Leasing continued its strong growth as the share of new vehicles leased jumped from 26.9% in Q2 2015 to a record high of 31.4% in Q2 2016.

With the Oct. 3, 2016 compliance date upon us, many lenders continue to debate how they would like to solve for the Military Lending Act (MLA). With new enhancements, more protections have been granted to members of the military and their dependents when it comes to “consumer credit” products, specifically around the 36% cap on the MAPR. The key then becomes how to identify these individuals. At origination, how can the lender know if an individual is a member of the military, or a service member’s dependent? The answer, of course, lies in verification. Under the new Department of Defense (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.  The final rule includes a “safe harbor” from liability for lenders who verify the MLA status of a consumer through a nationwide Credit Reporting Agency (CRA) or the DOD’s own database, known as the DMDC. Obviously, lenders will want to have this “safe harbor,” so the question becomes do you opt for the direct or indirect solution? The direct solution is to have the lender access the DMDC on their own. With this option, expected turnaround time is 24 hours for batch searches. The DMDC expects the volume of searches to their servers to increase from 220 million a week to 1.9 billion a week. For some, this feels like a more manual process, but it can be done. The indirect solution involves the CRA accessing the DMDC data on the lender’s behalf. In Experian’s case, this would translate into lenders seeing the MLA indicator on the credit report at point of origination or making a call out for just the MLA indicator. The process is integrated into the credit-pull cycle, so no manual effort is required on the lender’s end. MLA status is simply flagged. The rule also permits the consumer report to be obtained from a reseller that obtains such a report from a nationwide consumer reporting agency. Required data to perform a search includes full legal name, address, social security number and date of birth. This applies to both the credit report add-on and Experian’s standalone solutions. If any of this data is missing from the inquiry, Experian is unable to perform the MLA search. Credit card lenders have until Oct. 3, 2017 to adhere to the new standards, but all other applicable lenders must act now and build out their compliance standards and solutions. Direct or indirect? That is the question. To learn more about MLA or how Experian can help, visit our dedicated-MLA site.

Experian analyzes e-commerce fraud attack rates bi-annually. The 2016 e-commerce fraud attack rates look to be at least 15% higher than last year’s total.

Most businesses are familiar with credit bureaus today, but myths still exist around reporting credit data. Let's examine the top three and bust them.

CNP fraud accounts for 60%-70% of card fraud in many countries & is increasing. US merchants/card issuers likely will see rise in CNP fraud w/EMV migration

Prescriptive solutions can synthesize big data, analytics, and business strategies to provide businesses an optimized workflow to reach a final decision.

Experian conducted a joint-survey that uncovered insights into the topic of conversational commerce and voice assistants. The survey asked about general consumer satisfaction with the voice-recognition capabilities of Amazon's Alexa relative to other smart voice assistants such as Siri and Google.

Unfortunately, identity theft can happen to anyone and has far-reaching consequences for its victims. According to the US Department of Justice (DOJ)’s most recent study, 17.6 million people in the US experience some form of identity theft each year. This includes activities such as fraudulent credit card transactions or personal information being used to open unauthorized accounts. The most obvious consequence that identity theft victims encounter is financial loss, which comes in two forms: direct and indirect. Direct financial loss refers to the amount of money stolen or misused by the identity theft offender. Indirect financial loss includes any outside costs associated with identity theft, like legal fees or overdraft charges. The DOJ’s study found that victims experienced a combined average loss of $1,343. In total, identity theft victims lost a whopping $15.4 billion in 2014. Beyond money lost, identity theft can negatively impact credit scores. While credit card companies detect a majority of credit card fraud cases, the rest can go undetected for extended periods of time. A criminal’s delinquent payments, cash loans, or even foreclosures slowly manifest into weakened credit scores. Victims often only discover the problem when they are denied for a loan or credit card application. Last year, Experian found that these types of fraud take the longest time to resolve. Identity theft doesn’t just impact victims financially; it also often takes a significant emotional toll. A survey from the Identity Theft Research Center found that 69 percent felt fear for their personal financial security, and 65 percent felt rage or anger. And, almost 40 percent reported some sleep disruption. These feelings increased over time when victims were unable to settle the issue on their own, according to the report, which can result in problem as work or school, and add stress to relationships with friends and family. Thankfully, consumers are getting smarter about the best ways to protect their information, like using monitoring services or following security best practices. How are you protecting yourself against identity theft? Learn more about our Identity Protection Services

This summer, the CFPB took a significant step toward reforming the regulatory framework for the debt collection industry.

The first six months of 2016 has shown that the total credit card limits among the subprime and deep subprime credit range totaled $6.4 billion, the highest amount reported for those groups in the last five years. Our Q2 2016 Experian-Oliver Wyman Market Intelligence Report webinar will analyze the trends impacting consumer credit decisions in the current economy. The data is from the latest Experian Market Intelligence Brief report.

Fraud prevention strategies Juniper Research online payments

For lenders to capitalize and identify the right consumers for their respective portfolios, they need insights. Trade level fields can bridge the gap.

Minimize identity fraud risk, increase customer engagement & provide a good customer experience by shifting to an ID relationship management strategy

At the end of July, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) took a significant step toward reforming the regulatory framework for the debt collection and debt buying industry by announcing an outline of proposals under consideration.  The proposals will now be considered by a small business review panel before the CFPB announces a proposed rule for wider industry comment. The CFPB said its proposals will affect only third-party debt collectors pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).  However, the CFPB signaled it may consider a separate set of proposals for first-party collectors. The collections industry has long been a focus of the CFPB.  In 2012, the bureau designated larger market participants in the debt collections marketplace and placed some of these entities under supervision. In 2013, the CFPB released an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking covering collections. The focus on debt collection is fueled in part by the large number of consumer complaints it receives about the debt collection market (roughly 35% of total complaints).  Moreover, the CFPB’s proposals build upon some of the regulatory and enforcement priorities that the CFPB and Federal Trade Commission have pursued for several years around data quality, consumer communication and disclosures. Here are some of the key takeaways for third party debt collectors from the CFPB’s proposals: Address data quality: Collectors would be required to substantiate claims that a consumer owes a debt in order to begin a collection. Collectors would also be required to pass on information provided by consumers in the course of collections activity. New Validation Notice and Statement of Rights: The CFPB’s draft outline would update the information provided to consumers through the FDCPA validation notice, as well as require disclosure of a consumer statement of rights. Changes to frequency of communications:  Debt collectors would be limited to six emails, phone calls or mailings per week, including unanswered calls and voicemails. After reaching the consumer, the debt collector would be allowed either one contact or three attempted contacts per week. There would also be a waiting period of 30 days before contacting the family of a debtor who has died. New disclosures on “out of statute” debt and litigation: In the outline, CFPB proposes having debt collectors provide new disclosures to consumers regarding the possibility of litigation and whether the debt is beyond the statute of limitations. Waiting period before sending collection accounts to  a consumer reporting agency: Reporting a person’s debt would be prohibited under the draft outline unless the collector has first communicated directly with the consumer about the debt. The CFPB will next hear comments from a panel of small businesses in the industry, complete an analysis of how its proposals would impact small businesses, and take written comments from the public. Following those steps, the agency will issue a proposed rule for comment.  

Consumer card balance transfer activity is estimated to be $35B to $40B a year. Identify these consumers before they make transfers by using trended data.