Is it even possible to reduce fraud? This pointed question was asked Tuesday at the SAS Media Day fraud panel. After all, today’s fraudsters are smart, global, networked and hi-tech. As soon as you catch one, another steps in. And once you put a system in place to combat a certain type of fraud, a whole different type of fraud appears that you probably never anticipated.
“Fraudsters are very much like a pack of wolves,” says Chris Swecker, corporate security expert and former Assistant Director of the FBI. “And the financial institutions are the prey: They’re really trying not to be the next victim, and they’re trying to outrun each other or hide the best they can.”
But it doesn’t have to be that way. “I think those roles can be reversed,” says Chris. “With the help of analytics designed to look at ring-related network activity, you become the hunter and the fraudsters become the prey.”
Rex Pruitt, a Business Analyst at PREMIER Bankcard LLC, agrees that it is possible to reduce fraud, and he has the numbers to prove it. Using predictive models to anticipate fraud activity before it occurs, his organization reduced the rate of application fraud in its portfolio from an estimated 4 percent down to an estimated 3 percent.
“That equates to about $9 million in total revenue to the company,” says Rex. “You gain a lot by being able to identify those fraudsters.”
How does it work? The predictive model identifies fraudsters with a score during the application process. Applicants identified as fraudulent are eliminated from the portfolio before the bank has even incurred the cost of fraud. Rex says early identification can also free up volume capacity, so the bank can bring on more good applicants.
To build on the type of analysis PREMIER is already doing, Chris Swecker suggests banks use network analysis to identify rings of fraudsters that can be observed in the bank’s data. “You’re not going to eliminate fraud – but you can create better deterrents and a much higher risk environment for fraud,” he says. ” What I advocate, and the record is very clear: the way to get at financial crimes is to look at them, address them and detect them as a network.”
Chris worked with a large, international bank on a networked fraud detection project using SAS and was able to identify 40 new fraud rings almost instantly. “We had billions of transactions, hundreds of thousands of customer accounts, and myriad of products and services. SAS provided a way to look at the data and see the broad network activity that’s going on using our own data.”
Chris says there’s a clear supply chain that you can see when investigating networked crimes, especially with Internet crime: You have individuals that steal and sell the data, buyers who usually resell it, and eventually the data makes its way to the people who exploit it by manufacturing credit cards and debit cards, which then pop up somewhere in the hands of someone committing the detectable fraud act.
“I’m careful not to use the word ‘organized crime,’ because it’s ‘network crime,'’’ says Chris, and there's a difference. “It’s not like a hierarchy with a crime boss on top and layers below him in an org chart. Fraud networks are spidered out. It is a network, and we ignore the network at our own peril.”
Hear more from Chris and Rex – and learn about SAS fraud solutions by visiting the Media Day press kit or watching video snippets of the panel discussion by topic area:
Recent research conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit on behalf of SAS illustrates both the scope of the proposed reforms and the scale of the challenge ahead in risk management. In March 2009, the Economist Intelligence Unit conducted a global survey of 334 senior financial services professionals, of whom 50 percent were C-level and all have responsibility for risk. The unit than carried out a programme of interviews with high-profile commentators including Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve; Nassim Taleb, author of The Black Swan; and Peter Bernstein, founder of Peter L Bernstein Inc.
When we started discussing the research process in January our main concern was to pluck subjects that would stay in the public domain from the middle of 2009 and beyond. As the popular media became risk experts overnight, this was going to be a challenge. We wanted especially to have Phil Davis interview key players in the financial market who would offer insight on the future direction of risk management, no mean feat in a very uncertain and fluid economic situation.
So at the start, the challenge was not so much operating with a crystal ball on the financial world, rather wondering whether the ball would be in play at all. In the end the survey gave us an excellent understanding of where financial services companies see the present situation and a view of the future.
With the global political focus remaining on re-establishing the creditability and integrity of financial services (at a local and global level), one of the most intriguing elements to come out of the survey was the lack of confidence the financial services community had in those (rating and regulatory) agencies tasked with benchmarking and challenging their approach to risk management. But many risk analysts did not have the culture to challenge their firms' management to act on any blind spots in their approach to risk management that the risk team had identified. Alan Greenspan did make the point when interviewed by Phil:
The important lesson is that bank regulators cannot fully or accurately forecast whether, for example, sub-prime mortgages will turn toxic, or a particular tranche of a collateralized debt obligation will default, or even if the financial system will seize up. A large fraction of such difficult forecasts will invariably be proved wrong.
So we expect to see, in the near future, the recommendations that will take us in to a new era of global financial services, certainly around areas of (systemic, liquidity, stress testing, firm wide, Credit, Market and Operational) risk and capital management, regulated by the various governments and their agencies. Business confidence will be restored, slowly, but will lessons be learned and practical, appropriate measures implemented, at country, regional and global level?
As of late February this year there was a question making the rounds at all the on-air interviews with industry pundits: “Are global stock markets set for ‘capitulation’ after sliding to six-year lows, obliterating the recent, yet faltering recovery?” By definition, capitulation means to surrender or give up. In financial circles, this term is used to indicate the point in time when investors have decided to give up on trying to recapture lost gains as a result of falling stock prices. One key factor that has been thwarting panic-stricken selling of shares and wiping the slate clean, the harbinger of an equities rebound, is governments stepping in as lenders and spenders of last resort to rescue banks and their economy, but their pockets are not bottomless – that we all know from Econ 101.
So the question on everyone’s mind -- you, me, Joe the plumber (anyone remember that guy?), and “greed is good” Mr. Wall Street Gordon Gekko – alike is this: when is the bloodletting going to end and when do we return to normal? Hanging on to every blunt word of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s testimony to Congress yesterday, which ranged from, “Congress and the administration face formidable near-term challenges that must be addressed," and, "Unless we demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal sustainability in the longer term, we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth,” filters down to the wires and blogs and then to you and me is this: Moderate growth looks likely to resume late this year and build modestly into 2010, but the credit bust has left households and businesses unable or unwilling to borrow and spend as freely as they did before the crisis. Boil it down even further and we land up at -- when’s it back to business as usual?
Recessions, like wars, have been an integral part of our history, and history tells us that most financial panic is predicated by pretty much the same sequence of events. In ancient Rome, a group of bankers underwrote ships going the east, which sank. The banks, overextended, ran out of cash and panic ensued. In 1837 the major cause of a panic and reason for the economy staying in a decade long slump was driven by the economic impact of land speculation. It was a period of speculative mania. Other factors were at play as well: Large debts were incurred by states due to over-expansion of canals and the construction of railroads; an unfavorable balance of trade as imports exceeded exports, resulting in a loss of specie (gold and silver -- as opposed to paper currency) ; and several crop failures in 1835 and 1837. Need I go on? Can you tell I have reading the Ascent of Money by historian and author Niall Ferguson?
So history proves that once systems are disrupted, overpoweringly they tend to revert to their previous state – who are we to try and prove history wrong? The reality, though, seems to be different. Post-crisis our economies will differ dramatically from the 2003 – 2007 high-growth and low-inflationary state that fueled the global economy to sustain a 4.5 percent average annual expansion. Industry pundits and economists alike are cautioning that we will have to come to terms with 2 percent or lower annualized growth rate. Unemployment at 6 percent will be the floor rather than the ceiling. The post-industrial Anglo-Saxon model of deregulated finance is being labeled as crisis-prone and threatens to shift wealth management to industrial tigers of Asia and Latin America, making financial services companies looking more like overregulated utility companies. This has potential to be the new normal!
Just like Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner led the charge on stress testing the 19 largest banks in the U.S. for capital adequacy in a worst case scenario (we can argue on the merits of the test in another blog post), all organizations and even households have to stress test their own portfolios to ensure that they cannot just operate but thrive in the new normal. While many will argue productivity, innovation, fiscal policy, consumer spend, etc., are powerful tools that have and will bring the bounce back, none will argue that we can go back to doing business the way we were. Backward - looking operating models will not prepare us for the new normal – evidence – based, proactive, agile operating - models will.
[Full disclosure -- I am a CNBC addict and sound bite junkie, which should be evident from some of the content in this blog, so much so that my DVR is belly up with shows the likes of Squawk Box, Kudlow Report and American Greed.]
If you're a print subscriber, your second quarter 2009 issue of sascom will be arriving soon. If you haven't had a chance to read the first quarter, don't fall behind. View the main contents page or read one of the most visited articles from the first quarter issue. They're listed below in order of popularity (based on Web visits):
In the long-running television sitcom “Seinfeld,” Jerry’s neighbor (and nemesis) Newman often commented on his job as a U.S. postal worker.Making fun of the mail and post office was a recurring theme. In the show’s final season, one episode was even titled “The Junk Mail
I was reminded of Newman today while reading in Raleigh’s daily News & Observer about Steven Padgett, a renegade (and now former) postman who just received probation.His offense?For years, he kept (and did not deliver) third-class mail, sometimes referred to as “junk mail.”
Per the article: “Postal inspectors went to [his] home this spring and discovered the third-class mail piled in his garage and buried in his yard."
According to the story, Padgett is being praised by many as a kind of folk hero for his actions.One commentator chimed in:
“That 'Mailman Steve' should get a commendation," said Doug Kopp of Washington, D.C. … "I'm so fed up with junk mail …"
With such abhorrence for junk mail, what are companies to do? Given the very challenging economy, marketing departments that rely on direct mail are under the gun.Consumer spending is stressed.Mailing costs are rising.Marketers need to more precisely target mailings – whether a retailer sending a promotional mailing or catalog, a bank offering new credit cards, or a telecom provider unveiling new services.
How?
The answer is analytics.With analytics, retailers, banks and other companies can better target your so-called junk mail so you only receive the most relevant promotional offerings.
Hello and welcome to sascom voices where sascom magazine's Editor-in-Chief Alison Bolen leads a conversation about notable people, products and ideas at SAS.
Neil Raden about Analytic truths or analytic myths? Thu, 19.11.2009 16:52 1.F 2.F 3F (would be T if it
were "most" not "every") 4 any
of the above
5 [...]
James Cleary about Mother's Day no longer matters Tue, 17.11.2009 19:28 Hi Ken,
Your comments resonate
strongly with our discussions
with mobile [...]
wei about This post is rated R Sat, 14.11.2009 14:57 It is all about job security.
So far the market demand for R
developers is [...]
Comments
Thu, 19.11.2009 17:14
Alison Bolen posted a nice list of analytic truths, or perhaps myths, on the SAS [...]
Thu, 19.11.2009 16:52
1.F 2.F 3F (would be T if it were "most" not "every") 4 any of the above 5 [...]
Tue, 17.11.2009 19:28
Hi Ken, Your comments resonate strongly with our discussions with mobile [...]
Sat, 14.11.2009 14:57
It is all about job security. So far the market demand for R developers is [...]
Tue, 10.11.2009 16:03
There was another trend I noticed at our recent Premier Business Leadership [...]