JoeGambler The “productivity” scorecard in dollars collected per...

JoeGambler

The “productivity” scorecard in dollars collected per hour is a valid basis of comparison, provided other things are equal within the comparison. Other things may not be equal for the ANZ and USA markets, and two not-equal possibilities are the price paid for the debt, and for an hour of collection time.

I do not know what the differences are between CCP's ANZ business and the USA business, but if the ratio of debt collected via the Philippines is higher for the USA business, then the cost per hour would be less. A better metric for comparison purposes would factor in the difference between the standard cost of the collection teams (dollars collected/collections expense).

Much the same applies to the cost of the debt – one would expect that debt bought at 10c in the dollar would use more collector-hours to collect a dollar than would be the case for debt bought for 25c in the dollar. Fresh PDLs and older PDLs would have an effect too, with a sweet spot some months after acquiring PDLs to allow time to negotiate agreed repayment arrangements (ARSs). It is possible that the USA demographic is less inclined to negotiate ARAs, and litigation is more the norm than in ANZ.

In time these differences should be ironed out via numeric analysis to occasion a similar target rate of return for all business (ANZ PDLs, USA PDLs, unsecured loans and even collections-as-a-service. If there is a sub-standard return tolerated for a strategic reason, then so be it, provided it is overtly tolerated for a justifiable reason. Getting Wallet Wizard to run like clockwork, and establishing a presence as a well-considered PDL buyer in the USA are both “justifiable reasons” that should now move to normalisation. WalletWizard in the USA may merit tolerating sub-standard returns for a few years to become known, build volume and to tinker with automated settings of the AI used.