From Definition to Prevention: Understanding Synthetic ID Fraud

by Guest Contributor 6 min read March 4, 2024

This article was updated on March 4, 2024.

If you steal an identity to commit fraud, your success is determined by how long it takes the victim to find out. That window gets shorter as businesses get better at knowing when and how to reach an identity owner when fraud is suspected. In response, frustrated fraudsters have been developing techniques to commit fraud that does not involve a real identity, giving them a longer run-time and a bigger payday. 

That’s the idea behind  synthetic identity (SID) fraud — one of the fastest-growing types of fraud.

Defining synthetic identity fraud

Organizations tend to have different  definitions of synthetic identity fraud, as a synthetic identity will look different to the businesses it attacks. Some may see a new account that goes bad immediately, while others might see a longer tenured account fall delinquent and default. The qualifications of the synthetic identity also change over time, as the fraudster works to increase the identity’s appearance of legitimacy. In the end, there is no person to confirm that fraud has occurred, in the very best case, identifying a synthetic identity is inferred and verified. As a result, inconsistent reporting and categorization can make tracking and fighting SID fraud more difficult.

To help create a more unified understanding and response to the issue, the Federal Reserve and 12 fraud experts worked together to develop a definition. In 2021, the  Boston Federal Reserve  published the result, “Synthetic identity fraud is the use of a combination of personally identifiable information to fabricate a person or entity to commit a dishonest act for personal or financial gain.”1 To break down the definition, personally identifiable information (PII) can include:

  • Primary PII:  Such as a name, date of birth (DOB), Social Security number (SSN) or another government-issued identifier. When combined, these are generally unique to a person or entity.
  • Secondary PII:  Such as an address, email, phone number or device ID. These elements can help verify a person or entity’s identity.

Synthetic identities are created when fraudsters establish an identity from scratch using fake PII. Or they may combine real and fake PII (I.e., a stolen SSN with a fake name and DOB) to create a new identity. Additionally, fraudsters might steal and use someone’s SSN to create an identity – children, the  elderly  and incarcerated people are popular targets because they don’t commonly use credit.4 But any losses would still be tied to the SID rather than the victim.

Exploring the Impact of SID fraud

The most immediate and obvious impact of SID fraud is the fraud losses. Criminals may create a synthetic identity and spend months  building up its credit profile, opening accounts and increasing credit limits. The identities and behaviors are constructed to look like legitimate borrowers, with some having a record of on-time payments. But once the fraudster decides to monetize the identity, they can apply for loans and max out credit cards before ‘busting out’ and disappearing with the money. 

Aite-Novaric Group estimates that SID fraud losses totaled $1.8 billion in 2020 and will increase to $2.94 billion in 2024.2 However, organizations that do not identify SIDs may classify a default as a credit loss rather than a fraud loss.

By some estimates, synthetic identity fraud could account for up to 20 percent of loan and credit card charge-offs, meaning the annual charge-off losses in the U.S. could be closer to $11 billion.3 Additionally, organizations lose time and resources on collection efforts if they do not identify the SID fraud.

Those estimates are only for unsecured U.S. credit products. But fraudsters use synthetic identities to take out secured loans, including auto loans.

As part of schemes used to steal relief funds during the pandemic, criminals used synthetic identities to open demand deposit accounts to receive funds. These accounts can be used to launder money from other sources and commit peer-to-peer payment fraud. Deposit account holders are also a primary source of cross-marketing for some financial institutions. Criminals can take advantage of vulnerable onboarding processes for deposit accounts where there’s low risk to the institution and receive offers for lending products.

Building a successful SID prevention strategy

Having an effective SID prevention strategy is more crucial than ever for organizations. Aside from fraud losses, consumers listed identity theft as their top concern when conducting activities online. And while 92% of businesses have an identity verification strategy in place, 63% of consumers are “somewhat confident” or “not very confident” in businesses’ ability to accurately identify them online.

Read: Experian’s 2023 Identity and Fraud Report

Many traditional fraud models and identity verification methods are not designed to detect fake people. And even a step up to a phone call for verification isn’t enough when the fraudster will be the one answering the phone.

Criminals also quickly respond when organizations update their fraud detection methods by looking for less-protected targets. Fraudsters have even signed their SIDs up for social media accounts and apps with low verification hurdles to help their SIDs pass identity checks.5

Understand synthetic identity risks across the lifecycle

Synthetic Identities are dynamic. When lending criteria is tightened to synthetics from opening new accounts, they simply come back when they can qualify. If waiting brings a higher credit line, they’ll wait. It’s important to recognize that synthetic identity isn’t a new account or a portfolio management problem – it’s both.

Use analytics that are tailored to synthetic identity

Many of our customers in the financial services space have been trying to solve synthetic identity fraud with credit data. There’s a false sense of security when criteria is tightened and losses go down—but the losses that are being impacted tend to not be related to credit. A better approach to synthetic ID fraud leverages a larger pool of data to assess behaviors and data linkages that are not contained in traditional credit data.

You can then escalate suspicious accounts to require additional reviews, such as screening through the Social Security Administration’s Electronic Consent Based SSN Verification (eCBSV) system or more stringent document verification.

Find a trusted partner

Experian’s interconnected data and analytics platforms offer lenders turnkey identity and synthetic identity fraud solutions. In addition, lenders can take advantage of the risk management system and continuous monitoring to look for signs of SIDs and fraudulent activity, which is important for flagging accounts after opening. These tools can also help lenders identify and prevent other common forms of fraud, including account takeovers, e-commerce fraud, child identity theft fraud and elderly fraud.

Learn more about our synthetic identity fraud solutions.

1Federal Reserve Bank (2021). Defining Synthetic Identity Fraud
2Aite Novarica (2022). Synthetic Identity Fraud: Solution Providers Shining Light into the Darkness
3Experian (2022). Preventing synthetic identity fraud
4The Federal Reserve (2022). Synthetic Identity Fraud: What Is it and Why You Should Care?
5Experian (2022). Preventing synthetic identity fraud

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