
A PYMNTS Intelligence report finds firms running identity verification in-house report the highest false positives and onboarding delays. The real cost may be customers who never finish the application.
A new report from PYMNTS Intelligence, done with Trulioo, puts a number on something many compliance teams already suspect: the customer who gets rejected by mistake may cost more than the fraudster who gets through.
The report, "Built or Bought: How KYC/KYB Ownership Shapes Risk, Cost and Growth," finds that identity programs have a financial impact that extends well beyond fraud losses. That impact comes from legitimate customers who never finish onboarding, get incorrectly flagged as suspicious, or abandon applications after hitting too many verification hurdles.
Firms that manage know your customer (KYC) and know your business (KYB) entirely in-house report the highest levels of friction. Forty-three percent say they generate excessive false positives – legitimate customers identified as potential bad actors. Fifty-six percent report rising transaction decline rates. Sixty-two percent say excessive verification checks are creating customer friction.
Every extra document request, manual review, or erroneous rejection creates an opportunity for a prospective customer to walk away. Unlike fraud losses, which get measured and reported, these missed opportunities stay invisible. The customer who gets blocked incorrectly may simply take their business to a competitor.
Onboarding performance tells the same story. Fifty-three percent of firms using internal teams report onboarding delays, compared to 31% of firms relying on external providers. Sixty-one percent of internally managed programs report high onboarding abandonment rates, versus 41% among externally managed models.
Customer acquisition teams may spend heavily to attract prospects, only to see a meaningful share of them disappear during verification. In competitive markets like banking, payments, lending, and digital commerce, that attrition becomes an expensive drag on growth.
External providers bring their own tradeoffs. Eighty-one percent of firms relying entirely on third-party verification providers say their identity systems prevent them from entering new markets. The issue is recognizing that every model imposes costs somewhere.
Many firms still evaluate identity programs through operational measures: review costs, audit performance, fraud detection rates. The report suggests conversion metrics may deserve equal attention.
Internal teams spend an average of $26 per KYC review and $51 per KYB review – more than double the cost reported by external providers. Despite those higher expenditures, they also report the highest rates of false positives, onboarding delays, and fraud-related losses.
The true cost of verification is not simply what a firm spends to review an applicant. It is also the revenue lost when legitimate customers abandon the process, when applications remain stuck in manual review queues, and when overly aggressive controls create unnecessary barriers to entry.
Fraud prevention remains essential. Customer conversion, onboarding speed, and false-positive rates deserve equal scrutiny. The firms that strike the right balance may find that reducing friction produces a larger financial return than eliminating another incremental layer of risk.
Prepared with AlphaScala research tooling and grounded in primary market data: live prices, fundamentals, SEC filings, hedge-fund holdings, and insider activity. Each story is checked against AlphaScala publishing rules before release. Educational coverage, not personalized advice.