With each major storm that moves through the U.S, I’ve thought about our customers, and how collection activity needs to be agile and sensitive enough to get it right and let customers know there’s a human decision maker behind the scenes, and we do care. In a prior role, my team was responsible for identifying storm-impacted zip codes, modifying our contact strategies (calls, emails, text, IM, etc.), sizing loss impacts, re-running forecasts and the like.

Every time an event occurred, we would go through the same process; asking each other the same series of questions. I bet the following sound familiar to many of you:

• When do we think the disaster will hit?
• Where do we think the disaster will hit?
• How badly will customers be impacted?
• What concessions do we make for late payments or for customers within days of charge-off?
• Should we proactively text or place messages on our online banking portal?
• Do we modify strategies at the state or zip code level?
• Which forms of contact do we withhold, and for how long?

I was always proud of the team’s ability to rally and execute flawlessly, but I was admittedly frustrated that every time felt like the first time. Don’t be alarmed; we certainly had a set of standards, but it was a lot of heavy lifting and felt clunky. The nature, size and scale of every event is different, so having a playbook isn’t always realistic. Often we would be so taxed by responding to a weather event that when it was over, no one wanted to look back at what we had just been through to document best practices, or game plan short cuts for the next time. We always meant to, but generally, we would add the post mortem to the long list of things to get to, and go back to our regularly scheduled programming.

[article_ad]

The most important — but difficult — challenge was figuring out exactly which customers needed special care. We would do our best to identify zip codes from various lists and cross reference them against our delinquent customer portfolios in every product and treatment strategy. The lucky analyst who would get this assignment every time was truly a saint, doing it without complaint. But this didn’t keep us from expecting his day job to keep moving along at a normal pace and without error. Sounds unfair, but let’s be honest: This is how it typically works in the real world.

I always knew there was a better way, but for the reasons mentioned above, we never got around to finding out what it was.  

On a related note, I’m often asked what led me to join insideARM. There are many reasons, but the one I’m most passionate about is generating dialogue and solutions that really matter to those of you doing the job everyday. As I started planning for the 2018 First Party Summit, I knew that collaborating and exchanging ideas on a #BetterWay to support customers in times of disaster was non-negotiable. As I set out to find industry experts in this area, I met the team at ContactRelief. Their expertise and services undoubtedly fill a void in the industry and make them valuable contributors to our discussion at #FPS2018. Although we won’t focus specifically on their solutions, they’ll bring their deep expertise and passion to the conversation.

I look forward to working with all of you in June — as we enter the 2018 summer storm season — to advance our approach in times of disaster. If you haven’t already done so, you can Register here for our 2018 First Party Summit.

Last week TransUnion released its Q4 2017 Industry Insights Report on the consumer credit market, revealing increased access to loans (for some), greater usage and relatively low delinquency.

Read the full report here, including charts with data by product line, at TransUnion.

According to the report, most indicators point to a healthy credit market, though there are a few signals that lenders are being more active in rebalancing portfolio risk. The following are ”instant analyses” from the Q4 Report from a range of TransUnion business leaders:

Matt Komos, vice president of research and consulting

“Consumers continue to gain access to more credit, and balances are generally rising at a healthy clip. For the most part, consumers are paying their debts in a timely fashion, which has been especially evident for mortgages and personal loans. This is likely a result of the strong economy, which has helped consumers manage their personal balance sheets and build confidence.”

Paul Siegfried, senior vice president and credit card business leader

“Total employment and strong consumer confidence are thought to be key drivers of overall spending increases and the consequent use of card credit. The number of consumers with access to card credit remains at an all-time high, though originations continue to decline. Yet lenders are demonstrating even more attentiveness when underwriting new accounts. The decrease in originations is driven by continued pullback in high-risk tiers. In addition, while super prime originations saw growth, there was a significant decline in the average new credit line for these accounts, further demonstrating issuer diligence. The demonstrated pullback is likely a response—and not a surprising one—to the increased ratio of below-prime consumers issued card credit in recent years and the associated uptick in credit card delinquencies.”

Brian Landau, senior vice president and automotive business leader

“Auto lending is stabilizing after years of rapid growth. Originations continue to fall at a faster rate than previous years, balance growth is slowing and delinquencies are steady. These metrics reflect the continuing tightening of underwriting, particularly for prime and below risk tiers. Generally speaking, the auto lending sector is performing well as the economy remains relatively strong. We do not observe anything in our data that would point to significant anticipated changes in delinquencies.”

 

Joe Mellman, senior vice president and mortgage business leader at TransUnion

“Mortgage delinquency rates for Q4 2017 continued to decline, reaching their lowest levels since the recession. This largely reflects recession era defaults having worked their way out of the system and recent originations being underwritten to a very high standard. This quarter we see an interesting dynamic with seemingly contradictory data points: average mortgage debt per borrower increasing while average new account balances declined. There could be multiple factors contributing to this, including cash-out refinancing increasing the average mortgage debt; the drop in refinancing share lowering average new account balances since average refi size can be larger than average purchase size; and a change in the mix of purchase origination amounts toward lower balances.” 

Jason Laky, senior vice president and consumer lending business leader

“The last quarter of the year is traditionally the one where delinquencies rise the most. In 2017, the increase in delinquency was muted, leading to the lowest Q4 personal loan delinquency rate that we’ve observed since the end of the recession. This strong performance bodes well for 2018. At the same time, the near prime and prime segments are leading solid growth in originations and loan balances. There are more than 18 million personal loans in the marketplace, which constitutes a 40% increase – or 5.2 million more loans – compared to just three years ago. As traditional lenders return to or enter this market, we expect the number of personal loans will continue to rise.”

The chart below displays the change in key consumer metrics from Q4 2016 to Q4 2017. As noted by Matt Komos, more credit is being issued, and by-and-large, consumers are staying on top of their bills. The full report includes charts showing trends in the credit card, auto and mortgage spaces, as well as the market for unsecured loans. 

 

[article_ad]

 

My team has been encouraging me to modernize and get with the social media program. So, I’ve taken the plunge. Last week I posted my first video on LinkedIn. I must say I was surprised. More than 8,000 have viewed it — no, those aren’t all from my mom — more than 100 “liked” it, and almost 30 have commented. I am thrilled to see this level of engagement, because the discussion is truly important.

What do I talk about in the video? What I’ve been hearing from YOU in recent months, and my takeaways about key opportunities for the industry to address in 2018. In case you haven’t seen it, you can click on the image below. I will be regularly posting new videos that detail our latest thinking and ideas — I sincerely hope you will engage in the dialogue. Comment here (scroll down below), comment on Linkedin, or get in touch with me. I look forward to hearing from you!

 

 

[article_ad]

ACA International has asked the Massachusetts Attorney General to clarify whether third party debt collectors acting on behalf of original creditors are subject to the validation requirements set forth in 940 CMR 7.08.

Background

Historically, third party collection agencies have operated in Massachusetts with the understanding that they are governed by regulations promulgated by the Division of Banks (209 CMR 18.00). Their clients (creditors) are not subject to rules of the Division of Banks, but are governed by the Attorney General regulations (940 CMR 7.00).

The current regulations were updated in 2012, and the definition of “creditor” was updated to include debt buyers. Specifically, 940 CMR 7.03 defines a creditor this way:

Creditor means any person and his or her agents, servants, employees, or attorneys engaged in collecting a debt owed or alleged to be owed to him or her by a debtor and shall also include a buyer of delinquent debt who hires a third party or an attorney to collect such debt provided, however, that a person shall not be deemed to be engaged in collecting a debt, for the purpose of 940 CMR 7.00, if his or her activities are solely for the purpose of serving legal process on another person in connection with the judicial enforcement of a debt.

When these changes were adopted, ACA International and its Northeast Chapter consulted with the Attorney General’s office and confirmed that the changes would not apply to third party debt collectors seeking to collect funds on behalf of the original creditors; they would only apply to debt buyers and the original creditors collecting their own accounts. In reliance on those assurances, the association informed its members that those who did not fall within the definition of a creditor or debt buyer (i.e. traditional third party agencies) were not subject to the regulations.

Under the FDCPA, a request for validation requires the agency to confirm that it is collecting the correct amount from the correct person. However, the statute is silent as to how that may be accomplished.

[V]erification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt. Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 (4th Cir.1999).

The Massachusetts regulations (940 CMR 7.08) provide very specific and detailed requirements when validating a debt. These include, most significantly, providing copies of the documentation with the consumer’s signature and a ledger reflecting all payments, credits, balances and charges. While these requirements may seem reasonable on their face, this can create a substantial burden on an agency’s creditor clients, particularly in the case of small balance accounts or where the account has been in existence for many years. Often in these cases, the documentation required does not exist and does not fit this type of payment obligation. The regulations were aimed at large balance credit accounts such as mortgages and car loans where such documentation is routinely used and more easily accessible by the creditor or debt buyer; small balance accounts often do not have the same type of documents at the time the account is created. While the regulation allows for the possibility that the information might not exist, it still requires a diligent search and only after that is accomplished can the creditor continue collection.

The current issue

Creditors who do not believe that the regulations should apply may be reluctant or unwilling to provide the information required. Thus, agencies who request the information (particularly in light of the initial guidance provided when the definition was changed) may find themselves at a competitive disadvantage over agencies who are not asking their clients for this information.

The industry argues that traditional third party debt collectors are not agents in the legal sense of the word; they are independent contractors, and are not typically in a position to bind the principal through their actions. Consequently, the industry claims, the prior understanding as confirmed in 2012 is consistent with this definition.

In an effort to avoid further ambiguity and to assist its member agencies, ACA International has requested formal guidance on whether and to what extent the validation requirements in section 7.08 apply to third party debt collectors who are contractors and not lawful agents are required to comply with this rule.

 

Yesterday the Consumer Lending Subcommittee of the CFPB’s Consumer Advisory Board met to discuss debt collection. Committee member input was predictable, but clearly identified the latest arguments.

The major themes were: Disclosures are unclear, inconsistent, intimidating and confusing to consumers – in part because there are too many of them; The problem of substantiating purchased debt needs to be addressed; Medical debt is unique and introduces additional challenges for consumers and healthcare providers; Use of modern communication channels may address the need for contact caps; Debt collection rules are badly needed (this was the primary area of agreement among all parties).

insideARM connected with Ohad Samet following the session. He offered this comment about the meeting,

“Today’s subcommittee call about debt collection regulation again demonstrated the importance of using any opportunity to represent debt collectors who adhere to rules and regulation and continue to differentiate between those and the actions of a few who blatantly violate the law. A new rule for debt collection will allow the legitimate players to serve consumers the way consumers want to be served, simplify compliance, and improve consumer protection. We can all agree these are noble goals.”

Most of the committee members are consumer advocates, including

• Josh Zinner, the committee chair, and CEO of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility
• Kathleen Engle, a Research Professor of Law at Suffolk University in Boston
• Lisa Servon, Professor and Chair of City and Regional Planning at the University of Pennsylvania
• Howard Slaughter, President & CEO for Habitat for Humanity of Greater Pittsburgh
• Chi Chi Wu, Staff Attorney at National Consumer Law Center (NCLC)

Members of the subcommittee representing industry are:

• Max Levchin, founder and CEO of Affirm
• Ohad Samet, co-founder and CEO of TrueAccord
• James Wehmann, Executive Vice President of FICO’s Scores business unit

Not on the subcommittee but also contributing to the conversation were:

• Ann Baddour, Director of Fair Financial Services Project at Texas Appleseed
• Judith Fox, a Clinical Professor of Law at the Notre Dame Law School

CFPB staff attending the meeting were:

• John McNamara, Assistant Director, Consumer Lending, Reporting & Collections Markets
• Kristin McPartland, Senior Counsel, Regulations
• Gandhi Eswaramoorthy, Debt Collection Program Manager

[article_ad]

The meeting opened with a review by John McNamara of the debt collection rulemaking process to date, which began with an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulmaking in November 2013, moved to a Small Business Regulatory Fairness Enforcement Act (SBREFA) hearing in August 2016, and then led to a decision in June 2017 to separate the debt collection rulemaking into two parts – deferring the “Right consumer, right amount” topic to be addressed later.

McNamara concluded by sharing that – consistent with the direction we’ve heard about — Acting Director Mulvaney has directed the staff to undergo a review of where the rulemaking now stands.

[Editor’s note: If you are interested in more detail, this insideARM article provides further information and links to additional posts about the CFPB’s debt collection rulemaking proposals and process.] 

Which brings us to the current meeting. Josh Zinner invited comments about current issues facing the consumer as it relates to debt collection. The following input was offered:

Chi Chi Wu of NCLC

She said debt collection touches one in three consumers who have a credit report; the number is even higher in some places, like South Carolina, where 43% of the population has a debt in collection. Wu also noted that over half of the debt collection items on credit reports are for medical debt. She mentioned that debt collection generates many consumer complaints – 41% of those claiming continued attempts to collect debts not owed. She referenced the CFPB’s 2014-2015 debt collection survey, and focused on consumers’ complaints that debt collectors contact them too often – which she then connected to the Outline of Proposals that suggests 6 total contact attempts per week per account. She extrapolated this to calculate that this means a consumer could receive over 300 attempts per year.

[Editor’s note: The CFPB’s proposal says that 6 contact attempts would be allowed during the phase when the collector does not have confirmed consumer contact (in other words – they may need to try several phone numbers, at different times of the day or week, in order to reach someone or even to know whether those numbers are correct). After that, the contact attempts limit drops to 3 in total, or 2 per unique address or phone number.]

Finally, Wu noted that so many collection accounts are a drag on the economy, as having debts noted on a credit report makes it difficult for consumers to get a loan, buy a car or home, start a business, etc. She also noted that medical debts are “parked” on credit reports without even contacting the consumer. So the first time a consumer may learn of the debt is when they apply for credit.

James Wehmann of FICO

Wehmann said there seems to be a broad consensus among scoring companies that paid collections should not be included in scores, and medical accounts have shown that they are not as predictive, so they have been weighted lower. He offered that there is still wide disagreement about how consumers establish their very first credit file, and what should happen in the case of those (7 million) files where there are no trade lines, but only a collection record.

Ohad Samet of TrueAccord

Samet offered that debt collection is part of the credit market; defaults are going to happen. Currently, what happens with those who default are that they are deprived of being treated as consumers: They are deprived of their choice of channel in which to be contacted, and they are deprived of information that is clear, understandable and relatable. The current process, including disclosures, are over-legalized. We need solutions that promote a positive experience.

He also suggested that debt collectors who try to follow the rules are overburdened by an overly legalized market with “gotchas” and lawsuits that aren’t protecting consumers.

Max Levchin of Affirm

Levchin added that one debt collection reality is that the rules were written in the time of post cards… the next set shouldn’t pass up the opportunity to encompass the latest technology.

Commenting on some of the proposals, he said the notion of the proposed contact caps may not be needed, especially in channels where consumers have control, and that the proposed tear-off makes sense in paper form but not online. He said progressive firms have been trying to elevate the conversation with the consumer; however the strict disclosure requirements set a bad/cold/legal tone which puts collector and consumer at odds from the beginning. He encouraged the Bureau to revisit this.

Kathleen Engle of Suffolk University Law School

Engle expressed concerns about lending and debt collection becoming one transaction, such as in the case of hospitals offering financing to a patient at the time of admission. She described that this type of transaction occurs under pressure and without underwriting. Also, she suggested that consumers who pay in this manner end up being charged full-freight versus a reduced or negotiated rate that is offered to those with insurance.

Later, Engle expressed the need to educate the courts on any new rules related to debt collection litigation, including that they must look at the documentation before issuing a default judgment.

Josh Zinner of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility

Zinner referenced his former work at the New Economy Project, which identified the fact that debts have been sold on spreadsheets for pennies on the dollar, with no accompanying documentation. He said litigation is widely used to collect purchased debt, and substantiation is a real problem. They had seen cases of law firms employing “sewer service” firms (where defendants never actually get served), filing fraudulent or “robo-signed” affidavits to obtain default judgments, and attempts to collect the wrong amount from the wrong person, or out of statute debt, or debts that resulted from identity theft.

Judith Fox of Notre Dame

Fox agreed with Zinner and reinforced the concept that the lack of documentation in law suits must be dealt with. She has seen situations where the documentation is not available, or when it is found it contradicts affidavits. She suggested that technology is needed to track the documentation, and ensure that the information passed to debt collectors is correct.

Ann Baddour of Texas Appleseed

Baddour offered that she conducted a study in Texas which mirrored some of the comments made by Chi Chi Wu regarding contacts and threats by debt collectors. She told the story of a man who was scared into paying more than he should have to settle a debt. He had been threatened.

She also raised the issue of time barred debt, and the need to address the fact that a payment can re-start the statute of limitations clock.

A brief conversation about disclosures took place with Samet suggesting the current language is inaccessible, that disclosures are too long/numerous, and that more disclosures will not solve the problem.

Chi Chi Wu responded that the NCLC philosophy is that disclosures are necessary but not sufficient for consumer protection. She specifically highlighted three disclosures they feel are necessary: time barred debt, debts that are past the 7 year mark and therefore can’t be credit reported, and the right consumers have to end collection communication (which should also be able to be given orally vs. only in writing). She said, “We think the FDCPA is not perfect but has worked for 40 years. If there are flaws, the law should be strengthened, not watered down.”

Judith Fox agreed that too many disclosures can confuse consumers. They should be simple – maybe even bullet pointed.

The Eastern District of New York just provided some relief for agencies embattled with class action lawsuits. In its decision in Clarke v. Alltran Financial, LP f/k/a United Recovery Systems, LP, 2018 WL 1036951 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2018), the court found that a collection agency can enforce the arbitration clause of an underlying credit agreement that the consumer entered into with the original creditor. 

Read the decision here. 

Factual and Procedural Background 

Donovan Clarke entered into a credit agreement with Citibank.  The credit agreement contained an arbitration clause that states in pertinent part: 

Either you or we may, without the other’s consent, elect mandatory, binding arbitration for any claim, dispute, or controversy between you and us (called “Claims”). 

…

Whose Claims are subject to arbitration?  Not only ours and yours, but also Claims made by or against anyone connected with us or you or claiming through us or you, such as a co-applicant, authorized user of your account, an employee, agent, representative, affiliated company, predecessor or successor, heir assignee, or trustee in bankruptcy. 

After Clarke failed to make payments on this account, Citibank “retained and authorized” Alltran to collect the balance due on behalf of Citibank. While attempting to collect this debt, Alltran sent a letter to Clarke. 

Clarke, through his counsel at the Law Offices of Gus Michael Farinella, P.C., filed a putative class action claiming that Alltran’s letter violates the FDCPA by misstating the amount due. Alltran filed a motion to compel the arbitration clause in the underlying credit agreement, which Clarke opposed. 

The Decision

The court found that Alltran can compel the arbitration clause of the underlying agreement under two theories.  

First, following the well-established principles of contract interpretation, the plain language of the underlying agreement allows Alltran to compel the arbitration clause. The court looked to state law to determine the interpretation of the arbitration agreement. Here, the choice of law in the contract was South Dakota. When interpreting contractual terms, South Dakota instructs courts to look at the parties’ intent, to examine the contract as a whole, and to “give words their plain and ordinary meaning” (internal citation omitted). Using these principles as a guide, the court found that the underlying agreement allowed Alltran to compel arbitration. 

Clarke unsuccessfully argued that the contract excludes a third-party like Alltran from enforcing the clause since the provision only states that either “you” (Clarke) or “we” (Citibank) can compel arbitration. The court discarded this argument, finding that such an interpretation looks at a sentence in isolation rather than looking at the contract as a whole. The “Whose Claims are subject to arbitration?” section plainly states that the right to enforce binding arbitration extends to parties other than just Clarke and Citibank. 

Second, the court found that Alltran, which Citibank “retained and authorized” to collect Clarke’s balance, was acting as Citibank’s agent and thus was entitled to enforce the arbitration clause of the underlying credit agreement.  

Clarke attempted to argue that case law, including White v. Sunoco, Inc., 870 F.3d 257 (3rd Cir. 2017) precludes Alltran from compelling arbitration since Sunoco was unable to do so for the same underlying credit agreement. The court, however, found Sunoco distinguishable from the instant case. In Sunoco, the plaintiff claimed that Sunoco fraudulently induced him to obtain a Sunoco rewards card through marketing materials. The Third Circuit ultimately precluded Sunoco from compelling the arbitration clause because the claims of the suit were “governed by an entirely separate agreement between [plaintiff] and Sunoco” and had nothing to do with the terms of the underlying agreement. In the present case, Clarke’s underlying claims are related to the collection of the balance due on the account, which is the subject of the underlying agreement.

Taking all of this into consideration, the court found that Alltran had the right to compel the arbitration clause and referred the case to arbitration. 

Analysis 

Many plaintiffs’ attorneys file suits against collection agencies as putative class actions. Many believe this is a tactic to secure a larger settlement amount since a class action puts more at stake for the agency, thus justifying a higher dollar value of a settlement. Class actions cost more to defend and have higher liability for agencies than individual suits. When weighing whether to settle a claim, these are all items that agencies take into consideration. 

With this decision, plaintiffs’ counsel in Eastern District of New York just lost this bargaining tactic, at least against agencies who collect on behalf of creditors that have arbitration clauses in their credit agreements. Arbitration clauses typically contain a class waiver provision, where the consumer agrees to waive the right to participate as a representative or member of a class. Since an agency can compel the arbitration clause, they compel the class waiver provision along with it.

Compelling the arbitration clause is a great way to get a case resolved out of court without the formalities involved in a lawsuit. While arbitration makes the dispute and its outcome non-public, the other side of this coin is that arbitration is expensive. The agency will likely be required to pay the cost associated with the arbitration, which can cost several thousand dollars depending on the arbitrator used. Arbitrators are also known to “split the baby” when it comes to deciding the dollar value of any award. This means the agency will likely have to pay the arbitration costs and, at the very least, some sort of amount to plaintiff.

In the end, this decision allows agencies to add another tool to their litigation defense toolbox.  Especially in a litigious jurisdiction like the Eastern District of New York, this tool is happily accepted.

HORSHAM, Pa. –– Emergent Business Group, Inc. announced today the official launch of its business and the opening of its corporate headquarters in Horsham, PA. The headquarters will include a 150-person servicing center in addition to executive, compliance and administrative staff.  In conjunction with the company launch, Emergent has secured up to $10 million of equity financing from Strandview Capital, a growth equity fund focused on the financial services industry.

Consumers in the U.S. are heavily reliant on credit to purchase goods and services.  The purchase and collection of delinquent debt is a $14 billion industry and serves a vital role in the U.S. economy.  If this debt is not recovered, consumers are negatively impacted through higher prices for goods and services, increased interest rates, and decreased availability of credit.

Over the past ten years since the mortgage crisis of 2008, a new consumer debt cycle has emerged, and household debt levels have once again risen to all-time highs.  The combination of auto loans, credit card debt, student loans and new online lenders has resulted in household debt reaching a record level of over $12 trillion.  Subprime auto loans have already experienced increased defaults, which are expected to rise further.  In addition, after the mortgage crisis, the leading commercial banks in the U.S. dramatically reduced their practice of selling and outsourced servicing of delinquent credit card debt due to increased regulatory scrutiny.  However, industry analysts expect these banks to begin selling and servicing delinquent credit card debt, eventually to previous levels.

To address these major market trends, Emergent Business Group has combined state-of-the-art technology and industry-leading compliance standards to become the ideal Accounts Receivable Management (ARM) and servicing partner for first and third-party servicing and purchase of non-performing debt portfolios in the auto (subprime and prime), traditional loans, credit card and online lending sectors.  The Emergent platform is designed to provide clients an end-to-end fulfillment solution regardless of the product line or contracted ARM service.

“We operate with the highest ethical behavior to create integrated and compliant business practices and standards” says President and CEO Bruce White.  By optimizing our internal performance through state-of-the-art and highly compliant business process management and workflow tools, we are building a best-in-class organization and industry leader.” 

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was established in 2010 as a result of the mortgage crisis and has aggressively established itself as a major force with creditors, collections agencies and debt buyers.  The Emergent team has leveraged its extensive compliance experience to incorporate the most current critical path compliance practices into operational standards to ensure a highly compliant and leading-edge partner for Emergent customers.  Emergent is also certified as a minority and women owned business.

The Emergent culture cultivates customer-centric practices to engage with each consumer to create goodwill, trust and accountability, and foster a team approach in every servicing situation.  “A core objective of Emergent established in the early developmental processes of the organization is to be a valued and compliant servicing partner, and to protect our client’s brand while delivering significant operating efficiencies.  By combining this objective with our customer-centric mindset and approach, we will achieve superior standards of operation.”

Emergent was formed by Bruce White and a veteran executive team with over 100 years of combined experience in all aspects of the credit, collection and servicing industries.  White and his team have extensive experience in operational risk and regulatory management, recovery, valuation analytics, customer service, and managing multi-state strategic operations.  Previously, White held executive positions with Household Finance, Wells Fargo, and Fireside Bank.

“We are excited to partner with Emergent to build a world class servicing company,” says Mike Sekits, Managing director at Strandview Capital.  The Strandview team has extensive experience investing in the debt collections industry and building large, profitable specialty servicing businesses.  Prior to the 2008 mortgage crisis, Sekits and his former partners predicted and prepared for the wave of distressed mortgage debt by investing in three mortgage collections companies.  “We see major financial market corrections every ten years or so.  With the current record levels of consumer debt, we are anticipating a consumer credit crisis in the next market correction.  Also, due to increased regulation after the mortgage crisis, there has been a lack of investment and innovation in the collections industry over the past seven years.  The market is ripe for a state-of-the-art, highly compliant new entrant such as Emergent.”

Sequence Financial Specialists acted as Advisor and Placement Agent for Emergent Business Group in the financing transaction.

Read more at  www.emergentbg.com.

PHOENIX, Ariz. – Empereon-Constar, a leading provider of end-to-end customer engagement and customer management solutions, today announced Tim Smith has joined the company as the Senior Vice President, Enterprise Sales. Tim will report directly to Travis Bowley, CEO, and is charged with heading the company’s business development in new markets and business sectors. Additionally, as a member of the senior leadership team, he will be involved in shaping Empereon-Constar’s corporate business development strategy.

“We are excited to have Tim join the Empereon-Constar team,” commented Travis Bowley, CEO. “His strong history of success and deep industry experience will be a key in supporting the continued growth of the company.”

Tim brings over 25 years of leadership experience covering Business Development, Client Management, and Operational Strategy, with extensive experience in strategic account development, driving profitable revenue, and cultivating strong client relationships. Prior to Empereon-Constar, he held executive and management positions with M&T Bank, Primary Financial Services, and Firstsource Solutions, among other organizations.

“I am thrilled to join the team at Empereon-Constar in this newly created position,” Tim stated. “I look forward to using my experience to compliment to the company’s continued success.” 

[article_ad]

Tim can be reached by phone 602.889.3655 x1034 or 716.289.0575 and also via email at either tim.smith@empereon.com or tim.smith@constarfinancial.com. 

About Empereon-Constar

Empereon-Constar is a leading business process outsourcing company providing end-to-end customer engagement and customer management solutions for New Sales Account Generation, Customer Care, Risk / Fraud Operations, Collections Operations, QA Agent Call Monitoring, Back Office Administration Support, and Tech Support across the entire customer account lifecycle. Our customized solutions, real-time analytics, and global footprint help our clients achieve their business goals. 

Empereon-Constar’s full range of consumer and commercial services includes: lead generation, inbound / outbound sales, account origination, customer care, customer service, technical support, first party collections, recovery collections, credit bureau dispute management, fraud risk management, anti-money laundering, loan servicing and loan processing. Our world-class services and unique global strategy allows us to meet the needs of our client partners across multichannel (email, chat, phone) communication platforms, provide exceptional customer experiences, and consistently deliver world-class performance results, while maintaining the highest level of data security and compliance. For more information, please visit us online at www.empereon-constar.com or www.linkedin.com/company/22345663. 

Empereon-Constar portfolio of companies: Empereon Marketing, LLC, Constar Financial Services, LLC, Empereon International, Constar International, and HQC International. 

PHOENIX, Ariz. — BillingTree®, the leading payment technology provider, today released the findings of its second annual Healthcare Operations and Technology Survey. The report found a dramatic increase in the number of providers offering an interactive voice response (IVR) payment option for patients, up from 7% to 50% last year. Additionally, practices accepting patient responsibility payments via web portals increased from 67% to 75%.

The latest Healthcare Operations and Technology Survey was conducted over a one-month period in the last quarter of 2017 and now provides a healthcare industry benchmark. It found the biggest challenges facing providers were a patient’s inability to pay, collecting payments after leaving the facility, a lack of payment channels, compliance, and issues related to insurance billing.

Factors impacting a healthcare provider’s choice of payment provider included financial reporting and HIPAA compliance as the top two priorities. Compliance and integration were consistent with the previous survey results, the premium placed on reporting reflected a new trend.

Looking to the future, technology adoption continues to remain a key focus. Over the next 12 months, 63% of respondents plan to implement a patient payment portal – an increase of over 40% compared to the previous year’s findings.

“Having collected healthcare industry data for two consecutive years, we can see significant trends starting to emerge. One key development is the priority placed on technology adoption,” said Dave Yohe, BillingTree’s VP of Marketing. “SMS and mobile payment offerings, like statements using QR Codes for fast mobile access to payment forms, are two emerging technologies also trending in the healthcare industry.”

To request a complimentary copy of the Healthcare Operations and Technology Survey, visit: https://start.mybillingtree.com/acton/media/15831/2018-healthcare-survey-report.

About BillingTree 

BillingTree® is the leading provider of integrated payments solutions to the Healthcare, ARM, Property Management, B2B, and Financial Services industry verticals. Through its technology-enabled suite of products and services, BillingTree enables organizations to increase efficiency and decrease the costs of payment processing while adhering to compliance regulations. Leveraging more than a decade of market experience, BillingTree is dedicated to growing payments with technology through an integrated omni-channel offering, suite of proprietary products and value-added services, and a company-wide focus on delivering extraordinary customer service.

MANITOWOC, Wis. – Americollect was named the Large Business of the Year last Tuesday night at the 101^st Annual Dinner and Meeting of The Chamber of Manitowoc County, which was held at the Holiday Inn in Manitowoc.

Americollect has experienced continued growth under Kenlyn T. Gretz’s leadership and has grown from 12 employees in 1999 to more than 250 employees today. “Our consistent growth over the years can be directly contributed to our hardworking team members at Americollect. Our team really shows passion for what they do. Team members work closely with patients to help them resolve their medical debt. They show compassion and understanding and are truly living out our Ridiculously Nice commitment,” stated Kenlyn T. Gretz, President and CEO of Americollect.

The culture at Americollect is another aspect of the company that plays a crucial role in their growth. “Our culture is very unique and it means a great deal to us. We put time and effort into the culture to ensure it is always being strengthened. We have a culture of passion. Passion for our work, and passion for the team that we work with,” stated Gretz. “Our culture is the glue that keeps our company moving towards one common goal, helping others reach their goals of paying off their medical debt. Our culture is one of family and love.”

Americollect is currently on a mission to change the way collection agencies are viewed. Gretz stated, “By using our Ridiculously Nice approach we are demonstrating to patients, clients and others that we are here to help. It brings us joy to see patients reach their goals of making that last payment.”

Visit us at www.americollect.com.