question in our five-part series on the FFIEC guidance and what it means Internet banking.  If you missed the first question, don't worry, you can still go back.  Check back each day this week for more Q&A on what you need to know and how to prepare for the January 2012 deadline. Question: What does “multi-factor” authentication actually mean?    “Multi- Factor” authentication refers to the combination of different security requirements that would be unlikely to be compromised at the same time. A simple example of multi-factor authentication is the use of a debit card at an ATM machine.   The plastic debit card is an item that you must physically possess to withdraw cash, but the transaction also requires the PIN number to complete the transaction. The card is one factor, the PIN is a second. The two combine to deliver a multi-factor authentication. Even if the customer loses their card, it (theoretically) can’t be used to withdraw cash from the ATM machine without the PIN. _____________ Look for part three of our five-part series tomorrow.

This first question in our five-part series on the FFIEC guidance and what it means Internet banking.  Check back each day this week for more Q&A on what you need to know and how to prepare for the January 2012 deadline. Question: What does “layered security” actually mean?   “Layered” security refers to the arrangement of fraud tools in a sequential fashion. A layered approach starts with the most simple, benign and unobtrusive methods of authentication and progresses toward more stringent controls as the activity unfolds and the risk increases. Consider a customer who logs onto an on-line banking session to execute a wire transfer of funds to another account. The layers of security applied to this activity might resemble: 1.       Layer One- Account log-in. Security = valid ID and Password must be provided 2.       Layer Two- Wire transfer request. Security= IP verification/confirmation that this PC has been used to access this account previously. 3.       Layer Three- Destination Account provided that has not been used to receive wire transfer funds in the past. Security= Knowledge Based Authentication Layered security provides an organization with the ability to handle simple customer requests with minimal security, and to strengthen security as risks dictate.  A layered approach enables the vast majority of low risk transactions to be completed without unnecessary interference while the high-risk transactions are sufficiently verified. _____________ Look for part two of our five-part series tomorrow. 

With the most recent guidance newly issued by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) there is renewed conversation about knowledge based authentication. I think this is a good thing.  It brings back into the forefront some of the things we have discussed for a while, like the difference between secret questions and dynamic knowledge based authentication, or the importance of risk based authentication. What does the new FFIEC guidance say about KBA?  Acknowledging that many institutions use challenge questions, the FFIEC guidance highlights that the implementation of challenge questions can greatly impact efficacy of its usefulness. Chances are you already know this.  Of greater importance, though, is the fact that the FFIEC guidelines caution on the use of less sophisticated systems and information that can be easily guessed or obtained from an Internet search, given the amount of information available.    As mentioned above, the FFIEC guidelines call for questions that “do not rely on information that is often publicly available,” recommending instead a broad range of data assets on which to base questions.  This is an area knowledge based authentication users should review carefully.  At this point in time it is perfectly appropriate to ask, “Does my KBA provider rely on data that is publicly sourced”  If you aren’t sure, ask for and review data sources.  At a minimum, you want to look for the following in your KBA provider:     ·         Questions!  Diverse questions from broad data categories, including credit and noncredit assets ·         Consumer question performance as one of the elements within an overall risk-based decisioning policy ·         Robust performance monitoring.  Monitor against established key performance indicators and do it often ·         Create a process to rotate questions and adjust access parameters and velocity limits.  Keep fraudsters guessing! ·         Use the resources that are available to you.  Experian has compiled information that you might find helpful: www.experian.com/ffiec Finally, I think the release of the new FFIEC guidelines may have made some people wonder if this is the end of KBA.  I think the answer is a resounding “No.”  Not only do the FFIEC guidelines support the continued use of knowledge based authentication, recent research suggests that KBA is the authentication tool identified as most effective by consumers.  Where I would draw caution is when research doesn’t distinguish between “secret questions” and dynamic knowledge based authentication, which we all know is very different.   

By: Mike Horrocks Have you ever been struck by a turtle or even better burnt by water skies that were on fire?  If you are like me, these are not accidents that I think will ever happen to me and I'm not concerned that my family doctor didn't do a rotation in medical school to specialize in treating them. On October 1, 2013, however, doctors and hospitals across the U.S. will have ability to identify, log, bill, and track those accidents and thousands of other very specific medical events.  In fact the list will jump from a current 18,000 medical codes to 140,000 medical codes.  Some people hail this as a great step toward the management of all types of medical conditions, whereas others view it as a introduction of noise in a medical system already over burdened.  What does this have to do with credit risk management you ask? When I look at the amount of financial and non-financial data that the credit industry has available to understand the risk of our consumer or business clients, I wonder where we are in the range of “take two aspirins and call me in the morning” to “[the accident] occurred inside a chicken coop” (code: Y9272).   Are we only identifying a risky consumer after they have defaulted on a loan?  Or are we trying to find a pattern in the consumer's purchases at a coffee house that would correlate with some other data point to indicate risk when the moon is full? The answer is somewhere in between and it will be different for each institution.  Let’s start with what is known to be predictable when it comes to monitoring our portfolios - data and analytics, coupled with portfolio risk monitoring to minimize risk exposure - and then expand that over time.  Click here for a recent case study that demonstrates this quite successfully with one of our clients. Next steps could include adding in analytics and/or triggers to identify certain risks more specifically. When it comes to risk, incorporating attributes or a solid set of triggers, for example, that will identify risk early on and can drill down to some of the specific events, combined with technology that streamlines portfolio management processes - whether you have an existing system in place or in search of a migration - will give you better insight to the risk profile of your consumers. Think about where your organization lies on the spectrum.    If you are already monitoring your portfolio with some of these solutions, consider what the next logical step to improve the process is - is it more data, or advanced analytics using that data, a combination of both, or perhaps it's a better system in place to monitoring the risk more closely. Wherever you are, don’t let your institution have the financial equivalent need for these new medical codes W2202XA, W2202XD, and W2202XS (injuries resulting from walking into a lamppost once, twice, and sequentially).

Our guest blogger this week is Tom Bowers, Managing Director, Security Constructs LLC – a security architecture, data leakage prevention and global enterprise information consulting firm. The rash of large-scale data breaches in the news this year begs many questions, one of which is this: how do hackers select their victims? The answer: research. Hackers do their homework; in fact, an actual hack typically takes place only after many hours of first studying the target. Here’s an inside look at a hacker in action: Using search queries through such resources as Google and job sites, the hacker creates an initial map of the target’s vulnerabilities.  For example, job sites can offer a wealth of information such as hardware and software platform usage, including specific versions and its use within the enterprise. The hacker fills out the map with a complete intelligence database on your company, perhaps using public sources such as government databases, financial filings and court records. Attackers want to understand such details as how much you spend on security each year, other breaches you’ve suffered, and whether you’re using LDAP or federated authentication systems. The hacker tries to identify the person in charge of your security efforts.  As they research your Chief Security Officer or Chief Intelligence Security Officer (who they report to, conferences attended, talks given, media interviews, etc.) hackers can get a sense of whether this person is a political player or a security architect, and can infer the target’s philosophical stance on security and where they’re spending time and attention within the enterprise. Next, hackers look for business partners, strategic customers and suppliers used by the target.  Sometimes it may be easier to attack a smaller business partner than the target itself.  Once again, this information comes from basic search engine queries; attackers use job sites and corporate career sites to build a basic map of the target’s network. Once assembled, all of this information offers a list of potential and likely egress points within the target. While there is little you can do to prevent hackers from researching your company, you can reduce the threat this poses by conducting the same research yourself.  Though the process is a bit tedious to learn, it is free to use; you are simply conducting competitive intelligence upon your own enterprise.  By reviewing your own information, you can draw similar conclusions to the attackers, allowing you to strengthen those areas of your business that may be at risk. For example, if you want to understand which of your web portals may be exposed to hackers, use the following search term in Google: “site:yourcompanyname.com – www.yourcompanyname.com” This query specifies that you want to see everything on your site except WWW sites.  Web portals do not typically start with WWW and this query will show “eportal.yourcompanyname, ecomm.yourcompanyname.” Portals are a great place to start as they usually contain associated user names and passwords;   this means that a database is storing these credentials, which is a potential goldmine for attackers.  You can set up a Google Alert to constantly watch for new portals; simply type in your query, select how often you want updates, and Google will send you an alert every time a new portal shows up in its results. Knowledge is power.  The more you know about your own business, the better you can protect it from becoming prey to hacker-hawks circling in cyberspace. Download our free Data Breach Response Guide

By: Kari Michel The way medical debts are treated in scores may change with the introduction of June 2011, Medical Debt Responsibility Act. The Medical Debt Responsibility Act would require the three national credit bureaus to expunge medical collection records of $2,500 or less from files within 45 days of their being paid or settled. The bill is co-sponsored by Representative Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), Don Manzullo (R-Ill.) and Ralph M. Hall (R-Texas). As a general rule, expunging predictive information is not in the best interest of consumers or credit granters -- both of which benefit when credit reports and scores are as accurate and predictive as possible. If any type of debt information proven to be predictive is expunged, consumers risk exposure to improper credit products as they may appear to be more financially equipped to handle new debt than they truly are. Medical debts are never taken into consideration by VantageScore® Solutions LLC if the debt reporting is known to be from a medical facility. When a medical debt is outsourced to a third-party collection agency, it is treated the same as other debts that are in collection. Collection accounts of lower than $250, or ones that have been settled, have less impact on a consumer’s VantageScore® credit score. With or without the medical debt in collection information, the VantageScore® credit score model remains highly predictive.

With the raising of the U.S. debt ceiling and its recent ramifications consuming the headlines over the past month, I began to wonder what would happen if the general credit consumer had made a similar argument to their credit lender. Something along the lines of, “Can you please increase my credit line (although I am maxed out)? I promise to reduce my spending in the future!” While novel, probably not possible. In fact, just the opposite typically occurs when an individual begins to borrow up to their personal “debt ceiling.” When the amount of credit an individual utilizes to what is available to them increases above a certain percentage, it can adversely affect their credit score, in turn affecting their ability to secure additional credit. This percentage, known as the utility rate is one of several factors that are considered as part of an individual’s credit score calculation. For example, the utilization rate makes up approximately 23% of an individual’s calculated VantageScore® credit score. The good news is that consumers as a whole have been reducing their utilization rate on revolving credit products such as credit cards and home equity lines (HELOCs) to the lowest levels in over two years. Bankcard and HELOC utilization is down to 20.3% and 49.8%, respectively according to the Q2 2011 Experian – Oliver Wyman Market Intelligence Reports. In addition to lowering their utilization rate, consumers are also doing a better job of managing their current debt, resulting in multi-year lows for delinquency rates as mentioned in my previous blog post. By lowering their utilization and delinquency rates, consumers are viewed as less of a credit risk and become more attractive to lenders for offering new products and increasing credit limits. Perhaps the government could learn a lesson or two from today’s credit consumer.

As I’m sure you are aware, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) recently released its, "Supplement to Authentication in an Internet Banking Environment" guiding financial institutions to mitigate risk using a variety of processes and technologies as part of a multi-layered approach. In light of this updated mandate, businesses need to move beyond simple challenge and response questions to more complex out-of-wallet authentication.  Additionally, those incorporating device identification should look to more sophisticated technologies well beyond traditional IP address verification alone. Recently, I contribute to an article on how these new guidelines might affect your institution.  Check it out here, in full:  http://ffiec.bankinfosecurity.com/articles.php?art_id=3932 For more on what the FFIEC guidelines mean to you, check out these resources - which also gives you access to a recent Webinar.

The following article was originally posted on August 15, 2011 by Mike Myers on the Experian Business Credit Blog. Last time we talked about how credit policies are like a plant grown from a seed. They need regular review and attention just like the plants in your garden to really bloom. A credit policy is simply a consistent guideline to follow when decisioning accounts, reviewing accounts, collecting and setting terms. Opening accounts is just the first step. Here are a couple of key items to consider in reviewing  accounts: How many of your approved accounts are paying you late? What is their average days beyond terms? How much credit have they been extended? What attributes of these late paying accounts can predict future payment behavior? I recently worked with a client to create an automated credit policy that consistently reviews accounts based on predictive credit attributes, public records and exception rules using the batch account review decisioning tools within BusinessIQ. The credit team now feels like they are proactively managing their accounts instead of just reacting to them.   A solid credit policy not only focuses on opening accounts, but also on regular account review which can help you reduce your overall risk.