Tag: application processing

Financial institutions need an automated, data-driven solution to simplify and streamline the online form completion process.

For credit unions, having the the proper income and employment verification tools in place is key when creating a first-class application process.

You’ve Got Mail! Probably a lot of it. Birthday cards from Mom, a graduation announcement from your third cousin’s kid whose name you can’t remember and a postcard from your dentist reminding you you’re overdue for a cleaning. Adding to your pile, are the nearly 850 pieces of unsolicited mail Americans receive annually, according to Reader’s Digest. Many of these are pre-approval offers or invitations to apply for credit cards or personal loans. While many of these offers are getting to the right mailbox, they’re hitting a changing consumer at the wrong time. The digital revolution, along with the proliferation and availability of technology, has empowered consumers. They now not only have access to an abundance of choices but also a litany of new tools and channels, which results in them making faster, sometimes subconscious, decisions. Three Months Too Late The need to consistently stay in front of customers and prospects with the right message at the right time has caused a shortening of campaign cycles across industries. However, for some financial institutions, the customer acquisition process can take up to 120 days! While this timeframe is extreme, customer prospecting can still take around 45-60 days for most financial institutions and includes: Bureau processing: Regularly takes 10-15 days depending on the number of data sources and each time they are requested from a bureau. Data aggregation: Typically takes anywhere from 20-30 days. Targeting and selection: Generally, takes two to five days. Processing and campaign deployment: Usually takes anywhere from three days, if the firm handles it internally, or up to 10 days if an outside company handles the mailing. A Better Way That means for many firms, the data their customer acquisition campaigns are based off is at least 60 days old. Often, they are now dealing with a completely different consumer. With new card originations up 20% year-over-year in 2019 alone, it’s likely they’ve moved on, perhaps to one of your competitors. It’s time financial institutions make the move to a more modern form of prospecting and targeting that leverages the power of cloud technology, machine learning and artificial intelligence to accelerate and improve the marketing process. Financial marketing systems of the future will allow for advanced segmentation and targeting, dynamic campaign design and immediate deployment all based on the freshest data (no more than 24-48 hours old). These systems will allow firms to do ongoing analytics and modeling so their campaign testing and learning results can immediately influence next cycle decisions. Your customers are changing, isn’t it time the way you market to them changes as well?

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.

Like their utility counterparts, communications providers routinely participate in federally subsidized assistance programs that discount installation or monthly service for qualified low-income customers. But, as utilities have found, certain challenges must be considered when mining this segment for new growth opportunities, including: Thwarting scammers who use falsified income data and/or multiple IDs to game the system and double up on discounts Equipping internal teams to efficiently process the potential mountain of program applications and recertification paperwork The right tool for the job Experian’s Financial Assistance CheckerSM product is a powerful scoring tool that indicates whether consumers may qualify for low-income assistance programs (such as LifeLine and LinkUp). Originally designed for (and currently used by) utilities, Financial Assistance Checker offers risk-reduction and resource utilization efficiencies that also benefit communications providers. Automation saves time For example, Financial Assistance Checker may be used to help qualify specific individuals among new and existing low-income program participants, as well as others who may qualify but have not yet enrolled. The solution also helps automate labor-intensive manual reviews, making the process less costly and more efficient. Some companies have reduced manual intervention by up to 50% by using financial assistance scores to automatically re-certify current enrollees. Strengthen your overall game plan Experian’s Financial Assistance Checker may be used to: Produce a score that aids in effective decisions Reduce the number of manually reviewed applications Facilitate more efficient resource allocation Mitigate fraud risk by rejecting unqualified applicants   Cautionary caveat Financial Assistance Checker is derived exclusively from Experian’s credit data without demographic factors. While it’s good at qualifying applicants and customers, it may not be used as a basis for adverse action or removal from a program — only to determine eligibility for low-income assistance. Today, acquisitions is the name of the game. If your growth strategy calls for leveraging subsidized segments, consider adding Experian’s Financial Assistance Checker product to your starting lineup. After all, the best offense could just be a strong defense. Link & Learn This link takes you to a short but informative video about LifeLine and LinkUp. See the FCC’s online Lifeline and Link Up program overview here. Hot off the government press! Click to see the FCC’s 6/21/11 report on Lifeline and LinkUp Reform and Modernization