In addition to behavioral models, collections management and account management groups need the ability to implement strategies in order to effectively handle and process accounts, particularly when the optimization of resources is a priority. While the behavioral models will effectively evaluate and measure the likelihood that an account will become delinquent or result in a loss, strategies are the specific actions taken, based on the score prediction, as well as other key information that is available when those actions are appropriate. Identifying high-risk accounts, for example, may result in collections strategies designed to accelerate collections activity and execute more aggressive actions and increase collections efficiency. On the other hand, identifying low-risk accounts can help determine when to take advantage of cost-saving actions and focus on customer retention programs. Effective strategies also address how to handle accounts that fall between the high- and low-risk extremes, as well as accounts that fall into special categories such as first-payment defaults, recently delinquent accounts and unique customer or product segments. To accommodate lenders with systems that cannot support either behavioral scorecards or automated strategy assignments a hosted collections software decisioning system can close the gap. To use these services master file data needs to be transmitted (securely) on a regular basis. The remote decision engine then calculates behavioral scores, identifies special handling accounts and electronically delivers the recommended strategy code or string of actions to drive treatments.  

This post continues the feature from my colleague and guest blogger, Mark Sofietti, Associate Process Architect in Advisory Services at Baker Hill, a part of Experian. In today’s market, the banking industry seems to be changing at a very rapid pace.  The current crisis that we are in, as an industry and as a nation, is forcing institutions to revisit risk management policies and procedures to make the appropriate changes needed to remain healthy and profitable.  However, the current crisis is not the only reason why institutions should focus on change management.  Change management needs to be appropriately handled in bad and good times.  Understanding change management is always a necessity to a well-run organization.  Whether it is a reorganization, a new software system, a new policy or moving to a new building, change can cause a great deal of stress and uncertainty -- but it can also cause benefits. So, as managers, you may be asking, “What can I do to ensure that positive changes are happening within my organization?  What are some of the items that I should consider when I am bringing about organizational change?” There are four necessary steps that need to be taken in order to improve the success of an initiative that is causing change to an institution. I covered two in my last post. Here are the additional steps. 3. Consider methods of change One method of change is the education of individuals about new ways of operating.  This method should be used when there is more resistance to change and when individuals lack a clear understanding or knowledge of the change being made.  Education may cause the implementation to take longer, but those involved will better understand the effects of the change. A second method is gathering participation from different levels and skill sets within the organizations.  Building a team should be used when there is the highest risk of failure due to change resistance and when more information needs to be gathered before an effective implementation can be completed. Negotiation is a method that is used when a group or person is going to be negatively affected by the change.  This method could alleviate the discomfort by giving the person or group some other benefit.  Negotiations could allow an organization to avoid resistance, but it may be very costly and time consuming to implement the change. The coercion change method is when a change is implemented with little room for diversion from the plan.  Employees are told what the change is going to be and they have to accept it.  This method should be used when speed is of the utmost importance, or if the change is not going to be easily accepted.  Most employees do not like this approach and it may cause resentment or it might cause staff members to leave. The final method of change uses manipulation, the conscious decision to share limited information about the change that is taking place.  This method should only be used when no other tactic will work, or if time or cost is major issues.  This approach is dangerous because it can lead to more problems in the future. 4. Create plan of action A plan should be created for the implementation of change to clearly address reservations and define the change strategy.  It should include internal and external audiences who can be affected by the change.  It is common to forget those who are indirectly impacted by the change -- and these audiences (customers, for example) may be the most important.  Objectives of the change need to be clearly outlined in the plan in order to understand how the new future state of the organization will look and operate.  The plan needs to be communicated to all those involved so that the transition can be understood and everyone can be held accountable.  The plan should be periodically revisited after implementation in order to review progress.  Creating a plan of action is a very important step to ensure that those who resisted the change do not revert back to their old habits. Achieving change is not an easy process, especially when time is not on your side.  If you take a second look at the change that you are trying to implement and do the necessary planning, you have a greater chance for success than if you or your organization fails to fully evaluate the consequences. Effective change management should be part of any financial risk management process. Take charge of your institution’s future through a calculated approach to change management and your organization will be in a better position for the next change that is coming around the bend.

I've previously posted content around an overall risk-based approach to Red Flags compliance. I also want to keep current in mentioning the use of Knowledge Based Authentication (KBA) as an effective component in an Identity Theft Prevention Program.  I get this question often:  "Is KBA a fraud detection tool or a verification tool?"  Short answer:  "It's both."Beyond fraud detection and prevention, KBA implementation can provide your program real returns in a few key areas:Reconciliation of initially detected "Red Flag" conditionsKBA allows you to positively pass consumers who may have some level of initial authentication challenge or high-risk condition.  The reality of identity verification is that regardless of all the data assets potentially leveraged, there are still those cases in which a good consumer identity continues to pose challenges to basic verification checks.Cost reduction in referral / reconciliation processesKBA can replace more subjective decision making and process invocation, turning instead to objective question presentation and performance to drive overall decisioning.Customer experienceConsumers are more willing today than ever before to participate in a KBA session, and most would prefer this activity over provision of documentary evidence, for example.KBA, when used in combination with strong analytics and comprehensive authentication results, can be valued tool in your overall Red Flags Identity Theft Prevention program.

Behavioral scoring is one of the most important tools that allow collections management and account management groups to evaluate accounts in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Although behavioral models are developed in a similar manner as new applicant models, there are several key differences that make behavioral models a better choice for many account management applications and collections workflow systems:By using only internal master file data as opposed to external credit bureau data, for example, accounts can be regularly evaluated without incremental cost. The most common practices are to score accounts on a weekly or monthly basis, which allows for quick strategic responses to a customer’s change in behavior. Frequent evaluations can result in automated or manual actions such as the acceleration or deceleration of collections efforts, adjusting credit limits and changing terms and conditions.The performance definitions of behavioral scores are very specific to each strategy and task, and it is typically not advised to use models in applications for which they were not designed. For example, a new applicant model definition of “bad” may be a high probability of charge off during the initial term of a line of credit. For collections strategy, a more appropriate bad definition might be the likelihood of an account rolling to the next delinquency bucket, regardless of the age of the account. Behavioral models also have a much shorter outcome period of three to four months versus new applicant models that forecast over one to two years. Since behaviors with one creditor can typically be recognized more quickly than with all lending institutions associated with a particular debtor, behavioral models provide a unique and timely evaluation of the ongoing risk once the account is already on the books. 

Regardless of the specific checks and overall processes incorporated into your Red Flags Identity Theft Prevention Program, the use of an automated decisioning strategy or strategies will allow you to: Deliver consistent responses based on objective authentication results, while eliminating subjectivity often found in more manual review processes.  Save time and money associated with a manual review process currently attributed to Red Flag Rule referrals.  Provide examiners a detailed process flow including decision elements.  Create champion / challenger flows to test, compare and alter new strategies over time.  Revise, over time, the specific elements used in your decisioning to appropriately weight each from a fraud detection and/or compliance perspective. Experian's consumer authentication products provide hosted decisioning strategies that alleviate the burden on our clients associated with maintenance and development of those processes.  Whether you facilitate your own strategies or use a service provider's hosted strategies, it is important to ensure you are maximizing their ability to balance pass rates, fraud detection and compliance requirements.

Have you ever wondered how your current collections workflow process evolved to its current state?  To start at the beginning, let’s rewind to medieval England … The Tallyman The earliest known collections system was essentially a door-to-door program, as there were no modern day devices to make the process more efficient. The system of record at that time was typically a hardwood stick with carved notches representing loans and payments between a lender and borrower. This door-to-door collector was known as the Tallyman, which referred to the collection of tally sticks he carried to document financial transactions. The beginning of modern times As technology evolved, telephones and letters became the collections management tools of choice, with a personal visit being a last resort action. The process where a collector managed the repayment strategy and relationships for his assigned customers was still in practice. Collections operations were typically in decentralized branches and small teams of skilled collectors were able to effectively manage this “cradle-to-grave” approach. Yesterday When expense management became a priority, the migration to larger, centralized operations became an industry trend.  Many companies found it difficult to hire large teams of highly-skilled collectors in their geographic regions and the bucket system was born. The concept was simple and effective -- let the less experienced staff work the accounts that are the easiest to collect and focus the experienced collectors on the more difficult cases.  Advanced collections tools such as automatic dialers arrived on the market to increase efficiency and were shortly followed by decision engines used to support behavioral scoring and segmentation strategies. Today Current trends in collections include the migration towards a risk-based segmentation and strategy approach. Cutting edge tools and collection management software, designed to address today’s collections business objectives, are hitting the market and challenging the traditional bucket approach most of us are used to. As the economic conditions of the past few years deteriorated, many organizations began shifting their spending focus towards the collections department and this, in turn, has inspired investment and innovation from software, analytics and data vendors. New collections scores were recently unveiled that yield predictiveness that has never been seen and collections data products have become significantly more sophisticated. Modern technology is also empowering collections managers to control the destiny of their business units by freeing them from the constraints of over-burdened IT departments and inflexible systems. There is also an emerging trend to consider the collective power of multiple products working in tandem. Collections experts are finding that the benefit of the complete solution equals much more than just the sum of the parts. Tomorrow Once we all migrate to the next level and employ today’s modern marvels to make our businesses more productive and efficient, what’s next?  It’s highly probable that tomorrow’s collections workflow will consider the entire relationship and profit potential of a customer before a collections action is executed. Additionally, the value in considering the entire credit and risk picture associated with a customer will be better understood and we will learn when each of the holistic view options is most appropriate. There are a number of roadblocks in the way today, including disparate systems and databases and siloed business units with goals and objectives that are not aligned. Will we eventually get there? The business leaders with long-range vision certainly will … just as some unknown visionary had the initiative to embrace emerging technology and abandon his tally sticks. For more information and to read the Decision Analytics newsletter that features one of my previous blogs, "Next generation collections systems", click here.   

We have talked about: the creation of the vision for our loan portfolios (current state versus future state) – e.g. the strategy for moving our current portfolio to the future vision. Now comes the time for execution of that strategy. In changing portfolio composition and improving credit quality, the discipline of credit must be strong (this includes in the arenas of commercial loan origination, loan portfolio monitoring, and credit risk modeling of course). Consistency, especially, in the application of policy is key. Early on in the change/execution process there will be strong pressure to revert back to the old ways and stay in a familiar comfort zone.  Credit criteria/underwriting guidelines will have indeed changed in the strategy execution. In the coming blogs we will be discussing: assessment of the current state in your loan portfolio; development of the specific strategy to effect change in the portfolio from a credit quality perspective and composition; business development efforts to affect change in the portfolio composition; and policy changes to support the strategy/vision.  

As stated in an earlier posting, healthcare providers should ensure appropriate compliance with the Red Flags Rule.  There continues to be healthy debate as to what level of applicability the Red Flags Rule has in this market.  That said, the link below, to a recent article by the FTC, highlights some relevant points to think about as healthcare providers consider whether or not they are 'covered' and, if so, the appropriate measures to be taken in developing their Identity Theft Prevention Program.Of note, the article points out that "health care providers are creditors if they bill consumers after their services are completed. Health care providers that accept insurance are considered creditors if the consumer ultimately is responsible for the medical fees. However, simply accepting credit cards as a form of payment does not make you a creditor under the Red Flags Rule."  Based on this definition, it appears to some extent, that the majority of healthcare providers will be covered under the Red Flag Rule as creditors.I encourage you to have a look at this article if you are still on the fence: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/articles/art11.shtm

If the business is a creditor or a “financial institution” (defined as a depository institution) that offers covered accounts, you must develop a Program to detect possible identity theft in the accounts and respond appropriately. The federal banking agencies, the NCUA and the FTC have issued Guidelines to help covered entities identify, detect and respond to indicators of possible identity theft, as well as to administer the Program. A copy of the Red Flag Guidelines can be found: Federal Reserve Board – 12 C.F.R. pt 222, App. J Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation – 12 C.F.R. pt 334, App. J FTC – 16 C.F.R. pt 681, App. A NCUA – 12 C.F.R. pt 717, App. J Office of the Comptroller of the Currency - 12 C.F.R. pt 41, App. J Office of Thrift Supervision - 12 C.F.R. pt 571, App. J  

They have started to shift away from time-based collections management activities (the 30-, 60-, 90-day bucket approach).  Instead, the focus is migrating towards the development of collections strategy that is based on the underlying risk of the individual – to look at how he is performing on all of the obligations in the total relationship to determine the likelihood of repayment and the associated activities that can facilitate that repayment.  They’ve found they can’t rely purely on traditional models anymore because consumer behavior has dramatically changed and an account only approach doesn’t reflect the true risk and value of the individual’s relationship.

By: Prince Varma Good day all. My last blog revolved around practical approaches to effective client relationship management. It time to get back to a “risk” type conversation. I recently told my wife that if I hear the phrase “…in this economic environment …” uttered as a caveat one more time, I’m going to scream. I have truly come to anticipate the beginning or introduction to interviews and articles to lead in with this sentiment and it’s driving me nuts. In these economic times (you can tell I’m from the sales side, I cleverly changed the phrase), it is clearly not business as usual within most financial institutions. Conversations with CEOs and bank presidents over the past two months have usually followed the same theme, “I’ve got money to lend, but I just can’t find a decent deal” or “I’ve got applications up the wazoo, but the quality just isn’t there.” So, what is going on? The obvious answer is that we are looking at applications more closely and the credit side (risk management guys) is deliriously happy because everytime they make a recommendation about “reviewing the opportunity further” they also don’t hesitate to mention, “in this economic environment.” Really, what is the scoop and how do we adjust on the front line? Clearly, we know that deeper reviews and management of risk is being undertaken. The problem is that the established standards are no longer valid. Yes, the basics ratios still need to be run, but let’s face it, in this economic environment a company’s historical performance is no longer an effective indicator as to their future performance. The playing field is no longer consistent. The past two to three years of financials are based on circumstances that no longer apply. This means that the analysts are having a difficult time establishing effective benchmarks from which to apply credit policy – and we know that those guys are the paragons of adaptability. We are being asked to evaluate risk in an uncertain circumstance. We are looking at projected revenues and earnings and examining receivables. We are also comparing this business to others in the industry, determining which other market segments have a direct (and indirect) impact on the performance of this one, reviewing business plans and evaluating management depth and experience. And, at the end of the day, either saying no, saying yes but not so much or holding our breath and hoping that divine intervention shows us the way. Does any of this should sound familiar to you? It should. We see these type of deals all of the time and we call them the start-ups. Ok, so what am I recommending? Quite simply, that we take a step back from our typical approach to the established business and engage with them the way we would a start-up. When an opportunity or request presents itself, restrain the urge to go down the garden path. Slow down! No... stop! Take a deep breath, put on your “economic development hat ” and approach the deal the way you would if it were a start-up (and I don’t mean running away at top speed in the opposite direction screaming). You should: look for or help them construct a short term (next four to six month) tactical action/priority plan; help them or review their 12-month business plan; o NOTE: If the business hasn’t realized that they need a short-term survival plan and a mid-term business plan… run! Run far and run fast! examine their market and have them explain why they will make it versus the competition; dig into their management expertise (think AIG); have them explain how their tactical and 12-month business plan will keep the doors open and the lights on (since its coming into summer we’ll cut them some slack on the heat); and finally review and revise their projections. If at the end of this, you still feel that the deal has legs, it probably does, and you’ve done a pretty thorough job building the business case for the credit side. Or, you could just lament that there really isn’t much out there in this economic environment.

By: Prince Varma Part 2 Two additional tactics that you should incorporate into your relationship management penetration strategy include: Conducting relationship reviews in addition to loan reviews; and Identifying and proactively monitoring changes in client behavior. Relationship reviews Relationship reviews are a comprehensive and thorough examination of the client’s business and should be the foundation for your relationship management process. They seek to provide both the client and the relationship manager with a roadmap for the upcoming 14- to 16-month period by identifying specific goals and concerns, as well as constructing a snapshot of the client today. The purpose of a relationship review is to understand the broader direction.  Bluntly put, an annual loan review is not a penetration activity. Its primary focus is to verify the ongoing credit worthiness of an existing deal in the books. More details will come about this topic in a future blog. Monitoring changes in behavior Monitoring changes in client behavior through the use of “activity thresholding” is quickly becoming a mainstay in the financial industry. The idea isn’t new; however, the application of the concept to penetration is. Instead of having changes in credit score trigger an alert related to risk management and mitigation, we would instead look at thresholds related to line usage, number of deposit transactions, changes in average deposit amount and credit card transactions. These kinds of client behaviors and activities provide insight into what is occurring within a clients business and as such, allow us to provide recommendations for products and services that are meaningful and appropriate.

This post is a feature from my colleague and guest blogger, Barry Timm, Senior Process Architect in Advisory Services at Baker Hill, a part of Experian. 2008 has proven to be an unbelievably challenging year for the economy as a whole, let alone the financial industry.  Never before have we experienced the type and degree of turmoil that we did in 2008, even since the “Great Depression”. These economic challenges have been quick, severe and widespread; and, from large corporations to the individual consumer, all have been impacted to some degree.  The stock market is down, unemployment up, consumer confidence down, delinquencies up ….not exactly a pleasant roller coaster ride. And, there is no longer any projecting as to when the “bubble” is going to burst.  It happened.   Decreased real estate values have occurred not only in high impact geographic regions but throughout the country.  While home equity products have traditionally been the “golden child” of consumer loan product offerings, recent economic changes have caused a shift in that perspective.  As a result, tightened underwriting standards have limited the availability of the product as a whole.  In some markets the product offering has even been temporarily halted. We frequently hear the terminology “bailout” being used in the news.  While we all have expectations as it relates to the bailout approach, I thought I would “Google” the word “bailout” to see what would magically appear.  Interestingly enough, the first listing was titled “Walk away from your home”, with a link to the home page for a mortgage default legal team.  This is not exactly what I was expecting to find, but is definitely reflective of the times. And, according to the FDIC, there have been 25 failed financial instituions in the year 2008.  This single year number equates to the total number of failed financial institutions between the prior periods 2001 through 2007. Okay … enough doom and gloom.  In spite of all that has occurred within the economy, some financial institutions continue to maintain a strong credit quality position in their consumer portfolios and have maintained profitability throughout all of the market volatility. What are the strong survivors doing that differentiates themselves from the others? 1. They understand their portfolio.   Advisory Services frequently assists clients with various types of portfolio management analysis and often presents those findings to senior management.  We often hear that management is surprised by the results of that analysis. The point is that high-level management reporting is not enough these days. Additional detail and depth are necessary. More specifically, as opposed to evaluating payment performance at the portfolio level, it is important to consider the following: Do you know your delinquency numbers at the product level? How do delinquencies compare to your product approval rates? Do you routinely compare approval/decline rates and delinquencies to scorecard results and/or credit bureau scores? Do you know where pricing exceptions are being made and are you receiving sufficient return for the level of risk? 2. A focused strategy is in place. It is important to re-emphasize the specific, strategic direction and focus of your defined market.  Now is not the time to be “pushing the envelope” and extending into untested waters.  There is something to be said about focusing on your strengths, staying within your defined footprint and meeting the needs of your core, proven line of business while following sound financial risk management. 3. The underwriting process is under control. This does not automatically mean that a “tightening” of underwriting standards is necessary.  It does mean, however, that stronger attention to detail is warranted.  It is important that underwriting criteria is reviewed and that you are sure that defined underwriting practices are consistently applied.  As noted in item number one above, this may require digging a little deeper and reviewing current and past decisioned loans (preferably with a critical eye of an independent third party).  Assessing the underwriting process becomes increasing complex and more critical with a decentralized underwriting approach. Focus on the positive Now that 2008 is behind us, let’s continue to focus on the positives to come in 2009.  Reflect on the past, but strive to center your attention on ongoing portfolio monitoring, financial risk management assessments and improvements for the future.  

The credit reporting agencies will not identify Red Flags, as such, on a credit report. However, there may be certain information on a credit report that you have determined to be an indicator of possible identity theft and have incorporated into your Program, such as a consumer fraud alert or a notice of address discrepancy. In addition, the Red Flag Guidelines specify that a credit report indicating a pattern of inconsistent or unusual recent activity might be a Red Flag.

By: Tom Hannagan   Part 6 Peer Group 2 fee income Non-interest income again, as a percent of average total assets, declined to .86 percent from .95 percent in 2007. For Peer Group 2 (PG2), fees have also been steadily declining relative to asset size, down from 1.04 percent of assets in 2005. A smaller, non-interest bearing deposit base with no other new and offsetting sources of fee income will lead to increased pressure on this metric. Operating expenses Operating expenses also put more pressure on earnings on these smaller banks. They increased from 2.79 percent to 2.83 percent of average assets. That’s four basis points on the negative. Historically, this metric has been flattering for this size bank and usually moves up or down from year-to-year. It was almost equal at 2.82 percent of assets in 2004. As a result of the sizeable decline in margins, the continued decline in fee income and the slight increase in operating expenses PG2’s efficiency ratio lost ground from 59.52 percent in 2007 to only 64.72 percent in 2008. That means that every dollar in gross revenue cost them almost 65 cents in administrative expenses this year. This metric averaged 56 cents in 2005/2006. It’s amazing how close these numbers are for banks of very different size where you would expect clear economies of scale. The total impact of margin performance, fee income and operating expenses, plus the huge increase in provision expense of 59 basis points leads us to a total decline in pre-tax operating income of .96 percent on total assets. That is a total decline from 1.58 percent pre-tax ROA in 2007 to .64 percent pre-tax ROA, a loss of 61 percent from the pre-tax performance in 2007. My same conclusion as above would hold regarding the pricing of risk into bank lending (although the smaller banks didn’t perform a badly as the larger in this regard). Although all 490 banks are declining in all profit metrics, the smaller banks seem to have an edge in pricing loans, but not deposits. Although up dramatically in 2007, and even more in 2008 for both groups, the PG2 banks seem to be suffering fewer credit losses relative to their asset size than their larger brethren. Both groups have resulting huge profit declines, but the largest banks are under the most pressure through this period. An interesting point, with higher loan yields and fewer apparent losses, is whether PG2 banks are somewhat better at risk-based pricing (for whatever reason) than the largest bank group. Results are results. The 2009 numbers aren’t expected to show a lot of improvement as the general economy continues to slow and credit and financial risk management issues continue. We’ll probably comment on 2009 as the quarterlies become available this year.