Identity Theft Red Flags

Round 1 – Pick your corner

---by Monica Bellflower

There seems to be two viewpoints in the market today about knowledge based authentication: one positive, one negative.  Depending on the corner you choose, you probably view it as either a tool to help reduce identity theft and minimize fraud losses, or a deficiency in the management of risk and the root of all evil.  The opinions on both sides are pretty strong, and biases “for” and “against” run pretty deep.

One of the biggest challenges in discussing knowledge based authentication as part of an organization’s identity theft prevention program, is the perpetual confusion between dynamic out-of-wallet questions and static “secret” questions.  At this point, most people in the industry agree that static secret questions offer little consumer protection.  Answers are easily guessed, or easily researched, and if the questions are preference based (like “what is your favorite book?”) there is a good chance the consumer will fail the authentication session because they forgot the answers or the answers changed over time.

Dynamic knowledge based authentication, on the other hand, presents questions that were not selected by the consumer.  Questions are generated from information known about the consumer – concerning things the true consumer would know and a fraudster most likely wouldn’t know.  The questions posed during knowledge based authentication sessions aren’t designed to “trick” anyone but a fraudster, though a best in class product should offer a number of features and options.  These may allow for flexible configuration of the product and deployment at multiple points of the consumer life cycle without impacting the consumer experience.

The two are as different as night and day.  Do those who consider “secret questions” as knowledge based authentication consider the password portion of the user name and password process as KBA, as well?  If you want to hold to strict logic and definition, one could argue that a password meets the definition for knowledge based authentication, but common sense and practical use cause us to differentiate it, which is exactly what we should do with secret questions – differentiate them from true knowledge based authentication.

Knowledge based authentication can provide strong authentication or be a part of a multifactor authentication environment without a negative impact on the consumer experience.  So, for the record, when we say knowledge based authentication we mean dynamic, out of wallet questions, the kind that are generated “on the fly” and delivered to a consumer via “pop quiz” in a real-time environment; and we think this kind of knowledge based authentication does work.  As part of a risk management strategy, knowledge based authentication has a place within the authentication framework as a component of risk based authentication… and risk based authentication is what it is really all about.

--by Keir Breitenfeld
 
Many compliance regulations such the Red Flags Rule, USA Patriot Act, and ESIGN require specific identity elements to be verified and specific high risk conditions to be detected. However, there is still much variance in how individual institutions reconcile referrals generated from the detection of high risk conditions and/or the absence of identity element verification. With this in mind, risk-based authentication, (defined in this context as the “holistic assessment of a consumer and transaction with the end goal of applying the right authentication and decisioning treatment at the right time") offers institutions a viable strategy for balancing the following competing forces and pressures:

• Compliance – the need to ensure each transaction is approved only when compliance requirements are met;
• Approval rates – the need to meet business goals in the booking of new accounts and the facilitation of existing account transactions;
• Risk mitigation – the need to minimize fraud exposure at the account and transaction level.

A flexibly-designed risk-based authentication strategy incorporates a robust breadth of data assets, detailed results, granular information, targeted analytics and automated decisioning. This allows an institution to strike a harmonious balance (or at least something close to that) between the needs to remain compliant, while approving the vast majority of applications or customer transactions and, oh yeah, minimizing fraud and credit risk exposure and credit risk modeling.

 Sole reliance on binary assessment of the presence or absence of high risk conditions and identity element verifications will, more often than not, create an operational process that is overburdened by manual referral queues. There is also an unnecessary proportion of viable consumers unable to be serviced by your business. Use of analytically sound risk assessments and objective and consistent decisioning strategies will provide opportunities to calibrate your process to meet today’s pressures and adjust to tomorrow’s as well.
 
 
 

--by Matt Ehrlich

On Friday, October 30th, the FTC again delayed enforcement of the “Red Flags” Rule – this time until June 1, 2010 – for financial institutions and creditors subject to the FTC’s enforcement.   Here’s the official release: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/redflags.shtm. 

But this doesn’t mean, until then, businesses get a free pass.  The extension doesn’t apply to other federal agencies that have enforcement responsibilities for institutions under their jurisdiction.  And the extension also doesn’t alleviate an institution’s need to detect and respond to address discrepancies on credit reports.

Red Flag compliance

Implementing best practices to address the identity theft under the Red Flags Rule is not just the law, it’s good business.  The damage to reputations and consumer confidence from a problem gone unchecked or worse yet – unidentified – can be catastrophic.  I encourage all businesses – if they haven’t already done so – to use this extension as an opportunity to proactively secure a Red Flags Rule to ensure Red Flag compliance.  It’s an investment in protecting their most important asset – the customer.

--by Keir Breitenfeld

As I wrote in my previous posting, a key Red Flags Rule challenge facing many institutions is one that manages the number of referrals generated from the detection of Red Flags conditions.  The big ticket item in referral generation is the address mismatch condition.

Identity Theft Prevention Program
I’ve blogged previously on the subject of risk-based authentication and risk-based pricing, so I won’t rehash that information.  What I will suggest, however, is that those institutions who now have an operational Identity Theft Prevention Program (if you don’t, I’d hurry up) should continue to explore the use of alternate data sources, analytics and additional authentication tools (such as knowledge-based authentication) as a way to detect Red Flags conditions and reconcile them all within the same real-time transaction.

Referral rates
Referral rates stemming from address mismatches (a key component of the Red Flags Rule high risk conditions) can approach or even surpass 30 percent.  That is a lot.  The good news is that there are tools which employ additional data sources beyond a credit profile to “find” that positive address match.  The use of alternate data sources can often clear the majority of these initial mismatches, leaving the remaining transactions for treatment with analytics and knowledge-based authentication and Identity Theft Prevention Program.

Whatever “referral management” process you have in place today, I’d suggest exploring risk-based authentication tools that allow you to keep the vast majority of those referrals out of the hands of live agents, and distanced from the need to put your customers through the authentication wringer.  In the current marketplace, there are many services that allow you to avoid high referral costs and risks to customer experience.  Of course, we think ours are pretty good.

--by Keir Breitenfeld

Well, here we are at the beginning of November and The Red Flags Rule has been with us for nearly two years now.  And to add to that, the FTC’s November 1, 2009 enforcement date has passed (I know I’ve said that before).  There is little value in me chatting about the core requirements of the Red Flags Rule at this point.  Instead, I’d like to shed some light on what we are seeing and hearing these days from our clients and industry experts related to this initiative:

Red Flags Rule client comments

1. Most clients have a solid written and operational Identity Theft Prevention Program that arguably meets their interpretation of the Red Flags Rule requirements.

2. Most clients have a solid written and operational Identity Theft Prevention Program in place that creates a boat-load of referrals due to the address mismatches generated in their process(es) and the requirement to do something with them.

3. Most clients are now focusing on ways in which to reduce the number of referrals generated and procedures to clear the remaining referrals via a cost-effective and automated manner…of course, while preventing fraud and staying compliant..

In 2008, a key focus at Experian was to help educate the market around the Red Flags Rule concepts and requirements.

The concentration in 2009 of Red Flags Rule concepts has nearly fully shifted to assisting the market in creating risk-based authentication programs that leverage holistic views of a consumer, flexible tools that are pointed to a consumer based on that person’s authentication and risk profile. There is also an overall decisioning strategy that balances risk, compliance, and resource constraints.

Spirit of Red Flags Rule
The spirit of the Red Flags Rule is intended to ensure all covered institutions are employing basic identity theft prevention procedures (a pretty good idea).  I believe most of these institutions (even those that had very robust programs in place years before the rule was introduced) can appreciate this requirement that brings all institutions up to speed.  It is now, however, a matter of managing process within the realities of, and costs associated with, manpower, IT resources, and customer experience sensitivities.

--by Matt Ehrlich

In my last entry, I talked about the challenges clients face in trying to meet multiple and complex regulatory requirements, such as FACT Act’s Red Flags Rule and the USA Patriot Act.  While these regulations serve both different and shared purposes, there are some common threads between the two:

1. You must consider the type of accounts and methods of account opening: The type of account offered - credit or deposit, consumer or business – as well as the method of opening – phone, online, or face-to-face – has a bearing on the steps you need to take and the process that will be established.

2. Use of consumer name, address, and identification number:The USA Patriot Act requires each of these – plus date of birth – to open a new account.  Red Flags stops short of “requiring” these for new account openings, but it consistently illustrates the use of these Personally Identifiable Information (PII) elements as examples of reasonable procedures to detect red flags.

3. Establishing identity through non-documentary verification:Third party information providers, such as a credit reporting agency or data broker, can be used to confirm identity, particularly in the case where the verification is not done in person.

Knowing what’s in common means you can take a look at where to leverage processes or tools to gain operational and cost efficiencies and reduce negative impact on the customer experience.  For example, if you’re using any authentication products today to comply with the USA Patriot Act and/or minimize fraud losses, the information you collect from consumers and authentication steps you are already taking now may suffice for a large portion of your Red Flags Identity Theft Prevention Program. 

And if you’re considering fraud and compliance products for account opening or account management – it’s clear that you’ll want something flexible that, not only provides identity verification, but scales to the compliance programs you put in place, and those that may be on the horizon.

--by Matt Ehrlich

While the FACT Act’s Red Flags Rule seems to capture all of the headlines these days, it’s just one of a number of compliance challenges that banks, credit unions, and a myriad of other institutions face on a daily basis.  And meeting today’s regulatory requirements is more complicated than ever.  Risk managers and compliance officers are asked to consider many questions, including:

1. Do FACTA Sections 114 and 315 apply to me?
2. What do I have to do to comply?
3. What impact does this have on the customer’s experience?
4. What is this going to cost me in terms of people and process?

Interpretation of the law or guideline – including who it applies to and to whom it does not - varies widely.  Which types of businesses are subject to the Red Flags Rule?  What is a “covered account?”  If you’re not sure, you’re not alone - it’s a primary reason why the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) continues to postpone enforcement of the rule, while this healthy debate continues.

And by the way, FTC – it’s almost November 1st…aren’t we about due for another delay? But we’re not talking about just protecting consumers from identity theft and reducing fraud and protecting themselves using the Identity Theft Prevention Program.

The USA Patriot Act and “Know Your Customer” requirements have been around much longer, but there are current challenges of interpretation and practical application when it comes to identifying customers and performing due diligence to deter fraud and money laundering.  Since Customer Identification Programs require procedures based on the bank’s own “assessment of the relevant risks,” including types of accounts opened, methods of opening, and even the bank’s “size, location, and customer base,” it’s safe to say that each program will differ slightly – or even greatly.

So it’s clear there’s a lack of specificity in the regulations of the Red Flags Rule which cause heartburn for those tasked with compliance…but are there some common themes and requirements across the two?  The short answer is Yes.  In my next post, I’ll talk about the elements in common and how authentication products can play a part in addressing both.

Red Flags Rule and commercial accounts

-- by Kristan Keelan

Most financial institutions are well underway in complying with the FTC’s ID Theft Red Flags Rule by:

1.  Identifying covered accounts  
2.  Determining what red flags need to be monitored
3.  Implementing a risk based approach 

However, one of the areas that seems to be overlooked in complying with the rule is the area of commercial accounts.  Did your institution include commercial accounts when identifying covered accounts?  You’re not alone if you focused only on consumer accounts initially.

Keep in mind that commercial credit and deposit accounts also can be included as covered accounts when there is a “reasonably foreseeable risk” of identity theft to customers or to safety and soundness.

Start by determining if there is a reasonably foreseeable risk of identity theft in a business or commercial account, especially in small business accounts.   Consider the risk of identity theft presented by the methods used to open business accounts, the methods provided to access business accounts, and previous experiences with identity theft on a business account.

I encourage you to revisit your institution’s compliance program and review whether commercial accounts have been examined closely enough.

-- by Kristan Keelan

What do you think of when you hear the word “fraud”?  Someone stealing your personal identity?  Perhaps the recent news story of the five individuals indicted for gaining more than $4 million from 95,000 stolen credit card numbers?  It’s unlikely that small business fraud was at the top of your mind.   Yet, just like consumers, businesses face a broad- range of first- and third-party fraud behaviors, varying significantly in frequency, severity and complexity. Business-related fraud trends call for new fraud best practices to minimize fraud.

First let’s look at first-party fraud.  A first-party, or victimless, fraud profile is characterized by having some form of material misrepresentation (for example, misstating revenue figures on the application) by the business owner without  that owner’s intent or immediate capacity to pay the loan item.  Historically, during periods of economic downturn or misfortune, this type of fraud is more common.  This intuitively makes sense — individuals under extreme financial pressure are more likely to resort to desperate measures, such as misstating financial information on an application to obtain credit.  

Third-party commercial fraud occurs when a third party steals the identification details of a known business or business owner in order to open credit in the business victim’s name.  With creditors becoming more stringent with credit-granting policies on new accounts, we’re seeing seasoned fraudsters shift their focus on taking over existing business or business owner identities.

Overall, fraudsters seem to be migrating from consumer to commercial fraud.   I think one of the most common reasons for this is that commercial fraud doesn’t receive the same amount of attention as consumer fraud.  Thus, it’s become easier for fraudsters to slip under the radar by perpetrating their crimes through the commercial channel.   Also, keep in mind that businesses are often not seen as victims in the same way that consumers are.  For example, victimized businesses aren’t afforded the protections that consumers receive under identity theft laws, such as access to credit information.   These factors, coupled with the fact that business-to-business fraud is approximately three-to-ten times more “profitable” per occurrence than consumer fraud, play a role in leading fraudsters increasingly toward commercial fraud.
 

-- by Keir Breitenfeld

The term “risk-based authentication” means many things to many institutions.  Some use the term to review to their processes; others, to their various service providers.  I’d like to establish the working definition of risk-based authentication for this discussion calling it:  “Holistic assessment of a consumer and transaction with the end goal of applying the right authentication and decisioning treatment at the right time.” 

Now, that “holistic assessment” thing is certainly where the rubber meets the road, right? 

One can arguably approach risk-based authentication from two directions.  First, a risk assessment can be based upon the type of products or services potentially being accessed and/or utilized (example: line of credit) by a customer.  Second, a risk assessment can be based upon the authentication profile of the customer (example: ability to verify identifying information).  I would argue that both approaches have merit, and that a best practice is to merge both into a process that looks at each customer and transaction as unique and therefore worthy of  distinctively defined treatment.

In this posting, and in speaking as a provider of consumer and commercial authentication products and services, I want to first define four key elements of a well-balanced risk based authentication tool: data, detailed and granular results, analytics, and decisioning.

1.  Data: Broad-reaching and accurately reported data assets that span multiple sources providing far reaching and comprehensive opportunities to positively verify consumer identities and identity elements.

2.  Detailed and granular results: Authentication summary and detailed-level outcomes that portray the amount of verification achieved across identity elements (such as name, address, Social Security number, date of birth, and phone) deliver a breadth of information and allow positive reconciliation of high-risk fraud and/or compliance conditions.  Specific results can be used in manual or automated decisioning policies as well as scoring models,

3.  Analytics:  Scoring models designed to consistently reflect overall confidence in consumer authentication as well as fraud-risk associated with identity theft, synthetic identities, and first party fraud.  This allows institutions to establish consistent and objective score-driven policies to authenticate consumers and reconcile high-risk conditions.  Use of scores also reduces false positive ratios associated with single or grouped binary rules.  Additionally, scores provide internal and external examiners with a measurable tool for incorporation into both written and operational fraud and compliance programs,

4.  Decisioning: Flexibly defined data and operationally-driven decisioning strategies that can be applied to the gathering, authentication, and level of acceptance or denial of consumer identity information.  This affords institutions an opportunity to employ consistent policies for detecting high-risk conditions, reconcile those terms that can be changed, and ultimately determine the response to consumer authentication results – whether it be acceptance, denial of business or somewhere in between (e.g., further authentication treatments).

In my next posting, I’ll talk more specifically about the value propositions of risk-based authentication, and identify some best practices to keep in mind.

-- By Ken Pruett

Earlier this week I blogged about some of the other types of frauds that impact our customers such as “never pay” and “bust out” fraud. Today I want to touch a bit on some of the third party fraud scenarios that are often top of mind with our customers: identity theft; synthetic identities; and account takeover.  

Identity Theft
Identity theft usually occurs during the acquisition stage of the customer life cycle. Simply put, identity theft is the use of stolen identity information to fraudulently open up a new account.  These accounts do not have to be just credit card related. For example, there are instances of people using others identities to open up wireless phone and utilities accounts 

Recent fraud trends show this type of fraud is on the rise again after a decrease over the past several years.  A recent Experian study found that people who have better credit scores are more likely to have their identity stolen than those with very poor credit scores. It does seem logical that fraudsters would likely opt to steal an identity from someone with higher credit limits and available purchasing power.  This type of fraud gets the majority of media attention because it is the consumer who is often the victim (as opposed to a major corporation). 

Fraud changes over time and recent findings show that looking at data from a historical perspective is a good way to help prevent identity theft.  For example, if you see a phone number being used by multiple parties, this could be an indicator of a fraud ring in action.  Using these types of data elements can make your fraud models much more predictive and reduce your fraud referral rates. 

Synthetic Identities
Synthetic Identities are another acquisition fraud problem.  It is similar to identity theft, but the information used is fictitious in nature.  The fraud perpetrator may be taking pieces of information from a variety of parties to create a new identity.  Trade lines may be purchased from companies who act as middle men between good consumers with good credit and perpetrators who creating new identities.   This strategy allows the fraud perpetrator to quickly create a fictitious identity that looks like a real person with an active and good credit history. 

Most of the trade lines will be for authorized users only.  The perpetrator opens up a variety of accounts in a short period of time using the trade lines. When creditors try to collect, they can’t find the account owners because they never existed.  As Heather Grover mentioned in her blog, this fraud has leveled off in some areas and even decreased in others, but is probably still worth keeping an eye on.  One concern on which to focus especially is that these identities are sometimes used for bust out fraud. 

The best approach to predicting this type of fraud is using strong fraud models that incorporate a variety of non-credit and credit variables in the model development process.  These models look beyond the basic validation and verification of identity elements (such as name, address, and social security number), by leveraging additional attributes associated with a holistic identity -- such as inconsistent use of those identity elements.

Account Takeover
Another type of fraud that occurs during the account management period of the customer life cycle is account takeover fraud.  This type of fraud occurs when an individual uses a variety of methods to take over an account of another individual. This may be accomplished by changing online passwords, changing an address or even adding themselves as an authorized user to a credit card.  

Some customers have tools in place to try to prevent this, but social networking sites are making it easier to obtain personal information for many consumers.  For example, a person may have been asked to provide the answer to a challenge question such as the name of their high school as a means to properly identify them before gaining access to a banking account.  Today, this piece of information is often readily available on social networking sites making it easier for the fraud perpetrators to defeat these types of tools. 

It may be more useful to use out of wallet, or knowledge-based authentication and challenge tools that dynamically generate questions based on credit or public record data to avoid this type of fraud. 

-- By Ken Pruett

I find it interesting that the media still focuses all of their attention on identity theft when it comes to credit-related fraud.  Don’t get me wrong.  This is still a serious problem and is certainly not going away any time soon.  But, there are other types of financial fraud that are costing all of us money, indirectly, in the long run.  I thought it would be worth mentioning some of these today. 

Although third party fraud, (which involves someone victimizing a consumer), gets most of the attention, first party fraud (perpetrated by the actual consumer) can be even more costly.  “Never pay” and “bust out” are two fraud scenarios that seem to be on the rise and warrant attention when developing a fraud prevention program. 

Never Pay   
A growing fraud problem that occurs during the acquisition stage of the customer life cycle is “never pay”.  This is also classified as first payment default fraud.  Another term we often hear to describe this type of perpetrator is “straight roller”. 

This type of fraudster is best described as someone who signs up for a product or service -- and never makes a payment.

This fraud problem occurs when a consumer makes an application for a loan or credit card. The consumer provides true identification information but changes one or two elements (such as the address or social security number).  He does this so that he can claim later that he did not apply for the credit.  When he’s granted credit, he often makes purchases close to the limit provided on the account.  (Why get the 32 inch flat screen TV when the 60 inch is on the next store shelf -- when you know you are not going to pay for it anyway?) 

These fraudsters never make any payments at all on these accounts. The accounts usually end up in collections. 

Because standard credit risk scores look at long term credit, they often are not effective in predicting this type of fraud.  The best approach is to use a fraud model specifically targeted for this issue. 

Bust Out Fraud
Of all the fraud scenarios, bust out fraud is one of the most talked about topics when we meet with credit card companies.  This type of fraud occurs during the account management phase of the customer lifecycle.  It is characterized by a person obtaining credit, typically a loan or credit card, and maintaining a good credit history with the account holder for a reasonable period of time.  Just prior to the bust out point, the fraudster will pay off the majority of the balance, often by using a bad check.  She will then run the card up close to the limit again -- and then disappear. 

Losses for this type of fraud are higher than average credit card losses.  Losses between 150 to 200 percent of the credit limit are typical.  We’ve seen this pattern at numerous credit card institutions across many of their accounts. 

This is a very difficult type of fraud to prevent. At the time of application, the customer typically looks good from a credit and fraud standpoint.  Many companies have some account management tools in place to help prevent this type of fraud, but their systems only have a view into the one account tied to the customer.  A best practice for preventing this type of fraud is to use tools that look at all the accounts tied to the consumer -- along with other metrics such as recent inquiries.  When taking all of these factors into consideration, one can better predict this growing fraud type.   

-- by Heather Grover

I’m often asked in various industry forums to give talks about, or opinions on, the latest fraud trends and fraud best practices. Let’s face it –  fraudsters are students of their craft and continue to study the latest defenses and adapt to controls that may be in place.

You may be surprised, then, to learn that our clients’ top-of-mind issues are not only how to fight the latest fraud trends, but how they can do so while maximizing use of automation, managing operational costs, and preserving customer experience -- all while meeting compliance requirements.

Many times, clients view these goals as being unique goals that do not affect one another. Not only can these be accomplished simultaneously, but, in my opinion, they can be considered causal. Let me explain.

By looking at fraud detection as its own goal, automation is not considered as a potential way to improve this metric. By applying analytics, or basic fraud risk scores, clients can easily incorporate many different potential risk factors into a single calculation without combing through various data elements and reports. This calculation or score can predict multiple fraud types and risks with less effort, than could a human manually, and subjectively reviewing specific results. Through an analytic score, good customers can be positively verified in an automated fashion; while only those with the most risky attributes can be routed for manual review. This allows expensive human resources and expertise to be used for only the most risky consumers.

Compliance requirements can also mandate specific procedures, resulting in arduous manual review processes. Many requirements (Patriot Act, Red Flag, eSignature) mandate verification of identity through match results. Automated decisioning based on these results (or analytic score) can automate this process – in turn, reducing operational expense.

While the above may seem to be an oversimplification or simple approach, I encourage you to consider how well you are addressing financial risk management.  How are you managing automation, operational costs, and compliance – while addressing fraud?

We at Experian have been conducting a survey of visitors to our Red Flag guidelines microsite (www.experian.com/redflags).

Some initial findings show that approximately 40 percent of those surveyed were "ready" by the original November 1, 2008 deadline.  However, nearly 50 percent of the respondents found the Identity Theft Red Flag deadline extension(s) helpful.

For those of you that have not taken the survey, please do so.  We welcome your feedback.

 

One of the handful of mandatory elements in the Red Flag guidelines, which focus on FACTA Sections 114 and 315, is the implementation of Section 315.  Section 315 provides guidance regarding reasonable policies and procedures that a user of consumer reports must employ when a consumer reporting agency sends the user a notice of address discrepancy. 

A couple of common questions and answers to get us started:

1.  How do the credit reporting agencies display an address discrepancy?

Each credit reporting agency displays an “address discrepancy indicator,” which typically is simply a code in a specified field. Each credit reporting agency uses a different indicator. Experian, for example, supplies an indicator for each displayable address that denotes a match or mismatch to the address supplied upon inquiry.

2.  How do I “form a reasonable belief” that a credit report relates to the consumer for whom it was requested?

Following procedures that you have implemented as a part of your Customer Identification Program (CIP) under the USA PATRIOT Act can and should satisfy this requirement. You also may compare the credit report with information in your own records or information from a third-party source, or you may verify information in the credit report with the consumer directly.

In my last posting, I discussed the value of a risk-based approach to Red Flag compliance.  Foundational to that value is the ability to efficiently and effectively reconcile Red Flag conditions…including addressing discrepancies on a consumer credit report.

Arguably, the biggest Red Flag problem we solve for our clients these days is in responding to identified and detected Red Flag conditions as part of their Identity Theft Prevention Program.  There are many tools available that can detect Red Flag conditions.  The best-in-class solutions, however, are those that not only detect these conditions, but allow for cost-effective and accurate reconciliation of high risk conditions.  Remember, a Red Flag compliant program is one that identifies and detects high risk conditions, responds to the presence of those conditions, and is updated over time as risk and business processes change.

A recent Experian analysis of records containing an address discrepancy on the credit profile showed that the vast majority of these could be positively reconciled (a.k.a. authenticated) via the use of alternate data sources and scores.  Layer on top of a solid decisioning strategy using these elements, the use of consumer-facing knowledge-based authentication questions, and nearly all of that potential referral volume can be passed through automated checks without ever landing in a manual referral queue or call center.  Now that address discrepancies can no longer be ignored, this approach can save your operations team from having to add headcount to respond to this initially detected condition.
 

What are your thoughts on the third extension to the Identity Theft Red Flags Rule deadline?

Was your institution ready to meet Red Flag guidelines?