Since 1968, there have been 1,516,863 gun-related deaths on US territory compared to 1,396,733 war deaths since the founding of the United States[i]. This means that up to 2015, according to data collected by Politifact, the death toll for citizens and visitors of the United States from domestic gun violence exceeds that of all the deaths from all the wars the US has participated in since its inception.
The statistics on US gun violence remain mind-boggling to many. A study by Health Affairs states that more than 100,000 people are shot each year in the US. 350 people are estimated to have been killed in American mass shootings[ii] this year, according to data gathered by GunsAreCool - a sarcastically named community that tracks gun violence in the country. In comparison, 432 people were killed in mass shootings in 2016 and 369 in 2015, which means that on average, more than one person is killed in a mass shooting for every day of the year. According to the Small Arms Survey via the Guardian, America has 4.4% of the world’s population, but almost half of the civilian-owned guns around the world.
Win $25 Free With $25 Kroger Gift Cards
For both individuals and society as a whole, gun violence imposes heavy psychological burdens. The media regularly highlight the emotional cost, and rightly so. But what is the economic cost of US gun violence? What is the financial cost to society from all that carnage?
The price tag
Back in 2012, Mother Jones, the liberal magazine, launched a three-year investigation, following the Colorado cinema shooting rampage in July, when James Holmes killed 12 people and injured 70. The magazine went through the combined annual impact of a total of about 11,000 murders, approximately 22,000 suicides and 75,000 injuries that are the result of gunfire. The findings of the investigation showed that the annual cost of fatal and non-fatal gun violence to the US was $229 billion, representing 1.4% of total gross domestic product. In comparison, obesity in the US costs the country $224bn, which makes the economic impact of gun violence higher than that of obesity. These $229bn are also the equivalent of the size of Portugal’s economy or the equivalent of $700 for every American citizen.
The study notes that about $8.6bn is direct cost, including emergency care and hospital charges, the expense of police investigations, the price of court proceedings, as well as jail costs. According to the investigation, $169bn goes to the estimated impact of victims’ quality of life, based on jury awards for pain and suffering in cases of wrongful injury and death, and the rest $49bn account for lost wages and spending.
It is of course worth mentioning the positive economic impact that the gun and ammunition manufacturing industry has on the country, which according to IBIS World was $13.5 billion in 2015, with a $1.5 billion profit. However, it is also worth pointing out the distinction between the profit from manufacturing the very products used in shootings, in comparison to the financial loss seen due to gun violence.
The impact on US firearm manufacturers
In recent years, firearms sales tend to increase and gun stocks tend to rally in the immediate aftermath of mass shootings in particular. Shares on gun manufacturers such as Sturm, Ruger & Co. (RGR, +1.91%) and Smith & Wesson maker American Outdoor Brands (AOBC, +0.74%) rose sharply right after the mass shooting in Las Vegas from earlier this month, when 59 people were killed and hundreds were injured. Only a few hours after the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history, shares of Sturm, Ruger & Co. rose 3%, American Outdoor Brands jumped 5%, while Vista Outdoor (VSTO, -0.67%) popped 2%. The explanation behind this is quite simple - investors predict a rise in sales as people buy firearms to defend themselves and their families in the event of another potential attack. Sales are also likely to spike due to the fear that an attack may result in law changes and guns becoming harder to buy.
Despite the fact that mass shootings lead to increased firearm sales, research by Anandasivam Gopal and Brad N. Greenwood published on 28th May 2017, points out that when mass shootings occur, investors appear to be reducing their valuations of publicly traded firearms manufacturers – an effect driven by the threat of impending regulation. However, these tendencies were most prevalent in 2009 and 2010, but seem to disappear in later events, indicating the possible markets’ acceptance of mass shootings as the ‘new normal’.
How do local economies respond to increased gun violence?
A report by the Urban Institute, published on 1st June 2017, found that surges in gun violence in the US can ‘significantly reduce the growth of new retail and service businesses and slow home value appreciation’. According to the study, higher levels of neighbourhood gun violence drives depopulation, discourages business and decreases property values, resulting in fewer retail and service establishments, fewer new jobs, lower home values, credit scores and homeownership rates. The report features interviews with local stakeholders (homeowners, renters, business owners, non-profits, etc.), who confirm the findings, which state that ‘Business owners in neighbourhoods that experience heightened gun violence reported additional challenges and costs, and residents and business owners alike asserted that gun violence hurts housing prices and drives people to relocate from or avoid moving to affected neighbourhoods’. In Minneapolis for example, the report finds that each additional gun homicide in a census tract in a given year was associated with 80 fewer jobs the next year, while average home values in Minneapolis census tracts dropped by $22,000.
Is gun violence really the ‘new normal’?
It seems as if the US lawmakers, and indeed large swathes of the US population, are now willing to accept gun violence as a part of their daily lives in a manner that may shock others. But what is more surprising is that a country founded on capitalism permits this as the status quo in the knowledge that gun violence is having a severe and negative impact on the US economy. From hospital fees through to deterring business investment, mass shootings and gun crime are the cause of considerable financial losses to the United States. These acts of violence cost the country a great deal of money, but most importantly – they cost lives. And although markets have seemed to accept mass shootings as ‘the new normal’, should this be the case for the rest of us too?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
[i] That figure includes American lives lost in the revolutionary war, the Mexican war, the civil war (Union and Confederate, estimate), the Spanish-American war, the first world war, the second world war, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Gulf war, the Afghanistan war, the Iraq war, as well as other conflicts, including in Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Somalia and Haiti.
[ii] Mass shooting being defined by the FBI as any incident where at least four persons are killed with a firearm in a random act with little or no premeditation.
Here Laura Hutton, Executive Director at Quantexa, explains the money laundering phenomenon, describing the typical profile of a money laundering ring, the added variety some display, and the challenges banking systems currently face in identifying money laundering systems.
Global money laundering transactions are currently estimated at 2 to 5% of global GDP, or up to US$2 trillion, funding crimes such as terrorism, corruption, tax evasion, drug and human trafficking. By 2020, experts predict that there will be more than 50 billion connected devices across the world. This is a cause for concern for banks and financial institutions alike, as criminals will be attracted to fresh ways to communicate and partake in criminal activity.
Shockingly, over 25% of financial services firms have not conducted AML/CFT risk assessments across their global footprint (PWC) – so it is no surprise that criminals are still finding loop holes. However, according to Wealth Insight, global AML spending is predicted to rise from US$5.9 billion in 2013 to US$8.2 billion in 2017 – promising a stronger barrier to money laundering activities. In part, this has been driven by the increasingly strict regulatory landscape and some eyewatering fines, but organisations are also keen to tackle the problem for both moral and reputational reasons.
The profile of a money laundering ring
The vast majority of money laundering is committed by organised criminal gangs and involves a complex web of individuals, businesses, domestic payments, overseas wires and increasingly trades and settlements. These gangs will need many low-level individuals who deposit cash into the banking system, typically in low volumes to avoid detection. The gangs will then need to move the aggregated funds around in larger volumes and overseas. This is a complex structure and designed to avoid raising suspicion.
One size doesn’t fit all
All banks will have AML systems in place, but this doesn’t mean they are correctly suited. At first, financial institutions put in place systems to detect money laundering within their retail book, looking for simple patterns like large cash deposits in short time periods or transactions which are unexpectedly large for a standard domestic customer. This may flag some of the low-level criminals, but the modern organised criminal is choosing to hide the activity elsewhere, for example, cash-heavy businesses and financial markets where the transaction volumes are significantly bigger and where overseas transactions are the norm.
Banks and regulators realised that these non-retail products had money laundering risk, but no tailored AML systems existed for these complex products. As a result, many organisations have simply repurposed existing retail and market abuse systems that inevitably aren’t suited to the product line that they are trying to protect. A pre-configured AML system for retail banking will focus on finding individual high-risk transactions without the context of corporate structures, geographical money flows and the complex behaviour of that product type. Consequently, these systems are less able to identity suspicious behaviour and do not effectively prevent money laundering.
Time for a new approach
To address the more pressing money laundering risks, and greatly reduce their vulnerability, banks need to take a different approach that can interpret and risk assess these complex webs of activity and present them assembled and ready for investigation. Money launderers are not transactions, they are individuals, and they need to be modelled as such.
The contextual monitoring approach uses entity and network analysis techniques, in combination with advanced analytical methods to uncover the hidden web of criminal activity and highlight these holistically as an aggregated view of risk across multiple products and data sources.
This eliminates the vast number of alerts generated at the transactional level and focusses the attention on the high-risk people, businesses and networks that underpin these criminal gangs.
Money laundering remains a great issue for banks and financial institutions alike. As the criminals get smarter, current AML systems are falling behind. To beat the criminals at their own game, banks must adopt new compliance technologies to make constructive use of the infinite data accessible, join the dots in their customer network, and then become more efficient when acting against illegal money laundering activity.
Here Christopher Hillman, Principal Data Scientist at Think Big Analytics, A Teradata Company, delves deep into the processes banks use to identify fraud and the culprits within the system.
Insurance fraud is a growing problem which many insurers have begun to dedicate new departments and whopping budgets to try and tackle. Huge amounts of time and effort is now spent detecting fraud before paying claims to avoid the complexity and expense of recovering a loss – insurance companies certainly don’t want to pay out claims only then to realise they are fake.
Previously, this process involved manually and laboriously going through masses of individual claims while looking out for suspicious activity, creating a large drain on time, revenue and resources. Now, much of that backend research is being completed faster utilising data and analytics, thereby improving the productivity and efficiency of processes while keeping costs down. Despite this, a significant amount of data that might be meaningful never gets analysed and often, advanced analysts still need to be brought in to uncover meaning from results.
Fraud Invaders: a business case
Imagine being able to cut directly to the chase, removing the human effort needed to tackle huge numbers of worksheets to view potentially fraudulent activity. With advanced analytics and visualisation techniques, this is now possible. To demonstrate, let’s look at a business case called Fraud Invaders.
This case aimed to solve an insurer’s crucial business challenge by discovering a new way to focus on a tighter subset of cases to drive fraud investigation efficiency. To begin, claims documents that had been filled out and submitted by the insurer’s customers were collected, some of which were known to be fraudulent. These known cases of fraud were flagged and put through text mining to extract anything that was a clear identifier such as a bank account, email address or phone number. Following this process, analytics were used to uncover correlations between claims.
With this output, a data visualisation (or network graph) was put together. The resulting image, like the one included below, was made up of dots which represent individual claims, with lines which draw data connections between two or more claim documents. An example of a fraud indicator can be monthly insurance payments from the same bank account: chances are the separate claims belong to the same person or are three different people working together to commit fraud.
Not just a pretty picture: how it works
There’s more to see than initially (and appealingly) meets the eye. The dot clusters visible in the image show us who the “fraud invaders” are. The larger and more apparently connected the cluster, the greater the likelihood of fraudulent activity: this ability to gauge the potential for fraud based on the size of dots and amount of connections can be carried out with the need for little more than a quick look.
Using graphs like these as a foundation, claims teams can identify likely suspects and focus their investigations on these groups. Although not all suspects pulled out will turn out to be fraudsters, far less time, revenue and resources will have been required for this process in comparison to traditional, manual methods. In addition, incidents that may have previously slipped through the net may now be uncovered.
Uncapped opportunity: lessons from Fraud Invaders
In addition to helping insurers to identify fraudulent activity, advanced analytics and visualisation can also reveal networks of people and strong influencers who can assist businesses in attracting new customers, or cause them to lose them. This branch of data science, known as “Social Network Analysis” (not to be confused with Social Media) is a powerful technique that requires true multi-genre analytics. A variety of individual techniques are required to produce a model of a customers’ social network including text mining, fuzzy matching, time series processing and graph analytics. By traversing a persons’ network graph, claim teams can see who they are connected with and who they are influenced by when making decisions such as a purchase or switching services.
Overall, regardless of the desired outcome, Fraud Invaders offers a good lesson to businesses in how to achieve what they want: begin with a solution – rather than just a problem – in mind.
73% of financial crime professionals in UK financial services believe that the 4th EU Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Directive will make it easier for firms to prevent money laundering a survey of nearly 200 professionals has revealed. The Future Financial Crime Risk 2017 report, produced by LexisNexis Risk Solutions, global information solutions provider and part of RELX group, highlights that asset managers were especially positive about the advantages, with over 80% agreeing it would aid the fight against financial crime.
This marks a shift in attitude from when financial crime professionals were surveyed on the potential impact of the 4th EU AML Directive in 2015 as part of the inaugural Future Financial Crime Risks Report commissioned by LexisNexis Risk Solutions. Previously, only 17% of those surveyed believed that the regulation would significantly reduce money laundering whilst nearly a third (32%) thought it would make no difference or increase levels of money laundering.
On 26th June 2017 the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 (which is also known as Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds Regulations 2017) come into force which transpose the 4th EU AML Directive into UK law. To support this, the Joint Money Laundering Steering Group (JMLSG) has released revised guidance within which they advise firms to adopt a risk based approach to customer due diligence.
Regulated organisations have been advised to risk assess relationships in order to determine the appropriate level of customer due diligence to be performed. In particular, additional checks are required in relation to identifying and screening beneficial owners when dealing with corporate entities. Therefore, as the demands of AML compliance continue to rise, institutions are required to know more about their customer than ever before.
Mike Harris, at LexisNexis Risk Solutions, comments: “In reality, Britain has always been at the forefront of fighting financial crime – but our research shows the compliance professionals in the financial services sector view the new regulations as further supporting the fight. That said, it’s important not to underestimate the sheer scale of the logistical challenge for organisations resulting from this regulatory change, especially for smaller to medium sized firms.
Many regulated entities may be less au fait with the risk based approach to due diligence than their financial counterparts and the changes that the 4th EU AML Directive brings. Therefore, it is critical that they review the JMLSG’s new guidance and revise their processes, controls and risk appetite for on-boarding customers to ensure they maintain compliance.”
(Source: LexisNexis)
