Four Key Tips in the Fight Against Fraud for Credit Unions

by Kim Le 5 min read April 13, 2021

In today’s digital-first environment, fraud threats are growing in sophistication and scope. It’s critical for credit unions to not only understand the specific threats presented by life online, but to also be prepared with a solid fraud detection and prevention plan. Below, we’ve outlined a few fraud trends that credit unions should be aware of and prepared to address.

2021 Trends to Watch: Digitization and the Movement to Life Online

Trend #1: Digital Acceleration

As we look ahead to the rest of 2021 and beyond, we expect to see adoption of digital strategies nearing the top of credit unions’ list of priorities. Members’ expectations for their digital experience have permanently shifted, and many credit unions now have members using online channels who traditionally wouldn’t have. This has led to a change in the types of fraud we see as online activities increased in volume.

Trend #2: First-Party Fraud is On the Rise

First party fraud is on the rise – 43% of financial executives say that mule activity is up 10% or more compared to attack rates prior to the pandemic, according to Trace Fooshee, Senior Analyst for Aite Group, and we expect to see this number grow. The ability for credit unions to identify and segregate the “good guys” from “bad guys” is getting more difficult to discern and this detail is more important than ever as credit unions work to create frictionless digital experiences by using digital tools and strategies.

Trend #3: Continual Uptick in Synthetic Identity Fraud

We expect synthetic identity fraud (SID) to continue to rise in 2021 as cybercriminals become more sophisticated in the digital space and as members continue with their new digital habits.

Additionally, fraudsters can use SIDs to bring significant damage and loss to credit unions through fraudulent checks, debit cards, person-to-person and automated clearing house (ACH) transactions. More and more, fraudsters are seen opening accounts and remaining very patient – using an account to build and nurture a trusted relationship with the credit union and then remain dormant for two years before ensuing in any sort of abuse. Once the fraudster feels confident that they can bypass authentication processes or avoid a new product vetting, oftentimes, they will take that opportunity to get easy access to all solutions credit unions have available and will abuse them all at once.

There are no signs of fraud slowing, so credit unions will need to stay vigilant in their fraud protection and prevention plans. We’ve outlined a few tips for credit unions to help protect member data while reducing risk.

The Fight Against Fraud: Four Key Tips

Tip #1: Manage Each Fraud Type Appropriately

Preventing and detecting fraud requires a multi-level solution. This can involve new methods for authenticating current and prospective members, as well as incorporating synthetic identity services and identity proofing throughout the member lifecycle. For example, credit unions should consider taking extra verification steps during the account opening process as a preventative measure to minimize SID infiltration and associated fraud losses. As credit unions continue down the path of digitization, it’s also important to add in digital signals and behavior-based verification, such as information about the device a consumer is logging in from to heighten defenses against bad actors.

Tip #2: Be Resourceful

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, many have asked, “How should credit unions approach fraud prevention tactics when in-person contact is limited or unavailable?” In some cases, you might need to be willing to say no to requests or get creative and find other options. Sometimes, it takes leveraging current resources and using what’s readily available to allow for a binary decision tree. For example, if you’re suspicious of a dormant account that you think could be synthetic, call them, and ask yourself these questions: Did they answer? Was the phone still active? Send the account holder an email – did you get a reply? Is this a new member? Is this a new channel for the member? Could they have logged on to do this instead of calling the call center?

Tip #3: Empower Members Through Education

Members like to know that their credit unions are taking the necessary steps and applying the right measures to keep their data secure. While members might not want every detail, they do want to know that the security measures are there. Require the use of strong passwords, step-up authentication, and empower members with alerts, notifications, and card controls. Additionally, protect members by providing resources like trainings, webinars, and best practices articles, where they can learn about current cyber trends and how to protect their data.

Tip #4: Trust Data

Many credit unions rely on an employee’s decision to decide when to take action and what action to take. The challenge with this approach comes when the credit union needs to reduce friction for members or tighten controls to prevent fraud, because it’s extremely hard to know exactly what drove prior actions. A better alternative is to rely on scores and specific data. Tweaks to the scores or data points that drive actions allow credit unions to achieve the desired member experience and risk tolerance – just be sure to leverage internal experts help figure out those policies. By determining what conditions drive actions before the actions are taken (instead of doing it one case at a time) the decisions remain transparent and actionable.

Looking for more insights around how to best position your credit union to mitigate and prevent fraud? Watch our webinar featuring experts from around the industry and key credit unions in this Fraud Insight Form hosted by CUES.

Watch now Contact us

Related Posts

How Consumer Vehicle Choices Are Shaping Automotive Loan Trends

Conversations about rising auto loan balances and higher monthly payments has often centered around increasing vehicle prices and elevated interest rates; and while those factors have undoubtedly played a role, another important piece of the puzzle is the type of vehicles consumers are choosing to purchase. According to Experian’s Automotive Consumer Trends Report: Q1 2026, consumers are continuing to opt for SUVs over other vehicle types, a trend that may be contributing to higher average loan amounts and monthly payments. SUVs accounted for 63.5% of all new retail vehicle registrations over the last 12 months, up from 62.8% a year ago. Additionally, more than 117 million SUVs were in operation across the United States in the first quarter of 2026, making up 42.2% of the market share. At the same time, traditional passenger cars continue to fall in share, coming in at 16.5%, a decrease from 18.4% last year. As consumers increasingly gravitate towards the larger vehicle segment, it reflects the ongoing desire for versatility, cargo capacity, and family-friendly functionality. Electrification’s growing role in consumer purchasing behavior Interestingly, electrified SUVs continue to gain traction, representing 27.7% of all new SUV registrations, these vehicles include battery-electric, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and other alternative fuel types. Diving a bit deeper, the Tesla Model Y was the market share leader for new, retail electrified SUV registrations in the last 12 months, coming in at 15.8%. Rounding out the top five were Honda CR-V (9.6%), Toyota RAV4 (7.2%), Chevrolet Trax (7.2%), and Toyota Grand Highlander (3.4%). As model availability and familiarity with the electrification segment grows, the broader adoption of these vehicles are playing an increasingly important role in vehicle pricing and overall consumer demand. While average loan amounts and monthly payments are being driven by a combination of factors such as financing costs and consumer purchasing behavior, data in Q1 2026 demonstrates the continued interest in SUVs. This suggests that the industry’s shift toward larger vehicles is likely playing a meaningful role in today’s financing environment. To learn more about SUV insights, view the full Automotive Consumer Trends Report: Q1 2026 presentation.

Published: June 17, 2026 by Kirsten Von Busch
When New Data Impacts MBS Pricing: Student Loan Debt

In our previous post, we described the Current Second Lien Balance field, which is one of over 2,000 fields in the new Experian Mortgage Loan Performance (MLP) dataset. We showed that the Current Second Lien Balance field meets our three-pronged materiality standard for new data delivery: New: Provides information not available in existing datasets (i.e., orthogonal to currently available data). Material: Impacts a sizeable portion of the MBS universe. Significant: Differentiates collateral performance by a large enough margin to influence trading and risk management decisions. In this article, we discuss another field that satisfies the above criteria: Student Loan Balance.  We evaluate this field in the context of these criteria. First, however, we provide a summary of the MLP dataset and how it compares to standard GSE loan-level data available today. Standard GSE Data vs. Experian Mortgage Loan Performance (MLP) Data The MLP dataset contains thousands of fields describing mortgage performance from each borrower, loan, and property perspective, all refreshed monthly (including, amongst other things, new credit scores and refinance inquiry activity, loan performance, filed junior liens, and AVM values).  MLP differs from loan-level data provided byFreddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and Ginnie Mae, which the vast majority of market participants solely rely on, in a number of ways: Standard data provided by the GSEs and GNMA does not contain all the information necessary for accurate forecasting of mortgage prepayment and credit performance. Basic, critical fields like borrower’s current credit score and current junior liens on the property are missing. The new Mortgage Loan Performance (MLP) dataset from Experian contains borrower, loan, and property data fields covering the entire mortgage universe, including Agency, Non-Agency, and Esoteric mortgage products (CES, HELOC, Reverse), both securitized and non-securitized. MLP enables full three-dimensional (borrower + loan + property) tracking with persistent keys for borrower (before and after refinancing), loan (in securities/deals even after exit due to payoffs or buyouts, including before and after MSR sales), and property.  This enables end-to-end analysis of each borrower’s (and property’s) mortgage experience throughout their credit lifecycle. New, Material and Significant Field:  Student Loan Debt MLP contains a number of fields describing each mortgage borrower’s student debt load, including amounts in repayment, forbearance and collections; estimated interest rate, time remaining until forbearance expiration, and more. In the interest of simplicity, for this article we’ll focus on a single student loan-related field within MLP: Student Loans Balance, which is defined as the total balance on open non-deferred student trades reported in the last 3 months. Is Information Regarding Student Loans New to Markets? Standard loan-level data disclosed by the GSEs and GNMA contain no student-loan-specific fields. Theoretically, fields related to DTI at origination might capture some aspect of student loan debt. So, in the best case scenario for an investor relying solely on standard disclosure, a DTI value as of origination is provided -- yet is never updated as the loan seasons and the borrower’s debt and income change (see more here).  But in the case of federal student loan debt attached to mortgages originated from early 2020 to late 2023, the level of detail provided by disclosure may be even more unknown due to COVID-era repayment and reporting moratoriums. The student loan repayment moratorium was a temporary federal policy that paused required payments, set interest rates to 0%, and suspended collections on most federally-held student loans. The moratorium began in March 2020, with payments resuming in October 2023, making it approximately 3.5 years in duration—the longest consumer credit payment pause in U.S. history. (Source: NCUA ) During the moratorium, student loan-related debt loads may have been understated as federal loans were in a temporary state of $0 repayment.  As an alternative to leaving student loan debt completely out of DTI calculations, an imputed payment equal to only 0.50% of the outstanding balance was often used as a placeholder for a borrower’s DTI calculation. As a result, mortgages originated during the moratorium may have artificially low reported DTIs for borrowers with student loan debt, materially understating true post-moratorium debt .  Accordingly, prepayment risk for these loans is likely overstated in mainstream market models. Standard data only reports information related to the primary mortgage and does not include any details on the borrower’s other debts with the exception of DTI at origination, which is never updated throughout the life of the loan. In contrast, MLP provides a comprehensive view of the borrower’s full credit profile, including other obligations such as credit cards, mortgages on other properties, student loan balances, and much more. Is Student Loan debt material to the residential mortgage market? Approximately $11 trillion of residential mortgage loans were originated during the student loan payment moratorium (Source: Experian MLP Dataset), a period marked by historically low mortgage rates during the COVID era.  As discussed above, DTI data contained in standard market disclosure may be particularly inaccurate for these loans. As the Wall Street Journal recently reported, a new report from the Federal Reserve of New York shows a rise in student loan default rates by age group.  Student l Of today’s $13 trillion in outstanding mortgage debt, more than 10% of that debt ($1.5 trillion) is associated with borrowers who carry student loan debt.  For these borrowers, the average amount of student loan debt outstanding is approximately $50,000, versus a mortgage balance of approximately ~$289,000. In other words, the average student loan debt balance is almost 20% of the mortgage balance for the average borrower who carries both. For this set of borrowers, the average monthly payment is approximately $400 for student loan vs. approximately $2,200 for 1st lien mortgage—so that monthly student loan payments are a significant debt load, approximately 20% of the monthly mortgage payment.  (Source:  Experian MLP Dataset) Is the effect of student loan debt a significant driver of performance? Figure 1 illustrates prepayments by student loan balance for a sample of loans drawn from MLP. The chart illustrates that borrowers with larger student loan balances prepay much more slowly, likely because some are effectively locked out of refinancing once student loan payments resume due to elevated DTI. The debt-to-income (DTI) ratio calculated using actual student loan payments may be significantly higher than the DTI calculated during the moratorium, in some cases exceeding GSE eligibility thresholds. As illustrated in Figure 1, for in-the-money (ITM) collateral, the differential between loans with material student loan balances (greater than $200,000) and loans with no student debt can reach up to 5 CPR. Notably, even for out-of-the-money (OTM) collateral, loans with student debt prepay 1 to 3 CPR slower, likely reflecting reduced mobility due to tighter financing constraints when purchasing a new home. Pools with otherwise similar prepayment characteristics may exhibit different prepayment behavior depending on the distribution of student loan exposure within their collateral. In addition, because loans with student debt tend to prepay more slowly, this effect increases over time due to burnout: loans without student debt prepay and exit the pools more quickly, leaving a higher concentration of slower-paying loans behind.  Given that 10% of the $13 trillion outstanding mortgage market is associated with borrowers who have student loans (Source:  Experian MLP dataset)—and that student loans have a meaningful impact on prepayments—many pools issued between March 2020 and October 2023 may be subject to this student loan debt CPR throttle, and therefore mispriced by investors relying exclusively on standard market data. Fig 1. Prepayment S-Curve: Student Loans Balance Source:  Experian MLP dataset hosted on IVolatility Data-Driven Platform   _____________________________________________________ Michael Pyatski advises MBS traders, portfolio managers, quants, risk managers, loan originators, and technology professionals on making informed, data-driven business decisions that drive revenue growth, enhance risk management, and reduce trading costs. With more than 15 years of experience as an Agency RMBS trader—including serving as Head of the Proprietary Trading Desk at BNP Paribas—Michael developed and successfully implemented relative-value, data-driven profitable trading strategies to capture market opportunities embedded in data but not fully priced by the market. His trading experience, combined with a Ph.D. in econometrics, led him to found the Data-Driven Portal (https://datadrivenportal.com/), a platform that provides advanced technology for MBS trading and risk management. The platform’s No-Model Data-Driven technology leverages big data, econometric analysis, and AI to help traders identify relative-value opportunities in RMBS markets and generate above-market, risk-adjusted returns. _____________________________________________________

Published: June 17, 2026 by Perry DeFelice
Empowering merchants to reduce first-party fraud and chargebacks

Reduce first-party fraud and chargebacks with data-driven strategies that help merchants prevent disputes, protect revenue and improve customer trust.

Published: June 15, 2026 by Charles Hunter

Subscribe to our thought leadership

Enter your name and email for the latest updates.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Subscribe to our thought leadership

Don't miss out on the latest industry trends and insights!
Subscribe