Loyalty coalitions are balance-sheet risks masquerading as marketing

Adobe Stock

Coalition rewards look deceptively simple: Earn a point here, spend it there. That simplicity is exactly why so many programs quietly implode. When financial leaders treat these ecosystems merely as growth features, they inadvertently underwrite a liability without the discipline of a clearing system. They create a deferred promise through issuance and turn that promise into a cashlike transfer upon redemption. Time introduces funding costs, while shifting consumer behavior disrupts projections. Without a rigorous economic model, any mismatch in the rules becomes an invitation for disputes or exploitation.

The hard truth often ignored in the industry is that a coalition is not just a loyalty program. It is an exchange network. Multiple issuers, sponsors and redeemers optimize for themselves, often with different risk tolerances. Without a shared economic constitution, partners unintentionally design incompatible mechanics. One party over-issues because the cost is delayed, another over-redeems because value feels guaranteed, and the operator drifts into the worst role imaginable: an undercapitalized clearing house absorbing friction, exceptions and blame.

Whether a coalition works or fails largely depends on three structural decisions: settlement timing, breakage modeling and arbitrage prevention.

Think of settlement as the system's primary incentive engine. While settling at redemption feels operationally simpler at launch, it quietly loads credit risk onto redeemers. It encourages reckless "earn-first" tactics since issuers don't feel the pain immediately. Conversely, settling at issuance forces cost awareness but demands complex reversal logic for refunds. The most resilient models often employ a hybrid approach, combining partial prefunding or reserves with periodic netting. But this only works with governance. As financial market infrastructures have demonstrated for decades, clear rules and transparent allocation of responsibilities are not bureaucracy. They are the product.

Then there is the issue of breakage, which is simply the portion of points that will never be redeemed. A coalition that treats breakage as a profit center creates structural harm. Incentivizing expiration or making redemption difficult might improve short-term accounting optics, but these choices eventually surface as disputes and partner exits. Breakage should be treated as an estimate, not a target. Much like revenue recognition standards in broader accounting contexts (such as ASC 606 or IFRS 15), the goal requires estimation discipline rather than wishful thinking. If breakage rises because the system is harder to use, the coalition isn't getting smarter. It is getting leakier.

Loyalty and rewards

Debit card rewards are coming back in vogue

Airlines and hotel chains are taking advantage of the banking-as-a-service model and favorable debit interchange regulations offered to bank issuers with under $10 billion in assets to bring debit card rewards back to market after they all but disappeared following the so-called Durbin Amendment.

By Joey Pizzolato

November 13

Perhaps the most critical oversight is assuming that all participants will act in good faith. Coalition systems attract edge cases because they create differences in timing and pricing across multiple parties. Most exploitability is designed in through inconsistent definitions or delayed finality. Multi-accounting thrives when identity constraints are weak, and manufactured spending spikes when refunds aren't reconciled against issuance.

The effective mitigations are often boring, which is why they get skipped during the excitement of a launch. Event-level audit trails prevent arguments about what happened. Unique transaction identifiers stop accidental duplication from becoming an economic leak. Tagging transactions to the specific rule set in force at the time prevents retroactive confusion when terms change. None of these are "risk team extras." In a coalition, economics and control design are the same discipline.

A responsible operating stance requires reconciliation that can explain every settlement line from day one. It demands dispute workflows with standardized evidence requirements and service-level commitments. It also needs partner scorecards that track reversal rates and dispute propensity. This isn't meant as punishment, but as an early warning system.

Ultimately, coalition rewards are not primarily a marketing construct. They are a multiparty liability system with adversarial edge cases. Programs that endure treat settlement as an incentive design, breakage as an accountable estimate and arbitrage as an expected cost of operating an exchange. Once a coalition is large, every ambiguity becomes expensive. Before that point, clarity is cheap, and trust compounds.