Archives for September 2015

Suze Orman on Today Advises Against Income-Based Student Loan Repayment Plans


Earlier this week I was watching the Today Show (no comments, please), which included a segment with Suze Orman, the personal finance guru. She was there to promote her financial literacy course, and took a question from a young woman in the crowd. The woman said she is 25, recently graduated from college with $40,000 in student loan debt, and has just signed up for the income-based repayment program. She asked Suze whether this was the right thing to do. Without hesitation, Suze said unfortunately it was not the right thing to do. Her explanation was that the difference in what she should be paying (likely about $400/month) versus what she is probably now paying (likely about $150/month) gets shifted to the back end of the loan, and when the amount is forgiven years from now, she’s going to have a big tax bill.

I thought this was interesting, given how fervently the Department of Education has pushed this option. Was this the right advice? Do you agree? Click the image to watch the segment (the young woman’s question to Suze begins at 3:35).

suze-orman-today

 

 

Suze Orman on Today Advises Against Income-Based Student Loan Repayment Plans
http://www.insidearm.com/opinion/suze-orman-on-today-advises-against-income-based-student-loan-repayment-plans/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

CFPB to Hold Field Hearing on Arbitration; Announcement Expected


The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced a field hearing in Denver, Colo., on October 7th at 11am MDT. The hearing will focus on arbitration and will include comments from CFPB director Richard Cordray as well as from consumer groups, industry representatives and the public. No specific location has been announced.

The event is open to the public but requires an RSVP. Anyone who wants to go to the event should email cfpb.events@cfpb.gov with your full name and organizational affiliation.

insideARM Perpective

As we have come to learn, the CFPB tends to schedule field hearings when they have major announcements to make.

This field hearing will be particularly interesting to attorneys and credit grantors, for two reasons. If arbitration is limited, this may provide attorneys with more opportunities to file law suits. For credit grantors, the arbitration process has historically been less expensive than traditional litigation. Arbitration provisions were also used to limit class action lawsuits.

Chase and others used arbitration extensively until things erupted with the  2009 National Arbitration Forum (NAF)/Axiant LLC scandal. In the wake of a lawsuit and multiple law enforcement investigations, NAF was forced out of the debt arbitration business.

On March 10, 2015, the CFPB published a study, which it called “the most thorough empirical research in the space,” that was critical of arbitration clauses as a consumer tool for disputes with lenders and servicers. Many industry observers, as well as some academics, were – in turn – critical of the CFPB study. In August, Jason Scott Johnston and Todd Zywicki published a report which argued that the CFPB’s methodology and conclusions were flawed.  

They conclude that,

Public policy in the United States has long supported the use of arbitration and other means of dispute resolution as an alternative to litigation. Indeed, broad regulatory action by the CFPB that might nullify or discourage consumer arbitration could preempt what has become quite precise judicial supervision and fine-tuning of consumer arbitration clauses. Such ex post judicial supervision seems already to have changed that way that companies such as AT&T draft arbitration clauses, leading to arbitration procedures that are cheap and easy for consumers to pursue and that offer consumers large payments (in AT&T’s case, $10,000) when the consumer wins. Consumer arbitration is only in its infancy. It has tremendous promise. The CFPB’s Report provides no evidence for this promise to be aborted by expansive new CFPB regulation.

insideARM will monitor the September 29 hearing and report on any developments.

CFPB to Hold Field Hearing on Arbitration; Announcement Expected
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-collection-news/cfpb-to-hold-denver-field-hearing/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

Three Ways Data Offers Businesses the Ultimate Insurance Policy


We’ve all heard of car insurance, home insurance, renter’s insurance, health and dental insurance, business insurance, malpractice insurance and yes, even pet insurance!  But how about data insurance?

Our customers have stated that 15-20 percent of a collection agency’s bottom-line goes toward the cost of compliance.  Here’s something new to think about: If you currently count data as a cost of compliance, it’s time to reframe that mental model. In fact, data is an investment and functions like insurance against what you’re doing to stay compliant.  When it comes to reducing the cost of compliance, you want to invest in the best data out there because high-quality data ensures that, in the end, you are able to reach more of the right people the first time, and collect more debt.

True, data companies don’t actually provide you with an ‘insurance policy’ in the typical terms, but by taking advantage of all that data has to offer, and using that information as a part of your daily collection process, you may be able to avoid the real enemies that are attacking your bottom line, consumer complaints and lawsuits.

Let’s look at some of the most common consumer law suits in the credit and collections industry that may have been avoided with the help of data:

  • Bankruptcy Data:  McMahon v Ryan [964 So.2d 198,200 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)]. Shows that even a creditor who is not listed on the creditor’s matrix is bound by the bankruptcy’s automatic stay.
  • Cell Phone Data: In the August 2014 TCPA Settlement, Capital One and three collection agencies agreed to pay $75.5 Million to end a consolidated class action lawsuit alleging that the companies used an automated dialer to call customers’ cell phones without consent. [In re Capital One Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation MDL No. 2416, Master Docket No.; 1:12cv-1006 (N.D. Ill.)]
  • Active Military Data: In the recent $60 Million settlement with Sallie Mae (Now Navient), the complaint alleged that Sallie Mae did not properly provide members of the military the six percent interest rate cap, and that they also violated the SCRA by improperly obtaining default judgments against servicemembers. [Case 1:14-cv-00600-UNA, US District Court, District of Delaware]

So, what can you do to protect your business?  Below are three datasets that can help to offer “insurance” in your daily processes.

Bankruptcy

Bankruptcy data is near and dear to my heart; with over 30 years of experience in the credit and collections industry, and half of those working closely with the Banko product, I have a lot of experience with bankruptcy data and have talked to hundreds of customers about using bankruptcy data in their daily workflow.

To me, this one is a “no-brainer.”  If you can quickly identify those consumers who have filed for bankruptcy and remove them from your calling queue and general collection queue and either return these accounts to your creditor client or move them to a special handling queue to avoid contacting the consumer, then why wouldn’t you?

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard a customer tell me “we wait until we get a paper notice in the mail or until the consumer tells us on the phone that they have filed for bankruptcy.”  However by the time you get the notice in the mail, especially if it goes initially to your client and not to you, it may be weeks until you see the notice, and by then you may have already violated the Bankruptcy Automatic Stay.  If you wait for the customer to tell you on the phone – then you HAVE already violated the Bankruptcy Automatic Stay by contacting the consumer.   Consumers are getting more and more educated to collection rules/laws, and some are even trying to bait collectors into doing or saying something wrong.  Bankrupt accounts are easy ones to remove from your collections queue to help avoid these costly calls.

Cell Phones

The largest growing single regulation-based lawsuit class in the past few years has been TCPA suits.  Although we are all hoping for changes to the TCPA, or at least clarification on certain parts of it, for now, we need to abide by the Act as it stands today.  With close to 40% of consumers communicating via cell phone only (no landline in the home), it’s more important than ever to know what type of a phone you are dialing.

Two of the biggest complaints relating to the TCPA are:

1)      Calling/texting cell phones using a predictive dialer or leaving an automated message on a cell phone.

2)      Calling the wrong person on a cell phone (you have permission to call Consumer A on his cell phone, but then he changes his phone number and his old number is assigned to Consumer B who you inadvertently call thinking it is still Consumer A’s number).

By scrubbing all of your new placements to get a flag for cell phones, you can quickly remove those numbers known to be cell phones and move them to a manual dial queue.  Similarly, if you have cell numbers that you already have express consent to call via dialer by the cell phone owner, it’s a good idea to regularly check to make sure that cell phone number still belongs to your consumer.

Because of porting and more and more consumers going to a cell phone only (either porting landline to cell or removing landline entirely), it’s a good idea to scrub your phone numbers for a cell phone flag at least monthly.

Active Military

With the recent Sallie Mae (CFPB, FDIC and DOJ Investigation) and Freedom Furniture and Electronics and Military Credit Services settlements (CFPB investigation), the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (“SCRA”) has been called to the forefront in collections and lending.

While some of the relief afforded to military members via the SCRA has to be proactively requested by the military member, there are still many activities regularly performed by collections that should not be performed on military members, whether or not they have asked for relief, such as repossession, garnishment and foreclosure.  Additionally, even though it’s not required under the SCRA, Sallie Mae is now required to proactively scrub their account to look for active military members; something we should all take to heart.

By proactively scrubbing your new placements for active military personnel, you can either flag those accounts or move them to your special handling queue so that collectors know that they are calling on a person, or the family of a person who is on active military status.  While you are still allowed to collect on these consumers, you should do so with care.

The collections industry is an important component to the economy. Without it mortgages would be more expensive, credit would be harder to obtain and Interest rates would skyrocket. With the increased oversight by the CFPB, and increased consumer awareness about collections, collection agencies are eagerly adopting business practices that make them better businesses for the long run. High-quality data is an insurance policy against the real threats that you battle every day and are a way to reach more people to drive profitability.

Contact LexisNexis today to find out how we can help insure your company has the best data for the changing landscape of collections.  866-528-0780 or visit lexisnexis.com/risk/receivables-management.

Three Ways Data Offers Businesses the Ultimate Insurance Policy
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-collection-news/accounts-receivables-management/three-ways-data-offers-businesses-the-ultimate-insurance-policy/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

Five-Time Donors Eastern Revenue and American Profit Recovery Make it Six for Veterans


Collingswood, NJ – As they have done in prior years, two ARM industry firms have generously donated to ARMing Heroes again this year, supporting its sixth annual No Debts for Vets Charity Fundraising Drive, which runs from September 11th through Veterans Day, November 11th every year.  The collection industry’s charity for military veterans is pleased to put the spotlight on Eastern Revenue, Inc. (www.easternrevenue.com), headquartered in Wayne, PA, and American Profit Recovery (www.americanprofit.net), with offices in Massachusetts, Michigan, and North Carolina.  Both companies and their employees have donated to the organization for each of the last five years and have once again chosen to support the charity’s efforts in 2015.

Eastern Revenue President Kyle Shanahan commented, “I feel that it’s our duty to join together as an industry to support and protect our veterans who have sacrificed so much to protect all of us. Donating to ARMing Heroes is one small way we can do our part, one small way to make a difference, and we’re happy to do so. All of us at Eastern are proud to support such an honorable cause again this year.”

Jeff DiMatteo, President of American Profit Recovery, had this to say. “Helping our veterans with various issues regarding debt, as well as providing them ample opportunities for meaningful employment after their duty to our country, are values that all of us at American Profit Recovery embrace. We try hard to be different here, and this is one example where a collection agency can make a true difference in the lives of those who protected us without question. It is an honor to support such a worthy mission year after year.”

Last year, donors contributed the largest amount of funds raised since the organization’s inception in 2009. As a result, nearly four dozen grants were awarded to struggling military vets and their families, most of which were disbursed to the creditors of grant recipients at the end of the year, just in time for the holidays.

ARMing Heroes relies on the generosity of ARM industry companies across the country to make this grant program possible. Interested companies can get involved by signing up to hold a drive here. Once you register, you can download the Employee Fund Drive Starter Kit which outlines in four easy steps what is needed to announce, manage, and complete a successful employee drive. Additionally, any company that holds a drive and donates to the charity will receive Donor Dog Tags to commemorate their support of military veterans. Stories of past grant recipients remind us all how rewarding this program can be.

The charity’s flagship No Debts for Vets Charity Fundraising Drive started on September 11th and continues through Veterans Day, November 11th. Tax-deductible donations are being accepted online at www.armingheroes.org and via mail to PO Box 353, Collingswood, NJ 08108, payable to ARMing Heroes. Pledges may be made to info@armingheroes.org.

About Eastern Revenue, Inc.

Headquartered in Pennsylvania, Eastern Revenue, Inc. was founded in 1989 and offers ethical collection services across multiple industries including healthcare, telecom, utility, and water.

About American Profit Recovery

American Profit Recovery was founded in 2004 and has three locations across the country. They offer profit solutions for a wide variety of industries including banking, medical, dental, lawn care, and many others.

About ARMing Heroes

ARMing Heroes was founded and began operating in March, 2009.  The organization’s mission is to serve the needs of U.S. military veterans, including their spouse and children. ARMing Heroes fills a charitable niche by linking people identified with employment, credit, and financial counseling needs with the accounts receivable management industry, an industry uniquely poised to help in these areas.  Persons interested in volunteering their time and others interested in applying for benefits or pledging other forms of support are encouraged to contact the organization at www.armingheroes.org.

What Can I Do Right Now to Help?

  • Visit www.armingheroes.org and donate now.
  • Make ARMing Heroes your designated charity through the AmazonSmile program.
  • Like the ARMing Heroes page and post this article to your page on Facebook.
  • Tweet about this article on Twitter.
  • Join our group on LinkedIn, the ARMing Heroes Veterans Charity Supporter / Assistance Center.
  • Forward this article via email to your key contacts.
  • Print this article and fax it to your local congressional office and ask them to post our website on theirs as a resource for vets.

Five-Time Donors Eastern Revenue and American Profit Recovery Make it Six for Veterans
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-collection-news/debt-collection/five-time-donors-eastern-revenue-and-american-profit-recovery-make-it-six-for-veterans/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

What’s Keeping Compliance Professionals Awake? UDAAP, Entrenched Behaviors


Mike Bevel, nsideARM/CPF

Mike Bevel,
insideARM/CPF

Debt industry compliance professionals in both the Columbus, Ohio, region; and the Atlanta, Georgia, region, met this past week in regional discussion groups to talk, as peers, about issues each person is facing in an industry defined more by flux than by clarity.

These meetings, hosted by The Compliance Professionals Forum, (and made possible by the generous underwriting of TransUnionOntario Systems, and Cornerstone Support) were structured and facilitated conversations that allowed those in compliance roles within their agencies to talk through issues, ask questions of others in the room in similar situations, and share practices in an open setting. Since the meetings were only open to compliance professionals, there were no regulators taking notes, and no one judging anyone’s practices. (Well, there was one point when the topic of call frequency came up, and the group sort of collectively gasped, but the whole room was in on the ribbing and it was all good-natured.)

Atlanta-peer-meeting-9.15Of prime interest to both groups, and where each spent considerable time, was in talking about the challenges entrenched collector behavior causes any agency and the frustrations around what, specifically, counts as a UDAAP: an Unfair, Deceptive, and Abusive Practice.

CPF Columbus 092115

What everyone could agree on: almost anything a collector says or does on a phone call or an agency says in a letter can fall under UDAAP. And this highlighted the specific pain-point faced by everyone in compliance: how can an agency effectively write scripts, train collectors, and implement comprehensive policies and procedures when faced with the broadly over-whelming grab-bag that a UDAAP violation is pulled from.

Mention online payment options in your initial letter? That can probably be seen as overshadowing and would likely be a UDAAP violation. Answering consumer questions about credit reporting or litigation in the wrong way (and by the way, it’s a thin line between the right and wrong way often)? That might earn you a “D for Deceptive” even if your intent was anything but. Is your agency currently offering to settle debts for less than the full amount? How are you settling? Unless every single account is offered the very same settlement plan, you might have just earned a double: a U (for Unfair) and a D (for Deceptive). And hearkening back to the issue around call frequency: too many times a day can be considered Abusive.

Those interested in participating in conversations of this kind have a couple of options:

1) Consider a membership in the The Compliance Professionals Forum. Your annual membership gets you a seat on monthly peer group calls where you’ll get the chance to pick the brains of 15-20 compliance professionals, in addition to free compliance resources and webinars.

2) Keep your eye out for our list of Destination Cities for 2016. If we’re in a town near you, your compliance team is absolutely invited.

 

What’s Keeping Compliance Professionals Awake? UDAAP, Entrenched Behaviors
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-collection-news/accounts-receivables-management/whats-keeping-compliance-professionals-awake-udaap-entrenched-behaviors/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

Judge Rejects “All For the Lawyer, None for the Class” TCPA Case Settlement Agreement


Unfair, unreasonable, and inadequate, and it cannot be approved” says the Honorable Edmond E. Chang, United States District Court Judge for Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) of a proposed settlement in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action case.

In the matter of Grok Lines, Inc., v. Paschall Truck Lines, (Case Number: 1:14-CV-08033) Plaintiff sought approval of a settlement agreement in the proposed class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the named Plaintiff, Grok Lines would get $1,500 and Grok Lines’ attorneys, Siprut PC., would get $98,500. The class members would get zero compensation. The class would only get injunctive relief in the form of promises from Paschall not to violate the TCPA and to take steps to avoid future violations

In an opinion filed on September 18, 2015 Judge Chang denied the motion for approval of the proposed settlement.

The facts in the case are not complicated. Grok Lines filed this class action through its attorneys, Siprut PC, alleging that Defendant Paschall had sent unsolicited junk-marketing faxes to Grok Lines and numerous other unwilling recipients. Transmitting unwanted advertisements by fax is unlawful under the TCPA, except in limited situations (for example, where a prior business relationship exists or the number was taken from a commercial directory of willing recipients).

One important fact emerged quickly: the size of the class (that is, the number of recipients of the Paschall fax) is about 180, all taken from a single list of fax numbers obtained from a third-party. The court pointed out that under the relevant statute the potential liability to the defendant would have been actual damages or a statutory damages amount of $500 for each violation.

Once the parties determined the size of the class and the potential exposure, settlement discussions began.  At some point, the parties agreed that Paschall would promise not to violate the TCPA again and to take steps to avoid TCPA violations—but no money would be paid to the class. The parties then negotiated, and agreed to the attorney’s fees and incentive award proposed to the court.

Under the specific terms of the proposed settlement:

  1. “Paschall would be bound to comply generally with the TCPA and, more specifically, in case of any future faxes: to ‘take reasonable measures to verify that the recipient has expressly agreed to receive faxes’ and ‘first attempt to obtain written confirmation’; to ‘maintain a record or log’ of recipients who give only oral assent; to verify that, where Paschall uses a third-party to supply fax numbers, those recipients have given express consent; to verify that recipients of faxes who have an established business relationship with Paschall or whose fax numbers were obtained from a commercial database voluntarily gave their consent; to ensure that faxes contain information about how to opt-out of future faxes; and, to cease sending more faxes to those parties that do opt out.”
  2. There would be no payment of money damages to any class members, other than an incentive award to Plaintiff Grok Lines.
  3. Paschall would not oppose an application to the Court by Grok Lines for “an incentive award not to exceed $1,500.”
  4. Paschall would be prohibited from opposing an agreed-upon payment of $98,500 to Siprut PC as class counsel to cover attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses.

In the opinion Judge Chang discussed the legal standards for approval of a class action settlement. He noted “no apparent concerns about the certification of the proposed class.” Instead, he focused on the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed settlement.

In denying approval of the settlement the judge wrote:

“Plaintiff’s counsel asks for approval of nearly $100,000 in attorney’s fees—the entirety of the settlement fund (except for $1,500 to Grok Lines itself), a significant part of which even defense counsel concedes could just as easily go to satisfying the monetary claims of class members—solely on the back of proposed injunctive relief that, on the record presented, offers no prospect of meaningful impact whatsoever on either the class members’ interests or Paschall’s future behavior.”

The complete opinion can be found here.

insideARM Perspective

This TCPA case does not involve a member of the ARM industry nor a credit grantor. It does not involve calls from an automated telephone dialing system (ATDS).  Still, the case is relevant to the industry.

The opinion is a fascinating discussion on the judicial approval process for a class action settlement. The court’s consideration of the reasonableness of the attorney fee request is particularly enlightening. The court focused on the need to strike the right balance between, on the one hand, “the legal services rendered on behalf of the class and, on the other, the interests of the class members.” In the end the court sent the parties back to the negotiating table to come up with a different settlement proposal – one that balances those two needs.

 

Judge Rejects “All For the Lawyer, None for the Class” TCPA Case Settlement Agreement
http://www.insidearm.com/opinion/judge-rejects-all-for-the-lawyer-none-for-the-class-tcpa-case-settlement-agreement/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

The CMI Group Celebrates 30th Anniversary


Thirty years ago on September 8th, 1985, The CMI Group was born in Ft. Lee, New Jersey! Founded by three partners, Arthur Shulman, Bruce Martin and Tom Stockton, CMI was committed to excellence and integrity from the very first day. The company has come a long way over the last thirty years; but has never lost its focus on excellence and integrity.

CMI began as a response to an under-served cable television market. The three partners had extensive experience in market segment and decided to establish a niche upon which to build a solid company.

In 1990, CMI moved to Dallas, Texas, hoping to grow and that’s what they did. That growth has taken them from sixteen employees in 1990 to eight hundred employees today. In 1999, two of the three founders, Arthur Shulman and Bruce Martin, retired from the business and Tom Stockton became the sole owner. Tom now serves as CMI’s Chief Executive Officer and, in 2011, he sold the business to the CMI employees by initiating a 100% ESOP.

Today, CMI is made up of three wholly owned subsidiaries – A to Z Call Center Services, Credit Management, L.P. and The Affiliated Group. It has locations in Carrollton, Texas and Rochester, Minnesota and will soon add a third location in the city of Dallas.

Tom attributes this success to the CMI employees and clients.  Stockton said, “This growth and success would not have been possible without dedicated and loyal employees and clients. Any company celebrating thirty years of successful business operations has reason to be proud; but, it also has lots of people to thank for that success.

“Today, I would like to say how grateful I am to have the privilege to be part of this wonderful organization and have the relationships with both associates and clients over the last thirty years. I would like to thank my two original partners and every associate who has ever worked for CMI. Whether you are still here or moved on in your career, thank you for your contribution to our success. I want to thank all those who have been and still are clients of CMI. I will always appreciate your willingness to put your trust in us.

“Finally, I want to thank my fellow associates at CMI who have invested a significant piece of their professional career here. I can’t express enough how fortunate I feel to have you as colleagues. To all current and former employees and clients, I appreciate you and I have learned much from you. Happy Anniversary, CMI!!”

The CMI Group provides industry leading accounts receivable management and business process outsourcing services. Please learn more about The CMI Group by visiting our website at www.thecmigroup.com.

The CMI Group Celebrates 30th Anniversary
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-collection-news/the-cmi-group-celebrates-30th-anniversary/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

Wis. Rep to Financial Services: Tell Me about CFPB Overreach


Financial services firms looking for a powerful ombudsman may have found their guy. Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) told financial services executives that if they encounter examples of regulatory overreach from regulators like the CFPB, they should contact his office and tell him all about it.

Duffy, speaking at the National Association of Federal Credit Unions’ Congressional Caucus this week, said that Congress has too little insight or oversight into what federal regulators are doing in the financial services space. The Congressman, who has made a name for himself as a regulatory watchdog in the last few years, made sure to single out the CFPB for its “Washington mentality,” that it assumes that anyone set on making profit in the financial services industry must also intend to bamboozle customers. He also expressed concern that Federal agencies like the CFPB have the power to shut down businesses just because they don’t like them.

“And the worst part is that Congress has no real effective oversight over [the CFPB],” Duffy added, as quoted today in the Credit Union Times. “If they do something wrong that causes you real pain, you might call your senator or congressman. But what can they do on your behalf? Write a letter!”

Congress may not have the ability to help now, but financial services executives should have faith in Congressional debate and the long-run process, he said.

“Don’t disregard the importance of hearings,” Duffy added. “Even if the legislation may not pass today, don’t be discouraged. There is a long-game and the hearings lay the groundwork for what we might be able to do under a new administration.”

The Wisconsin Congressman has been a remarkably consistent critic of the CFPB and, specifically, its tendency towards what he considers overly secretive behavior.

After the CFPB rebuffed his efforts to attend one of their advisory board meetings, he introduced, in 2013, a bill that would have forced the CFPB to comply with the “Federal Advisory Committee Act” (FACA) and open advisory board meetings to the public. The CFPB subsequently announced that meetings would be open to the public and available to stream live via the internet. When the CFPB reversed course and again closed their meetings, Duffy reintroduced the bill.

He also introduced several bills aimed at the CFPB this spring, including the “Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Accountability Act of 2015” and the “CFPB Pay Fairness Act of 2015.”

Wis. Rep to Financial Services: Tell Me about CFPB Overreach
http://www.insidearm.com/daily/featured-post/wis-rep-to-financial-services-tell-me-about-cfpb-overreach/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

Major Changes in ARM


Mike Ginsberg

Mike Ginsberg

The accounts receivable management industry is changing significantly as credit grantors, service providers, debt buyers, and tech vendors alike confront intensifying government oversight, enduring economic variability, and seemingly rash client behaviors. I recently spoke about some of the most noteworthy shifts at the Debt Connection Symposium (DCS) 2015.

kgc-graph-third-party-collections

Consumer behavior is among one of the biggest changes, as illustrated by the graph above. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s (FRBNY) microeconomic release measures the percentage of accounts placed with third-party collection agencies and the face value of those accounts. Both lines grew consistently from 2003 until 2012, when consumers began a strong trend of paying down debt.

As the economy improves, banks have relaxed their lending standards, unemployment rates have leveled off, and consumers have started borrowing more, all trends that bode well for ARM companies.

KG post chart 2

Another significant change, as the illustration above depicts, is the net write-off activity within the largest ARM market segments. Healthcare and student loans are growing at exponential rates; the total volume of these combined industries has expanded from $85 billion in 2005 to $228 billion in 2014.

Also worth noting: the auto loan industry has been front-page news these last few years, and fear-mongering from the CFPB hasn’t helped matters. Despite growth within charge-offs for this market, auto loans only account for a very small piece of the total net charge-off pie. While this is a growing market segment, it would have to increase nearly seven times to equal the credit card industry, and 20 times to be anywhere near the healthcare industry.

Additionally, the credit card market spiked during the years following the Great Recessions, but now it’s falling toward pre-recessionary levels. Most players in the credit card market are looking to other market segments for growth.

On the M&A front, large transactions led the way last year, including Alorica’s acquisition of West and Platinum Equity’s acquisition of NCO’s third-party collection business. On the debt-buying side, PRAA and Encore made moves outside the U.S. However, larger transactions have slowed down and will be replaced with consolidation among small and mid-sized ARM companies as owners are challenged to operate profitably as stand-alone businesses. Larger entities are better suited to absorb increased costs in today’s world of collections.

Arguably the most significant change within the ARM industry is the barrier-to-entry that has emerged in recent years. It used to be if you had a rotary telephone and a mouth, you could start a collection agency. Those days are long behind us. The cost of operating in this regulatory environment and credit grantors’ higher demands make for fewer successful startups. This is good news for established companies.

 

Major Changes in ARM
http://www.insidearm.com/obs-in-focus/major-changes-in-arm/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management

Technology Helps Mitigate Dialing Risks in Wake of TCPA Consent Order


DAKCS

In an effort to find solutions to the dilemmas posed by the latest FCC-TCPA ruling, DAKCS Software Systems polled its customers about the use of dialing and messaging technology and the FCC decision.

Based on the data gathered, DAKCS highlighted four ways to help mitigate the risks of using dialing and messaging technology, in addition to providing encouraging feedback from our installation base:

1) Scrubbing and Blocking Cell Phone Numbers

2) Obtaining Prior Express Consent

3) Pay Attention to Reassigned Numbers

4) Understanding Capacity or “Future Capacity”

All four are detailed in a whitepaper, available now for free download to registered subscribers of insideARM: Is Your Glass Half-Full or Half-Empty: Utilizing Technology to Mitigate the Risk of Dialing in the Wake of the Latest FCC-TCPA Ruling [whitepaper download link].

Below is an excerpt from DAKCS’s whitepaper

 

In regards to the one call rule, the FCC clarifies that the TCPA requires the consent of the current subscriber or user of the wireless phone number. In other words, it’s a violation of the TCPA to use an auto dialer to call a wireless number that the caller has actual or constructive knowledge no longer belongs to the person who properly gave the prior consent.

Because of the difficulty in knowing whether a wireless number has been reassigned, the 2015 ruling allows one call to determine whether a wireless number has been reassigned. If the one call does not result in actual knowledge that the number has been reassigned, the caller will be deemed to have constructive knowledge of the reassignment. In other words, a second call by auto dialer to a wireless number that has been reassigned will be assumed to be a violation of the TCPA (2015 Ruling Section 72).

As stated by the FCC, “where a caller believes he has consent to make a call and does not discover that a wireless number had been reassigned prior to making or initiating a call to that number for the first time after reassignment, liability should not attach for that first call, but the caller is liable for any calls thereafter.” (2015 Ruling Section 85). The FCC notes that nothing in the TCPA prevents callers from manually dialing wireless numbers or from sending emails to consumers to verify or confirm telephone numbers. The FCC states, “In other words, callers have options other than the use of auto dialers to discover reassignments. If callers choose to use auto dialers, however, they risk TCPA liability” (2015 Ruling Section 84). Solutions like the NeuStar application mitigates risk by verifying the phone number associated with a given consumer. Separating out the bad numbers allows for more focus on the collectible ones. NeuStar receives subscriber data from the actual carriers that provides accurate data on the reassignment of phone numbers. NeuStar will confirm that a specific customer owns a number.

Technology Helps Mitigate Dialing Risks in Wake of TCPA Consent Order
http://www.insidearm.com/connections-elevated/technology-helps-mitigate-dialing-risks-in-wake-of-tcpa-consent-order/
http://www.insidearm.com/feed
insideARM

Accounts Receivable Management