The $1.5 Billion Question: Measuring Dispute Management’s Impact on LTV
By Liz Froment, Contributor at The Financial Brand
Simple Subscribe
Subscribe Now!
Dispute resolution rarely shows up in customer retention strategy. Banks have long budgeted these operations as a cost line, but the quality of fraud resolution increasingly determines whether customers stay, spend more, and do more of their banking with the institution.
A 2025 Cornerstone Advisors study of consumers who experienced card fraud found that only 8% of fraud resolution experiences earned a top score. Among those who rated their experience an “A,” 39% used the card more frequently afterward, and 83% said it strengthened their overall relationship. Among those who rated it an “F,” 17% stopped using the card entirely.
Even small improvements in the resolution process can shift how often customers use their cards and how long they stay with the institution, but most banks still aren’t effectively measuring that connection.
Need to Know:
- Most banks still treat fraud disputes as a cost center instead of a retention lever.
- How a dispute is handled can significantly change card usage, loyalty, and attrition.
- Banks rarely connect dispute data to post-dispute behavior or lifetime value.
- Aligning dispute metrics with retention and CLV can turn operations into a growth driver
Disputes as a Moment of Truth
Card fraud is a growing reality for consumers, and most banks have gotten efficient at resolving it. But efficiency and experience are two different things, and experience is what often determines what customers do next. A bank can close a dispute quickly and still leave the cardholder feeling uninformed, uncertain, and less confident in using the card again.
“Customer churn is already one of the biggest competitive threats in banking, and dispute handling plays an outsized role in that decision,” Nicole S. Lorch, president and chief operating officer at First Internet Bank, told The Financial Brand. “Changing banks is a hassle. Most people don’t wake up one day and think, ‘I’d love to move my accounts this week.’ They consider it when something goes wrong, and they feel like their bank didn’t have their back. They’ll remember less about the mistake and more about what you did next: Did you make it right? Did you move quickly? Did you keep them informed?”
Research backs that up. JD Power’s 2025 US Retail Banking Satisfaction Study reports that 85% of customers who reported a problem had it resolved, and those whose issue was resolved saw their overall satisfaction scores jump by 246 points.
Want more insights like these? Check out Quavo’s content hub: Building Trust: Best Practices in Fraud Response and Resolution
“Banks must think of dispute handling as a moment of truth in the customer relationship,” says Adam Neiberg, global banking manager at SAS, a data analytics company. “Industry research has consistently shown that when a problem is resolved quickly and to the customer’s satisfaction, customers often report higher satisfaction than if no issue had occurred at all.”
Customers who file disputes are already engaged enough to pick up the phone or open a case. That makes the resolution the moment a financial institution starts building trust and long-term value with the customer or starts losing them.
“Failure is an event — a trust event,” Anna Kooi, financial services and financial institutions leader at Wipfli, an advisory and accounting firm, told The Financial Brand. “The customer is already anxious, already questioning whether this institution has their back. How that moment gets handled is disproportionately determinative of whether they stay, consolidate, and advocate — or quietly start moving balances.”
What it Takes to Measure the Impact
Most banks have dispute data and customer behavior data, but many struggle to connect the two. Dispute platforms, CRMs, and customer analytics typically live in separate systems, so the link between a specific dispute experience and what a customer does six months or a year later can stay invisible.
“This is the hard methodological question, and most institutions don’t have clean answers because they haven’t built the data infrastructure to isolate it,” says Kooi.
Banks should also treat each dispute as an event they can analyze. According to Kooi and Neiberg, building that infrastructure starts with key foundational elements:
- A dispute event flag tied to the customer record with outcome and resolution time data.
- A post-dispute behavioral observation window (Kooi recommends 90, 180, and 365 days).
- A matched control group of comparable customers who didn’t file a dispute in the same period.
- Unstructured data inputs, such as call transcripts and complaint text, where early signs of dissatisfaction often surface before they show up in structured fields.
Kooi says banks can measure changes in transaction frequency, product holdings, and balance levels against the control group and begin to quantify how different dispute experiences affect customer lifetime value.
“Speed to resolution, number of customer contacts, transparency of communication, and timing of provisional credit all correlate strongly with future behavior,” says Neiberg. “Reducing resolution time doesn’t just lower costs; it shortens the emotional ‘trust gap’ customers experience during disputes.”
For many credit unions and community banks, that infrastructure isn’t in place yet.
“A lot of banks and credit unions will look at disputes one at a time, instead of seeing the pattern over months or even years — how often someone files, how quickly they file a dispute after a purchase, whether it’s repeat behavior across merchants or merchant types. Things like sudden device changes, shifts in login behavior, and unusual account activity: those patterns show up before a dispute is even filed,” says Craig Agulnek, VP of Product Management at Quavo.
Jamie Smathers, vice president of fraud prevention and BSA at MSU Federal Credit Union, says their team uses dispute data within a larger dataset to assess patterns and infer member behavior, and leverages those insights to eliminate delays in members’ ability to use their cards after fraud occurs.
“Staying top-of-wallet is important, so we strive to remain there with proper authorization controls that allow usage while mitigating fraud risk,” Smathers told The Financial Brand.
“A lot of banks and credit unions will look at disputes one at a time, instead of seeing the pattern over months or even years — how often someone files, how quickly they file a dispute after a purchase, whether it’s repeat behavior across merchants or merchant types. Things like sudden device changes, shifts in login behavior, and unusual account activity: those patterns show up before a dispute is even filed.”
— Craig Agulnek, VP of Product Management, Quavo
From Cost Center to Growth Lever
Dispute operations typically sit within risk, compliance, or card operations, functions measured by loss ratios, write-off rates, and case closure speed. They aren’t often measured on customer lifetime value or retention, and that structure shapes how the work gets prioritized.
“The biggest barrier is that dispute operations are still viewed through a siloed loss-management and compliance lens,” says Neiberg. “Fragmented systems and manual processes limit end-to-end visibility and make it difficult to connect dispute outcomes to customer behavior, loyalty, and lifetime value.”
Kooi says breaking through that framing requires speaking in terms executives already prioritize. “I make the case by connecting dispute handling to three economic levers: attrition cost, share of wallet, and net promoter trajectory. The cost-center framing collapses quickly when you put a retention multiple on it.”
Data supports that argument. Long-standing research from Harvard Business Review suggests a 5% increase in customer retention can boost profits by 25% to 95%. Financial services companies spend an average of $640 to acquire a new customer, while the average customer lifetime value of a retail banking customer is $4,500. So, every dispute that accelerates attrition carries a cost.
But the shift requires more than data; it needs accountability and buy-in from leaders across the board. “Until banks create shared accountability, the investment case will keep losing to cost-reduction arguments,” says Kooi.
MSUFCU has already made that shift. “We do not view dispute operations as just a loss line,” says Smathers. “We know that fraud and non-fraud disputes are going to occur. It’s how we show up and effectively help our members through those moments that support retention and overall member satisfaction. And it gives us a touchpoint to offer other products and services, specifically ones that may reduce the likelihood of fraud occurring in the future.”
What’s at Stake
The Cornerstone Advisors data shows that 92% of fraud resolution experiences fall short of a top score. For banks and credit unions still treating dispute operations as a cost line, that gap represents lost retention and lifetime value.
Measuring what happens to customers after a dispute gives institutions a clearer view of that risk. It also gives them a practical way to improve how they handle disputes based on evidence rather than assumptions.
“Customers today have more options than ever — where they bank, how they bank, and who they bank with. Communication and timeliness are critical to building trust and giving customers the confidence that they chose the right institution. And when that trust is there, it shows: They stay and deepen the relationship, and they recommend you to friends and family. When it isn’t, they leave. It really does come down to whether your customers feel like someone truly has their back.”
— Rex Richardson, Director of Client Processing, Quavo
