Preparing Cards for the Next Era in Payments


credit-card-9-3-19.pngAdvancements in payments technologies have forever changed consumer expectations. More than ever, they demand financial services that stay in step with their busy, mobile lives.

Financial institutions must respond with products and services that deliver convenience, freedom and control. They can stay relevant to cardholders by enabling secure and easy digital transactions through their debit and credit cards. Banks should digitize, utilize, securitize and monetize their card programs to meaningfully meet their customers’ needs.

Digitize
Banks should develop and deploy digital solutions like wallets, alerts and card controls, to provide an integrated, seamless and efficient payments experience. Consumers have an array of choices for their financial services, and they will go where they find the greatest value.

Nonfinancial competitors have proven adept at capturing consumers via embedded payment options that deliver a streamlined experience. Their goals are to gather cardholder information, cross-sell new services and extract a growing share of the payments value chain. Financial institutions can ensure their cards remain top-of-wallet for consumers by developing a digital strategy focused on driving deep cardholder engagement. Digital wallets are the place to start.

The adoption curve for digital wallets follows the path of online banking’s early years, suggesting an impending sharp rise in the use of digital wallets. A majority of the largest retailers now accept contactless payments, according to a 2019 survey from Boston Retail Partners. And one in six U.S. banking consumers reported paying with a digital wallet within the last 30 days, according to a 2018 Fiserv survey. Almost three-fourths of cardholders say paying for purchases is more convenient with tokenized mobile payments, a Mercator Advisory Group survey found.

Financial institutions can deliver significant benefits to consumers and reap measurable returns by leveraging existing and emerging digital tools, such as merchant-based geographic reward offers.

Utilize
Banks need to provide their cardholders with comprehensive information about how digital solutions can meet their expectations and needs. Implementing digital tools, providing a frictionless financial service experience and helping customers understand and use their benefits can empower them to transact in real-time on their devices, including mobile phones, computers and tablets. Banks’ communications programs are important to encourage adoption and use the implemented digital products and services.

Securitize
Banks will have to balance digital innovation with risk mitigation strategies that keep consumers safe and don’t disrupt transactions. Digital payments are highly secure due to tokenization — a process where numerical values replace consumers’ personal information for transaction purposes. Tokenized digital wallet transactions are an important first step toward preventing mobile payments fraud.

Mobile apps that enable cardholders to receive transaction alerts and actively manage card usage also significantly improving card security. Fiserv analysis shows use of a card controls app may reduce signature fraud by up to 53%, while increasing card usage and spending.

Banks need strategies focused on detecting and preventing fraud in real time without impacting card usage and cardholder satisfaction. This can be a significant point of differentiation for card providers. A prudent approach can include implementing predictive analytics and decision-management technology. And because consumers want to be involved in managing and protecting their accounts, they should have the option to create customized transaction alerts and controls. Finally, direct access to experienced risk analysts who work to identify evolving fraud threats can significantly improve overall results.

A recent analysis from the Federal Reserve indicated debit fraud is running at approximately 11.2 basis points, which compares the average value of fraud to total transaction dollars. In comparison, Fiserv debit card clients experience only 5.08 basis points of fraud.

Card issuers balance risk rules that help mitigate fraud against cardholder disruption stemming from falsely-declined transactions. These lost transaction opportunities can reduce revenue and increase reputational risk. An experienced risk mitigation partner can help banks strike the right balance between fraud detection and consumer satisfaction to maximize profitability.

More Engaged Users Are

Based on these average monthly debit transactions: Gray = Low 12.6, Blue = Casual (medium) 18.3, High = High 21.4, Orange = Super (highest) 28.4
Net Promoter Score = Measure of cardholder loyalty and value in institution relationship
Cross-Sold Ration = Percentage of householders with a DDA for longer for longer than six months but open to a new deposit or loan account in the most recent six months
Return on Assets = Percentage of profit related to earnings

Monetize
Banks can turn digital solutions into engines of growth by creating stronger, more lasting consumer relationships. A digital portfolio can be more than just a set of solutions — it can drive significant new revenue and growth opportunities. By delivering secure, frictionless digital services to consumers when and where they need them, banks can maintain their positions as trusted financial service providers. Engaged users are profitable users.

Digitize. Utilize. Securitize. Monetize. Achieving the right combination of innovative products and exceptional consumer experiences will enhance a bank’s card portfolio growth, operational efficiency and market share.

How Many Mobile Wallets Are Too Many?


mobile-wallet-12-22-15.pngFor many years, the mobile wallet landscape was filled with small niche offerings that tested some important ideas, but never really gained much national traction. However, over the past 15 months, four major players have introduced their wallets and the tipping point for widespread mobile wallet adoption appears close. Apple Pay, Android Pay, Samsung Pay and Chase Pay have extended the technology and functionality of those early wallets and have started to close the gap on a wallet that would deliver value to the trifecta of stakeholders: consumers, merchants and the wallet providers.

Should every bank be preparing to support one or more of the existing mobile wallets? CG sees five prerequisites for widespread adoption of mobile wallets.

  1. Better security. Consumers have well documented doubts about the security of mobile payments versus more traditional payment methods. Mobile wallets must implement improved authentication processes (e.g., biometrics, account number tokenization) to allay these fears as the price of admission.
  2. More large-scale mobile wallet providers. The recent addition of providers (including Chase Pay) offers the market a wide range of mobile wallet options and a key move toward critical mass for merchant acceptance.
  3. More smartphones. By 2020, there will be 6.1 billion smartphones in the global market (most with biometric security features). That’s a stark difference from the 2.6 billion smartphones in today’s market—most of which do not have biometric capabilities.
  4. More merchant acceptance of contactless payments. Many of the new terminals that merchants are implementing support both contactless payments and the EMV chip.
  5. A good reason to keep using the mobile wallet. The new wallets either have or are planning to implement rewards programs into their product, which will give consumers a compelling reason to habitually use their mobile wallets.

Each of these prerequisites to mass adoption is trending in the right direction, which means every bank should be working to support one or more of the large mobile wallets as part of their future strategy.

Many banks seem content to support the provisioning of their card accounts into Apple, Android and Samsung. The announcement of Chase Pay at the payments-focused conference Money20/20 in Las Vegas in October sent shock waves through the 10,000 conference participants. If Chase felt it needed its own proprietary wallet, will other large banks follow?

The decision to invest in a proprietary wallet should be based on three key elements in each bank’s strategic direction.

  1. Does the bank have a customer profile that wants a mobile wallet offering and would that group prefer a proprietary wallet over a large national wallet like Apple or Android?
  2. Does the bank have the internal resources or external partnerships required to develop and sustain a wallet in a very dynamic environment? (The wallet of 2020 is likely to be very different from the wallet of 2016).
  3. What are the banks’ competitors inclined to do and how will their actions affect the banks’ customers?

Each bank must consider its own strategic differentiation when determining whether to build or borrow. What distinguishes it in the marketplace and how might that change in the future? What will draw new customers to the bank in the next five or ten years?

One feasible strategy is to let others pave the way in developing new products and then figure out when and how to offer them to your own customers. It’s an approach that can minimize risk without necessarily jeopardizing the reward.

The bottom line is, mobile wallets are coming. (We really mean it this time.) Most banks must allow their card accounts to be provisioned into at least some of them. Some banks (but not most) should offer a proprietary wallet, but only if it fits into their larger strategy. Add the wallet to fit your strategy; don’t change your strategy to fit the wallet. Focus on your strategic differentiator and ensure that most of your future effort and investment are focused on the differentiator and not spread across all the possible initiatives in which you could invest (including wallets).

Is This the End of the Road for Credit Scores?


4-8-13_Sutherland.pngFast Fact: PayPal’s mobile payment processing jumped from $141 million in 2009 to $4 billion in 2011 and is estimated to more than double in 2012. In just over two years, Square has more than 2 million merchant customers—25 percent of the U.S. merchant population.

Some of the holiest tenets of consumer banking are being questioned. Newer players with a totally different attitude toward their customers who understand technology and the Internet are winning market share and earning customer loyalty. 

In the context of financial transactions, the credit score is to individual fitness what the heart is to physical wellbeing. This has been the be-all-end-all metric that determined consumer lending for over half a century and has powered many a consumer revolution in loans, cards or mortgages.

However, the logic and algorithm of the credit score were developed before the age of connectivity, databases, analytics and big data. And although the credit score has transformed itself over time by improvising for various asset classes, it has not truly leveraged big data to assess individual financial potential as opposed to actual performance.  Are we therefore now beginning to see the end of the credit score as we all know it?  

With the growth of digital wallets, mobile payments and the generational shift away from paper checks and brick-and-mortar bank branches, is it time for a new credit score or new metric to enable the next revolution in lending? Or will current providers embrace a “different strokes for different folks” attitude as the millennial generation overtakes the baby boomers as the single largest customer segment for a banks’s services and products? 

Fast Fact: Annual check usage in the U.S. has dropped from 16.9 billion in 2010 to 5.1 billion in 2012. Average customer visits per branch per year have dropped from 21.3 in 1995 to 3.2 in 2012.

The growing volume of payments with social dollars versus physical currency could signal an opportune time to revamp the underlying credit score algorithm and logic or even adopt a totally different approach. Consider, for example, the growing reluctance of the 19- to 30-year age group to open a bank account or write a check. Unlike other generations, they now have choices and providers to enable a variety of financial transactions. 

Also, the not-so-palatable fact is that this new generation of transactions is faster, safer, more convenient and less costly—four dangerously compelling reasons for retail banks to revisit and realign the prevailing offerings. 

Consider the success of the prepaid card as the emerging alternative to the bank account and the resurging demand for payday loans as the preferred financing medium. We are already seeing startup banks promote alternative scores such as the CRED from Movenbank, which uses social media status as the leading input into this very interesting, real-time metric. Will we see Facebook, Google and Apple providing input to credit bureaus to complete the social aspects of a consumer’s credit profile?

Fast Fact: Prepaid debit card payment volumes have grown from $202 billion in 2011 to $297 billion in 2012.

In the past, the terms “unbanked” and “un-bankable” were virtually synonymous and represented a huge market. That, however, is no longer true. In fact, today’s “unbanked” provide a better business opportunity compared to the “banked.” It is therefore essential that we need to evolve new metrics to supplement the credit score as we know it today. A recent Sallie Mae and Ipsos survey found that the percentage of undergrad students who own a credit card was down from 49 percent in 2010 to 39 percent in 2012—a further indication of the lack of desire among the millennial consumers to have any credit history. That might be a good thing in some ways, given the state of the economy and the need to rein in consumer spending. But it might not be a good thing for the economy, as the supply chain cuts production even before we know it and has a head-on impact on the entire value chain.  

This notion of “credit-less” consumer s raises a number of questions:  Will large institutions like Citigroup, Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase & Co. choose to evolve their own internal metric to score a consumer rather than relying on the credit bureaus? Interestingly, in developing countries where there are no credit bureaus, that is exactly the case. Banks have their own surrogate credit scores and this approach seems to be working well in those markets. 

But will Starbucks, which makes more than 30 percent of its daily store sales on a mobile wallet, be reporting to credit bureaus soon? Or will Amazon, mobile wallet company Isis or Google do so?  More to the point… should they? Or instead should they embrace big data analytics and be their own card issuer because they already have daily data on a customer’s behavior? And if that’s the case, will it impact a customer’s credit score or his financial health if he switches from a $4.50 latte three times a day to a $1.80 coffee daily? 

Are we headed for a new world where a micro finance credit bureau will emerge and manage all interactions of less than $500? With the convergence of telecom, tech, banking and retail industries during the next few years, it will be interesting to see the demise of the credit score as we know it and the growth of a new medium of rating consumer credit. As it is, ask the folks from Canada, the United Kingdom or Asia who relocate to the United States with large bank balances (and, in some cases, Swiss bank accounts) yet are unable to get a mortgage or credit card and end up purchasing everything with cash. Even in the traditional sense, we have quite a way to go before the credit bureau is able to do the greatest good for the greatest number.

Digital Wallets: Crossing the Chasm Between Online and Offline Payments


chasm.jpgDigital wallets are beginning to change how consumers shop and pay. However, the concept can be confusing and daunting. There are over 160 wallets in the market. Some refer to them as “digital wallets”, others as mobile or e-wallets. What should banks do? Should they launch their own wallet solutions? Should they partner? If so, with whom?

The retailing landscape is changing. The growing number of smartphones and ubiquitous connectivity has been pushing the retailing industry towards “online-offline convergence”. Consumers are increasingly using their mobile phones when shopping to read product reviews, compare prices, and sometimes order online, leaving the physical shop empty-handed. Equally, they might order something online via laptop, mobile or tablet, but go and pick it up from a local store. Online commerce, both e- and m-variety, is by far the fastest growing retail segment in many developed markets.

If traditional payment instruments, such as cards, were somewhat clunky but acceptable for e-commerce, they are poorly suited for m-commerce. No one wants to fumble around their mobile phones typing in 16-digit card numbers, shipping addresses, etc. Not surprisingly, both Visa and MasterCard saw the opportunity to develop their own digital wallet solutions, V.me by Visa and PayPass Wallet Services respectively, to help address this market. Other players, such as, for example, Isis have focused on bringing the mobile wallets to physical stores.

There are many different ways wallets can differentiate themselves from each other. However, fundamentally, there are two main types of wallets based on where the payment credentials are stored:

  1. Secure element-based wallets store the payment credentials (e.g. card details) in a secure area inside the phone known as secure element, and communicate those credentials to the physical point-of-sale (POS) terminal typically via Near Field Communication (NFC) technology. An example of such a wallet in the United States is the recently launched Isis.
  2. Cloud-based wallets store the payment credentials in a secure area on a remote server, or “in the cloud.” How those payment credentials are communicated to the merchant depends on the specific implementation. Perhaps the best known example of a cloud-based wallet is PayPal.

While online-offline convergence is rapidly becoming a reality for retailers, the same is not yet true for payments. It remains a challenge today to use online the payment credentials residing in the secure element-based wallet, and to use cloud-based credentials at the physical POS. For example, PayPal, a leader online, is working hard to get to the physical POS, while Visa and MasterCard are using their strength in the physical world to develop cloud-based digital wallets. Google Wallet is one notable example which does combine both secure element and cloud-based credentials, but given the transaction economics, it remains an exception to the rule.

There are a few solutions emerging as potential candidates to help bridge the divide between online and offline payments, however, most of them remain in relatively early stages of development. We believe that the payments industry will continue to try and solve this conundrum and we will see more solutions in this space emerging over the next 12 to18 months.

However, in the end, the desired online and offline ubiquity for any single wallet may prove to be illusionary. I do not share the view of those who think that there will be “one wallet to rule them all.” If anything, the mobile phone itself might become such a “wallet,” with consumers using multiple apps to shop and pay with payment credentials stored in multiple places.

In today’s fragmented world of digital wallets, our advice to banks would be to think twice before launching their own branded independent wallets. Some banks might be successful in doing so, but many others are likely to be better off by ensuring their payment credentials are available with the wallets most likely to win in the market. Supporting traditional scheme wallets, such as Visa’s V.me and MasterCard’s PayPass Wallet, should be a “no brainer” decision for most banks, but other specific market segment leaders, such as Isis or Google in the United States would also merit consideration. Banks should also remember that many already have a great asset in their mobile banking platforms and should focus on enhancing and extending them with rich value-added services, including payment propositions, such as P2P or access to card-based and other payment credentials.

Consumer Adoption and Usage of Banking Technology


FD-WhitePaper2.jpgToday’s consumers, especially those known as Millennials and Gen Y, are used to having technology integrated into most aspects of their work and personal lives. Banking is no exception. To respond to changing customer expectations, banks, credit unions and other financial institutions have incorporated online and mobile technology into consumers’ banking experiences. However, financial institutions still need to answer several questions pertaining to banking technology:

  • How well are financial institutions meeting the needs of consumers when it comes to offering high-tech products and services?
  • Whom do consumers view as the trusted provider of the mobile wallet?
  • How does adoption of banking technology vary for different consumer groups?

This white paper answers these and other questions that are critical to the ongoing success of financial institutions in a rapidly evolving marketplace. The paper is based upon the findings of a recent online research study of 2,000 U.S. consumers conducted jointly by First Data and Market Strategies International. The “New Consumer and Financial Behavior” study assessed consumers’ attitudes, behaviors, desires and technology adoption. This white paper is the third in a series of four based on results of the study and focuses on consumers’ attitudes and behaviors related to technology in banking.

Topics include:

  • Consumers’ attitudes about, and adoption of, banking-related technology.
  • Usage of mobile banking.
  • Perceptions of the mobile wallet by different consumer groups.
  • Usage of online banking and bill payment.
  • Steps that financial institutions can take to appeal to various types of consumers.