Interesting take. You know this segment very well, so I'm...

Interesting take. You know this segment very well, so I'm cautious when arguing here... But here are some counter arguments that come to mind, while noting that I'm also holding PNC at the moment.

- "The difference in CCP and PNC's commentary on the Australian PDL market is mainly differing views on the current pricing"
Not quite sure about this. They (PNC) also see greater absolute volumes (TAM growing by >$50m in banking/fin services PDLs) and fewer buyers (Collection House, Panthera no longer buying).
CCP call out a specific large bank seller not being in market. PNC also mention this, but see other banks/fin services selling plenty.

- "I'd also be very wary of debt buyers or lenders boasting about "market share" gains."
Not sure they're boasting, but I get your point. Price is the most critical variable.
That said, PNC (who's MD owns 11% of the co) raised at a slight premium to market with Samuel Terry (reputable fund manager) to buy more PDLs because pricing was so favorable. I'm unsure they'd do that without seeing significant opportunities, but I could be wrong (I have no way to look at an individual purchase/group of PDLs)

- "Australia consumer lending and US PDLs - so they may very well view the current Australian PDL pricing as unattractive when compared with these other options."
This is certainly possible. CCP Cost-To-Income is lower than PNC in the Aus segment... But my understanding is they (CCP) are being denied access to more PDLs for reasons mentioned above. So it's not necessarily a choice.



From a recent Shaw's piece on PNC:

First statement backs up both CCP and PNC. The second does not align with CCP statement suggesting there is buying demand (Duopoly in banking PDLs, with one [PNC] capital constrained until recently).