2015 LexisNexis® Fraud Mitigation Study:

Summary of Key Findings

LexisNexis and the Knowledge Burst logo are registered trademarks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under license. Copyright 2015 LexisNexis. All rights reserved.

1 2015 LexisNexis Fraud Mitigation Study: Summary of Key Findings

Background and Objectives

Fraud is a serious concern for organizations in every industry, with U.S. costs tallying into the billions of dollars or more.

LexisNexis® Risk Solutions conducted its 2015 Fraud Mitigation Study to examine some of the trends around fraud, particularly related to the propensity for criminals to perpetrate fraud across multiple industries.

GOALS

• Explore the extent to which fraud mitigation professionals encounter fraud cases from other companies and industries, and look at some perceptions and trends around these cases.

• Understand how these professionals are using external data and analytics-based solutions for fraud detection.

2 2015 LexisNexis Fraud Mitigation Study: Summary of Key Findings

Study Methodology

The LexisNexis Fraud Mitigation Study was conducted as an online national survey of 400 fraud mitigation professionals from insurance, financial services, retail, health care, government and communications.

The survey has a confidence level of 95 percent.

Third-party research firm Moore & Symons administered the research. LexisNexis was not identified to participants as the sponsor.

95%

3 2015 LexisNexis Fraud Mitigation Study: Summary of Key Findings

Firmographics • Respondents include fraud mitigation

professionals in varying roles within their organizations. Eighty-one percent have at least some direct involvement in fraud cases, and more than half have oversight responsibilities.

• Participants are from organizations of various sizes, with nearly a third (29 percent) from organizations with more than 1,000 employees.

• About 70 percent of respondents come from fraud departments with 20 or fewer employees.

• More than half have an annual budget of $500,000 or less for data and analytics fraud prevention solutions, and nearly 30 percent have a budget of $1 million or more.

Northeast

Southeast

West

Midwest

Mid-Atlantic

Southwest

Other

Region Where Located Level in Corporation

VP or higher

Director

Manager

Analyst

Other

40%

21%

19%

19%

11%

9%1%

24%

29%

3%4%

22%

4 2015 LexisNexis Fraud Mitigation Study: Summary of Key Findings

Executive Summary

Key Takeaways Cross-industry fraud is prevalent. (p. 6)

Fraud cases with relevance to multiple industries tend to carry a high financial impact. (p. 7)

Fraud mitigation professionals see value in accessing data about fraud cases from outside of their organization or industry. (p. 8)

They also see value in universal descriptors for fraud that are consistent across industries. (p. 9)

When it comes to current fraud mitigation practices, a majority of those surveyed are accessing both external data and analytics solutions; although fewer than half are using these solutions “very frequently.” (p. 10)

1

2

3

4

5

5 2015 LexisNexis Fraud Mitigation Study: Summary of Key Findings

Survey Highlights

6 2015 LexisNexis Fraud Mitigation Study: Summary of Key Findings

How often are fraud cases connected to other industries?

84%encounter fraud from

other industries

30%

In over half of cases

19%In a quarter to half of cases

35%In less than a quarter of cases

16%Never

Key Takeaway 1

7 2015 LexisNexis Fraud Mitigation Study: Summary of Key Findings

Rate the financial impact that outside cases have on your organization.

55%EXTREME OR HIGHFINANCIAL IMPACT

22%MODERATE

FINANCIAL IMPACT

21%LITTLE TO NO

FINANCIAL IMPACT2%

DON’T KNOWFINANCIAL IMPACT

Key Takeaway 2

8 2015 LexisNexis Fraud Mitigation Study: Summary of Key Findings

How valuable would it be to have on-demand access to data about fraud activities, events, persons or other attributes?

60%

Very Valuable

25%

41% 33% Within your industry

Outside your industry

Somewhat Valuable

Fraud professionals would use cross-industry data primarily as:

76% Indicators of a potential problem

41% Additional evidence in an investigation

34% Attributes in a predictive model

Method of determining cases

Determinant of benefits

28%

13%

Key Takeaway 3

9 2015 LexisNexis Fraud Mitigation Study: Summary of Key Findings

How valuable would it be if there were common, general ways of describing fraud that are consistent across industries?

56%VERY VALUABLE 31%

SOMEWHATVALUABLE

13%NOT VERYVALUABLE

Key Takeaway 4

10 2015 LexisNexis Fraud Mitigation Study: Summary of Key Findings

Use of Data Analytics

The survey also explored the extent to which data analytics are used for fraud detection.

FREQUENCY

To what extent does your team rely on external data and analytics-based solutions for fraud detection?

75%of professionals rely on

them to some extent

45%

Very Frequently

30%

SomewhatFrequently

25%

Not At All

Key Takeaway 5

11 2015 LexisNexis Fraud Mitigation Study: Summary of Key Findings

3 out of 4

professionals are currently usingexternal data and/or analytics-based

solutions for fraud prevention.

Use of Data AnalyticsDRIVERS

DETERRENTS

65%

54%45%

44%

36%

OTHER

SPEED

EFFECTIVENESS

INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICE

COMPLIANCE

ACCURACY

40%

29%24%

21%

10% TRAINING

KNOWLEDGE

AWARENESS

BUDGET

COMFORT

22% OTHER* * Other specifies no need, too small, use internal data sources, fraud would be internal

Fraud occurs along the customer continuum and across many industries.By leveraging cross-industry data and analytics-based solutions, fraud mitigation professionals can be better equipped to detect and combat fraud.

For more information about the LexisNexis 2015 Fraud Mitigation Study, visit www.lexisnexis.com/fraudstudy or call 844.AX.FRAUD (844.293.7283)