Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
25/06/2026 12:55 am
TL;DR: Financial institutions across ASEAN and ANZ are digitizing quickly, but the article argues that scale now depends on proving customer identity, transaction safety, and data-sharing trust, according to Ping Identity. The governance challenge is that IAM has shifted from a back-office control to the connective tissue for fraud resistance, regulatory compliance, and digital growth.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Ping Identity: digital identity and the future of finance across ASEAN and ANZ
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should financial services teams use IAM to support digital growth?
A: Financial services teams should treat IAM as a trust framework for customer identity, transaction safety, and data sharing.
Q: Why does fraud pressure change identity and access management priorities?
A: Fraud pressure changes IAM priorities because login success alone does not prove that a transaction or data request is legitimate.
Q: What do organisations get wrong about digital identity in financial services?
A: Many organisations treat digital identity as a customer experience layer and underinvest in its governance role.
Practitioner guidance
- Tie identity assurance to transaction risk Define assurance requirements by transaction type, data sensitivity, and partner exposure so the same authentication flow is not reused for every financial interaction.
- Extend IAM into API governance Inventory open banking and partner APIs, then map each one to explicit identity, consent, and authorization rules before expanding access.
- Add fraud signals to identity decisions Use device, session, and behavioural context to support step-up checks where account takeover or transaction abuse is most likely.
What's in the full article
Ping Identity's full research covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Regional financial-services examples from ASEAN and ANZ that show how identity and trust are being reshaped by digitization.
- The specific identity and access management themes the vendor uses to connect fraud, customer experience, and API security.
- The source article's broader framing of how financial institutions can scale digital services without weakening trust controls.
- The full editorial context behind the eBook's view of digital identity as a foundational business capability.
👉 Read Ping Identity's analysis of digital identity in ASEAN and ANZ finance →
Digital identity in finance: what ASEAN and ANZ teams need now?
Explore further
25/06/2026 10:00 am
Digital identity has become the control plane for financial trust. The article is right to frame identity and access management as the connective tissue between innovation, security, and scale. In financial services, trust is not an abstract brand attribute. It is enforced through proof of identity, transaction assurance, and data-sharing governance, all of which depend on IAM decisions that are consistent across channels. Practitioners should treat identity design as a business-risk control, not a login project.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts, which shows how quickly hidden identity sprawl can outrun governance.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who is accountable when identity controls fail in open banking ecosystems?
A: Accountability usually sits with the institution that defines the identity and authorization model, even when partners consume the API. The organisation must prove that consent, access scope, and transaction trust were governed correctly. Frameworks such as the NIST Cybersecurity Framework and identity assurance guidance help define those responsibilities.
👉 Read our full editorial: Digital identity is becoming the foundation of finance in ASEAN and ANZ
