You are looking at it from the wrong end, averages mask the issue.
Consider this: Romanian state employees generate multiple X less fraud than average Romanians. Bank serving them may lose cents per customer per year and make, say, $50 per year.
A neobank in the US engaged in predatory lending to gig workers may lose $60 per customer per year, but may make $200.
If you compare similar segments and similar business models, the difference can be 2-4 orders of magnitude, depending on segment.
That guy authorized crypto.com to access his bank account, crypto.com got hacked, and bank ended up paying him and his lawyer. What is not correct here?
Who had to foot the bill in the end?
> You are looking at it from the wrong end, averages mask the issue.
Your claim was there was 10,000x more payment fraud in the US than in these countries, due to the different regulatory regime.
Data indicates there's like 3-4x, and a lot of it is more easily explained by greater share of card-not-present transactions and lack of chip-and-pin.
> If you compare similar segments and similar business models, the difference can be 2-4 orders of magnitude, depending on segment.
Oh, so you want to compare the lowest-risk banking sectors in Romania to the highest risk sectors in the US? Sorry-- this does not make sense as a way to compare regulatory regimes.
In the end, banking losses due to fraud... and the systems used to mitigate fraud... cost just several basis points on payment cards in the US and a much smaller share than this on other transactions. This is tiny compared to the overall credit risks and the rest of the cost structure of the transactions.
When it comes to regulation E-- many banks even choose to compete by offering consumers greater protections than reg E requires.
I am merely giving you my experience running banks on both sides of the atlantic.
You can explain however you want. Chip and PIN is a big factor of course but is not the only one. ACH is a hot garbage and is a fraud vector which does not exist anywhere else. Remote account opening is a door wide open for fraud and, again, nowhere else.
Cost of fraud includes FTEs involved in managing fraud, software and infrastructure costs, lost opportunity etc. All those are incomparably higher in the US. I don't really care if you believe me or not, it is just my opinion.
If you compare similar segments and similar business models, the difference can be 2-4 orders of magnitude, depending on segment.
That guy authorized crypto.com to access his bank account, crypto.com got hacked, and bank ended up paying him and his lawyer. What is not correct here? Who had to foot the bill in the end?