Topic starter
07/06/2026 9:16 pm
TL;DR: Financial services firms still measure CIAM with uptime, API calls, and latency even though the business impact shows up in fraud losses, onboarding abandonment, support costs, and compliance pressure, according to Strivacity. The governance gap is that customer identity is often tracked as a technical service instead of a financial control.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Strivacity: “Why financial services needs a new way to measure customer identity”.
By the numbers:
- $40 billion in projected U.S. fraud losses by 2027 are part of the cost of weak customer identity outcomes, according to Strivacity.
- 60–68% of digital account openings are abandoned, according to Strivacity.
- 20–50% of help desk calls are tied to password resets, each costing about $70, according to Strivacity.
Key questions
Q: How should financial services teams measure CIAM success beyond uptime?
A: Measure customer identity against business outcomes that matter to the board, such as fraud losses, onboarding completion, help desk cost, and compliance burden.
Q: Why do technical CIAM metrics fail to satisfy board reporting?
A: Because uptime and latency describe platform health, not enterprise impact.
Q: What breaks when customer identity is tracked only as an IT service?
A: Identity leaders lose the ability to prove value, and executives underestimate how much CIAM affects the bottom line.
Practitioner guidance
- Define a CIAM outcome scorecard Tie customer identity metrics to fraud loss, onboarding completion, support cost, and compliance burden instead of tracking uptime alone.
- Separate service health from business impact Keep API latency and availability in operations reporting, but add a second layer that shows what those service levels change in customer and financial outcomes.
- Quantify onboarding abandonment by identity step Break digital account opening into discrete identity stages so you can see where customers drop out and which control changes improve completion.
Bottom line: Customer identity should be measured as a business control in financial services, not just as a platform with uptime and latency targets.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 3 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group
08/06/2026 9:09 am
Customer identity metrics have been over-indexed on service health for too long: uptime, latency, and API counts are operational signals, but they are not governance signals. In financial services, the real question is whether CIAM changes fraud exposure, onboarding conversion, support demand, and compliance cost. When those outcomes are not on the same scorecard, identity gets treated as plumbing instead of a control domain.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 40 percent of financial and software companies have already deployed agentic AI systems, and deployments are expected to double by 2028.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How do customer identity metrics differ from general IAM reporting?
A: Customer identity metrics should show commercial and operational impact, not only access reliability. For financial services, that means linking authentication and onboarding performance to revenue protection, customer completion, support load, and compliance pressure. IAM reporting that stops at service health misses the governance signal.
👉 Read our full editorial: Customer identity metrics are still missing the business outcome
This post was modified 3 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group