Unrealistic Collection Expectations Drive Consumers to Debt Settlement
Debt collection agencies and creditors must recognize that many consumers will not be able to repay their debts in full, according to a consumer finance expert. Failure to do so will unnecessarily drive more debtors to settlement firms.
Partial payments of outstanding consumer debt have to be incorporated into the current economic environment, says Robert D. Manning, research professor and director of the Center for Consumer Financial Services, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York.
Manning, author of "Credit Card Nation" (Basic Books, 2000), said that while debt settlement companies fill that roll now, creditors and consumers would be better served if they worked together to determine appropriate settlements and payment plans for outstanding debts rather than using debt settlement companies.
Lonestar Turn-Key:
WINDEBT Collection System
The leader in Windows based collection software for Agency, DebtBuyers, DebtSellers and In-House operations.
Manning was among those who discussed these issues at the Federal Trade Commission’s workshop that discussed the debt settlement industry and possible regulations for it ("Debt Settlement Companies Put Under FTC Microscope," Sept. 29).
He faults lenders for granting too much credit as the catalyst of the current credit crunch. Too much lending centered around equity and liquidity values of homes, not on income. Repayments had historically been based on liquidity values of assets and incomes.
Both the lending and the repayments need to be based on income, Manning said. He added that creditors need to accept that home values have declined sharply, so consumers no longer have the home equity safety valve that they once did, impairing their ability to repay debt.
“One of the fundamental problems is that creditors have no empirical evidence to determine what someone can afford to pay,” Manning said. Therefore, creditors are demanding more than debtors can afford, driving them to debt settlement companies or bankruptcy.
But Manning said that the debt settlement companies hurt creditors and consumers alike – creditors because funds they might otherwise be able to collect go to pay debt settlement fees instead, and consumers because debt settlement companies escrow funds before any settlement is made. While creditors are waiting to be paid, the debtor’s credit rating continues to drop.
Care to Comment?
(Please read our comments policy first.)
Tell us what topics you're interested in and we'll keep you posted. Enter your email address below.
Topics:
Companies:
Related Resources
News
Analysis
Jobs
Publications
Research
Comments
Comment from Mike Ginsberg on November 21, 2008 at 8:32AM EST
Phil,
I think you captured this topic very well. Creditors and debtors are both to blame for causing the emergence of debt settlement companies. A middle ground needs to be established and well defined between full payment and bankruptcy. The answer is not a debt settlement company collecting into an escrow account on behalf of the debtor and keeping their percentage that would otherwise go to the issuer. The middle ground will emerge through disclosure by the debtor of their ability to pay and clarity by the issuer that partial payments are acceptable.
Comment from David on November 24, 2008 at 10:03AM EST
I guess creditors can also be blamed for the emergence of the DMPs administered by non profit and for profit "credit counseling" companies. If the creditors had been more willing to have established guidelines for legitimate and practical work out programs, the DMP industry would never have come into beeing. In many instances the DMP administrator, whether for profit or non profit, earns more money administering a simple payment program than does a settlement company, whose program is much more complex and costly to administer. Both a DMP administrator and a settlement administrator can provide cost savings to creditors by grouping all of a consumer's accounts into a single program, while at the same time getting better deals for the consumer.
Comment from Rick Wittwer on November 24, 2008 at 5:56PM EST
Phil,
Enjoyed the article. As a former CEO of a debt settlement company, I had the unique opportunity to hear both sides (lender and debtor) of the story. If lenders/agencies/debt buyers would alter their collection practices to be less confrontational (frequency of calling included), provide the debtor ways to contact them in a safe way and at a time of their choosing, and offer real solutions - ie multi-part settlements (up to 6), debtors would be less likely to pay debt settlement companies to represent them.
Until this happens, debt settlement companies will continue to over represent what they can do and debtors will continue to solicit their services.