Take On Payments

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.

February 23, 2015


Payments Stakeholders: Can't We All Just Work Together?

Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success.
 – Henry Ford

In my physics classes at Georgia Tech, I found the principles around forces, momentum, and energy sometimes difficult to comprehend and distinguish. But I readily grasped a simplified version. I understood that if people apply their combined energy in the same direction, they can move the object of their attention to a designated spot faster and easier than if any of them tried it alone. And if they directly oppose one another or exert their efforts in different directions, the movement of the object is slow, its route is haphazard, and it may never reach its intended destination.

This last situation sometimes occurs with different groups of payments stakeholders—most notably, but not exclusively—the national card brands, along with their financial institution clients, and the merchant communities. Amidst all the charges and countercharges between the groups, it sometimes appears that these stakeholders are pushing in different directions—so the industry seems to be making little progress toward adopting payments standards and practices or fraud prevention solutions, for example.

An important payments risk issue affecting multiple stakeholders is card-not-present (CNP) fraud, which is expected to increase significantly after the United States migrates to EMV chip cards. We learned this from the experiences of other countries that have completed their migration. What happens is that EMV cards essentially close the door on the criminals' ability to create counterfeit EMV cards, so they shift focus to CNP opportunities.

Merchants contend that EMV card migration primarily benefits the card issuers since, for counterfeit-card-present (CCP) fraud, the issuer normally takes the loss—and EMV makes CCP fraud much less likely. Another way merchants may view EMV as being more issuer-friendly is that they must bear card-present fraud loss if they don't upgrade their terminals—at their expense—once the October 2015 liability shift goes into effect. So not only do they face increasing liability for card-present transactions, they will continue to be held responsible for the expected increase in CNP fraud losses.

The card brands and financial institutions counter the merchants' position on a number of fronts. For example, they point to the massive payment card data breaches that took place in 2014 at national merchants, saying these events eroded consumers' confidence in payment cards. Migrating to EMV cards and eventually replacing the magnetic stripe will provide clear improvements to payment card security, which will in turn increase consumer confidence in the safety of using cards. And that will benefit all stakeholders in this payment system. In addition, card brands and financial institutions are taking steps to help mitigate CNP fraud: they have invested heavily in several products and are collaborating with third-party providers to develop better customer authentication solutions to ultimately reduce the risk of CNP transactions for all stakeholders.

Disagreements among stakeholders will always exist, especially on elements that have a major financial impact on their businesses. However, there must be a diligent and ongoing effort by all parties, working together and with the same goal, to find areas of common ground that will result in a more secure payments environment.

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


February 23, 2015 in cards, chip-and-pin, EMV, payments | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

February 17, 2015


Introducing Take On Payments

Maybe you've already noticed it—it's at the top of this web page—but we've got a new name: Take On Payments, or TOP, for short. It's a change we made after a great deal of thought, internal discussion, and input from others. In our many presentations over the last year to payments-related groups consisting of financial institutions, merchants, processors, technology vendors, consumers, and regulators, we always promoted our blog. We put a great deal of effort into every post, and view the blog as an important channel to communicate to the payments industry on timely, risk-related payment topics in what we hope is an educational and thought-provoking way.

However, we were frequently asked about the significance of the name Portals and Rails. The majority of people get the "rails" part since that term is often used to refer to the payments infrastructure—such as in the phrase "riding the check rails." The "portals" part is more of a mystery. People aren't sure if we intend to use it with its generally accepted meaning—that is, an entranceway—or as a reference to a website, which provides information and links to other sites.

So we undertook an evaluation of alternative names that would more clearly identify the purpose for our posts, and we eventually chose Take On Payments. Yes, it's a bit of a play on the words as you can use "take" in a couple of different ways. First, you can think of it as a noun, as in the word "viewpoint." That was our primary thrust since we work hard to provide our perspective on the various payments issues and their risk-related factors. Second, you can also think of "take" as a verb, as in "assume possession of," since we are charged with the responsibility of engaging the entire payments community about payments risk issues. Finally, we like the acronym TOP—we hope Take On Payments will be at the top of your reading list.

In the end, a name is just a name, and we understand that the content of the blog is what is really important to our readers. While the Portals and Rails name has left the station for a final time, our commitment to providing the payments industry with timely and informative content to encourage thought-provoking dialogue about payments risk remains unchanged. As always, we encourage your feedback and hope you will encourage your colleagues to subscribe as well.

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

February 17, 2015 in payments risk | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

February 02, 2015


Does More Security Mean More Friction in Payments?

In a 2014 post, we discussed the issue of consumers' security practices in light of the regulatory liability protection provided to consumers, especially related to electronic transactions. Recognizing that poor security practices will continue, financial institutions, merchants, and solution vendors continue to implement additional security and fraud deterrence tools in the payment flow. Sometimes those tools can add complexity to a financial transaction.

One of the critical elements in a consumer's experience when performing a financial transaction is the concept of friction. In the payments environment, friction can be measured by the number and degree of barriers that impede a smooth and successful transaction flow. Potential causes of friction in a payment transaction include lack of acceptance, slow speed, inaccuracy, high cost, numerous steps, and lack of reliability. We usually think that to decrease friction is to increase convenience.

As the level of friction increases, consumers become more likely to rethink their purchase and payment decisions—an action that merchants and financial institutions alike dread because an abandoned payment transaction represents lost revenue. Individual consumers have their preferred payment methods, and their perspective of the convenience associated with a particular method is a key factor in their choice. For this reason, the payment industry stakeholders have been working diligently to reduce the level of friction in the various forms of payments. Technology provides a number of advantages, potentially reducing the overall friction of payments by providing consumers with a variety of payment form factors. For example, smartphones can support integrated payment applications allowing the consumer to easily call up their payment credentials and execute a payment transaction at a merchant's terminal. With abandonment rates as high as 68 percent, online merchants, working diligently to reduce friction, are streamlining their checkout process by reducing the number of screens to navigate.

Clearly cognizant of the friction issue, the industry has focused much of its efforts on operating fraud risk tools in the background, so that customers remain unaware of them. Other tools are more overt—biometrics on mobile phones, hardware tokens for PCs, and transaction alerts. But some security improvements the industry has undertaken have resulted in more friction, including the EMV card. A consumer must now leave the EMV card in the terminal for the duration of the transaction when previously all the consumer had to do was simply swipe the card. It will be interesting to see if and how consumers adjust their payment habits should they view the EMV card technology as high in friction. Will this motivate consumers to move away from card-based payments? Time will tell, and we will closely follow this issue.

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


February 2, 2015 in biometrics, chip-and-pin, EMV, innovation, payments | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

January 26, 2015


Tackling Fraud with Data

As the dust settles on the 2014 retail holiday season, it isn't surprising to learn that e-commerce was once again the winner. ComScore reported that online holiday spending through December 21 was $48.3 billion, a 15 percent increase over 2013. And there is nothing to suggest that this growth trajectory will flatten. While these trends are encouraging for online retailers' sales departments, they must be challenging for their fraud and loss prevention teams. According to the 2013 Federal Reserve Payments Study, card-not-present fraud rates were approximately three times higher than card-present fraud rates in 2012.

Just before the holiday shopping season, CyberSource released its 15th Annual Online Fraud Management Benchmark Study This 2014 study reveals that merchants improved order conversion through lower rejection rates while keeping their fraud losses stable. Naturally, I was curious about the tools that yielded these results and wondered to what extent they might have changed. Using CyberSource's 2012 study to compare, I found some surprises.

In 2012, validation tools were used the most—79 percent of merchants used a card verification number and 77 percent used address verification. Of the merchants who did not use these tools, 81 percent indicated they planned to implement a card verification number and 61 percent planned to use address verification. While merchants can implement these tools with little cost, their effectiveness, according to the surveyed merchants, is limited.

Given the 2014 report's positive findings, coupled with the expected very high use of card verification numbers and address verification reported in 2012, I was expecting merchants to rate the effectiveness of these tools higher. Interestingly, even though these validation tools remained the most prominent, their usage did not increase as expected, despite the number ofmerchants who planned to implement them following the 2012 study. And there was not a significant increase in their reported effectiveness.

Here's what did change: the use of proprietary data tools such as customer order history, in-house positive and negative lists, and company-specific fraud scoring models. Purchase device tracking tools, such as fingerprinting, also saw an increase in usage, though not as large of an increase as the proprietary data tools. And it is these tools that, generally speaking, are rated as the most effective fraud management tools by the merchants surveyed.

The 2014 study highlighted improved fraud management. I have several of my own highlights. Merchants appear to be more apt and capable of leveraging their own data today than the preceding several years. And they are finding that using this data is more effective in combating fraud than traditional validation services. I think it's important to note that only two tools (device fingerprinting and a fraud scoring model) were selected by more than 50 percent of merchants as most effective. Even though traditional validation services are still highly used and useful, no single tool is a panacea for fraud management. A layered approach using multiple tools and data elements is critical for success. I suspect this trend of merchants using their own customer data to manage CNP fraud will continue. I also expect that data-centric tools will become more effective as merchants become more sophisticated with data analysis.

What is your view on the future role of proprietary data in CNP fraud management?

Photo of Douglas A. KingBy Douglas A. King, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed


January 26, 2015 in cards, fraud, online banking fraud | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 20, 2015


Phone Scams: Still Calling Around

With 2014 filled with news about data breaches and faster payments and new technologies trying to jumpstart various payment applications, it was easy to forget about that old-fashioned device, the telephone, and the role it can play in fraud. (It's been almost a year since I wrote the post "Phone Fraud: Now It's Personal!" about fraud schemes involving telephones.)

Pindrop Security recently released some research on the most frequent consumer phone scams, reminding us of how criminals can use a low-tech device combined with high-tech research tools to scam millions of consumers out of tens of millions of dollars each year.

We can generally place the underlying tactics of the scams into one of four categories:

  • Scare tactics. Often, the caller poses as a governmental agency official such as an IRS agent or law enforcement officer and advises the victim they have an outstanding debt or arrest warrant. The caller tells the victim to send in a certain amount of money immediately to cover the debt or pay a fine—or be arrested, have a lien placed against the home, or face other serious actions. The criminal's goal is to obtain funds directly from the victim.
  • Attractive offers. In this type of scam, the caller generally wants the victim's payment card or bank account number—although, as we outlined in an earlier post on advance fee scams, the caller may also be after direct payments. The offer may be for anything from a free vacation to a government grant, or from a reduction in the victim's mortgage or credit card interest rate. In any case, the caller insists the victim pay a handling fee. Sometimes, the caller asks questions about the victim's banking accounts to make sure the victim "qualifies" for the special offer. With the information obtained, the fraudsters generate payment transactions or use that information for future identity theft efforts.
  • High-pressure techniques. Most scams involve high-pressure techniques; the criminals want to create a sense of urgency to get the victim to act quickly, without thinking. A common scenario is when the caller tells the victim that his or her bank account or payment card has been frozen because of suspicious activity and then urges the victim to provide sensitive account information to restore the account to normal status. The caller can then use the information the victim has provided to initiate fraudulent transactions or identity theft.
  • Information-gathering. A criminal may call to get "additional" information about a customer to go into an identity profile that the criminal can use later in committing an identity theft crime. Often the criminal has already gathered some information about the targeted victim through social media or public records to weave into a cover story about why they are requesting the information to make the story more believable.

Since any of us can be a target of such calls, we must educate ourselves—and the public and our colleagues—about these scams constantly so we can all be on the alert and safeguard our accounts and personal information.

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


January 20, 2015 in consumer fraud, identity theft, phone fraud | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 12, 2015


Forming a More Perfect Union (for Faster Payments)

Thus far, conversations about the basic idea of moving ahead with near-real-time payments in the United States have been positive. However, the thorny business of "walking the talk" hasn't begun. When the time comes to do so, I expect less comity.

The degree of fragmentation in the United States—within both the public and the private sector—is significant. Consider the public side first. To avoid listing each entity that has a stake in payments services, let me sum it up by saying that if we had a box of Alpha-Bits, we'd run out of letters long before we put together the acronyms of all the agencies and organizations. On the private side, fragmentation starts with merchants and banks but includes mobile and third-party providers as well. These groups are vital to the success of any effort to improve payments, but they don't move in lockstep. In the end, for a faster scheme to work, the public and private sides have to work through their respective issues—and then come together.

Whether we're considering the public or the private side of things, some of the trickiest questions look like this:

  • What will faster payments cost and who will pay?
  • Will certain interests lose from the success of faster payments in the United States while others win?
  • Can we build a faster system quickly and flexibly enough before the next wave of technological advancement makes the current vision obsolete?
  • What are the rules, and who will administer and manage them?

While you ponder those questions, consider this excerpt from the United Kingdom's Payment Systems Regulator consultation paper (November 2014):

    The Payment Systems Regulator (PSR)…will become fully operational in April 2015. The PSR is a subsidiary of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), but it is an independent economic regulator, with its own objectives and governance.

    In setting up the Payment Systems Regulator, the Government highlighted four aims for UK payment systems:

  • UK payment networks that operate for the benefit of all users including consumers
  • a UK payments industry that promotes and develops new and existing payment networks
  • UK payment networks that facilitate competition by permitting open access to participants or potential participants on reasonable commercial terms and
  • UK payment systems that are stable, reliable and efficient.

The Government's assessment was that there were problems in each of the first three of these areas, and that the best way to tackle these was to create a payment system regulator. The Government noted particular areas of concern, including ownership, innovation and access to payment systems…. [W]e believe that our regulatory package will address the underlying issues and concerns that led the Government to setting us up. However, should our proposals fail to do this, we will…consider further use of our competition and regulatory powers to take action as appropriate.

That's one way governance issues could be resolved here. Another way is revealed through a study of the evolution of the ATM networks. Consider that landscape circa 1980s and then contrast it to today. I can't do justice to that history in a single post but suffice it to say that the issues faster payments currently face look similar to those the ATM industry faced. Back then, the market figured things out. Such a course may be slower than a mandate, and there will be failures and angst. Will the United States need a PSR to direct us to faster payments, or will the market figure it out?

By Julius Weyman, vice president, Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed


January 12, 2015 in emerging payments, regulators | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 05, 2015


Can Insecurity Keep Us from Faster Payments?

Helen Keller once said, “Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature.… Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure.” It is unlikely that Ms. Keller was considering real-time payments when she offered this perspective, but this post will.

As part of its broad effort to chart a future for payments, the Federal Reserve conducted a Payment Security Landscape Study. It was no surprise that the study highlights “persistent and ever-changing threats” as a given within payment systems. The study suggested several improvement or focus areas:

  • Improve industry coordination to increase the timely adoption and implementation of technology, standards and protocols.
  • Improve the protection of sensitive data that can be used to perpetrate fraud, including devaluing or eliminating such data from the payments process.
  • Strengthen authorization and authentication of parties and devices across all payment methods and channels and adapt approaches as the payment system evolves.
  • Improve the collection and reporting of aggregate data on fraud losses and avoidance.
  • Broaden access to actionable security and fraud threat information to payments system participants, including less technologically sophisticated participants and end users.

Applying Ms. Keller’s risk perspective to payments systems would suggest that work to prevent security breaches, fraud, or theft is futile. Fortunately, using the foregoing list as evidence, it’s clear that those considering the future of payments haven’t adopted this perspective. The most critical elements for optimizing the security of payments are all there, though some could surmise that detection or prevention measures have a disproportionate emphasis, with response measures perhaps rating as secondary. It is important to make sure that risk management is optimized across all three broad areas—prevention and detection, yes, but also response. In particular, in the context of response, the enforcement landscape will need to be ordered such that consequences for perpetrators are both timely and proportionate to the harm a given incident may cause. User protections will need to evolve as well.

If one agrees that advancing faster payments offers rewards and that holding back doesn’t promise freedom from harm, it’s encouraging to observe industry direction. Indeed, it seems reasonable to conclude that faster payments scheme architects will heed the notion that real-time payments will require real-time security. Particularly encouraging is that the discussion on payment security is at the center of industry dialogue and likely to remain so as the work to advance faster payments continues.

By Julius Weyman, vice president, Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

January 5, 2015 in consumer protection, data security, emerging payments | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

December 22, 2014


Top 10 Payments Events in 2014

As the year draws to a close, the Portals and Rails team would like to share its own "Top 10" list of major payments-related events and issues that took place in the United States this year.

#10: Proposed prepaid rule. After a long wait, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued its proposed rules on general reloadable prepaid cards in November. While the major players in the prepaid card industry had already adopted most of the practices included in the proposed rule, the proposal allowing overdrafts and credit extensions is likely to generate differing perspectives during the comment period before a final rule is adopted in 2015.

#9: Regulation II. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the Federal Reserve Bank's rules regarding interchange fees and network routing rules, reversing a 2013 decision. Notice of appeal on the interchange fee portion of the ruling has been given, but resolution of the network routing rules has cleared the way for the development of applications supporting routing on chip cards.

#8: Payment trends. The detailed Federal Reserve Bank's triennial payments study results were released in July 2014, continuing the Fed's 15-year history of conducting this comprehensive payments research. Cash usage continued to decline but remained the most-used form of payment in terms of transaction volume.

#7: Card-not-present (CNP) fraud. With the growing issuance of chip cards and the experience of other countries post-EMV migration—with substantial amounts of fraud moving to the online commerce environment—the payments industry continues to search for improved security solutions for CNP fraud that minimize customer friction and abandonment.

#6: Faster payments. Continuing a process it began in the fall of 2013 at the release of a consultative white paper, the Federal Reserve Bank held town halls and stakeholder meetings throughout the year in preparation of the release of its proposed roadmap towards improving the payment system.

#5: Virtual currencies. Every conference we attended had sessions or tracks focused on virtual currencies like Bitcoin. While there was some advancement in the acceptance of Bitcoin by major retailers, the number of consumers using the currency did not rise significantly.

#4: Mobile payments. The entry of Apple with its powerful brand identity into the mobile payments arena with Apple Pay has energized the mobile payments industry and brought improved payment security through tokenization and biometrics closer to the mainstream. (Apple Pay's impact on mobile payment transaction volume will likely be negligible for a couple of years.) Additionally, the use of host card emulation, or HCE, as an alternative contactless communications technology provides another option for mobile wallet development.

#3: EMV migration. The frequency and magnitude of the data breaches this year have spurred financial institutions and merchants alike into speeding up their support of EMV chip cards in advance of the October 2015 liability shift.

#2: Third-party processors. Regulators and law enforcement escalated the attention they were giving to the relationships of financial institutions with third-party processors because of increased concerns about deceitful business practices as well as money laundering.

And…drum roll, please!

#1: Data breaches. The waves of data breaches that started in late 2013 continued to grow throughout 2014 as more and more retailers revealed that their transaction and customer data had been compromised. The size and frequency of the data breaches provided renewed impetus to improve the security of our payments system through chip card migration and the implementation of tokenization.

How does this list compare to your Top 10?

All of us at the Retail Payments Risk Forum wish our Portals and Rails readers Happy Holidays and a prosperous and fraud-free 2015!

Photo of Mary Kepler Photo of Doug King Photo of David Lott Photo of Julius Weyman



Mary Kepler, vice president; Doug King, payments risk specialist; Dave Lott, payments risk expert; and Julius Weyman, vice president—all of the Atlanta Fed's Retail Payments Risk Forum.


December 22, 2014 in chip-and-pin, cybercrime, data security, EMV, innovation, mobile payments, prepaid, regulations, third-party service provider | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

December 08, 2014


Under Pressure: The Fate of the Independent ATM Operators

The ATM industry in the United States is facing many challenges. For one, the interchange rates that networks pay to ATM owners have been halved over the last five years, transaction surcharges are topping off, and operating expenses are escalating. These financial strains may be hardest for the thousands of small business entrepreneurs in the United States who own and operate ATMs independent of those that belong to financial institutions (FIs). (Non-FI owners/operators are responsible for an estimated 65 percent of all U.S. ATMs.) For another, at least for the small-business independents, a changing landscape is placing pressure on the relationships the independent owners/operators have with their FIs.

I recently attended and spoke at the National ATM Council's (NAC) annual conference. NAC is a nonprofit national trade association that represents the business interests of these non-FI ATM owners and operators. During the conference, I spoke with many of the attendees to learn more about the key drivers and concerns of their business. The biggest concern many owners/operators expressed is their sponsoring FI will classify them as a high-risk business and terminate their banking relationship. (Many FIs are in the process of "de-risking" their portfolios.) FIs may mistakenly classify these operators as money service businesses (MSB), since they dispense cash, even though state regulators do not consider them as such. Two factors are contributing to this confusion: guidance from the FFIEC's examiner manual that cautions financial institutions that criminals can use ATMs to launder funds, and an organizational structure that has sub-ISOs (that is, independent sales organizations), which can make ownership of all the ATMs unclear.

In actuality, the ability of ATM operators to launder money through an ATM is quite restricted beyond the initial funds placed in the terminal. The processors and networks, which are totally independent from the owners, generate financial reports that show the amount of funds that an ATM dispenses in any given period. So if the reports show an ATM paid out $5,000 in a month, the ATM owner can only justify resupplying the ATM with $5,000, plus a little reserve. In other words, controls maintained by independent parties clearly document the funds flowing through the ATM. Additionally, the non-FI sponsorships are dominated by four highly regarded financial institutions with strict AML/BSA programs that validate the initial funding of the ATM and monitor ongoing activity.

My advice to the group to try to avoid having their business relationship questioned or, worse, terminated, was to work proactively with the financial institution providing their settlement service and cash supply needs. Make sure their account officers understand how their businesses operate and know the controls that are in place to make money laundering unlikely to happen. And if you work for an FI that works with non-FI ATM owners/operators, don’t be surprised if they come calling on you.

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


December 8, 2014 in ATM fraud, regulations | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

November 24, 2014


What’s Unsettled in Faster Payments?

When I started at the Federal Reserve Bank 27 years ago, the phrase "faster payments" was rarely spoken. Indeed, if people talking of payments were musing on speed (or the lack thereof), two things were a safe bet: first, the conversation was likely among bankers and, second, the talk revolved around check float and the tools for reducing it—check sort patterns, airplanes, or optimized ground routes. Those tools are not part of today's "faster payments" conversations, and the universe of discussants is much broader; it's not just bankers anymore.

Payments essentially comprise two components. The first is messaging—the instruction that delineates who is to be paid, by whom, and in what amount. The second component is settlement. Settlement is the event that finishes a payment. It is also commonly the slowest aspect within any given payment scheme. Settlement is the actual transfer of funds, the account adjustments directed by the messaging components.

For many payments, settlement takes much longer than appears to be the case, particularly from the perspective of the end user. For example, in a typical payment card transaction between a consumer and a retailer, once the card is swiped and "approved," the consumer is considered to have paid and can generally leave with the goods. But the merchant has received only the promise of payment. Settlement between card issuers and acquiring banks must occur before the merchant is paid. This can take more than a day and illustrates one issue with settlement lags: consequential strains on liquidity that merchants experience when they need to replace goods but may not have received payment to fund the resupply.

So will a faster payment solution resolve the liquidity issues currently experienced in many of the extant payment schemes? At this point, the answer is not a simple one. In town hall-style meetings and other updates, Fed speakers have noted that "real-time settlement is not required for real-time availability." This suggests that at least at the outset, a faster payments scheme here may not include immediate settlement. And if settlement does not occur simultaneously with messaging, certain parties in the transaction remain exposed to liquidity as well as other settlement risks. This doesn't mean that a new scheme will be plagued with settlement risk. The UK has successfully offered real-time clearing and availability without real-time settlement. However, other countries have built real-time settlement into their new systems because it does indeed reduce systemic risk. If a new system here is to be built from scratch, it seems important to probe fully the range of design issues and options and consider solving all of the longstanding payment risks that can be feasibly solved.

By Julius Weyman, vice president, Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed


November 24, 2014 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Google Search



Recent Posts


March 2015


Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        

Archives


Categories


Powered by TypePad