I was at a conference last week, and the subject of an RFP
recently advertised came up. Apparently
a consumer collection contract was awarded to a collection agency ... for about
13%. This portfolio, if it compares to
others in its industry, has an average balance of $250, and a potential
liquidation of 30%. Clearly the winning
bidder and the procurement department that put out this RFP don't realize they
have both just hurt our industry and themselves.
In the contingency-fee world, the liquidation of a program
and the rate assigned are crucial, key elements in determining the potential
revenue for a program. These revenues
are not guaranteed, but with some experience and projection can establish a
rough rule of thumb for return on effort.
Now, this isn't the first or last time someone has undercut
a contract to the point of non-profitability.
Early on in my career, a couple of decades ago, I was assigned as a
collector on a second placement credit card portfolio ... at an 18% commission
rate. This is about half of what this
industry would normally award for a program like this on a contingency
basis. The program had been worked
heavily by the creditor, and then by the first assignment agency for nine
months before it came to our agency, and our team gave 100% effort to liquidate
about 4%. It didn't matter that we
collected $100,000 a month in gross dollars, it only resulted in about $18,000
revenue ... for four staff members. That
works out to under $4500 a desk. In the
contingency world, that's not a successful ROI.
Here's the secret to all collection work plans. This is the prime magic formula that tells
the third party collection vendor the profitability and expected revenue flow
of any given program. I'm going to share
it with you.
(NUMBER OF FILES PER MONTH) x (AVERAGE BALANCE) x (EXPECTED
LIQUIDATION) x (CONTINGENCY RATE) = ROI
That's it. That tells
us the manpower needed, the amount of infrastructure and support services we
can give to the team working the program.
Simplicity.
So ... taking what we have learned above, let me show you
how 13% is a horrible, horrible idea.
Let's assume, for the moment, that 300 files will be assigned per
month. On a manual collection program,
that requires roughly 1 FTE (or Full-Time Equivalent person) to work, trace,
and manage client support. So, if we
assign a collection staff member to this program, what sort of revenue should
it generate on average, after about 60-90 days, each month?
300 (files) x $250 (avg bal) x 30% (liquidation) x 13% (contingency) = $2925
What does this tell us? It tells us that a collection agency assigning a full time person to this program is going to lose money, with the cost of the staff member, the postage for the initial mailings (even if there was only one letter), the telecommunication costs, and the other overheads needed to maintain a legal collection agency.
So what will the winning bidder do? They'll have to cut corners, not send out
collection notices required by law, fail to attempt to trace the files, not
call files under a certain dollar amount, assign the most inexperienced staff
member to the program, throw the files in a slush pile with other programs on a
predictive dialer, or whatnot. And
because they'll do that, they won't achieve 30% liquidation. They'll probably liquidate 15-20%. This destructive cycle isn't just bad
management of the assigned portfolio, it directly hurts the client in a real,
financial way.
If the agency had received 20% contingency and liquidated 30%,
the recoveries would have been $22,500 a month less $4500 fees, for a net back
to the client of $18,000.
Instead, the agency will receive 13% contingency and
liquidate 20%, for a recovery per month of $15,000, less $1950, for a net back
of $13,050.
That's a shortfall of about $5000 per month, or $60,000 a year. I'm betting that's pretty comparable to the salary of someone in the procurement department. With one decision, that procurement manager just eliminated a revenue stream that paid for one of their staff.
So Why Is This Bad?
Decisions like this hurt our industry. They make us look collectively incompetent
because we don't liquidate the full potential available to an industry group. They hurt us because we are inviting
creditors to take us for granted. Once a
rate is set, it's very hard to raise it again, and other companies in the same
industry vertical will often mimic the existing standard that's been set.
The problem with a competitive market that is solely based
on price, is that someone, somewhere is going to set a price that will run at a
loss, or a significant degradation of service.
And while the experienced people in our industry might get together at
conferences, shake our heads and grumble at each other, no one is proactively talking
about it.
Conclusion
The collection industry needs to work together and not
devalue their services. The collection
industry needs to maintain professional standards and explain to their clients
what they should expect for a net back result with professional
representation. The collection agency
needs to offer transparency for our industry, because they should not be held
to unrealistic ROI values. Occasionally
agencies overcharge clients, but that is somewhat internally policed by
competition -- but when collection vendors undercharge and provide a
substandard liquidation it will leave an impression with the client long after
they have closed their doors because they were not running a viable business
model. This needs to be fought with
proactive discussion and education to the creditors on what is an acceptable
ROI model for their vendor, and what is a reasonable expectation for
liquidation.
If you are interested in discussing expected return rates
for your industry group, and a reasonable range for a contingency rate
structures, please feel free to reach out to me. I can be reached at my office at Kingston
Data and Credit at 226-946-1730.
Blair DeMarco-Wettlaufer
Kingston Data and CreditCambridge, Ontario
226-946-1730
www.kingstondc.com
No comments:
Post a Comment