Take On Payments, a blog sponsored by the Retail Payments Risk Forum of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, is intended to foster dialogue on emerging risks in retail payment systems and enhance collaborative efforts to improve risk detection and mitigation. We encourage your active participation in Take on Payments and look forward to collaborating with you.
Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.
Please submit appropriate comments. Inappropriate comments include content that is abusive, harassing, or threatening; obscene, vulgar, or profane; an attack of a personal nature; or overtly political.
In addition, no off-topic remarks or spam is permitted.
Federal Reserve Web Sites
Other Bank Regulatory Sites
May 18, 2020
Why the Decline in Average Value of Remote General-Purpose Card Payments?
The COVID-19 pandemic is affecting many aspects of our lives: interactions with friends and family, jobs, shopping habits—grocery shopping in particular. Lots of us have been speculating about those groceries, making predictions about ecommerce growth in the long run and also about how the composition of ecommerce sales could change.
Data from the Federal Reserve Payments Study give us a benchmark for thinking about remote card payments during and after the pandemic. For example, the average dollar value of remote card payments can suggest ways that consumer behavior has changed in recent years. And going forward, future data collection could give insights into behavior during the health crisis.
The average value of general-purpose card payments conducted remotely fell faster than the average value of in-person general-purpose card payments in the most recent three-year period for which data is available, 2015 to 2108. Remote payments by general-purpose credit, debit, or prepaid cards averaged $98 in 2018, compared to $121 in 2015. The chart shows the drop in average values.
What's going on here? Various factors likely play into this change in average dollar value. Here are three.
First, more and more people are shopping and paying bills remotely, which includes online. This measurement—"How many people make card payments remotely?"—is broad. It could be that people on the margin, those who have recently started making online payments, are different from others. Maybe they are older. Less card-centric. Less wealthy. Maybe they still are most comfortable writing paper checks for their biggest bills. These individual characteristics could reduce the average dollar value of their online payments compared to others.
Second, people who shop and pay bills remotely are doing it more frequently. This measurement—"How much are remote payers paying?"—is deep. For example, compared to the number of payments you made online during a typical month in 2015, think about the number you made in 2018. Are you making more? Are you paying online more intensively?
Third, people already making remote payments could be more willing to make what my colleague Jessica Washington calls "micropayments" with cards. When shopping online, do you buy a toothbrush one day, a pack of gum the next, and a candy bar on day three? Do you buy digital goods: a music download, the in-app purchase of virtual goods, access behind a news paywall? These tiny payments could be pushing down the average dollar value.
All three of these factors could be in flux right now. They could be changing due to the mix of things we are buying, our income and employment status, changes in household members, payees' willingness to accept different payment methods, etc. etc. etc. This bigger picture is important for payments choice.
Going forward, our short-term reactions to the pandemic—buying groceries online, for example—may or may not equal long-term change in remote purchasing behavior. The Federal Reserve Payments Study continues to collect data related to these behaviors. More data about payments trends is available in the 2019 report of the Federal Reserve Payments Study.
March 2, 2020
Back to the Future in Payments
The year 2000 feels like a long time ago. The dot-com boom was peaking. Some millennials were teens; the youngest were in pre-K. Grammy winner Billie Eilish was not born yet. I was using a flip phone—does anybody remember tapping the "5" three times to key in an "L"?
In payments, too, Y2K feels a long way away. Just look at the growth in the everyday ways to pay electronically: prepaid and nonprepaid debit cards, credit cards, and ACH transfers. From 2000 to 2018, these electronic payments in aggregate grew at a compound annual growth rate of 9.8 percent, from 29.9 billion payments to 159.7 billion, according to new data from the Federal Reserve Payments Study released in December 2019.
Nonprepaid debit cards, which represented 45 percent of these electronic payments in 2018, had the fastest growth since 2000 (12.8 percent a year). Standing at a mere 8.3 billion payments in 2000, nonprepaid debit card payments ballooned nearly nine times, reaching 72.7 billion payments in 2018. This total number of nonprepaid debit card payments in 2018 is approximately equal to the total number of noncash payments of all payment types (cards, ACH, and paper checks) reported for 2000 in the first triennial study: 72 billion.
This one fact encapsulates much that has happened in payments over the last two decades in the United States. Underlying this growth, we can see the effects of widespread acceptance of debit at the point of sale as well as consumers' willingness to use debit cards as the go-to payment choice for small-dollar-value payments. More recently, debit card growth can be linked to the growth of e-commerce, the decline of checks, the rise of electronic ways to pay bills, and the introduction of the smartphone and mobile commerce.
These facts and many more are available in the 2019 report of the Federal Reserve Payments Study. A link labeled "Accessible Version" sits under each figure—click that to see a table of the data underlying each chart. So, depending upon your particular area of interest in the way payments methods are used, the report should provide you with an in-depth look.
February 18, 2020
Am I Average? Adventures in Survey Research
The results of the 2018 Diary of Consumer Payment Choice, released in December 2019, show us that, as a percentage share of all types of payments by number, consumers use debit cards for 28 percent of payments, cash for 26 percent, and credit cards for 23 percent.
I can hear you thinking, "No, that can't be."
"Not in my household. We never use cash. And we always choose credit first to get the points." Your skepticism likely is related to the fact that the diary reports averages for a representative sample of U.S. consumers age 18 and older. That means that all sorts of people are included in the estimates of payment instrument use: highly educated and without a high school diploma, born in the United States and born elsewhere, 18-year-olds and 85-year-olds, people who live in cities and people who live in small towns.
Some of those people are a lot like you. Others, not so much.
For example, if you're reading the Take on Payments blog, I'd venture to guess that your household income was north of the U.S. median of $61,937 in 2018, the year this data was collected. And income matters a lot for consumer behavior.
Let's see what happens when we take income into account for payment instrument use, still using the data from the 2018 Diary of Consumer Payment Choice. Kevin Foster, survey expert at the Atlanta Fed, helped me with this analysis:
- Of payments reported by people in households earning less than $60,000, 32 percent by number were in cash, 31 percent with debit cards, and 15 percent with credit cards.
- Of payments reported by people in households earning more than $60,000, 22 percent were in cash, 27 percent with debit cards, and 28 percent with credit cards.
Note the heavy use of cash by the people in households earning less than $60,000 and the use of credit cards by the group earning more.
When I see data on consumer behavior—the percentage of people who dye their hair, for example—I can't resist asking myself, "Am I average?" Or even, "Am I above average?"—as are the residents of Lake Woebegone. Add a bit of demographic data, and my assessment of how "average" I am changes. Instead of the percentage of all people who dye their hair, compare me to the percentage of women older than 45 who dye their hair, for example.
From hair styling choices to payments choices, not only income but also demographic characteristics like age and gender are important for consumer behavior. That's why the data set for the Diary of Consumer Payment Choice includes a full set of demographic variables (such as age, education, and household size) as well as information about income and employment status. All the data, including a code book explaining all the variables, are available online. So feel free to slice and dice the data as much as you like.
February 3, 2020
Fuel Pump EMV Chip Liability Shift Looms Large
It has been quite some time since the Retail Payments Risk Forum has blogged about the state of the EMV chip in the United States. Perhaps the lack of coverage is a nod to the success and growth of EMV chip issuance and acceptance since the point-of-sale (POS) and ATM liability shifts that began in 2015 and 2016, respectively. The Federal Reserve's newly released payments study found that 57 percent of in-person card payments in 2018 used chip authentication compared to 2 percent in 2015. Talk about phenomenal progress over a three-year period! Yet there is more to do, and 2020 will be a big year for closing a big gap—EMV chip acceptance at the fuel pump, or what the industry generally calls automated fuel dispensers (AFDs).
In October, all of the global card networks' liability shifts will be implemented for AFDs. As a brief reminder, this liability shift means that petrol retailers will now be responsible for incurring the fraud losses on all non-EMV-chip-authenticated transactions initiated by EMV cards at their pumps. According to several industry associations that represent the convenience and petroleum store industry, this liability shift date will be a challenge for many station operators to meet given a limited availability of EMV-compatible AFDs as well as the technicians to install and certify the machines as EMV ready.
Through the years, the Risk Forum has stressed that criminals tend to gravitate to the easy targets when it comes to committing card fraud, or really any fraud in general. Card skimmers at AFDs pulling data off a card's magnetic stripe have been a major problem for decades. I have no doubt that the fraudsters are fully aware of the impending liability shift and will be stepping up their AFDs attacks in 2020 before the window of counterfeit card opportunity closes. Those retailers who are delaying their EMV migration or are unable to migrate by the liability shift date will become giant bulls' eyes. Expected card fraud losses in 2020 for the industry are not inconsequential—one industry association has estimated losses of $451 million. I should also note that the costs faced by the industry to migrate to EMV are also significant, at an estimated $3.9 billion.
After witnessing the successful rush by the industry to implement EMV chip at the POS and ATM, I am confident that the AFD EMV chip implementation ahead of the October liability shift will be a success, but all involved will definitely experience challenges. My confidence stems from the positive momentum I have seen from everyone involved in the payments industry working together for the common good to mitigate card fraud. With counterfeit card fraud losses through June 2019 down by over 60 percent since September 2015, I look forward to seeing even more decreases in counterfeit card fraud following this year's AFD liability shift.
Take On Payments Search
- account takeovers
- bank supervision
- banking regulations
- card networks
- check fraud
- consumer fraud
- consumer protection
- credit cards
- crossborder wires
- data security
- debit cards
- emerging payments
- financial services
- financial technology
- identity theft
- law enforcement
- mobile banking
- mobile money transfer
- mobile network operator MNO
- money services business MSB
- online banking fraud
- online retail
- payments fraud
- payments innovation
- payments risk
- payments studies/research
- payments systems
- Payment Services Directive
- phone fraud
- remotely created checks
- risk management
- Section 1073
- skills gap
- social networks
- supervision and regulation
- thirdparty service provider
- Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices UDAP
- wire transfer fraud
- workforce development
- workplace fraud