Credit Lending

By: Joel Pruis Small Business Application Requirements The debate on what constitutes a small business application is probably second only to the ongoing debate around centralized vs. decentralized loan authority (but we will get to that topic in a couple of blogs later). We have a couple of topics that need to be considered in this discussion, namely: 1.     When is an application an application? 2.     Do you process an incomplete application? When is an application an application? Any request by a small business with annual sales of $1,000,000 or less falls under Reg B.  As we all know because of this regulation we have to maintain proper records of when we received an application and when a decision on the application was made as well as communicated to the client. To keep yourself out of trouble, I recommend that there be a small business application form (paper or electronic) and that you have clearly stated the information required for a completed application in your small business application procedures. The form removes ambiguities in the application process and helps with the compliance documentation. One thing is for certain – when you request a personal credit bureau on the small business owner(s)/guarantor(s) and you currently do not have any credit exposure to the individual(s) – you have received an application and to this there is no debate. Bottom line is that you need to define your application and do so using objective criteria. Subjective criteria leaves room for interpretation and individual interpretation leaves doubt in the compliance area. Information requirements Whether or not you use a generic or custom small business scorecard or no scorecard at all, there are some baseline data segments that are important to collect on the small business applicant: ·         Requested amount and purpose for the funds ·         Collateral (if necessary based upon the product terms and conditions) ·         General demographics on the business o    Name and location o    Business Entity type (corporation, llc, partnership, etc.) o    Product and/or service provided o    Length of time in business o    Current banking relationship ·         General demographics on the owners/guarantors o    Names and addresses o    Current banking relationship o    Length of time with the business ·         External data reports on the business and/or guarantors o    Business Report o    Personal Credit Bureau on the owners/guarantors ·         Financial Statements (?) – we’ll talk about that in part II of this post. The demographics and the existing banking relationship are likely not causing any issues with anyone and the requested amount and use of funds is elementary to the process. Probably the greatest debate is around the collection of financial information and we are going to save that debate for the next post. The non-financial information noted above provides sufficient data to pull personal credit bureaus on the owners/guarantors and the business bureau on the actual borrower. We have even noted some additional data informing us the length of time the business has been in existence and where the banking relationship is currently held for both the business and the owners. But what additional information should be requested or should I say required? We have to remember that the application is not only to support the ability to render a decision but also supports the ability to document the loan and maybe even serve as a portion of the loan documentation.  We need to consider the following: ·         How standardized are the products we offer? ·         Do we allow for customization of collateral to be offered? ·         Do we have standard loan/fee pricing? ·         Is automatic debit for the loan payments required? Optional? Not available? ·         Are personal guarantees required? Optional? We again go back to the 80/20 rule. Product standardization is beneficial and optimal when we have high volumes and low dollars. The smaller the dollar size of the request/relationship the more standardized we need to have our products and as a result our application can be more streamlined. When we do not negotiate rate, we do not need to have a space to note requested rate. When we do not negotiate on personal guarantees we always require the personal financial information be collected on all owners of the business (some exceptions for very small ownership interests). Auto-debit for the loan payments means we always need to have some form of a DDA account with our institution. I think you get the point that for the highest volume of applications we standardize and thus streamline the process through the removal of ambiguity. Do you process an incomplete application? The most common argument for processing an incomplete application is that if we know we are going to decline the application based upon information on the personal credit bureau, why go through the effort of collecting and spreading the financial information. Two significant factors make this argument moot:   customer satisfaction and fair lending regulation. Customer satisfaction This is based upon the ease of doing business with the financial institution. More specifically the number of contact points or information requests that are required during the process. Ideally the number of contact points that are required once the applicant has decided to make a financing request should be minimal the information requirements clearly communicated up front and fully collected prior to rendering a decision. The idea that a quick no is preferable to submitting a full application actually is working to make the declination process more efficient than the actual approval process. So in other words we are making the process more efficient and palatable for those clients we do NOT consider acceptable versus those clients that ARE acceptable. Secondly, if we accept and process incomplete applications, we are actually mis-prioritizing the application volume. Incomplete applications should never be processed ahead of completed packages yet under the quick no objective, the incomplete application is processed ahead of completed applications simply based upon date and time of submission. Consequently we are actually incenting and fostering the submission of incomplete applications by our lenders. Bluntly this is a backward approach that only serves to make the life of the relationship manager more efficient and not the client. Fair lending regulation This perspective poses a potential issue when it comes to consistency.  In my 10 years working with hundreds of financial institutions, only a very small minority of times have I encountered a financial institution that is willing to state with absolute certainty that a particular characteristic will cause an application to e declined 100% of the time. As a result, I wish to present this scenario: ·         Applicant A provides an incomplete application (missing financial statements, for example). o    Application is processed in an incomplete status with personal and business bureaus pulled. o    Personal credit bureau has blemishes which causes the financial institution to decline the application o    Process is complete ·         Applicant B provides a completed application package with financial statements o    Application is processed with personal and business bureaus pulled, financial statements spread and analysis performed o    Personal credit bureau has the same blemishes as Applicant A o    Financial performance prompts the underwriter or lender to pursue an explanation of why the blemishes occurred and the response is acceptable to the lender/underwriter. Assuming Applicant A had similar financial performance, we have a case of inconsistency due to a portion of the information that we “state” is required for an application to be complete yet was not received prior to rendering the decision. Bottom line the approach causes doubt with respect to inconsistent treatment and we need to avoid any potential doubt in the minds of our regulators. Let’s go back to the question of financial statements. Check back Thursday for my follow-up post, or part II, where we’ll cover the topic in greater detail.

By: Joel Pruis The debate on what constitutes a small business application is probably second only to the ongoing debate around centralized vs. decentralized loan authority (but we will get to that topic in a couple of blogs later).  We have a couple of topics that need to be considered in this discussion, namely:      1.      When is an application an application?      2.     Do you process an incomplete application? When is an application an application? Any request by a small business with annual sales of $1,000,000 or less falls under Reg B.  As we all know because of this regulation we have to maintain proper records of when we received an application and when a decision on the application was made as well as communicated to the client.  To keep yourself out of trouble, I recommend that there be a small business application form (paper or electronic) and that you have clearly stated the information required for a completed application in your small business application procedures.  The form removes ambiguities in the application process and helps with the compliance documentation. One thing is for certain – when you request a personal credit bureau on the small business owner(s)/guarantor(s) and you currently do not have any credit exposure to the individual(s) – you have received an application and to this there is no debate. Bottom line is that you need to define your application and do so using objective criteria.  Subjective criteria leaves room for interpretation and individual interpretation leaves doubt in the compliance area. Information requirements Whether or not you use a generic or custom small business scorecard or no scorecard at all, there are some baseline data segments that are important to collect on the small business applicant: Requested amount and purpose for the funds Collateral (if necessary based upon the product terms and conditions) General demographics on the business Name and location Business Entity type (corporation, llc, partnership, etc.) Product and/or service provided Length of time in business Current banking relationship General demographics on the owners/guarantors Names and addresses Current banking relationship Length of time with the business External data reports on the business and/or guarantors Business Report Personal Credit Bureau on the owners/guarantors Financial Statements (??) – we’ll talk about that in part II of this post. The demographics and the existing banking relationship are likely not causing any issues with anyone and the requested amount and use of funds is elementary to the process.  Probably the greatest debate is around the collection of financial information and we are going to save that debate for the next post. The non-financial information noted above provides sufficient data to pull personal credit bureaus on the owners/guarantors and the business bureau on the actual borrower.  We have even noted some additional data informing us the length of time the business has been in existence and where the banking relationship is currently held for both the business and the owners.  But what additional information should be requested or should I say required? We have to remember that the application is not only to support the ability to render a decision but also supports the ability to document the loan and maybe even serve as a portion of the loan documentation.  We need to consider the following: How standardized are the products we offer? Do we allow for customization of collateral to be offered? Do we have standard loan/fee pricing? Is automatic debit for the loan payments required?  Optional? Not available? Are personal guarantees required?  Optional? We again go back to the 80/20 rule.  Product standardization is beneficial and optimal when we have high volumes and low dollars.  The smaller the dollar size of the request/relationship the more standardized we need to have our products and as a result our application can be more streamlined.  When we do not negotiate rate, we do not need to have a space to note requested rate.  When we do not negotiate on personal guarantees we always require the personal financial information be collected on all owners of the business (some exceptions for very small ownership interests).  Auto-debit for the loan payments means we always need to have some form of a DDA account with our institution.  I think you get the point that for the highest volume of applications we standardize and thus streamline the process through the removal of ambiguity. Do you process an incomplete application? The most common argument for processing an incomplete application is that if we know we are going to decline the application based upon information on the personal credit bureau, why go through the effort of collecting and spreading the financial information.  Two significant factors make this argument moot: customer satisfaction and fair lending regulation. Customer satisfaction This is based upon the ease of doing business with the financial institution.  More specifically the number of contact points or information requests that are required during the process.  Ideally the number of contact points that are required once the applicant has decided to make a financing request should be minimal the information requirements clearly communicated up front and fully collected prior to rendering a decision.  The idea that a quick no is preferable to submitting a full application actually is working to make the declination process more efficient than the actual approval process.  So in other words we are making the process more efficient and palatable for those clients we do NOT consider acceptable versus those clients that ARE acceptable.  Secondly, if we accept and process incomplete applications, we are actually mis-prioritizing the application volume.  Incomplete applications should never be processed ahead of completed packages yet under the quick no objective, the incomplete application is processed ahead of completed applications simply based upon date and time of submission.  Consequently we are actually incenting and fostering the submission of incomplete applications by our lenders.  Bluntly this is a backward approach that only serves to make the life of the relationship manager more efficient and not the client. Fair lending regulation This perspective poses a potential issue when it comes to consistency.  In my 10 years working with hundreds of financial institutions, only a very small minority of times have I encountered a financial institution that is willing to state with absolute certainty that a particular characteristic will cause an application to e declined 100% of the time.  As a result, I wish to present this scenario: Applicant A provides an incomplete application (missing financial statements, for example).  {C}Application is processed in an incomplete status with personal and business bureaus pulled. Personal credit bureau has blemishes which causes the financial institution to decline the application Process is complete Applicant B provides a completed application package with financial statements Application is processed with personal and business bureaus pulled, financial statements spread and analysis performed Personal credit bureau has the same blemishes as Applicant A Financial performance prompts the underwriter or lender to pursue an explanation of why the blemishes occurred and the response is acceptable to the lender/underwriter. Assuming Applicant A had similar financial performance, we have a case of inconsistency due to a portion of the information that we “state” is required for an application to be complete yet was not received prior to rendering the decision.  Bottom line the approach causes doubt with respect to inconsistent treatment and we need to avoid any potential doubt in the minds of our regulators. Let’s go back to the question of financial statements.  Check back Thursday for my follow-up post, or part II, where we’ll cover the topic in greater detail. 

By: Joel Pruis Part I – New Application Volume and the Business Banker: Generating small business or business banking applications may be one of the hottest topics in this segment at this time. Loan demand is down and the pool of qualified candidates seems to be down as well. Trust me, I am not going to jump on the easy bandwagon and state that the financial institutions have stopped pursuing small business loan applications. As I work across the country, I have yet to see a financial institution that is not actively pursuing small business loan applications. Loan growth is high on everyone’s priority and it will be for some time. But where have all the applicants gone? Based upon our data, the trend in application volume from 2006 to 2010 is as follows: Chart displays 2010 values: So at face value, we see that actually, overall applications are down (1,032 in 2006 to 982 in 2010) while the largest financial institutions in the study were actually up from 18,616 to 25,427. Furthermore the smallest financial institutions with assets less than $500 million showed a significant increase from 167 to 276. An increase of 65% from the 2006 levels! But before we get too excited, we need to look a little further. When we are talking about increasing application volume we are focusing on applications for new exposure or a new extension of credit and not renewals. The application count in the above chart includes renewals. So let’s take a look at the comparison of New Request Ratio between 2006 and 2010. Chart displays 2010 values: So using this data in combination with the total application count we get the following measurements of new application volume in actual numbers. So once we get under the numbers, we see that the gross application numbers truly don’t tell the whole story. In fact we could classify the change in new application volume as follows: So why did the credit unions and community banks do so well while the rest held steady or dropped significantly? The answer is based upon a few factors: In this blog we are going to focus on the first – Field Resources. The last two factors – Application Requirements and Underwriting Criteria – will be covered in the next two blogs. While they have a significant impact on the application volume and likely are the cause of the application volume shift from 2006 to 2010, each represents a significant discussion that cannot be covered as a mere sub topic. More to come on those two items. Field Resources pursuing Small Business Applications The Business Banker Focus. Focus. Focus. The success of the small business segment depends upon the focus of the field pursuing the applications. As we move up in the asset size of the financial institution we see more dedicated field resources to the Small Business/Business Banking segment. Whether these roles are called business bankers, small business development officers or business banking specialists, the common denominator is that they are dedicated to the small-business/ business banking space. Their goals depend on their performance in this segment and they cannot pursue other avenues to achieve their targets or goals. When we start to review the financial institutions in the less than $20B segment, the use of a dedicated business banker begins to diminish. Marketing segments and/or business development segmentation is blurred at best and the field resource is better characterized as a Commercial Lender or Commercial Relationship Manager. The Commercial Lender is tasked with addressing the business lending needs across a particular region. Goals are based upon total dollars generated and there is no restriction outside of the legal or in house lending limit of the specific financial institution. In this scenario, the notion of any focus on small business is left to the individual commercial lender. You will find some commercial lenders that truly enjoy and devote their efforts to the small business/business banking space. These individuals enjoy working with the smaller business for a variety of reasons such as the consultative approach (small businesses are hungry for advice while the larger businesses tend to get their advice elsewhere) or the ability to use one’s lending authority. Unfortunately while your financial institution may have such commercial lenders (one’s that are truly working solely in the small business or business banking segment) to change that individual’s title or formally commit them to working only in the small business/business banking segment is often perceived as a demotion. It is this perception that continues to hinder the progress of financial institutions with assets between $500 million and $20 billion from truly excelling in the small business/business banking space. Reality is that the best field resource to generate the small business/business banking application volume available to your financial institution is through the dedicated individual known as the Business Banker. Such an individual is capable of generate up to 250 applications (for the truly high performing) per year. Even if we scale this back to 150 applications in a given year for new credit volume at an average request of $106,929 (the lowest dollar of the individual peer groups), the business banker would be generating total application dollars of $16,039,350. If we imply a 50% approval/closure rate, the business banker would be able to generate a total of $8,019,675 in new credit exposure annually. Such exposure would have the potential of generating a net interest margin of $240,590 assuming a 3% NIM.   Not too bad.

By: Mike Horrocks Earlier this week, my wife and I were discussing the dinner plans for Thanksgiving.  The yams, cranberries, and pumpkin pies were purchased and the secret family recipes were pulled out of the cupboard.  Everything was ready…we thought.  Then the topic of the turkey was brought up.  In the buzz of work, family, kids, etc., both of us had forgotten to get the turkey.   We had each thought the other was covering this purchase and had scratched if off our respective lists.  Our Thanksgiving dinner was at risk!  This made me think of what best practices from our industry could be utilized if I was going to mitigate risks and pull off the perfect dinner.  So I pulled the page from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision that defines operational risk as "the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, people, systems or external events” and I have some suggestions that I think work for both your Thanksgiving dinner and for your existing loan portfolios. First, let’s cover “inadequate or failed processes”.  Clearly our shopping list process failed.   But how are your portfolio management processes?  Are they clearly documented and can they be implemented throughout the organization?  Your processes should be as well communicated and documented as the “Smashed Yam Bake” recipe or you may be at risk. Next, let focus on the “people and systems”.    People make mistakes – learn from them, correct them, and try to get the “systems” to make it so there are fewer mistakes.  For example, I don’t want the risk of letting the turkey cook too long, so I use a remote meat thermometer.  Ok, it is a little geeky; however the turkey has come out perfect every year.    What systems do you have in place to make your quarterly reviews of the portfolio more consistent and up to your standards?  Lastly, how do I mitigate those “external events”?  Odds are I will be able to still get a turkey tonight.  If not, I talked to a friend of mine who is a chef and I have the plans for a goose.   How flexible are your operations and how accessible are you to the subject matter experts that can get you out of those situations?  A solid risk management program takes into account unforeseen events and can make them into opportunities. So as the Horrocks family gathered in Norman Rockwell like fashion this Thanksgiving, a moment of thanks was given to the folks on the Basel committee.  Likewise in your next risk review, I hope you can give thanks for the minimized losses and mitigated risks.  Otherwise, we will have one thing very much in common…our goose will be cooked.

By: Mike Horrocks Have you ever been struck by a turtle or even better burnt by water skies that were on fire?  If you are like me, these are not accidents that I think will ever happen to me and I'm not concerned that my family doctor didn't do a rotation in medical school to specialize in treating them. On October 1, 2013, however, doctors and hospitals across the U.S. will have ability to identify, log, bill, and track those accidents and thousands of other very specific medical events.  In fact the list will jump from a current 18,000 medical codes to 140,000 medical codes.  Some people hail this as a great step toward the management of all types of medical conditions, whereas others view it as a introduction of noise in a medical system already over burdened.  What does this have to do with credit risk management you ask? When I look at the amount of financial and non-financial data that the credit industry has available to understand the risk of our consumer or business clients, I wonder where we are in the range of “take two aspirins and call me in the morning” to “[the accident] occurred inside a chicken coop” (code: Y9272).   Are we only identifying a risky consumer after they have defaulted on a loan?  Or are we trying to find a pattern in the consumer's purchases at a coffee house that would correlate with some other data point to indicate risk when the moon is full? The answer is somewhere in between and it will be different for each institution.  Let’s start with what is known to be predictable when it comes to monitoring our portfolios - data and analytics, coupled with portfolio risk monitoring to minimize risk exposure - and then expand that over time.  Click here for a recent case study that demonstrates this quite successfully with one of our clients. Next steps could include adding in analytics and/or triggers to identify certain risks more specifically. When it comes to risk, incorporating attributes or a solid set of triggers, for example, that will identify risk early on and can drill down to some of the specific events, combined with technology that streamlines portfolio management processes - whether you have an existing system in place or in search of a migration - will give you better insight to the risk profile of your consumers. Think about where your organization lies on the spectrum.    If you are already monitoring your portfolio with some of these solutions, consider what the next logical step to improve the process is - is it more data, or advanced analytics using that data, a combination of both, or perhaps it's a better system in place to monitoring the risk more closely. Wherever you are, don’t let your institution have the financial equivalent need for these new medical codes W2202XA, W2202XD, and W2202XS (injuries resulting from walking into a lamppost once, twice, and sequentially).

By: Kari Michel The way medical debts are treated in scores may change with the introduction of June 2011, Medical Debt Responsibility Act. The Medical Debt Responsibility Act would require the three national credit bureaus to expunge medical collection records of $2,500 or less from files within 45 days of their being paid or settled. The bill is co-sponsored by Representative Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), Don Manzullo (R-Ill.) and Ralph M. Hall (R-Texas). As a general rule, expunging predictive information is not in the best interest of consumers or credit granters -- both of which benefit when credit reports and scores are as accurate and predictive as possible. If any type of debt information proven to be predictive is expunged, consumers risk exposure to improper credit products as they may appear to be more financially equipped to handle new debt than they truly are. Medical debts are never taken into consideration by VantageScore® Solutions LLC if the debt reporting is known to be from a medical facility. When a medical debt is outsourced to a third-party collection agency, it is treated the same as other debts that are in collection. Collection accounts of lower than $250, or ones that have been settled, have less impact on a consumer’s VantageScore® credit score. With or without the medical debt in collection information, the VantageScore® credit score model remains highly predictive.

With the raising of the U.S. debt ceiling and its recent ramifications consuming the headlines over the past month, I began to wonder what would happen if the general credit consumer had made a similar argument to their credit lender. Something along the lines of, “Can you please increase my credit line (although I am maxed out)? I promise to reduce my spending in the future!” While novel, probably not possible. In fact, just the opposite typically occurs when an individual begins to borrow up to their personal “debt ceiling.” When the amount of credit an individual utilizes to what is available to them increases above a certain percentage, it can adversely affect their credit score, in turn affecting their ability to secure additional credit. This percentage, known as the utility rate is one of several factors that are considered as part of an individual’s credit score calculation. For example, the utilization rate makes up approximately 23% of an individual’s calculated VantageScore® credit score. The good news is that consumers as a whole have been reducing their utilization rate on revolving credit products such as credit cards and home equity lines (HELOCs) to the lowest levels in over two years. Bankcard and HELOC utilization is down to 20.3% and 49.8%, respectively according to the Q2 2011 Experian – Oliver Wyman Market Intelligence Reports. In addition to lowering their utilization rate, consumers are also doing a better job of managing their current debt, resulting in multi-year lows for delinquency rates as mentioned in my previous blog post. By lowering their utilization and delinquency rates, consumers are viewed as less of a credit risk and become more attractive to lenders for offering new products and increasing credit limits. Perhaps the government could learn a lesson or two from today’s credit consumer.

The following article was originally posted on August 15, 2011 by Mike Myers on the Experian Business Credit Blog. Last time we talked about how credit policies are like a plant grown from a seed. They need regular review and attention just like the plants in your garden to really bloom. A credit policy is simply a consistent guideline to follow when decisioning accounts, reviewing accounts, collecting and setting terms. Opening accounts is just the first step. Here are a couple of key items to consider in reviewing  accounts: How many of your approved accounts are paying you late? What is their average days beyond terms? How much credit have they been extended? What attributes of these late paying accounts can predict future payment behavior? I recently worked with a client to create an automated credit policy that consistently reviews accounts based on predictive credit attributes, public records and exception rules using the batch account review decisioning tools within BusinessIQ. The credit team now feels like they are proactively managing their accounts instead of just reacting to them.   A solid credit policy not only focuses on opening accounts, but also on regular account review which can help you reduce your overall risk.

By: John Straka Unsurprisingly, Washington deficit hawks have been eyeing the “sacred cows” of tax preferences for homeownership for some time now. Policymakers might even unwind or eliminate the mortgage interest deductions and capital-gains exemptions on home appreciation that have been in place in the U.S for many decades. There is an economic case to be made for doing this—more efficient resource allocation of capital, other countries have high ownership rates without such tax preferences, etc. But if you call or email or tweet Congress, and you choose this subject, my advice is to tell them that they should wait unti it’s 2005. In other words, now—or even the next few years most likely—is definitely not a good time at all to eliminate these housing tax preferences. We need to wait until it’s something like “2005”—when housing markets are much stronger again (hopefully) and state and local government finances are far from their relatively dire straits at present. If we don’t do this right, and insist on making big changes here now, then housing will take an immediate hit, and so will employment from both the housing sector and state and local governments (with further state and local service cutbacks also, due to budget shortfalls). The reason for this, of course, is that most homeowners today have not really benefited much, and won’t, from those well-established tax preferences. Why not? Because these preferences have been in place for so long now that the economic value (expected present discounted value) of these tax savings was long ago baked into the level of home prices that most homeowners paid when they bought their homes. Take the preferences away now, and the value of homes will immediately drop, and therefore so will property tax revenues collected by local governments across the U.S. This strategy will thus further bash the state- and-local sector in order to plump up some (we hope) our federal tax revenues by the value of the tax preferences. Housing will become a further drag on economic growth, and so will the resulting employment losses from both construction and local government services. As a result, it’s possible that on net the federal government may actually lose revenue from making this kind of change at precisely the wrong time. It may very well never be quite like “2005” again. But waiting for greater housing and local government strength to change long-standing housing tax preferences should make the macroeconomic impact smaller, less visible, and more easily absorbed.

A surprising occurrence is happening in the consumer credit markets. Bank card issuers are back in acquisition mode, enticing consumers with cash back, airline points and other incentives to get a share of their wallet. And while new account originations are nowhere near the levels seen in 2007, recent growth in new bank card accounts has been significant; 17.6% in Q1 2011 when compared to Q1 2010. So what is accounting for this resurgence in the credit card space while the economy is still trying to find its footing and credit is supposedly still difficult to come by for the average consumer? Whether good or bad, the economic crisis over the past few years appears to have improved consumers debt management behavior and card issuers have taken notice. Delinquency rates on bank cards are lower than at any time over the past five years and when compared to the start of 2009 when bank card delinquency was peaking; current performance has improved by over 40%. These figures have given bank card issuers the confidence to ease their underwriting standards and re-establish their acquisition strategies. What’s interesting however is the consumer segments that are driving this new growth. When analyzed by VantageScore, new credit card accounts are growing the fastest in the VantageScore D and F tiers with 46% and 53% increases year over year respectively. For comparison, VantageScore A and B tiers saw 5% and 1% increases during the same time period respectively.   And although VantageScore D and F represent less than 10% of new bank card origination volume ($ limits), it is still surprising to see such a disparity in growth rates between the risk categories. While this is a clear indication that card issuers are making credit more readily available for all consumer segments, it will be interesting to see if the debt management lessons learned over the past few years will stick and delinquency rates will continue to remain low. If these growth rates are any indication, the card issuers are counting on it.

By: Staci Baker The Durbin Amendment, according to Wikipedia, gave the Federal Reserve the power to regulate debit card interchange fees. The amendment, which will have a profound impact on banks, merchants and anyone who holds a debit card will take effect on October 1, 2011 rather than the originally announced July 21, 2011, which will allow banks additional time to implement the new regulations. The Durbin Amendment states that card networks, such as Visa and Mastercard, will include an interchange fee of 21 cents per transaction, and must allow debit cards to be processed on at least two independent networks. This will cost banks roughly $9.4 billion annually according to CardHub.com. As stipulated in the Amendment, institutions with less than $10 billion in assets are exempt from the cap. In preparation for the Durbin Amendment, several banks have begun to impose new fees on checking accounts, end reward programs, raise minimum balance requirements and have threatened to cap transaction amounts for debit card transactions at $50 to $100 in order to recoup some of the earnings they are expected to lose. These new regulations will be a blow to already hurting consumers as their out of wallet expenses keep increasing. As you can see, The Durbin Amendment, which is meant to help consumers, will instead have the cost from the loss of interchange fees passed along in other forms. And, the loss of revenue will greatly impact the bottom line of banking institutions. Who will be the bigger winner with this new amendment - the consumer, merchants or the banks? Will banks be able to lower the cost of credit to an amount that will entice consumers away from their debit cards and to use their credit cards again? I think it is still far too soon to tell. But, I think over the next few months, we will see consumers use payment methods in a new way as both consumers and banks come to a middle ground that will minimize risk levels for all parties. Consumers will still need to shop and bankers will still need their tools utilized. What are you doing to prepare for The Durbin Amendment?

By: Kennis Wong On the surface, it’s not difficult to define existing account fraud. Obviously, it is fraud perpetrated against an existing account. But the way I see it, existing account fraud can be broken down into four types. The first type is account takeover fraud, which is what most organizations think as the de facto existing account fraud. This is when a real consumer using his or her own identity to open a legitimate account, but the account later on get taken over by an identity fraudster. The idea is that when the account was first established, it was created by the rightful person. But somewhere along the way, the account and identity information were compromised.  The fraudster uses the compromised information to engineer their way into the account. The second type is impersonation. Impersonation is somewhat similar to account takeover in the sense that it is also misusing the victim’s account. But the difference is that impersonation is more of a one or few times misuses of the account. Examples are a fraudulent use of a credit card or wire transfer. These are the obvious categories. But I think we should also think about these other categories. My definition of existing account fraud also includes this third type – identity fraud that was undetected during application. In other words, an account is established based on stolen identity.  Many organizations call this “new account fraud”, which I don’t have a problem with. But I think it’s really also existing account fraud, because –  is this existing account? The answer is yes. Is this fraud? Absolutely. It’s not that difficult, is it? Similarly, I am including first-party fraud in existing account fraud as well. A consumer can use his or her own identity to open an account, with an intention to default after the account is established. Example is bust out fraud. You see that this is an expanded definition of existing account fraud, because my focus is on detection. No matter at what point and how identity fraud comes in, it becomes an account in your organization, and that is where we need to discover the fraud. But at the end of the day, it’s not too important how to categorize or name the fraud - whether it's application fraud, existing account fraud, first party fraud or third party fraud, as long as organizations understand them enough and have a good way to detect them. Read more blog posts on existing account fraud.

For communications companies, acquiring new accounts is an ongoing challenge. However, it is critical to remember that managing new and existing accounts – and their respective risks – is of tremendous importance. A holistic view of the entire customer lifecycle is something every communications organization can benefit from. The following article was originally posted by Mike Myers on the Experian Business Credit blog. Most of us are pretty familiar with credit reports and scores, but how many of you are aware of the additional tools available to help you manage the entire credit risk lifecycle? I talk to credit managers everyday and as we’re all trying to do more with less, it’s easy to forget that opening accounts is just the first step. Managing risk on these accounts is as critical, if not more so, than opening them. While others may choose to “ship and chase”, you don’t need to. Proactive alert/monitoring services, regular portfolio scoring and segmentation are key components that a successful credit department needs to employ in the constant battle against “bad” accounts. Use these tools to proactively adjust credit terms and limits, both positively and negatively. Inevitably some accounts will go bad, but using collection research tools for skip tracing and targeting services for debt collection will put you first in line for collections. A journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step; we have tools that can help you with that journey and all can be accessed online.

By: Tracy Bremmer Score migration has always been a topic of interest among financial institutions. I can remember doing score migration analyses as a consultant at Experian for some of the top financial institutions as far back as 2004, prior to the economic meltdown. Lenders were interested in knowing if I could approve a certain number of people above a particular cut-off, and how many of them will be below that cutoff within five or more years. Or conversely, of all the people I’ve rejected because they were below my cut-off, how many of them would have qualified a year later or maybe even qualified the following month. We’ve done some research recently to gain a better understanding of the impact of score migration, given the economic downturn. What we found was that in aggregate, there is not a ton of change going on. Because as consumers move up or down in their score, the overall average shift tends to be minimal. However, when we’ve tracked this on a quarterly basis into score bands or even at a consumer level, the shift is more meaningful. The general trend is that the VantageScore® credit score “A” band, or best scorers, has been shrinking over time, while the VantageScore® credit score “D” & “F” bands, lower scorers, has grown over time. For instance, in 2010 Q4, the amount of consumers in VantageScore® credit score A was the lowest it has been in the past three years. Conversely, the number of consumers falling into the VantageScore® credit score “D” & “F” bands are the highest they have been during that same time period. This constant shift in credit scores, driven by changes in a consumer’s credit file, can impact risk levels beyond the initial point of applicant approval. For this reason, we recommend updating and refreshing scores on a very regular basis, along with regular scorecard monitoring, to ensure that risk propensity and the offering continue to be appropriately aligned with one another.

By: Kari Michel On March 18th 2011 the Federal Reserve Board approved a rule amending Regulation Z (Truth in Lending) to clarify portions of the final rules implementing the Credit CARD Act of 2009. Specific to ability to pay requirements, the new rule states that credit card applications generally cannot request a consumer's "household income" because that term is too vague to allow issuers to properly evaluate the consumer's ability to pay. Instead, issuers must consider the consumer's individual income or salary. The new ruling will be effective October 2011. Given the new direction outlined in the latest rules, we've been hard at work on developing 2 income models to support these regulatory obligations and enhance the underwriting and risk assessment process - Income InsightSM and Income Insight W2SM.  Both income models estimate an individual’s income based on an individual credit report and can be used in acquisition strategies, account management review and collection processes.  Why two models? Income InsightSM estimates the consumer’s total income, including wages, investments, rentals and other income. Income Insight W2SM estimates wages only.  Check them out - and let us know what you think! We want to hear from you.