By: Staci Baker On September 12, 2010, the new Basel III rules were passed in Basel, Switzerland. These new rules aim to increase the liquidity of banks over the next decade, thereby mitigating the risk of bank failures and mergers that transpired during the recent financial crisis. Currently, banks must maintain capital reserves of 4% on their balance sheet to account for enterprise risk. Starting January 1, 2013, banks will be required to progressively increase their capital reserves, known as tier 1 capital, to 4.5%. By the end of 2019, this reserve will need to be 6%.  Banks will also be required to keep an emergency reserve, or “conservation buffer,” of 2.5%. What does this mean for banks? And, what are some tools that banks can use in assessing credit risk? By increasing capital reserves, banks will be more stable in times of economic hardship. The conservation buffer is meant to help absorb losses during times of economic stress, which means banks will be in a better position to maintain economic progress in the most challenging economic circumstances. The capital reserve designated by the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision is the minimum requirement each bank will be held to. Each bank will need to assess their current risk levels, and run stress tests to ensure they are in a good financial position, and are able to sustain strong financial health during a failing economy. Stress tests should be run for different time intervals, which will allow lenders to assess future losses and to plan capital satisfactoriness accordingly. This type of credit risk analysis is possible through applications such as Moody’s CreditCycle Plus, powered by Experian, that allow for stress testing, and profit and loss forecasting.  These applications will measure future performance of consumer credit portfolios under various economic scenarios, measured against industry benchmarks. ______________ Bank for International Settlements, 9/12/10, http://bis.org/press/p100912.htm

Another consumer protection article in the news recently highlighted some fraud best practices for social networking sites. Click here to read the article. When I say fraud best practices, I mean best practices to minimize fraud and identity theft risk…not best practices for fraudsters. Although I wonder if by advising consumers about new fraud trends and methods, some fraudsters are picking up new tips and tricks? Anyway, many of the suggestions in the article are common sense items that have been making the rounds for some time now: don’t post vacation plans, things that might provide clues to your passwords or secret questions, etc. What I found surprising was that this list of “6 Things You Should Never Reveal on Facebook” still included birth date and place and home address. Are people overly trusting or just simply unaware of the risk of providing personal identifying information out in cyber space, unsecured? The US government has gone to a lot of trouble to protect consumers from identity theft through its issuance of the Red Flags rule and Red Flags guidelines for financial institutions of all types. I work with many clients that are going to large efforts to meet these important goals for fraud and compliance. Not just because the legislation requires it but because they know it is in the best interest of fostering long term and trust-based relationships with their customers. But just as much responsibility lies on us as consumers to protect ourselves. Each individual or family should have their own little identity theft prevention program that includes: guidelines for sharing information on social networking sites, shredding of paper documents with personal data, safe storage of passwords (i.e. not written down by your computer!), and up to date virus and malware protection on their computer.

Anyone keeping tabs on the legal scene would think data breaches are something new, given all of the legislation hitting the floor of Congress, when in reality they have been happening since businesses began saving data. The truth is the average consumer didn’t really think about it until they started to hear about data breaches and fraud trends when California blazed a trail with what is considered to be the “grandma” of data breach laws back in 2002. The California law (CA SB 1386) required entities to report data breaches if a California resident was a record in the breach that included personally identifiable information and met the state’s criteria for breach. One might say that law started it all: data breach reporting, the ability for watchdog tracking, and media coverage – before CA SB 1386 we only saw the tip of the iceberg. There are currently four bills worth watching in Congress right now that could have some significant impact to data breach notification requirements: Senate Bill 139, sponsored by California Sen. Diane Feinstein. The Data Breach Notification Act would cover any agency or business that uses or stores personal identifiable information and make it mandatory that if a breach occurred, the victims would be informed Senate Bill 3579, the Carper-Bennett legislation, entitled the Data Security Act of 2010 applies to financial institutions, retailers and government agencies, and would require these entities to safeguard sensitive information, investigate security breaches and notify consumers when there is a substantial risk of identity theft or account fraud. This bill is aimed to protect consumers and businesses from identity theft and account fraud. Senate Bill 3742, entitled The Data Security and Breach Notification Act of 2010, sponsored by Senators Mark Pryor and Jay Rockefeller would cross industries and requires special requirements for data brokers. It was referred this month to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Technology, which Rockefeller chairs. Senate Bill 1490, entitled the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act, designates as fraud unauthorized access of personally identifiable information and allows the act to lead to racketeering charges. Sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, Patrick Leahy, it would also prohibit concealment of security breaches involved in fraud and prohibit the dismissal of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case if the debtor is an identity-theft victim. Many organizations already provide for data breach and the security of personally identifiable information as part of an Identity Theft Prevention Program or Red Flags Rule compliance. I’m happy to say that many rely on Experian tools (https://www.experian.com/data-breach/data-breach-resources.html) for data breach or Enterprise Risk Management solutions. However, any of these bills could change the game for many businesses not already regulated by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) or Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA). In fact, two of the bills would essentially subject data brokers to the same kinds of legislation that financial institutions have under FCRA. The reasoning behind it is that fraud trends continue to show risk levels are the same to the consumer, regardless of where the information is stored. The financial industry and credit bureau data have been regulated for years so, in a sense, I think it’s just “more of the same” unless you happen to be in an industry not regulated as stringently. Still… it’s worth keeping those “tabs” and RSS feeds alive.