Tag: profitability

Profitability analysis is one of the most powerful analytics tools in business and strategy development. Yet it’s underrated, deemed too complicated and often ignored. A chief lending officer may state that the goal of strategy development is to increase approvals or to reduce losses. Each one of these goals has an impact generally inversely on each other. That impact may be consequential, and evaluating the effects requires deeper thought and discipline. I propose that the benefits of a profitability analysis in strategy development are worth the additional effort, time and cost. Profitability analysis provides a disciplined framework for making business decisions. For financial companies, a simple profit and loss (P&L) statement will identify interest income, subtract losses and arrive at a risk-adjusted yield. A more robust P&L statement will include interest expense, loss reserves, recovery, fees and other income, operating expenses, other cost per account, and net income. Whether simplified or fully loaded, a P&L analysis used in strategy development must provide a clear and informative representation of key performance metrics and risks. The most important benefit of a profitability analysis is its inherent ability to quantify the trade-offs between risk and rewards. In the P&L terminology, we mean the trade-off between expenses and revenue or losses and interest income. Understanding trade-offs allows companies to make informed decisions and explore serious alternatives. The net income is a concise and elegant metric that captures the impact of various and sometimes competing business objectives. Consider different divisions within a financial organization. Each division has its own specific and measurable objective. Marketing’s goal is to increase loan approvals while Risk is tasked with managing losses. Operations looks to improve efficiencies while IT aims to provide stable, reliable and accurate systems infrastructure. Legal and Compliance ensure regulatory compliance across the entire organization. Each division working to achieve its objectives creates externalities — each division’s actions may not fully incorporate costs imposed on other divisions. For example, targeting highly responsive consumers for a loan product achieves higher loan approvals and may in turn lead to higher credit risk losses. A P&L analysis imposes the discipline for each division to internalize costs and lead to a favorable and efficient outcome for the organization. The challenge with profitability analysis in strategy development is how to develop a good P&L statement. We look to historical data to define assumptions and calibrate inputs to the P&L. There will be uncertainty and concerns regarding the reliability and quality of such data. Organizations don’t regularly conduct test and control experiments or champion and challenger strategies that provide actual performance information on specific areas of studies. Though imperfect, historical data provides a starting foundation for profitability analysis. We augment historical data with predictive credit attributes, industry experience and understanding consumer behavior and incentives. For example, to estimate interest income we may utilize estimated interest rates combined with balance propensity behavior, such as a balance revolver or transactor. To estimate losses on declined population that may be considered for approval, we infer on-us performance using off-us performance with other lenders. Defining assumptions is tedious, hard work and full of uncertainty. This exercise once again imposes the discipline required of organizations to know in detail the characteristics of their products and businesses that make them relevant to consumers. We generate P&L simulations using a set of assumptions, acknowledge the data limitations and evaluate recommendations. A profitability analysis is useful in both times of economic expansion and contraction. A P&L analysis is valuable when evaluating strategies across the customer life cycle. Remember, we live in a world of trade-offs and choices are inevitable. In the prospecting and acquisition life cycle, a P&L analysis provides insights on approval expansion and the consequences of higher credit losses. Alternatively, tighter lending criteria will have a direct impact on balance growth and interest income with lower losses. In account management, a P&L analysis provides estimates on expanded account authorization limits and the effect on activation and usage. In collections, a P&L analysis provides valuation on recoveries and operational costs. These various assessments are quantified in the P&L and allows the organization to identify other mechanisms such as marketing campaigns, customer services or technology investments in support of the organization’s goals and mission. Organizations face a full spectrum of opportunities and risks. We propose a profitability analysis to evaluate business trade-offs, navigate the marketplace, and continue to provide relevant financial products and services to consumers and businesses. Learn more

With jobs losses mounting and the prospects for a quick economic rebound fading, some segments of the financial markets are beginning to bet that the Federal Reserve will take interest rates negative for the first time in U.S. history. If that happens, it could have a profound impact on the U.S. economy, and more specifically, on financial institutions. While other nations such as Denmark, Japan, Sweden, and Switzerland have experimented with negative rates over the years, the U.S. has shied away – both for political and economic reasons. Instead, when interest rates are near zero, the Fed prefers to use a mix of large-scale asset purchases and forward guidance to support the economy. In the current crisis, the Fed has also launched several new emergency lending programs to ensure the smooth functioning of the financial system. The question remains, however, if these tools will be enough to keep the U.S. out of a deep recession, especially if Congress fatigues on further fiscal support. The Fed is independent but keep an eye on the markets In his May 13th remarks to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said that he and the rest of the rate-setting committee unanimously shared the same view on negative rates: “For now, it is not something we are considering”. While some market watchers looked for clues in the “for now” phrasing, it was clear from the rest of his remarks that the bar for enacting negative rates was set very, very high. However, despite the Fed having independence in its policy-making decisions, financial markets and to some extent, politics, still have influence. And there is precedent for markets exerting pressure on the Fed and perhaps even getting their way. In 2013, when then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke made a surprise announcement that the Fed would reduce the level of asset purchases, global financial markets went into a frenzy. That period, now known as the “Taper Tantrum”, altered the way the Fed signals its policy actions. More recently, the big declines in equity markets in late 2018 were seen by many as a primary driver in the Fed’s sudden U-turn from raising rates four times that year to lowering them three times in 2019. Now, with equity markets wanting more stimulus and traders in fed fund futures appearing to anticipate negative rates from the central bank in early 2021, there is concern that the markets are trying to bully their way again. And with the president’s renewed call for the Fed to take rates negative, there is some reason to believe that “not now” could become “now” sooner than many expect. Concerns for financial institutions While several central banks have resorted to negative interest rate policy for years, the efficacy of its use is unclear. But what is clear, is that financial institutions bear the greatest burden in implementing the policy. Currently in the U.S., banks earn interest on excess reserves held at the Fed. Negative rates would essentially flip the script and penalize this practice, forcing banks either to pay the Fed interest or do something else with the money. The hope is that this will encourage banks to make more loans and stimulate the economy. However, as Fed Chair Powell said in his remarks, he believes that negative rates could have the opposite effect and curtail lending. Since negative rates would put a downward pressure on interest rates across the board, the net interest margin – the spread banks make between what they pay depositors and what they charge for loans – would be compressed and profitability would sink. If banks and other financial institutions are struggling, credit availability could decline when it is needed the most. Why it matters Financial institutions cannot ignore the possibility of negative interest rates in the U.S. as it would have wide-ranging effects and potentially significant consequences. And while Fed officials have said they are not considering negative rates, the notion is not totally off the table. As the famous economist, Stanley Fischer, advised his fellow central bankers in his well-known piece “Central Bank Lessons from the Global Crisis”: “In a crisis, central bankers (and no doubt other policymakers) will often find themselves deciding to implement policy actions that they never thought they would have to undertake – and these are frequently policy actions that they would prefer not to have to undertake. Hence, a few final words of advice for central bankers: Never say never.”

With the rapid growth in the number of online marketplace lenders , and projections the field will continue to grow in 2016, winning the race to greater revenue and profitability is key to survival. In 2014, online marketplace lenders issued loans totaling around $12 billion in the United States. In a recent report, Morgan Stanley said it expects the U.S. number to grow to $122 billion by 2020, and the global number will surpass $280 billion in the same time period. Investors fear growth in acquisition costs will erode profitability as more online marketplace lenders enter the market. And as portfolios grow, there will be a need for greater sophistication as it pertains to managing accounts. Online marketplace lenders use a variety of different models to generate revenue including charging interest, loan origination and other service fees. However, regardless of the model, there are typically three key levers all should monitor in order to increase their odds for a profitable and sustainable future. 1. Cost per Account (CPA) CPA is more than a simple calculation spreading marketing cost across new account volume. Rather, it is a methodical evaluation of individual drivers such as channel lead cost, success rates, identity verification and cost of marketing collateral. When measured and evaluated at the granular lever, it is possible to make the most informed strategic decisions possible. Marketplace lenders will have to go much deeper than simply evaluating lead costs, clicks, completed and accepted applications, and funding/activation including whether customers take the loan proceeds or use a revolving product. Don’t forget ID verification and the costs associated with risk mitigation and determining if the low-risk customers are deciding to apply elsewhere. In addition, take into account marketing costs including collateral and channel strategies including any broadcast media, direct mail, web and social media expenses. Evaluate results across various product types – and don’t forget to take into account web content and layout, which can impact all metrics. 2. First Pay Default (FPD) FPD is not a long-term loan performance measure, but it is a strong indicator of lead source and vintage quality. It will most closely correlate to long-term loan performance in short-term loans and non-prime asset classes. It is also a strong indicator of fraud. The high value of online loans, combined with the difficulty of verifying online applicants, is making online lenders a prime target for fraud, so it is essential to closely monitor FPD. Online lenders’ largest single cost category is losses from unpaid loans with fraud serving as a primary driver of that number. It is important to evaluate FPD using many of the same segments as CPA. Online lenders must ask themselves the tough questions. Is a low-cost lead source worthwhile? Did operational enhancements really improve the customer experience and credit quality? 3. Servicing Online account servicing is generally the least costly means of servicing customers, an obvious advantage for online marketplace lenders. However, a variety of factors must be considered when determining the servicing channels to use. These include avoidance of customer backlash and regulatory scrutiny, servicing channel effectiveness in providing feedback regarding product design and administration, servicing policies and marketing collateral. Already, we know the legal and regulatory landscape will evolve as policy makers assess the role of marketplace lending in the financial system, while a recent federal appeals court ruling increases the risk that courts could deem some loans void or unenforceable, or lower the interest rates on them. An effective customer complaint escalation policy and process must also be created and allow for situations when the customer is not “right.” Voice of the customer (VOC) surveys are an effective method of learning from the customer and making all levels of staff know the customer better, leading to more effective marketing and account servicing. Lastly, online lenders can’t ignore social media. They should be prepared for customers, especially millennials, to use it as a means to loudly complain when dissatisfied. But also remember that the same media can be an excellent medium for two-way engagement and result in creating raving fans. A Final Consideration As online marketplace lenders continue to come of age, they are likely to find themselves facing increased competition from incumbent consumer lenders, so optimizing for profitability will be essential. Assessing these three key areas regularly will help in that quest and establish their business for a sustainable future. For more information, visit www.experian.com/marketplacelending.

By: Staci Baker Just before the holidays, the Fed released proposed rules, which implement Sections 165 and 166 of the Dodd-Frank Act. According to The American Bankers Association, “The proposals cover such issues as risk-based capital requirements, leverage, resolution planning, concentration limits and the Fed’s plans to regulate large, interconnected financial institutions and nonbanks.” How will these rules affect you? One of the biggest concerns that I have been hearing from institutions is the affect that the proposed rules will have on profitability. Greater liquidity requirements, created by both the Dodd-Frank Act and Basel III Rules, put pressure on banks to re-evaluate which lending segments they will continue to participate in, as well as impact the funds available for lending to consumers.   What are you doing to proactively combat this? Within the Dodd-Frank Act is the Durbin Amendment, which regulates the interchange fee merchants are charged. As I noted in my prior blog detailing the fee cap associated with the Durbin Amendment, it’s clear that these new regulations in combination with previous rulings will continue to put downward pressures on bank profitability. With all of this to consider, how will banks modify their business models to maintain a healthy bottom line, while keeping customers happy? Over my next few blog posts, I will take a look at the Dodd-Frank Act’s affect on an institution’s profitability and highlight best practices to manage the impact to your organization.