Customers can become more loyal if their banks solve fraud cases, researchers find
- Researchers found that customers are more likely to stick with their bank if it solves fraud cases (60% increase in loyalty) and identifies perpetrators, but less likely to stay if they receive refunds without knowing who was behind the fraud (40% decrease in loyalty).
- A study of 422,953 customers by researchers Vamsi Kanuri, Sriram Somanchi, and Rahul Telang found that customers who were defrauded but received a refund were more likely to leave their bank if they had recently opened an account or had few prior interactions with the bank.
- The “service recovery paradox” suggests that when a business handles a problem well (in this case, solving fraud cases), its customers can become more loyal than if no problem had occurred. However, if perpetrators are not identified, customers lose more trust in the bank’s ability to safeguard their accounts.
- Financial fraud is growing increasingly common, with over one-third of U.S. consumers targeted by attempted financial fraud in 2024 and total losses from defrauded consumers totaling over $12.5 billion in 2024.
- The study highlights the importance of banks identifying perpetrators in cases of account-based fraud to regain customers’ trust and loyalty, rather than just issuing refunds without resolving the issue.
When banks issue their defrauded customers refunds and successfully identify the perpetrators, fraud victims are 60% more likely to stick with their bank than customers that didn’t experience any fraud.
But if customers get their stolen money back but never learn who the perpetrators are, they are 40% more likely to take their accounts elsewhere than customers who weren’t defrauded.
That’s what my co-authors and I found by researching how customers respond when banks investigate fraud. I partnered for this study with Sriram Somanchi and Rahul Telang; I study marketing, and they’re information technology scholars.
We believe this pattern emerged because identifying fraudsters can signal competence and rebuild trust. But when no one is caught, even with a refund, customers are more likely to see the fraud incident as a lapse in capability and blame the bank itself.
We partnered with a major U.S. bank that shared five years of data covering 422,953 customers, including 22,953 who experienced a single instance of fraud.
These customers were victims of account-based fraud, meaning that perpetrators had surreptitiously siphoned away money from their accounts, often through various scams.
Every defrauded customer got a refund, but the perpetrators were identified only about 13% of the time. Our findings support what’s known as the “service recovery paradox”: When a business handles a problem well, its customers can become more loyal than if no problem had occurred.
Customers who had recently opened their bank accounts and those with few prior interactions with the banks were the most likely to leave if the perpetrators were never identified.
Customers in cases where perpetrators weren’t identified within the next three months – and who had opened their accounts years earlier and were more engaged with their banks – were more likely to stay put because they are more familiar with the bank’s technological capabilities and, therefore, are more likely to forgive the bank.
Our results suggest that when perpetrators are identified, customers can regain confidence in their bank’s ability to safeguard their accounts. When the fraudsters aren’t caught, they lose more trust instead.
Why it matters
Financial fraud is both costly and pervasive. More than one-third of U.S. consumers were targeted by attempted financial fraud in 2024, and nearly 40% of those attempts led to a financial loss. Total losses from defrauded consumers totaled more than US$12.5 billion in 2024.
Fraud can undermine confidence in banks and other financial service providers.
U.S. regulations generally require banks to issue customers full refunds whether or not the perpetrator of a fraud is caught. But when customers get refunds after being defrauded, it doesn’t automatically restore their trust in a bank or app.
What still isn’t known
We focused on fraud cases that the customers themselves reported. It’s unclear whether they would have responded the same way had their banks detected the fraud instead. Another open question is whether similar patterns hold for other debacles, such as data breaches that make customers’ personal information vulnerable to exploitation.
Vamsi Kanuri does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.