Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

COVID-19 RESOURCES AND INFORMATION: See the Atlanta Fed's list of publications, information, and resources; listen to our Pandemic Response webinar series.

About


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.

Comment Standards:
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.

June 22, 2020

United Kingdom Extends Consumer Protection

A key element of a faster payments system is the finality of payment. Once the payer sends the payment (called an authorized push payment, or APP), it's pretty much gone for good. This finality provides a number of valuable benefits to both sender and receiver. But what if the sender has been deceived into authorizing a payment or simply makes an error in the payment destination instructions? In a March 2020 post, I discussed the growing concern in the United Kingdom about consumer liability for APPs. That concern resulted in regulatory action offering potential liability relief to consumers deceived into making such payments.

In an APP scam, a payer is tricked into transferring funds to a fraudster through an electronic payment. We have written in previous posts (including this one) about these advance fee scams; they involve people getting a call notifying them that they've won a lottery or owe delinquent tax payments, or they are asked by someone they've met through a dating site or service to send money. In the United States, once consumers have authorized such transactions, they are generally not protected from these losses by existing consumer protection regulations.

However, in the United Kingdom, the incidence rate for these APP scams reached such a level in 2017 that banking authorities took action. The financial services trade association UK FinanceOff-site link began collecting APP scam-fraud data and in January 2018 produced a best practices standards document to improve the identification and reporting of APP scams. The trade association noted that for 2019, losses from APP scams were £456 million (approximately US$581 million), compared to £354.3 million (approximately US$468.7 million) in 2018.

Also in 2018, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)—the United Kingdom's financial services regulator—began a series of regulatory changes intended to provide consumers with additional rights in APP disputes. Initially, APP fraud claims were directed to the consumer's financial institution, a payment service provider (PSP). The FCA concluded that the PSP receiving the funds was in a better position to investigate the situation and changed its guidelines to mandate including the receiving PSP in the investigation process.

The biggest shift occurred in May 2019, when the FCA launched a voluntary codeOff-site link regarding APP scams. The code, according to the industry group UK FinanceOff-site link, says that "any customer of a bank or payment service provider (PSP) which is signed up to the Code will be fully reimbursed if they fall victim to an APP scam, provided they did everything expected of them under the Code." Under the code, a PSP is deemed to be at fault if it has not developed prevention (customer education) and detection programs. Although the code is labeled "voluntary," all the major U.K banks have been required to adopt it. There continue to be efforts in the British Parliament to mandate that all financial institutions, regardless of asset size, adopt the code.

In 2019, there were a reported 122,437 cases of APP fraud reported in the United Kingdom. These cases, which totaled £101 million in losses, were reviewed under the provisions of the code. Of that total, £41.3 million, or 41 percent, was reimbursed to the consumer. My reading of the code makes it seem very subjective; it appears that if the victim didn't believe it was a scam at the time they initiated the payment, they should be reimbursed. The FCA documents concede that there isn't a specific checklist to make such a determination but that each case should be decided on an individual basis—a compliance official's worst nightmare.

In an effort to preempt an unauthorized APP from taking place, the United Kingdom's retail payment operator (Pay.UK) introduced its Confirmation of PayeeOff-site link service in 2019. This service checks whether or not the payee name attached to the APP is the same name on the account receiving the payment. Originally mandated to be operational by July 2019, the deadline for adoption by the six major banks was extended to March 31, 2020. Then, because of the COVID-19 pandemic impact, the deadline was again extended, this time to June 30, 2020, although some of the big banks have already implemented the service.

As APPs gain popularity in the United States with faster payments and P2P services, what is the likelihood that similar protections will be extended to consumers here? Let us know what you think.

June 11, 2018

Consumer Habits and Cash Use

As my colleague Doug King pointed out last month, cash is not going away anytime soon, Yanny/Laurel notwithstanding. By number, almost one-third of U.S. consumer payments were made in cash in 2017. Every year since 2008, the Survey of Consumer Payment Choice has found that cash is consumers' most popular or next-most-popular way to pay.

Many factors underlie cash's resilience, including access, current shopping habits, consumer ratings, and demographics.

Universal access. Paypal's chief financial officer commented to the Wall Street Journal earlier this year, "I don't think we will ever be entirely cashless, maybe in large part because I don't know if we will ever be in a world that every person has a smartphone or a mobile device."

Shopping habits. Most purchases—nine in 10—are made in person, not online (2015 Survey of Consumer Payment Choice). And when shopping in person, consumers prefer cash for small-dollar transactions. Two-thirds of U.S. consumers report that they prefer cash for in-person payments of less than $10 (2016 Dairy of Consumer Payment Choice). Forty percent prefer cash for in-person payments between $10 and $25.

Consumer ratings. Consumers say cash is the most cost-effective way to pay. The Survey of Consumer Payment Choice asks respondents to rate the cost of using a particular payment method, taking into account that fees, penalties, interest paid, etc. can raise the cost of a payment method, while discounts and rewards can lower it.

Demographics. People with fewer payment options use cash. That includes low-income people who have less access to credit cards as well as people without bank accounts who have no access to non-prepaid debit cards. It also includes millennials, who used cash for almost 30 percent of their payments in 2016 (Diary of Consumer Payment Choice).

You probably already know that card payments dwarf cash payments—almost 60 percent of consumer payments are made with some type of card, whether it's debit, prepaid, or credit. Yet cash persists. Recently, a new acquaintance told me he "never" uses cash. As evidence, he reported that he had no cash in his pocket, explaining "that's because I used my last $2 to buy coffee this morning."

Hmm. What does this say about the health of cash? What Dave Lott wrote in 2016 is still true today: not dead yet.

Next post: Merchant acceptance and the use of cash

To learn more about consumer payment choices and preferences, visit the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta’s new consumer payments web page that houses a variety of surveys, studies, and research reports on the topic.

Photo of Claire Greene By Claire Greene, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

December 18, 2017

Training Workers for Payments Jobs

Do you boast, or at least talk, about your work in payments at social events? When I tell someone in a social setting that I work in payments, they either move on, after a polite pause, to meet the next person, or they take a deep breath and ask, “What does that entail?” What is most humbling is when I overhear my husband trying to explain my job. And what has been the most entertaining was when a four-year old asked me to perform an interpretive dance representing my occupation—a payments Nutcracker, if you will. Whatever the circumstance, you have to be ready to engage and convey excitement about all things payments to keep our workforce thriving. The industry is growing so rapidly that many employers are struggling to fill positions.

Many people I meet assume I am a mathematician when I talk about my work in payments. While I do own a calculator, I tell them, people in the payments workforce have diverse skill sets that go above and beyond using calculators. This diversity becomes more important every day, as technology keeps growing and changing. Ultimately, the majority of the population may not care how payments work, and they may not care to see an interpretive dance about payments. But there are dedicated, skilled professionals who, thankfully, perform their payments-related jobs safely and efficiently. And we need more of them.

The payments industry is growing. Fintechs alone account for a good portion of this growth. According to an industry research firm, venture capital-backed fintech companies globally raised a total of $5.2 billion in the second quarter of this year—–a 19 percent increase from last year. U.S. fintech funding saw a 58 percent rise, to $1.9 billion in the second quarter this year compared to $1.2 billion in the first quarter.

We need a more robust pipeline of available workers to support the growth in the industry. We need to both cultivate new talent and attract available skilled talent. This task can be daunting given the range of jobs available in the industry that transcend traditional educational curriculums.

Here are just a very few of many inspiring workforce training initiatives supporting industry growth today:

  • FinTech Atlanta, along with the University System of Georgia and other colleges and universities in Georgia, launched a FinTech Degree and Certificate Programs to create needed talent to fuel the fintech workforce.
  • NACHA, with the regional payments associations, has launched a Payments Risk Professional accreditation program. The program brings together skills for managing risk combined with knowledge in payment services, whether for financial institutions, solution providers, processors, businesses, or other end users.
  • Workforce Innovation Hub, sponsored by Accenture and affiliated with Atlanta's City of Refuge, provides nonprofit technical education options to lift the underemployed and underprivileged. The IT training program teaches software and application development, IT support, web development, graphic design, and more—all skills that can be put to use in payments and fintechs.
  • Some professional development programs work with military veterans, offering career opportunities and education resources that can help prepare them for careers in the payments industry. One example is First Data Salutes; another is Syracuse University's Institute for Veterans and Military Families (IVMF) and its affiliated program Entrepreneurs Bootcamp for Veterans with Disabilities.

Be a payments ambassador at your next social event and talk about your favorite payments initiative. It is up to you to decide if you want to perform an interpretive dance of your payments job—but it's up to all of us to keep our workforce growing at pace with the industry.

Photo of Jessica Washington  By Jessica Washington, AAP, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

 

November 27, 2017

How Intelligent Is Artificial Intelligence?

At the recent Money20/20 conference, sessions on artificial intelligence (AI) joined those on friction in regulatory and technological innovation in dominating the agenda. A number of panels highlighted the competitive advantages AI tools offer companies. It didn't matter if the topic was consumer marketing, fraud prevention, or product development—AI was the buzzword. One speaker noted the social good that could come from such technology, pointing to the work of a Stanford research team trying to identify individuals with a strong likelihood of developing diabetes by running an automated review of photographic images of their eyes. Another panel discussed the privacy and ethical issues around the use of artificial intelligence.

But do any of these applications marketed as AI pass Alan Turing's 1950s now-famous Turing test defining true artificial intelligence? Turing was regarded as the father of computer science. It was his efforts during World War II that led a cryptographic team to break the Enigma code used by the Germans, as featured in the 2014 movie The Imitation Game. Turing once said, "A computer would deserve to be called intelligent if it could deceive a human into believing that it was human." An annual competition held since 1991, aims to award a solid 18-karat gold medal and a monetary prize of $100,000 for the first computer whose responses are indistinguishable from a real human's. To date, no one has received the gold medal, but every year, a bronze medal and smaller cash prize are given to the "most humanlike."

Incidentally, many vendors seem to use artificial intelligence as a synonym for the terms deep learning and machine learning. Is this usage of AI mostly marketing hype for the neural network technology developed in the mid-1960s, now greatly improved thanks to the substantial increase in computing power? A 2016 Forbes article by Bernard Marr provides a good overview of the different terms and their applications.

My opinion is that none of the tools in the market today meet the threshold of true artificial intelligence based on Turing's criteria. That isn't to say the lack of this achievement should diminish the benefits that have already emerged and will continue to be generated in the future. Computing technology certainly has advanced to be able to handle complex mathematical and programmed instructions at a much faster rate than a human.

What are your thoughts?

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

 

 

Take On Payments Search


Recent Posts


Categories