Loading...

Risk based authentication – some best practices to consider, Part 3

by Keir Breitenfeld 2 min read October 9, 2009

In my previous two blog postings, I’ve tried to briefly articulate some key elements of and value propositions associated with risk-based authentication.  In this entry, I’d like to suggest some best-practices to consider as you incorporate and maintain a risk-based authentication program.

1. Analytics – since an authentication score is likely the primary decisioning element in any risk-based authentication strategy, it is critical that a best-in-class scoring model is chosen and validated to establish performance expectations.  This initial analysis will allow for decisioning thresholds to be established.  This will also allow accept and referral volumes to be planned for operationally.  Further more, it will permit benchmarks to be established which follow on performance monitoring that can be compared.

2. Targeted decisioning strategies – applying unique and tailored decisioning strategies (incorporating scores and other high-risk or positive authentication results) to various access channels to your business just simply makes sense.  Each access channel (call center, Web, face-to-face, etc.) comes with unique risks, available data, and varied opportunity to apply an authentication strategy that balances these areas; risk management, operational effectiveness, efficiency and cost, improved collections and customer experience.  Champion/challenger strategies may also be a great way to test newly devised strategies within a single channel without taking risk to an entire addressable market and your business as a whole.

3. Performance Monitoring – it is critical that key metrics are established early in the risk-based authentication implementation process.  Key metrics may include, but should not be limited to these areas:

• actual vs. expected score distributions;
• actual vs. expected characteristic distributions;
• actual vs. expected question performance;
• volumes, exclusions;
• repeats and mean scores;
• actual vs. expected pass rates;
• accept vs. referral score distribution;
• trends in decision code distributions; and
• trends in decision matrix distributions.

Performance monitoring provides an opportunity to manage referral volumes, decision threshold changes, strategy configuration changes, auto-decisioning criteria and pricing for risk based authentication.

4. Reporting – it likely goes without saying, but in order to apply the three best practices above, accurate, timely, and detailed reporting must be established around your authentication tools and results.  Regardless of frequency, you should work with internal resources and your third-party service provider(s) early in your implementation process to ensure relevant reports are established and delivered.

In my next posting, I will be discussing some thoughts about the future state of risk based authentication.

Related Posts

Lending hasn’t slowed down—but many decisioning processes have. Applications are coming in faster. Fraud is becoming more sophisticated. Borrowers expect near-instant responses. And yet, inside many organizations, decisions are still being made across fragmented systems, manual reviews, and rigid strategies that weren’t designed and aren’t optimized for today’s environment. That broadening gap isn’t just an operational issue but often stems from a lack of innovation as well. And it’s quietly costing lenders growth, efficiency, and competitive position. When decisioning falls behind, some symptoms are easy to recognize, like applications taking days to process, teams overloaded with manual reviews, and credit and fraud decisions happening in separate platforms. Others are not as obvious, but arguably more impactful, slipping bottom lines and fraud and therefore losses lurking in lenders’ portfolios. The root issue is a fragmented infrastructure. Experian has reported that while 79% of financial institutions surveyed globally want fewer vendors or more unified approaches, they typically use eight or more tools across credit, fraud and compliance. As most decisioning environments cannot integrate data, adapt strategies, and execute decisions in real time, lenders often have to make tradeoffs. Speed vs. accuracy; growth vs. risk; and automation vs. control are just some. Meanwhile, the market has moved on. Leading lenders are no longer optimizing individual steps. They’re rethinking decisioning as a connected, intelligent system. Gaps forming from status quo in 8 key decision areas Across the lending lifecycle, there are eight critical moments where decisioning can either accelerate growth or create friction. Pre-qualification: Pre-qualification should expand your funnel with confidence. But limited data access and static criteria often result in overly conservative targeting or missed opportunities. Additionally, the delay in acting on a pre-qualification funnel highlights a key area for opportunity among many lenders. Instant credit decisions: Customers expect real-time outcomes. When decisions rely on manual intervention or fragmented inputs, speed and conversions suffer. Prescreen and targeting: Disconnected data and rigid segmentation can lead to poorly aligned offers, reducing response rates and wasting acquisition spend. Credit line management: Without dynamic strategies, credit lines may be too restrictive (limiting growth) or too aggressive (increasing risk). Early delinquency management: Missed early signals and delayed interventions make it harder to prevent accounts from deteriorating. Mid- and late-stage delinquency: Strategies that don’t adapt to evolving borrower behavior reduce recovery effectiveness and increase losses. Collections and recovery: Manual, one-size-fits-all approaches limit recovery rates and increase operational cost. Ongoing strategy optimization: Perhaps the most overlooked gap: many lenders lack the ability to continuously test, learn, and refine decision strategies as conditions change. What these gaps are really costing you Individually, each of these breakdowns may seem manageable. Together, they can create systemic drag on performance. That shows up in four critical ways: Missed growth opportunities: Good borrowers are declined, abandoned, or never targeted in the first place. Credit offers fail to align with actual borrower potential. Higher operational costs: Manual reviews and disconnected workflows consume time and resources that could be spent on higher-value work. Increased fraud exposure and friction: Fraud is proliferating and becoming more expensive to manage. The Federal Trade Commission reported $12.5B were lost to fraud in the U.S. in 2024, a 25% increase over the prior year. For many financial institutions, the first reaction is often to add more steps to the decisioning process, which can impact good borrowers. Increased competitive pressure: Fintechs and modern lenders are focused on delivering faster, more personalized experiences, capturing share while traditional processes lag behind. 80% of banks and credit unions plan to increase their technology spending in 2026, yet many continue to fall short on planned system deployments, according to Cornerstone Advisors’ annual “What’s Going On in Banking” research report. What innovative decisioning leaders are doing differently Leading lenders are changing how decisions are made, creating a competitive advantage. Instead of stitching together point solutions, they’re adopting a more integrated approach that brings together: Comprehensive data – including both credit and fraud insights Optimized decision strategies – designed to balance growth and risk Real-time execution – enabling faster, more consistent outcomes Continuous optimization – adapting to changing market conditions Strategic partnerships – leveraging third-party industry expertise to augment their own This shift eliminates the need for tradeoffs and instead allows lenders to increase approvals while maintaining control, reducing manual effort while improving consistency, and responding faster without sacrificing confidence. The stakes are high and the competition for consumers is even higher, particularly against a backdrop of ever-evolving fraud risks, continuously increasing consumer expectations for seamless, digital-first experiences and often limited resources. Nearly half of banks and 59% of credit unions have already deployed generative AI, with more investing now, according to the Cornerstone Advisors’ report. Closing the innovation gap requires a more fundamental shift toward decisioning systems that are connected, scalable, and built for continuous change. A new foundation for decisioning This is where platforms like Experian Decisioning are changing the landscape. By bringing together credit and fraud insights, decision strategies, and a flexible technology architecture, lenders can move beyond fragmented processes and build a more unified, intelligent decisioning approach. One that fits within existing systems but also evolves with your needs. Where to start Impactful change doesn’t need to be an overhaul of everything at once for most organizations. The first step is understanding where your biggest gaps exist, and which decision areas are creating the most friction or missed opportunity. Once you can see where decisioning is not optimized, you can begin to redesign it in a way that’s faster and more adept for what lending has become. By making better decisions, faster, and with greater confidence, lenders can process applications more efficiently and also break away from the pack by leveraging decisioning as a strategic advantage. Learn more

by Stefani Wendel 2 min read March 26, 2026

Learn how GenAI is reshaping financial services from customer engagement to compliance, leading to improved decisions and operations.

by Masood Akhtar 2 min read December 4, 2024

Reject inferencing techniques unlock a more comprehensive view of your applicant pool for more informed underwriting decisions. 

by Julie Lee 2 min read September 17, 2024