Trending Now

Leveraging Warehouse Simulation for Faster and Accurate…

New Articles

Could Salt Lake City Become a Future Fintech Hub? 

fintech
Global Trade Daily, Technology

Could Salt Lake City Become a Future Fintech Hub? 

Leave a comment

Financial technology (Fintech) is chock-full of specialized algorithms that are not easily understood. But the objective of fintech could not be simpler – technology to improve the delivery and use of financial services. Applying for a mortgage, investing, taking out a car loan, or purchasing a cryptocurrency, fintech advancements make these transactions easy and highly accessible to hundreds of millions worldwide. 

While the Bay Area and New York are still US fintech hubs, a surprising newcomer is attempting to grab some of their market share. Salt Lake City, Utah is best known as an outdoor paradise. Some of the best skiing North America has to offer coupled with national parks and hiking and biking, Salt Lake City has always attracted the sporty adventurer types. Yet, a new education center funded through the University of Utah is seeking to put the western outpost on the fintech map. 

The Stena Center for Financial Technology offers fintech courses and will eventually serve as an incubator for university students and alumni alike seeking to establish fintechs of their own. The Stena Center obtained seed capital from Steve and Jana Smith of the Stena Foundation. Before the foundation, Steve was a co-founder of Finicity, an open-banking platform that was later acquired by Mastercard. Smith noticed during his time at Finicity that employees were well-versed in product development, financial regulation, and software engineering, but few commanded expertise in multiple areas. This is a critical trait when thinking about future products and services and one Smith seeks to foster in this novel fintech incubator. 

Meanwhile, Salt Lake City is thrilled with the proposition. Mayor Erin Mendenhall had coined the city “Tech Lake City” and land-use laws are now favorable for research-and-development and lab-space centers to operate. One of the first firms to take advantage of Tech Lake City was Denali Therapeutics, a biotech firm focusing on neurodegenerative medicines. Perfect Day is another biotech company working on the development of animal-free proteins. Biotech was an initial entry, and now the focus is on complementing it with fintech. 

Perhaps most interesting is the city has also made it easier for lenders to operate, thus fueling the creation of a fintech culture. Celtic Bank and WebBank are active lenders as are a host of industrial loan companies. Fintech-friendly banks provide nascent fintechs with a wider variety of options to scale. Moreover, state tax incentives give companies that expand operations or relocate a refundable tax credit rebate of up to 50% of new revenues over a pre-defined period.    

As of mid-2022 tech and finance employed 180,000+ people in Utah. This is up 18% compared to five years ago. Salt Lake City was already a cheaper city than regional financial centers like Charlotte or Atlanta. By tapping into the state’s universities Salt Lake now has a talent pool and the foundations in place to become a serious fintech hub moving forward. 

banking frontline
Banking, Global Trade Daily

Staffing Shortages are a Competitive Risk for Banking Institutions, Educating Frontline Staff can Provide an Edge

Leave a comment
If the pandemic has taught us anything, it is that we can’t function without our frontline workforce. But the next time you walk into your local bank branch and see a lineup of four tellers serving customers, know that one of those tellers won’t be working there this time next year. The annual turnover rate for frontline bank employees has risen to 23.4%. Coupled with pandemic-induced staffing shortages across industries, including banking, customer service at bank branches and financial service call centers is subsequently at a nadir. To delight customers, banks need to recruit and retain frontline talent by providing real, substantive learning opportunities tied to career advancement.

As we stand now, customers across our country are paying attention to this shortfall in customer service. A wide-ranging survey of 229,000 banking customers from Rivel, a data-driven consultancy, notes that the number of households that believe their primary banking institution is not responsive to their needs has risen by an astonishing 212%. Branch closures, happening at double the rate compared to before the pandemic, are now moving banking institutions further from their customers than ever before.

While the connection between depreciated employee bases and customer service is no surprise, the consequences to brick and mortar banking might be dire. Staffing shortages that lead to poor customer service in 2023 pose a significant risk to banking institutions which are facing pronounced competitive pressures from FinTech rivals. A key competitive differentiator for financial services companies has always been the ability to provide unrivaled, personalized care to customers with a diverse workforce that looks like the communities the bank serves. When customers no longer feel like their bank knows them and their needs, FinTech firms are poised to press the perception that they provide similar services at lower prices.

So how do banks compete with the tech sector’s increasing encroachments on established institutions? They can double down on what has always set them apart: their people.

Lowering the turnover rate for frontline staff and upskilling team members to be ambassadors of the benefits of experienced banking institutions can resuscitate customer experiences. As can attracting a diverse and inclusive workforce that can make meaningful connections, forged in mutual lived experience, with their customers. Fortunately, the pandemic has placed renewed focus on the people functions of companies and the CHROs who lead them. Attracting, retaining, and training diverse talent is possible and the financial services companies that excel in this will fend off FinTech’s attacks and in doing so, rise above others in the industry.

What FinTech companies generally fail to realize about employee benefits is that employees don’t place significant value on unlimited paid time off (which people don’t feel like they can actually use) and cold brew coffee on tap. Employees do place value on a company’s commitment to a worker’s career aspirations – and financial services institutions can outperform here. Due to their sheer size, a frontline worker can aspire to a long and fruitful career at a banking institution, but this is possible only if the bank creates career pathways for them.

For instance, Desert Financial offers employees 100% tuition paid up front for skill-building courses and undergraduate degrees, and up to $10,500 tuition coverage per calendar year for graduate degrees or graduate certificates. Investing in workers and tying educational attainment to career growth demonstrates a tangible commitment on behalf of the employer to the employee, leading to a reciprocal commitment. This is how high-performing staff, those who are homegrown, can and will create a powerfully positive customer service experience, whether at a teller window or in a call center.

A culture of continuous learning is not aspirational, it’s simply smart business. Recent surveys have shown that 68% of workers would stay with an employer if the employer offered opportunities for learning and upskilling.

The remedy for 25% frontline turnover and a reduction in bank branches is to double down on investing in the team members who directly interact with customers: the frontline.

From Execution to Insight: How Fintech is Shaping the Future of Accounts Payable
Education, Global Trade Daily

From Execution to Insight: How Fintech is Shaping the Future of Accounts Payable

Leave a comment

You have to spend money to make money. That’s an old adage, and it’s true. But actually making the payments takes up a lot of people’s time. It’s critical to your business operations, but it’s not why you’re in business. 

That means there are opportunity costs. You have to spend money on the spending of the money instead of on revenue-generating activities. 

There are also mindshare costs. Making vendor payments is a brute-force activity. Accounts payable (AP) teams are stuck on a hamster wheel, always having to scramble to get payments out the door and then reconcile them on the back end. They’re dealing with a lot of manual work and multiple partially-automated, partially-integrated systems. They spend a lot of time correcting errors. 

It’s all about execution and dealing with all kinds of administrative details along the way. They don’t have the systems and the visibility they need to work more strategically. 

But within the next ten years, AP will go from brute force execution to strategic decision-making, thanks to new fintech offerings. 

We haven’t really seen true fintech offerings for business payments in the market until recently. To make business payments efficiently, you need three things: money, infrastructure, and process. A true fintech brings all three.

Most companies today still make payments through their banks, and there’s no question that they are at the heart and the soul of payments. But banks only help with about one-and-a-half of those three things. They have all kinds of lending products that can help you fund your spending, so they can help with liquidity. 

They also have part of the infrastructure. They are chartered by governments to steward money and move money around. They invest significantly in licensing, regulatory compliance, networks to move money and data, and fraud protection.

But there’s one big piece of B2B payment infrastructure that they don’t have: vendor networks. That has meant that it has been up to each individual company to conduct its own enablement campaigns to move vendors to electronic payments. That’s holding companies back. 

Fintechs are now building B2B vendor networks at scale. Companies can plug right into them and start paying about 80 percent of their vendors electronically right out of the gate.

Where banks really fall down is in the area of process. Process automation is where technology companies, on the other hand, excel. We’ve seen a lot of ERP, procurement, and invoice automation vendors start to offer payments as an add-on. It makes sense because people are already using their software to automate the workflow that leads up to the point of payment. But the software providers do not have vendor networks or the ability to offer liquidity.

This is why making vendor payments is such a disjointed process. Up until recently, no provider has offered the combination of the “fin” and the “tech” needed to address the process from end to end.

Today’s fintechs deliver technology and services that take costs and inefficiencies out of the process. They give AP teams visibility into the status of approvals and payments. But most importantly, they free up mindshare for them to be able to use payments as a strategic lever.

AP teams can get out of the payments processing game and still have all the visibility and control they need to run the business. They have the insight they need to become a management- and decision-making group. They have time to think, versus just trying to keep things moving. 

They can use their knowledge of the inner workings of the company to contribute in any number of areas – cash management, job cost accounting, and cost and process optimization. The efficiency gains, combined with increased rebates from leveraging the B2B vendor network to pay more vendors by card, can turn the back office from a cost center into a revenue generator. 

For far too long, companies have had to live with a set of back-office deficiencies that they are well aware of. They recognize the challenges of working with disparate systems. They know there’s too much manual, non-value-added work, and that the time-intensity on error remediation is significant. They’ve resigned themselves to these deficiencies because it’s been that way for decades, and there hasn’t been a better way. 

There is now. It’s been a long time coming because business payments are complicated. To really solve the problem, you need to be a true fintech with a complete set of assets – the relationships with the banks and the credit card companies, the network, and the technology. You need to have them at scale because the volume of B2B payments is massive. It’s a new solution that’s been 50 years in the making. It means that vendor payments don’t have to be suboptimal anymore.

Rick Fletcher is Group President of Corpay Payables, which enables businesses to spend less through smarter payment methods.

 

DeFI
Archives, Banking, Global Trade Daily

DeFi World has a new star called DAO

Leave a comment

As financial markets wrap up the year 2021 and launch into 2022 at warp speed, the “DeFi” world has a new star called the “DAO”.

Decentralized finance, short-handed as “DeFi”, refers to peer-to-peer finance enabled by Ethereum, Avalanche, Solana, Cardano and other Layer-1 blockchain protocols, as distinguished from centralized finance (“CeFi”) or traditional finance (“TradFi”), in which buyers and sellers, payment transmitters and receivers, rely upon trusted intermediaries such as banks, brokers, custodians and clearing firms. DeFi app users “self-custody” their assets in their wallets, where they are protected by their private keys. By eliminating the need for trusted intermediaries, DeFi apps dramatically increase the speed and lower the cost of financial transactions. Because open-source blockchain blocks are visible to all, DeFi also enhances the transparency of transactions and resulting asset and liability positions.

Although the proliferation of non-fungible tokens, or NFTs, may have gathered more headlines in 2021, crypto assets have become a legitimate, mainstream and extraordinarily profitable asset class since they were invented a mere 11 years ago.  The Ethereum blockchain and its digitally native token, Ether, was the wellspring for DeFi because Ether could be used as “gas” to run Layer-2 apps built to run on top of Ethereum. Since then, Avalanche, Solana and Cardano, among other proof-of-stake protocols, have launched on mainnet, providing the gas and the foundation for breathtaking app development which is limited only by the creativity and industry of development teams.

Avalanche and its digitally native token AVAX exemplify this phenomenon. Launched on mainnet a little more than a year ago, Avalanche already hosts more than 50 fully-launched Layer-2 apps. The AVAX token is secured by more than 1,000 validators. Recently, the Avalanche Foundation raised $230 million in a private sale of AVAX tokens for the purpose of supporting DeFi projects and other enhancements of the fully functional Avalanche ecosystem. Coinbase, which is a CeFi institution offering custodial services to its customers, facilitates purchases and sales of the Avalanche, Solana, Cardano and other Layer-1 blockchain tokens, as well as the native tokens of DeFi exchanges such as Uniswap, Sushiswap, Maker and Curve. So formidable is DeFi in its potential to dominate the industry that Coinbase, when it went public in 2021, cited competition from DeFi as one of the company’s primary risk factors.

If DeFi were “a company,” like Coinbase, the market capitalization of AVAX would be shareholder wealth. But DeFi is code, not a company. Uniswap is a DeFi exchange that processed $52 billion in trading volume in September 2021 without the help of a single employee. Small wonder that CeFi and TradFi exchanges are concerned.

DeFi apps require “DAOs,” or Decentralized Autonomous Organizations, to operate. DAOs manage DeFi apps through the individual decisions made by decentralized validator nodes who own or possess tokens sufficient in amount to approve blocks. Unlike joint stock companies, corporations, limited partnerships and limited liability companies, however, DAOs have no code (although, ironically, they are creatures of code). In other words, there is no “Model DAO Act” the way there is a “Model Business Corporation Act.” DAOs are “teal organizations” within the business organization scheme theorized by Frederic Lalou in his 2014 book, “Reinventing Organizations.” They are fundamentally unprecedented in law.

Just as NFTs have been a game changer for creators, artists and athletes, our legal system will need to evolve to account for the creation of the DAOs that govern NFTs and other crypto assets. (NFTs are a species of crypto asset.) Adapting our legal system to account for DAOs represents the next wave of possibility for more numerous and extensive community efforts.

A DAO is fundamentally communitarian in orientation. The group of individuals is typically bound by a charter or bylaws encoded on the blockchain, subject to amendments if, as and when approved by a majority (or some other portion) of the validator nodes. Some DAOs are governed less formally than that.

The vast majority of Blockchain networks and smart contract-based apps are organized as DAOs. Blockchain networks can use a variety of validation mechanisms.  Smart contract apps have governance protocols built into the code.  These governance protocols are hard-wired into the smart contracts like the rails for payments to occur, fully automated, and at scale.

In a DAO, there is no centralized authority — no CEO, no CFO, no Board of Directors, nor are there stockholders to obey or serve. Instead, community members submit proposals to the group, and each node can vote on each proposal. Those proposals supported by the majority (or other prescribed portion) of the nodes are adopted and enforced by the rules coded into the smart contract.  Smart contracts are therefore the foundation of a DAO, laying out the rules and executing the agreed-upon decisions.

There are numerous benefits to a DAO, including the fact that they are autonomous, do not require leadership, provide objective clarity and predictability, as everything is governed by the smart contract. And again, any changes to this must be voted on by the group, which rarely occurs in practice.  DAOs also are very transparent, with everything documented and allowing auditing of voting, proposals and even the code. DAO participants have an incentive to participate in the community so as to exert some influence over decisions that will govern the success of the project. In doing so, however, no node participating as part of a decentralized community would be relying upon the managerial or entrepreneurial efforts of others in the SEC v. Howey sense of that expression. Neither would other nodes be relying upon the subject node. Rather, all would be relying upon each other, with no one and no organized group determining the outcome, assuming (as noted) that the network is decentralized. Voting participants in DAOs do need to own or possess voting nodes, if not tokens.

As with NFTs, there are limitless possibilities for DAOs.  We are seeing a rise in DAOs designed to make significant purchases and to collect NFTs and other assets. For example, PleasrDAO, organized over Twitter, recently purchased the only copy of the Wu-Tang Clan’s album “Once Upon a Time in Shaolin” for $4 million. This same group has also amassed a portfolio of rare collectibles and assets such as the original “Doge” meme NFT.

In addition to DAOs that are created as collective investment groups, there are DAOs designed to support social and community groups, as well as those that are established to manage open-source blockchain projects.

As is true with any emerging technology, there is currently not much regulation or oversight surrounding DAOs. This lack of regulation does make a DAO much simpler to start than a more traditional business model. But as they continue to gain in popularity, there will need to be more law written about them.

The State of Wyoming, which was first to codify the rules for limited liability companies, recently codified rules for DAOs domiciled in that state. So a DAO can be organized as such under the laws of the State of Wyoming. No other state enables this yet.

Compare the explosion in digital assets to the creation of securities markets a century ago.  After the first world war concluded in 1917, the modern securities markets began to blossom.  Investors pooled their money into sophisticated entities called partnerships, trusts and corporations, and Wall Street underwrote offerings of instruments called securities, some representing equity ownership, others representing a principal amount of debt plus interest.  Through the “roaring ‘20s,” securities markets exploded in popularity. Exuberance became irrational. When Joe Kennedy’s shoeshine boy told him that he had bought stocks on margin, Kennedy took that as a “sell” signal and sold his vast portfolio of stocks, reinvesting in real estate: he bought the Chicago Merchandise Mart and was later appointed by FDR to chair the SEC.  When the stock market crashed, fingers were pointed.  Eventually, a comprehensive legislative and regulatory scheme was built, woven between federal and state legislation and regulatory bodies.  Almost a hundred years later, securities markets have become the backbone of our financial system, and investors and market participants have built upon the certainty of well-designed architecture to create financial stability and enable growth.

But the legislative paradigm designed in the 1930s was not created with digital assets in mind. The world was all-analog then. The currently disconnected and opaque regulatory environment surrounding digital assets presents a challenge to sustained growth in DeFi markets.  Without “crypto legislation,” government agencies have filled the void, making their own determinations, and they are not well suited to do so. Just before Thanksgiving, the federal banking agencies released a report to the effect that they had been “sprinting” to catch up on blockchain developments, that they are concerned by what they see, and that next year they will start writing rules. Plainly, technological development has outpaced Washington again.

Whether crypto assets should be characterized as securities, commodities, money or simply as property is not clear in present day America.  Will entrepreneurs continue to create digital assets and will investors buy them if their legal status is in doubt?  The SEC mantra is “come talk to us,” but the crypto asset projects actually approved by the SEC are precious few in number, and SEC approvals are not timely. We have clients that have run out of runway while waiting for SEC approvals. In decentralization as in desegregation, justice delayed is justice denied. The recent experience of Coinbase in attempting to clear its “Lend” service through the SEC, only to be threatened with an SEC enforcement action (but no explanation), has caused other industry participants to question the utility of approaching officials whose doors might be open for polite conversation but whose minds seem to be closed.

Similarly, DAOs are a path-breaking form of business “organization” that are not well understood. They are not corporations. Should they nevertheless file and pay taxes, open bank accounts or sign legal agreements? If so, then who would have the power or duty to do that for a decentralized autonomous organization whose very existence decries the need for officers, directors and shareholders? The globally significant Financial Action Task Force, in its recent guidance on “virtual assets and virtual asset service providers,” called on governments to demand accountability from “creators, owners and operators,” as it put it, “who maintain control or sufficient influence” in DeFi arrangements, “even if those arrangements seem decentralized.” Some observers have characterized the FATFs guidance as an attempted “kill shot” targeting the heart of DeFi.

This, too, we know: SEC Chair Gensler has his eye on DeFi. We know that because he has said so, repeatedly. Trading and lending platforms, stablecoins and DeFi are the priorities that he mentions. SEC FinHUB released a “Framework” for crypto analysis that includes more than 30 factors, none of which is controlling. That framework is unworkable because it is too complex and uncertain of application. Chair Gensler, however, apparently applies what he calls the “duck” test: If it looks like a security, it is one. With respect to Mr. Gensler, that simple approach is no more useful than the late Justice Potter Stewart’s definition of obscenity: “I know it when I see it.” Less subjectivity and greater predictability in application are essential so development teams and exchange operators can plan to conduct business within legal boundaries. What we need are a few workable principles or standards (emphasis on “few” and “workable”) that define the decentralization that is at the core of legitimate DeFi and the consumer use of tokens that are not investment contracts. We also need the SEC to adhere to Howey analysis, which it has told us to follow slavishly, and not try to move the goalposts by misapplying the Reves “note” case when it senses that Howey won’t get it the result it craves.

Although futuristic DAOs are a decentralized break from the centralized past and present of business organization, the SEC has seen them before. Indeed it was the “DAO Report” issued in 2017 that began SEC intervention in the crypto asset industry. The DAO criticized in the DAO Report was unlike the DAOs seen today for a variety of reasons, including these: that DAO was a for-profit business that promised a return on investment, similar to a dividend stream, to token holders; and the token holders didn’t control the DAO. “Curators” controlled it, by vetting and whitelisting projects to be developed for profit. DAO participants necessarily relied on the original development team and the “Curators” to build functionality into the network. That sort of reliance on the managerial or entrepreneurial efforts of others is absent in a latter-day DAO whose participants can avail themselves of a fully functional network without reliance on the developers and without delay. It is earnestly to be hoped that the SEC will recognize these critical differences.

* * *

Louis Lehot is an emerging growth company, venture capital, and M&A lawyer at Foley & Lardner in Silicon Valley.  Louis spends his time providing entrepreneurs, innovative companies, and investors with practical and commercial legal strategies and solutions at all stages of growth, from the garage to global.

Patrick Daugherty is Louis’ partner in Chicago. A corporate securities lawyer by training, he spent 35 years practicing the law of money (IPOs, ETFs, M&A, SEC reporting and governance). While he still does that, 5 years ago he went down the rabbit hole of crypto assets and he now devotes himself to the law of the future of money.

checks
Archives, Banking, Global Trade Daily

Check use drops, but still plenty of room for efficiency gains

Leave a comment

AFP, the Association for Financial Professionals released the 2022 Payments Cost Benchmarking Survey underwritten by Corpay. The survey looks at external costs such as bank/payment provider fees, reporting, interchange for credit cards, etc., and internal costs such as personnel, technical equipment, IT support.

Treasury and other financial professionals can now compare their costs of making and receiving seven types of payments–check, ACH credits and debits; wires; credit and debit cards; real-time payments, and virtual cards–against benchmarks for similarly sized companies. This is useful information for identifying areas for optimization and in making the business case for further automation.

This time around, the cost of incoming payments has also been segmented by tender type, a recognition of the fact that impact to vendors should be part of the equation when implementing a new payment strategy.

Survey Says…

This survey was completed about 18 months after COVID-19 began and reflects the acceleration of electronic payment adoption driven by work from home policies. The typical organization now reports processing between 500 to 999 checks per month and 1,000-1,999 outgoing payments via ACH Credit. In 2015, the median number of checks processed per month was 1,000-1,999 while the ACH Credit median was 500-999 per month.

Data collected from nearly 350 accounts payable professionals confirms that paper checks are considerably more expensive than all electronic payment methods except for wires. Even though the survey found high awareness of the cost of checks compared to electronic methods, 92% of organizations continue to accept them.

Survey results indicate that despite lower overall check processing median transaction cost for issuing a paper check range between $2.01-$4.00 per check

Increased efficiency was the primary reason cited for transitioning to electronic payments (92% of respondents), compared to 82% of respondents that cited cost reduction. This marks a shift in focus; according to the 2019 AFP Electronic Payments Survey—released well before the pandemic hit—the top three drivers were cost savings, fraud controls and better supplier/customer relations. Efficiency in terms of speed and ease of reconciliation were ranked 4th and 5th respectively in 2019.

Fraud remains a top concern, with 67% citing fraud concerns as a primary driver for electronic payment adoption. Fifty five percent of organizations with revenue greater than $5 billion said the move was part of a larger workflow automation project.

Despite the new focus on efficiency, results from this year’s survey suggest that paper checks are not going away anytime soon. Despite nearly two thirds of organizations saying they would replace paper checks with electronic payments if there was a cost benefit, 37% of all respondents said they would continue to use paper checks regardless of costs.

The report cites the ubiquitous nature of checks, tradition, the challenges of converting vendors to electronic payment methods, and longstanding systems and routines as enduring obstacles to change. This thinking, along with other internal Corpay market research, suggests that many organizations remain unaware of changes in the payments market that could help them achieve greater efficiencies, cut costs and better prevent fraud.

Our take:

-Card payments remain underutilized. Procurement, T&E and virtual card processing can be easier to automate as vendors often have systems in place to capture data from ERP and procurement systems. As treasury and payments professionals continue to focus on tightly managing working capital , credit cards can be a very valuable tool. Organizations should evaluate their average cost of capital, cost of credit, and credit terms, and the opportunity cost of accepting/not accepting cards when evaluating them as part of an overall larger payments strategy.

-The adoption of virtual cards in particular is still relatively low—23% across all respondents. Virtual cards offer all the working capital benefits–including rebates–associated with traditional credit cards. But since these single use cards can only be used by the specified payee in the specified amount, they offer unparalleled protection against fraud. Considering the focus on fraud prevention, virtual cards warrant a more prominent place in organizations’ vendor payment strategy.

-The 2019 AFP Electronic Payments Survey reported that the cost to convert customers from paper checks to electronic payments was the number one drawback to conversion. This cost was not considered in the Benchmark survey, but treasury and finance professionals are well aware of the ongoing manual labor involved in enabling vendors for electronic payment. What they may not be aware of is that Fintechs such as Corpay have large, cloud-based acceptance networks and take on that effort on behalf of their customers.

-The study looked at seven different payment methods. The majority of companies are using at least three but some may be using all seven. That means they are likely running several discrete payment workflows. Where that is the case, they could achieve further efficiencies with a payment automation solution that consolidates all payment methods into a single workflow.

-Companies with annual revenue between $1-$4.9 billion are the heaviest users of wire payments, which can cost up to 12 times as much as a check. This is likely due to an organization with a global footprint that is sending more wires to vendors overseas. Companies this size may not yet have a global operations infrastructure and access to local payment systems and banking partners. These companies could benefit from a payments partner specializing in cross-border payments.

As the Benchmark survey notes, the cost to receive a check is typically half of what it is to issue one, and large AR departments have efficient, often touchless processes in place for processing them. Prior to the pandemic, that meant vendors often did not feel the same sense of urgency to digitize payments.

During the pandemic, convincing vendors to accept digital payments became a much easier discussion as both parties were motivated to move to an electronic format while their teams were working remotely. That created a tailwind for the move off paper checks, which has been far slower than anticipated in North America. Streamlining your payment process and migrating to less expensive, more efficient payment methods should be your priority for 2022.

By Corpay, a FLEETCOR company.

digital currencies
Archives, Banking, Global Trade Daily

Central Banks to Adopt Their Own Digital Currencies to Eliminate Potential Risks

Leave a comment

Digital currencies backed by central banks, or central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), are becoming a reality for residents in a few countries around the world. The evolution from checks, to debit cards, and now to digital payments give cause to wonder if we really need cash anymore. While economists agree that we still need cash for now, some governments are discussing the effects of implementing a CBDC nationally. 

However, not everyone is as interested in the prospect of implementing a nationwide digital currency. Commercial lending and banking would be affected, as the widespread use of CBDCs could take a bite out of commercial deposits and put the industry’s funding in jeopardy. But with China currently developing a digital Yuan, that leaves government and supply chain leaders wondering about the potential trade risks of not competing in the global economy with CBDCs. 

Luckily, lawmakers have come up with a slew of solutions that include strict regulations and controls, hard limits on transfers and holdings, and a long-term transition period before the new digital assets could be launched in full effect. In the meantime, central bankers in the US are contemplating adopting their own digital tokens for instant, low friction international transactions. 

What is Central Bank Digital Currency?

A CBDC is the virtual form of a certain fiat currency. You can think of it as an electronic record or a digital token of how currency is spent, held, and moved. CBDCs are issued and regulated by central banks and backed by the credit of their issuer. They aren’t really a new kind of money, it just changes the way we track transactions. 

While seemingly very similar at first glance, CBDCs are not cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies are digital currencies that are secured by cryptography and exist on decentralized blockchain networks. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are not backed by any government or banking entity and are purely digital currencies. CBDCs, in contrast, are backed by legal tender and are only a digital representation of fiat money.

Part of the draw to create CBDCs is inspired by their crypto-cousins’ distributed ledger technology. DLT, or blockchain technology, refers to the digital infrastructure and protocols that allow access, validation, and continuity across a vast network. This means that, in contrast to fiat currency that exists today, digital currencies can be tracked and verified in real-time, limiting the risk of theft and fraud. 

Blockchain technology is usually associated with cryptocurrency, but it has the potential for numerous applications that could help governments organizations and banking entities run more smoothly with accountability and transparency. Another reason why countries are drawn to CBDCs is they have the ability to help increase banking access for otherwise underbanked populations. 

Currently, there are 81 countries exploring CBDCs. China is racing ahead of the pack with their development of the digital Yuan, putting pressure on countries that will want to remain competitive. It raises the question of whether China will at some point accept only digital currency, meaning other countries would need their own CBDCs to remain competitive on a global scale. 

China’s digital Yuan

China has long been known to resist cryptocurrencies and crypto trading, so when the news broke that their central bank has been developing a CBDC there was some confusion. However, it has now become clear that the Chinese government is creating an environment where citizens who want to use digital currencies like crypto will have to use the digital Yuan, removing any competition from DeFi banking initiatives. 

Before their crackdown on Bitcoin and crypto, local investors made up 80% of the crypto trading market. This shows promise when it comes to the adoption of the digital Yuan, with so many Chinese citizens open to adopting and spending digital currency. 

They have already started real-world trials in a number of cities and are expecting the digital Yuan to increase competition in China’s mobile payments market. It is still not entirely clear how users will hold and spend the new digital Yuan whenever it is available nationwide. Right now the most popular form of mobile payment in the country relies on QR codes scanned by merchants. 

Alipay and WeChat Pay could eventually integrate CBDC functionality, and smartphones could also potentially be used as a digital wallet for CBDCs. There is still a lot to be discussed, tested, and fixed before the digital Yuan can be distributed nationwide, but China is currently the country closest to rolling out its own CBDC. 

Where does the United States stand?

Crypto thefts, hacks, and frauds amounted to about $1.9 billion in 2020, so many leaders have reservations when it comes to enforcing and regulating CBDCs in the US. But there is evidence that CBDCs would have no issues being adopted by the American people. Crypto aside, the digital payments sector is booming with about 75% of Americans already using digital payments apps and services. 

But there is not yet a single widely accepted infrastructure available that could handle CBDCs, and lawmakers are lagging behind when it comes to regulations for fintechs as it is. The US could take a page from China’s book and explore adding CBDC functionality to existing banking fintechs like Chime, Paypal, and ApplePay. According to online trader Gary Stevens from Hosting Canada, it would also be wise to look at banks that offer trading services as well. 

“In the US, banks offering online trading services (such as Merrill Edge through Bank of America) tend to provide a seamless client experience,” says Stevens. “They strive to provide a consistent login interface between the bank and its brokerage arm, making switching between these platforms easier. This also makes other tasks like moving money between these accounts more flexible. Therefore, US residents have come to expect a more integrated, holistic experience with similar core functionality.”

The Future of CBDCs

The onset of the pandemic has created the perfect storm for CBDCs to come to fruition. Telework, online education, and streaming services have experienced growth while brick-and-mortar establishments have suffered. The same is true for the financial services industry. Banks have struggled to compete with fintech solutions, and more people are utilizing digital payments than ever before. 

Since CBDCs are such a new technology, there is still much to learn when it comes to implementing CBDCs nationwide and around the globe. Offline accessibility and resilience are only a couple of concerns regarding digital currency adoption worldwide. Other issues include user privacy, using private and public blockchain networks, and how digital currencies will be exchanged on a global scale. Only time will tell how central banks choose to seriously pursue this route to make it more mainstream. 

Conclusion

There are a lot of details still up in the air regarding CBDCs, as well as a considerable amount of research, testing, and development left to unfold. But one thing is clear: central bank digital currencies are already under development. Whether you are getting into online trading or just like the convenience of e-payments, they might be coming to a digital wallet near you sooner than you think. 

payments
Archives, Banking, Global Trade Daily

Why the Players That Focus on Both Sides Will Win the B2B Payments Market

Leave a comment

Remote work initiatives have created a strong tailwind for digitizing business payments, with companies rushing to move away from checks and onto card and ACH payments. This huge market–roughly 10 times the size of the consumer payment market–is ripe for change. Over the past decade, a decent amount of investment has gone into this area. Everyone is getting into the game: banks, card providers, and fintech providers, for example. It’s very early days, with paper checks still the predominant form of payment in the US. Who will win the market? Ultimately, it will be the players that can best address the needs of both buyers and suppliers.

I’ve spent time on both sides. Before coming to Nvoicepay, which helps automate the payment process on the accounts payable side, I was with Billtrust, which automates accounts receivable. Their founder and CEO, Flint Lane, was a big believer in the need to solve for both sides of the equation. That was my first introduction to the concept. Now, having sold into both accounts receivable and accounts payable, I’m a firm believer as well.

Two Sides of the Coin

There are two sides to every payment—creation and receipt. When it comes to consumer payments, both sides are straightforward, especially with today’s technology. But in the world of business payments, process complexity adds friction between them. Accounts payable’s goal is to manage cash flow by hanging on to money as long as possible. That puts them at odds with accounts receivable, who wants to get paid as quickly as possible. Digitizing transactions doesn’t efficiently address the complexity or friction between the sender’s and receiver’s processes. And the lack of consideration can worsen the issue.

For example, funds sent by accounts payable may hit their vendor’s bank faster with card or ACH payments, but a complicated payment application process can lose the receivable department precious time anyway. Without a way to streamline the process from beginning to end, simply switching to electronic means in a few places may not offer the time savings that businesses hope to achieve.

What’s the Solution?

Portals work well for larger companies that can dictate the terms of doing business to their smaller customers. But their customers may not be happy having their own interests dictated to them. And if you don’t have that kind of authority, chances are your portal will go unused because you’ve created a one-off process for your customers, making life harder for their accounts receivable people.

Electronic means can help accounts payable make payments at the last minute, and they’d prefer paying by card over ACH because they can make money on card rebates. But convincing suppliers to accept card is often a challenge because the accompanying fees can get expensive very quickly. Meanwhile, enabling suppliers for ACH translates to AP managing large amounts of sensitive bank account data.

Many organizations end up “dabbling” in electronic payments because of these enablement challenges. That leaves them managing four different payment workflows–card, ACH, wire, and a whole lot of checks. This is the problem that payment automation providers solve by taking on the supplier enablement process, maximizing card rebates, and simplifying AP workflows.

As much as both sides might agree that digital payments are the future, they’re stuck between a rock and a hard place without automation.

Paving the Way

Fintech businesses like Nvoicepay and Billtrust are bringing automation to payables and receivables separately, and that’s a big step forward. I believe the next generation of solutions will bring both worlds together on a flexible, dynamic platform where both parties to a transaction can choose from a range of options that best meet their needs at any given time.

From an accounts receivable perspective, funds need to be accompanied by enhanced digital remittance information. They could offer buyers incentives in dynamic discounts in exchange for speedy payment and a streamlined cash application process through the platform.

On the buying side, easy access to supply chain financing could allow them to take advantage of such discounts while at the same time extending payment terms. The buying organization takes its two percent discount and gives half a percent to the financing organization, paying the invoice within the discount window. Then the buying organization pays the financing organization in 30 days. Payables manages cash, gets part of the discount and a rebate if they pay by card.

Bringing it All Together

The key to creating these win-win outcomes is including the presence of a technology platform that uses data to offer convenience and choice, allowing organizations to meet whatever their needs happen to be at any given time. For example, if your cash position is good, you may not offer discounts or offer them more selectively. If you work with many small suppliers with tight margins, consider taking the card option off the table.

These are not new ideas, but they haven’t yet been addressed effectively with technology. Historically we’ve tried to do this through EDI (Electronic Data Interchange), a computer-to-computer communication standard developed in the 1960s. It’s always been very clunky, and it is unwieldy for the volume and velocity of data in the supply chain today. However, a majority of organizations still use it for lack of anything better.

Nacha and the Real-Time Payments Network add remittance data to ACH payments, but that’s not a complete answer. There still needs to be some technology put in place to incorporate the data into payment workflows.

Suppose you look at fintech innovation in the consumer payments market as a leading indicator. In that case, it’s been less about new payment products and more about using technology to send and receive money seamlessly, regardless of which electronic network is used.

In B2B payments, fintechs changed the game by thinking about payments as a business process rather than a collection of products, and built software solutions to automate those workflows. With remote work providing an additional incentive, many more organizations are adoping electronic forms of payment. That, in turn, makes data more available to continue developing digital platforms. Whoever gets there first has a good chance of becoming the leading player, but you won’t get there at all if you don’t build for both sides of the equation.

_________________________________________________________________

Derek Halpern is Senior Vice President of Sales for Nvoicepay, a FLEETCOR Company. He has over 20 years of technology sales and leadership experience, including 16 years in the fintech and payments space. 

fintech
Archives, Banking, Global Trade Daily, International Trade

Is Saudi Arabia Leading the Race for FinTech Financial Inclusion?

Leave a comment

It can be hard to keep up with Fintech. Just as the sector appears to be settling into some form of pattern in the UK and USA, where the next notable round of innovation is widely expected to be the automation that is changing the industry, new markets and new centers are emerging. 

One of these – and one that was thought to be rather unlikely until fairly recently – is Saudi Arabia. Though the Middle East has long had a promising fintech sector, this has largely been confined to Saudi’s smaller neighbor, UAE. 

Now, a range of Saudi startups have raised large sums in seed capital, and seem poised to make a major impact on the industry. In this article, we’ll look at these recent success stories, and explore when they mean for Saudi’s nascent fintech sector. 

Saudi Arabia: A New Frontier?

First, let’s take a look at those recent headlines. Back in April, a promising but relatively small Saudi fintech startup, Tamara, announced that it had raised $110 million for its Series A funding. This came as a real shock to industry, and with good reasons – not only was this the largest level of Series A funding ever raised by a Saudi startup, but it was the largest Series A ever raised by a middle eastern startup.

Perhaps the news shouldn’t have come as much of a surprise, though. Observant investors noted that the Saudi fintech sector has been growing steadily over the past few years – from just 10 startups registered under the Fintech Saudi initiative in 2018, to a total of 155 in 2020. And with extra companies comes extra funding – from January to May this year, fintech startups based in Saudi Arabia raised almost $130 million, a whopping jump compared to the $23 million raised by the sector from 2015-2020.

This growth is also likely to continue in the medium term. This level of investment is proving to be an incentive for Western fintech startups, as well, who are now looking to the Middle East as a potential new market for their services. Whether they will be able to take advantage of the size of the market in the region will, however, depend on a number of factors.

As we will see, the biggest problem standing in the way of creating a dynamic Fintech sector in Saudi is not the demand for innovative banking services – that is certainly strong enough. Rather, it is a somewhat traditional banking sector that may be reluctant to open up to technology companies.

Growth Across the Region

Saudi certainly has some well-established models to follow when it comes to catalyzing fintech growth. Bahrain, for instance, is widely regarded as having some of the most fintech-friendly banking regulations in the world, and the sector in that company is growing rapidly. Similarly, Egypt is seen as a real growth market for the sector, given the country’s huge population and a government that seems to be supportive of novel approaches to small business finance.

In both of these countries, government support has been key to encouraging the fintech sector, and Saudi Arabia appears to have recognized this. The Fintech Saudi initiative is the flag bearer for this support, and was launched back in 2018 by the Saudi Central Bank. The bank partnered with the Capital Markets Authority (CMA) in the kingdom, which has played a pivotal role in providing investment funding for fintech startups. 

The goals of these investments are certainly ambitious. The mission statement of the CMA states that it is tasked with “transforming Saudi Arabia into an innovative fintech hub with a thriving and responsible fintech ecosystem”. As part of this wide mandate, Fintech Saudi facilitates the licensing process for startups, connects entrepreneurs with investors, service providers, and banks, and has an accelerator program run by Flat6Labs.

This government support is, in turn, part of a broader change across the region, in which governments who were previously averse to change are embracing new ways of doing business. Just as the oil industry is changing, and becoming more transparent, so is the financial sector. And that will have impacts far beyond investors and bank staff because fintech might just be able to make banking truly inclusive.

Open Banking and Inclusion

If, as seems likely, Saudi Arabia becomes a leader in the fintech space, it will act not just as a catalyst for the development of fintech solutions across the region. It will also be the biggest test run yet of one of the central promises of fintech – that this technology can open up banking in a way never seen before.

On the one hand, Saudi Arabia seems like an unlikely place to be at the forefront of inclusive banking. The country is still very conservative and has some of the most secretive banking practices in the world. However, there are signs that the kingdom is open to change – both socially and in regard to the way it does business.

This has been overtly stated by Fintech Saudi, which is developing an open baking framework for the kingdom. Their aim, they say, is to force Saudi banks to be more open, and to share data about their activities more widely. This, in turn, will likely make it easier for under-represented groups in the country – women, most of all – to access banking services. 

At the moment, many guest workers and women in the country are under-served by financial institutions, and by allowing them to open accounts it is hoped that the country can become more open generally. In addition, fintech can help these workers to make international payments more easily, sending money back home and sharing the benefits of the strident Saudi economy.

The Challenges

Of course, changing the way in which a conservative country runs its banking system is not going to be easy. The Fintech sector in the country, while attracting a lot of funding, will have to overcome some real challenges if it is going to succeed.

One of these is a skills gap. A recent report from Fintech Saudi, for instance, shows that hiring qualified talent was the primary challenge for 40% of startups in the fintech space. Without qualified workers to power the work of startups, it’s likely that these will either stall or be forced to move their activities (and their profits) elsewhere.

Secondly, there is the issue of cybersecurity. Saudi has been a major target of cyberattacks in recent years, many of which appear to have originated in Iran. While the average fintech startup might not be a target of global cyber-weapons, the sheer number of common cybersecurity risks that the average Saudi company experiences every year could be enough to deter some startups and investors from working in the country.

The Bottom Line

That’s not to say that these challenges don’t have solutions, of course.  Open banking has progressed in two ways around the globe in recent years, either via regulators forcing traditional banks to embrace it and work with fintech startups (as is the case in the European Union) or (as we see in the US) incumbent banks opting to partner with open banking providers to keep pace with innovation.

If Saudi Arabia can do the same, while also recognizing that both talent acquisition and customer service are key to success in Fintech, there is no reason why it cannot emulate the success of its neighbors, and become the next global fintech hub.

credit cards
Archives, Banking, Global Trade Daily, Special Reports

Why Credit Cards Could Be the Next Big Opportunity in B2B Payments

Leave a comment

With the advent of widespread remote work, businesses have made impressive leaps in eliminating checks and adopting electronic supplier payments. These changes primarily translated to increasing the number of ACH or Direct Deposit payments made. According to Nacha—the governing body for the ACH network—business-to-business payments for supply chains, supplier payments, bills, and other transfers increased by almost 11% in 2020. But as organizations adopt electronic payment processes, there’s another strategic opportunity for AP to consider: electronic credit card.

Most companies’ payments flow through AP, yet few AP departments today are making significant use of credit cards to their fullest potential. Historically, companies use credit cards as a decentralized way to manage expenses. In order to do their jobs, employees need to spend efficiently, without going through a bureaucratic process. Traditional commercial programs have been focused on companies giving their employees purchasing cards (p-cards) or travel and entertainment cards (T&E cards) which they could use for supplies, meals, or departmental expenses such as software subscriptions, and marketing expenses—items that would be classified as indirect spending. However, while the benefits of these programs are clear, even in a depressed travel environment, it falls short of the full potential of complete credit card utilization.

Old vs. New

Companies can establish guardrails for spending on these cards. They can add controls to limit employee spending or only allow them to spend in certain places. There are also mechanisms in place to do post-transaction reviews and allow for remediation for inappropriate spending. Due to the combination of convenience and control, finance departments often think about cards as tools for employee productivity, with customizable spending controls.

This only touches on one aspect of company spending, however. Companies spend far more of their budget through traditional purchase orders and invoices for direct expenses like materials, components, freight, and labor. The idea that AP could utilize a card for direct expenses has still not been widely accepted.

Cards provide easy access to working capital and offer rewards like cash back or points. Many companies appreciate that cards are a better electronic payment option due to these benefits. The question then becomes: how do you build a successful card program in accounts payable? Generally, businesses have to make card processes work within their pre-existing AP infrastructure, which usually includes a supplier interaction component and a technical component that traditional players (banking institutions) in this space are not fully equipped to handle.

For example, banks primarily look at credit cards as another form of lending. They offer credit lines, which their customers spend against and pay back. Paying supplier by card usually enables businesses to reach their top 10 or 20 suppliers. That’s usually considered a successful lending program, but to interact with more suppliers, integrate with an ERP, or offer enhanced reconciliation data, banks don’t usually have the technical resources, because it’s beyond their traditional lending model.

Incorporating the New

Bank business models usually focus on building and maintaining a vast merchant acceptance network. You can walk into tens of millions of locations worldwide and if they have the Mastercard or Visa logo, you can use your credit card there, no questions asked. But when it comes to payments for suppliers, the acceptance network is inconsistent. Some suppliers don’t accept payment by card, or only accept them from certain customers depending on speed of payment, the margins, and the type of product that they’re selling. Due to these factors, paying by bank-issued card requires the vendor engagement process to include finding suppliers that already accept specific card types, ensure they accept that payment type from other customers, and locate new card-accepting suppliers.

That’s where fintechs really shine, because their business models are built to incorporate a supplier engagement process aimed at getting more spend on cards. Where banks generally looking for the top 10 to 20 suppliers, which might account for 70 percent of your total spend, fintechs go after the tail—that 30 percent of spend that probably accounts for more than 60 percent of your suppliers and takes more work to get on board. Essentially, they build out a B2B acceptance network inside the credit card acceptance network.

Scaling the Mountain Towards Change

Operationalized re-engagement models are a particularly important component of this business model because most companies churn 10 to 20 percent of their suppliers each year. Within two years, business’ supplier pools are different by 20 percent from when they began, so they must reach out constantly to maintain certain payment acceptances. While banks don’t always have the capacity to offer supplier acceptance maintenance, fintechs thrive when they include those services in their business model.

There are multiple benefits of capturing tail spend on cards. For example, doing so opens the door to paying more suppliers electronically, earning businesses more working capital and a higher potential for rebates. Virtual cards come with security and controls that plastic cards do not usually possess, including single-use numbers that are tied to unique suppliers and payment amounts. Tag on reconciliation data options, and the system becomes something that benefits accounts receivable as much as accounts payable. This opens more suppliers up to the idea of accepting electronic forms of payment.

Fintechs—technology-focused by nature—build their systems with a holistic viewpoint in mind, preferring to create software that doesn’t sacrifice one business’ operations for another’s. By enhancing the system end-to-end, previously reluctant accounts receivable teams, who felt strong-armed into giving up outdated payment processes, often become more willing and interested to learn about electronic alternatives.

_____________________________________________________________________

Rick Fletcher is the Comdata President of Corporate Payments, where he specializes in sales, marketing and product strategy, operations, and customer service.

synthetic fraud
Archives, Banking, Global Trade Daily

SentiLink Shares What Businesses Should Know About Synthetic Fraud in Exclusive Q&A

Leave a comment

In the following Q&A, we learn all things synthetic fraud, from risk mitigation to what businesses can do now to effectively combat this new challenge for global businesses.

What is synthetic fraud and how does it differ from fraud?

Synthetic fraud is a type of fraud where a falsified or manipulated identity is used to open consumer and business financial services accounts. It’s very different from ID theft because there’s no victim that comes forward to claim their identity has been stolen. As a result, synthetic identities go undetected for years. So, not only does synthetic fraud cost banks and lenders billions of dollars a year in losses, but these identities facilitate all sorts of criminal activities.

How is Sentilink revealing the risks of synthetic fraud (Through a report, through research, through other means)?

SentiLink offers several solutions that credit unions prevent synthetic fraud.

Synthetic Scores: SentiLink’s Synthetic Scores product indicates the likelihood that an identity is synthetic. Synthetic Scores are made available to clients via API or a user-friendly Dashboard.

Manifest – Manifest is the identity data leveraged by the machine learning algorithm that generates SentiLink’s Synthetic Scores. This dataset includes information from the credit bureau, utility records, the death master file, as well as phone and email data.  SentiLink enriches this identity data and makes it available in the Manifest product via API and the Dashboard. Clients can incorporate Manifest in their proprietary models or utilize the data to investigate individual cases via the Dashboard.

eCBSV – For the first time ever, it’s possible to validate Social Security numbers with the Social Security Administration’s database of SSNs in real-time using eCBSV. With applicant consent, financial institutions can send their applicants’ names, dates of birth, and SSNs to SentiLink via API and receive a match or no-match response within milliseconds. This service enables lenders who have historically required SSA-89 forms, such as mortgage lenders, to shave days off the loan origination process.

Why is synthetic fraud more of a risk to credit unions rather than to other establishments? 

To be clear, synthetic fraud is a risk to all financial institutions. But, some credit unions may think that the membership requirements to join are a deterrent to synthetic fraud. But, we’ve seen that fraudsters are able to become members and get loans from credit unions.

What could credit unions be doing that would help them lessen the risk of synthetic fraud?

There are several things credit unions can do:

Education is the first step. The Federal Reserve wrote 3 white papers on synthetic fraud that are very informative.

Pay special attention to the Social Security number of applicants applying. If the SSN was issued in a state where the applicant doesn’t have address history, this is a potential red flag. If the SSN was issued in a year that’s different than the date of birth, this is a potential red flag. It doesn’t necessarily mean a synthetic identity is being used to apply, but these are scenarios that potentially warrant additional verification. Validating the SSN using an SSA-89 form or eCBSV is a smart approach.

Labeling losses according to the type of fraud is also important. Knowing whether a loss was due to ID theft, synthetic fraud, and other types of fraud will enable a credit union to measure losses due to each type of fraud and learn how to recognize similar identities when they apply.

What are the 7 synthetic identities and how does it work/identify?

Perhaps I should clarify the statement, “1 in 7 synthetic identities has a credit line from a credit union.” SentiLink has tagged over 100,000 synthetic identities. We have a subset of these identities where we can see what financial institutions gave these fake consumers a loan. Our analysis showed that 1 in 7 of these synthetic identities had a loan from a credit union. The point we were trying to make is that credit unions are at risk for synthetic fraud just like other banks, fintechs, and lenders.

What do you mean by “tradeline from a credit union with balances 2/5X higher?

We looked at the loan size that credit unions issued to these synthetic identities and compared them to the loan size that they gave to non-synthetic identities and found that the balances issued to synthetic identities were significantly higher. So, the credit unions lost a lot more money when issuing loans to synthetic identities. This is another reason why credit unions should work to identify synthetic identities before they become members, so they don’t experience these losses.

What are the risks to a credit union in regard to synthetic fraud?

The risks are losses and compliance. As mentioned above, synthetic identities cause significant losses to financial institutions. But, there is also the regulatory requirement to Know Your Customer. KYC solutions can’t detect synthetic identities, and as regulators become more aware of this issue, their expectations around what constitutes appropriate KYC measures is likely to change. If credit unions are issuing loans to synthetic identities, they aren’t conducting appropriate due diligence to know their customer. Their ability to comply with KYC requirements will suffer if they don’t address synthetic fraud.

What are the warning signs that credit unions should pay attention to?

Certainly, upticks in losses can be a sign of increased synthetic fraud. But, also things like the same address being used frequently to apply for loans can be a sign that a group of fraudsters is attacking a credit union.

What do you see as the future of credit unions in relation to this type of fraud?

Synthetic fraud is going to be an issue for credit unions for the foreseeable future. Unlike id theft where fraudsters steal an identity and have to quickly take out a loan, take the money and move on, synthetic identities can be used over and over again for a very long period of time. And, synthetic identities are easy to create so it’s something credit unions are going to have to learn about in order to detect and stop them from impacting their business.

__________________________________________________________________

Sarah Hoisington is head of Marketing at SentiLink, a fraud protection tech firm helping financial institutions and government agencies.