Risk-adjusted pricing for deposits

by Guest Contributor 4 min read January 20, 2010

By: Tom Hannagan

Apparently my last post on the role of risk management in the pricing of deposit services hit some nerve ends. That’s good. The industry needs its “nerve ends” tweaked after the dearth of effective risk management that contributed to the financial malaise of the last couple of years. Banks, or any business, can prosper by simply following their competitors’ marketing strategies and meeting or slightly undercutting their prices. The actions of competitors are an important piece of intelligence to consider, but not necessarily optimal for your bank to copy.

One question is regarding the “how-to” behind risk-based pricing (RBP) of deposits. The answer has four parts. Let’s see. First, because of the importance and size of the deposit business (yes, it’s a line of business) as a funding source, one needs to isolate the interest rate risk. This is done by transfer pricing, or in a sense, crediting the deposit balances for their marginal value as an offset to borrowing funds. This transfer price has nothing to do with the earnings credit rate used in account analysis – that is a merchandising issue used to generate fee income. Fees, resulting from account analysis, when not waived, affect the profitability of deposit services, but are not a risk element.

Two things are critical to the transfer of funding credit: 1) the assumptions regarding the duration, or reliability of the deposit balances and 2) the rate curve used to match the duration. Different types of deposit behave differently based on changes in rates paid. Checking account deposit funds tend to be very loyal or “sticky” – they don’t move around a lot (or easily) because of rate paid, if any. At the other extreme, time deposits tend to be very rate-sensitive and can move (in or out) for small incremental gains. Savings, money market and NOW accounts are in-between.

Since deposits are an offset (ultimately) to marginal borrowing, just as loans might (ultimately) require marginal borrowing, we recommend using the same rate curve for both asset and liability transfer pricing. The money is the same thing on both sides of the balance sheet and the rate curve used to fund a loan or credit a deposit should be the same. We believe this will help, greatly, to isolate IRR. It is also seems more fair when explaining the concept to line management.

Secondly, although there is essentially no credit risk associated with deposits, there is operational risk. Deposit make up most of the liability side of the balance sheet and therefore the lion’s share of institutional funding. Deposits are also a major source of operational expense. The mitigated operational risks such as physical security, backup processing arrangements, various kinds of insurance and catastrophe plans, are normal expenses of doing business and included in a bank’s financial statements. The costs need to be broken down by deposit category to get a picture of the risk-adjusted operating expenses.

The third major consideration for analyzing risk-adjusted deposit profitability is its revenue contribution. Deposit-related fee income can be a very significant number and needs to be allocated to particular deposit category that generates this income. This is an important aspect of the return, along with the risk-adjusted funding value of the balances. It will vary substantially for various deposit types. Time deposits have essentially zero fee income, whereas checking accounts can produce significant revenues.

The fourth major consideration is capital. There are unexpected losses associated with deposits that must be covered by risk-based capital – or equity. The unexpected losses include: unmitigated operational risks, any error in transfer pricing the market risk, and business or strategic risk. Although the unexpected losses associated with deposit products are substantially less than found in the lending products, they needs to be taken into account to have a fully risk-adjusted view. It is also necessary to be able to compare the risk-adjusted profit and profitability of such diverse services as found within banking.

Enterprise risk management needs to consider all of the lines of business, and all of the products of the organization, on a risk-adjusted performance basis. Otherwise it is impossible to decide on the allocation of resources, including precious capital. Without this risk management view of deposits (just as with loans) it is impossible to price the services in a completely knowledgeable fashion. Good entity governance, asset and liability posturing, and competent line of business management, all require more and better risk-based profit considerations to be an important part of the intelligence used to optimally price deposits.

Related Posts

Are Fraudsters Building Better Identities Than Your Customers?

Fraudsters are getting surprisingly good at onboarding. Sometimes, better than your customers. Legitimate customers treat onboarding like an errand. They start an application between other tasks, get distracted, forget a password, switch devices, upload a document or come back later to finish. Their digital lives aren’t always linear, because real life isn’t either. Fraudsters approach onboarding differently. For them, opening an account is the objective. Every interaction is designed to increase the odds of success. The difference raises an uncomfortable question hanging over onboarding: What exactly are we rewarding? When smooth becomes suspicious Digital onboarding has traditionally rewarded experiences that feel smooth, consistent and complete. The challenge is that legitimate customers rarely behave that way. Most people approach onboarding somewhere between mildly distracted and mildly annoyed. They pause halfway through because dinner is burning. They reopen an old account only to realize everything is attached to an email they made in college and, somehow, still use for airline receipts. Digital life accumulates history unevenly, because ordinary life does too. Fraudsters have every reason to eliminate those inconsistencies. Applications may be rehearsed. Identity attributes are assembled deliberately. Contact points are prepared in advance. Every interaction is optimized to make the application appear credible. Ironically, the qualities organizations often associate with confidence — clean submissions, steady progression and few corrections — can also describe applications that have been carefully engineered to pass inspection. The challenge isn't that smooth onboarding is meaningless. It's that smooth onboarding, by itself, doesn't tell the whole story. Context changes interpretation A smooth onboarding experience should be the beginning of the evaluation, not the end. Behavior provides important context. How someone moves through an application can reveal whether the experience feels naturally human or unusually orchestrated. Do they interact naturally? Do they hesitate, correct mistakes or navigate in ways that resemble ordinary human behavior? Or does the session appear unusually scripted, automated or repetitive? Identity verification adds another layer. Matching information across trusted sources, validating identity details and strengthening confidence in account creation remain important, particularly when onboarding decisions carry financial, fraud or customer experience consequences. But verification largely answers a point-in-time question: Does this information match right now? A third layer comes from digital history. An inbox attached to years of airline receipts, loyalty accounts, subscription renewals, account recovery, financial notifications and familiar digital routines introduces a different kind of confidence. Legitimate digital identities leave behind patterns of persistence and engagement that develop gradually over time. Fraudsters can assemble convincing identity attributes, but creating years of ordinary digital life is much harder. Building confidence in an identity requires more than verifying information submitted during a single onboarding session. It requires understanding whether the identity reflects a broader history that supports what the application suggests. A multilayered approach builds stronger identity confidence No single signal can provide a complete view of identity risk. Organizations need multiple sources of confidence that reinforce one another. That's the thinking behind our approach: combining behavioral intelligence, identity verification and digital identity continuity into a more complete view of risk. We bring these complementary layers together through: • NeuroID adds behavioral context during onboarding and account creation, helping identify interaction patterns that may indicate automation, manipulation or coordinated fraud. • Precise ID® strengthens identity verification and resolution by comparing applicant information with trusted identity data. • AtData, recently added to our portfolio, contributes email-centered intelligence based on persistence, engagement and long-term digital history. Together, these capabilities help organizations move beyond evaluating a single moment in time to understanding whether an identity is supported by consistent behavior, trusted identity data and an established digital history. The future of fraud prevention isn't about rewarding the smoothest application. It's about recognizing the most trustworthy identity. Fraudsters can rehearse an application. They can optimize an onboarding journey. They can even assemble convincing identity attributes. What they can't easily manufacture is years of ordinary digital life. That's why digital identity continuity has become an important layer of modern fraud prevention. Combined with identity verification and behavioral intelligence, it helps organizations distinguish between identities that simply look convincing and those supported by a history that is much harder to fake. Learn more Contact us

September 2, 2026 by Julie Lee
From Hybrids to Refinancing: Consumers are Finding New Roads to Vehicle Affordability

For today’s automotive consumers, considering a vehicle purchase isn’t just about the price they see on the window, it’s about finding the right combination of their vehicle preference and monthly payment. In fact, data from Experian Automotive’s State of the Automotive Finance Market Report: Q2 2026 highlighted how affordability continues to shape the automotive finance market. For instance, hybrids offered the lowest average new vehicle loan payment across all fuel types, coming in at $646 in Q2 2026, compared to electric vehicles (EVs) at $692, and gasoline-powered vehicles at $721. This led to considerable growth in new vehicle market share for hybrids this quarter, accounting for 16.80%, from 12.99% last year. While the automotive market continues to offer consumers an expanding mix of fuel types, the combination of growing hybrid share and comparatively lower monthly payments is something worth watching. Affordability isn’t just about what consumers drive, it’s how they finance it While hybrid vehicles are continuing to pave their way in the vehicle market, consumers who already have an auto loan are finding greater savings through refinancing. In the second quarter of 2026, automotive refinancing reached approximately 140,000 loans. More notably, the financial benefit associated with refinancing has grown. Consumers who refinanced this quarter reduced their average interest rate by more than 2.4%, with the average rate moving from 10.40% on the original loan to 7.97% on the refinanced loan. Those rate reductions translated into meaningful monthly savings, especially when refinancing through particular lenders. In Q2 2026, refinancing saved consumers an average of $83 per month, compared to an average monthly savings of $64 this time last year. However, credit unions delivered the largest average payment difference among lender types at $102 this quarter, followed by banks ($65), and finance companies ($38). It’s important for automotive professionals to acknowledge that affordability is not a single moment in the vehicle journey. It can influence the vehicle a consumer chooses, the financing they opt for during that transaction, and the decisions they make years after driving off the lot. Understanding and leveraging those different moments can help professionals identify opportunities to better serve consumers throughout the vehicle ownership lifecycle. To learn more about automotive finance trends, view the full State of the Automotive Finance Market Report: Q2 2026 presentation on demand.

August 27, 2026 by Melinda Zabritski
AI Agent Identity Verification: How to Verify AI Agents in Digital Transactions

AI agents are changing the way consumers interact with businesses online. Learn how you can establish greater confidence in AI transactions.

August 26, 2026 by Laura Burrows

Subscribe to our Newsletter

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 Newsletter

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