REFORMING AN INDUSTRY

After 10/27/10, virtually all of the companies offering to settle debt for a fee, will have to charge those fees based on a contingency. In other words, you pay for the service contingent upon who you hire, having successfully negotiated a reduced pay off amount with your creditors that you then accept and fund. Makes a ton of sense right? Yes indeed!

People will, however, still need to approach the idea of hiring someone to settle debts with caution.

Where We Were

Debt negotiation companies have, for the most part, been able to charge upfront fees. Often, the fees have been spread out over 6 to 18 months or more. This practice has long been recognized by some of us in the industry as one of the leading causes for consumers to “fail and bail” from their settlement program.

• The reason for the fail; money that could have been aggressively saved up to fund the earliest settlement offer went to the service providers fees instead.
• The reason for the bail; creditors and their assignees continue down a relatively predictable path to collect on unpaid accounts which can eventually lead to filing a court action to force you to pay.

Being sued does not necessarily mean the death of your debt settlement plan, but you need resources to address the lawsuit before it becomes a judgment. Without the money needed to address the issue, it will often mean the end of the road. Having paid upfront fees to a company who put their profit ahead of your success means you have limited, or no, resources to maneuver through the different stages of collection.

Where We Are

You may have, or currently do, recognize a debt settlement plan to be a realistic approach for you to avoid bankruptcy. Having enrolled (or thinking of enrolling) in a plan with a company whose fees were/are/still paid prior to successful negotiations is equivalent to gambling. You bet you can get through the settlements before getting sued. The company you hired bets they can get you to pay them all their fees before you bail.

Many companies who sell or perform debt settlement today will find that, without the ability to charge the high upfront fees, they will not be able to keep the marketing machine going. They will leave the industry. In their wake, we will hear from many more consumers who were sold the hope of avoiding bankruptcy by sales people whose only motivation was to meet a quota, keep their telemarketing chair and get paid. For more than a year, the media and internet has been ablaze with stories of people being taken in by the promises of many players in the debt relief industry. They are a statistic of the “fail and bail”. The statistics will get worse as several companies close their doors and leave their customers in a lurch, having paid in advance for a service that now will not be completed. At least, not by the people who were already paid for it.

Where We’re Headed

Do I sound a bit jaded? That’s because I am. So much so, that I can see where we are potentially headed in this industry.

Beginning in September, I think we will start to see some similarities with new and existing companies offering debt settlement  based on the now required (in most cases) contingency fee structure. Two of the similarities will be:

1. The new sales approach; “You need to come up with money as quick as possible to settle with your creditors”. – This is a good thing! It has been missing from the message of the majority of people selling debt settlement for a decade.
2. Many of the companies offering success fee debt settlement will charge between 25%-30% of savings where possible (some states have limits or caps on fees –Illinois is capped at 15%). – This is a bad thing!

When comparing 50% of your account balance as an average settlement, 30% of savings is roughly the same as charging the 15% of debt enrolled that has been the average in the industry to date. Fees could actually be higher than before with debts settled early in the program and for less than 50%.

We will still see high “fail and bail” statistics because companies will settle a debt and collect their contingency fee first, before moving onto the next settlement. There really is no problem with that per say. They did a job and should get paid for it. It is the correct model to have. Always has been. The problem is if the fee is too high, it still takes just as long to settle the debts as it did prior to the FTC banning upfront fees for a settlement service.

Where We End Up

I estimate it will take a year for the industry to settle in to the new business and operational realities created by the new FTC rules. Some companies are going to try to adapt, only to quickly find it no longer worth their while. Some will find that they should have been doing business this way all along, and will thrive. The amount of companies around a year from now will be far fewer than we have today. Within 12 to 18 months, the industry will have completed the all too necessary cleansing of those who came to it in order to make a quick buck.

BOTTOM LINE:

If you are a suitable candidate for debt settlement, which is someone who otherwise would have to file bankruptcy, look for companies with the lowest contingency fees. Even better, look for a company that: Offers low fees and other flexibilities that will lead to your success!

I have continuously written articles and spoken out in interviews about the practice of “selling” debt settlement. Selling someone into debt settlement is the number one reason the industry has been tarred and feathered in the media. The over hyped selling by profiteers and sales groups has resulted in enforcement actions by many states, and new FTC rules, in order to curb abuse.

DEBT SETTLEMENT SHOULD NOT BE SOLD!

Steve Rhode, on his blog, getoutofdebt.org, regularly covers the debt relief industry and its foul ups, bleeps and plunderers. He has recently covered several lawsuits filed by employees against the firms they sell/sold debt settlement for. The lawsuits allege failure to pay wages related to work performed. Steve has posted about lawsuits against: Lloyd Ward and Associates, ABC Debt Relief, The Debt Answer, Debt RX USA, Silverleaf Debt Solutions, CreditAnswers, and Credit Solutions of America. Key assertions in these lawsuits provide a clear view into the sales culture at some of these companies. I will focus on Steve’s post about the employee suit against Credit Solutions. Credit Solutions are also the target of multiple state legal actions.

From Steve’s post where he excerpts from the court record (my comments are in bold):

For at least three years prior to filing of this complaint and continuing (hereinafter “Liability Period”), CSA had a policy and practice of not correctly compensating its debt consultants for work performed for the benefit of CSA over and above forty (40) hours per week, to wit: virtually all debt consultants received a $2,000 forgivable draw their first 90 days of employment and a non forgivable draw of $2,000 per month thereafter. Debt consultants qualified debtors for debt settlement plans of Defendant by verifying the debtor possessed at least $10,000 in debt. Next debt consultants analyzed each creditor comprising the $10,000 is owed at least $600 and there are contracts in place between the creditor and CSA. The debt consultant sets up a CSA account for each creditor. Lastly, the debt consultant verified the debtor’s bank accounts and assisted the debtor in picking a payment plan. Once a plan was chosen the debt consultant, using CSA guidelines, would set up a monthly draft on the debtor’s bank account whereby CSA would obtain its fee and moneys to satisfy the debtor’s creditors. Eighty-five percent (85%) of CSA’s fee is collected from debtors’ accounts within the first 90 days. Debt consultants received a fee from the first monthly draft which was a percentage determined on the total volume of draft’s occurring monthly attributable to that debt consultant.

Here we learn that “debt consultants” are what I would more correctly define as sales people. The way this alleged fact is laid out would actually describe more of an order taker. What do they actually do by way of a consultation? It appears they just hit the immediate qualifiers, and then help you pick a payment option that will work for you. There is an obvious motivation for “picking” a payment that you will agree to. That is how they get paid! They have to do it though (more on this below).

Debt consultants were required to work a minimum of 12 hours per day, but were expected to work as many hours as necessary to reach assigned sales goals. Debt consultants regularly worked 14-16 hours a day and CSA provided debt consultants a room to nap and sleep when necessary to reach company goals.

Imagine the pressure to hit sales goals. In the current job market, these sales people HAD to perform to keep the job. They HAD to hit sales goals even if it meant sleeping at HQ to do it! No pressure, right?

Debt consultants were not provided a rest or lunch break, but instead, CSA served debt consultants “cup of noodles” for lunch so they would not have to leave their desk and could continuing selling the debt settlement services.

This allegation is one of the most descriptive of the debt settlement sales culture I have ever seen. Why not just put a shackle from the desk to the ankle of the sales person? Were there bed pans nearby?

Debt consultants worked six (6) days a week.

Ever see Ben Affleck in the movie “Boiler Room”? “ALWAYS BE CLOSING” – The sale that is.

As stated above, debt consultants do not receive overtime for hours worked over 40 in any week.

And why should they? You think cups of noodles are free?

CSA’s revised compensation/bonus plan containing an overtime component does not correctly calculate debt consultants’ regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime; i.e. commissions paid on top of consultants’ hourly rate are not included in their regular rate of pay. – Source

Other than the outright lies that are told, there is no single more frustrating fact about the selling of a debt settlement service than the pick a payment plan approach. It is sold that way because it has to be. A consumer who is struggling to pay their creditors the required monthly minimum is focused on the dollar amount they cannot come up with. When a debt settlement sales person suggests all you need is to establish a monthly dollar figure that you can do, the hook is set!

Imagine if the sales people at Credit Solutions actually shared the TRUTH of the matter with you. If they told you that in order to be successful with settling your delinquent accounts, you are in a race. You have to come up with the money to fund offers as fast as possible. You would not feel the sigh of relief that is purposefully designed into the sales approach by the majority of people selling debt settlement.  Instead, your heart would palpitate. You would know that debt settlement is a tough choice, not an easy one. You would have a much clearer idea if debt settlement is even right for you. The sales person for CSA would not close as many sales. Do you think they would ever get to go home?

Don’t consult with a sales person offering debt relief!

If you are asked what you can come up with each month to put toward settlement, or someone “helps” you come up with a figure they are confident you will bite on, you are talking to someone offering “pick-a-pay”. Pick-a-Pay is a suitability test that everyone will pass. Using this approach means virtually any one breathing will qualify for debt settlement. That is, and has been, absurd (absurdly profitable that is).

Look to speak with someone who actually works with consumers and their creditors/collectors on a daily basis. If they have any experience and are what I would consider a responsible service provider, they will TELL you the amount of money you will need to come up with, and how quickly, in order to SUCCEED with settlement in your particular situation. Armed with this knowledge, you will then be able to evaluate whether or not filing bankruptcy would be the better choice.

You can speak with just such an expert by scheduling a consultation with a CRN negotiator. All CRN consults are conducted by people who, every day, actually settle debt or provide detailed information to CRN members on how to settle their own. There is no one more prepared to provide you the necessary details about how this approach will apply to your unique set of circumstances.

For more on how debt settlement is inappropriately SOLD, read:

• Dude Meets Debt Wall
• Shocking Eye Witness Debt Settlement Report
• Debt Settlement Marketing: The Gist, The Juice, and the Lies

CRN Supports Changes to the Telemarketing Rule Just Announced by the FTC

Yesterday, the FTC announced important changes to the Telemarketing Sales Rule, http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/07/tsr.shtm. The changes are intended to protect consumers with too much credit card debt from abusive debt settlement practices. One of the most important changes is that settlement firms will no longer be able to charge consumers up-front fees to settle their debts as of 10/27/10.

Overall, I am thrilled that the FTC is reigning in abusive debt settlement firms. For too long, these firms have been allowed to prey on consumers with too much credit card debt. Sadly, in far too many instances, consumers who worked with such firms saw their financial situations grow worse, not better, because of the large up-front fees they had to pay, and many of those consumers eventually ended up in bankruptcy.

The rules will shape the industry and promote the best practices moving forward.

I am concerned that some settlement firms may charge a large fee at the back end of their work for consumers. I have always contended that the fee amount charged by a debt settlement service provider directly correlates to how long it will take an individual to be successful in settling all of their debts. Program duration is directly attributable to increased risk of aggressive collection efforts such as filing lawsuits against a consumer in order to collect.

When consumers are looking into debt settlement as one of the few legitimate options available to deal with crushing debt, it is IMPERATIVE that they still weigh the COST for the service.

I will be posting more detailed comments about the amendments soon. Stay tuned!

The Debt Relief Industry will be forever changed by the announcement and publishing of new rules from the FTC today. The rules are designed to protect consumers from those marketing and providing debt settlement services.

The most contested  measure anticipated in the new rules is a ban on companies charging upfront fees. Upfront fees have been held up as necessary by the majority of debt settlement companies who have lobbied heavily to maintain the status quo. Consumer advocates and regulators have argued that upfront fees are the equivalent of an abusive business practice. We, at CRN and Debt Bytes, agree! Which is why CRN fees for full service debt settlement have always been based on SUCCESS, after the creditor is paid.

Stay tuned to Debt Bytes, as we will be covering the impacts of these changes in the coming weeks.

For Immediate Release

July 28, 2010
**MEDIA ADVISORY FOR TOMORROW**

FTC Chairman to Announce a New Debt Relief Rule to Protect Financially Distressed Consumers at Middle Class Task Force Event

WASHINGTON – Tomorrow, Thursday, July 29^th, at 1:30 PM ET, Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz will announce a new rule to protect consumers of debt relief services at a Middle Class Task Force event at the White House. Following the Chairman’s announcement, Vice President Biden will discuss the administration’s consumer protection agenda and the importance of consumer protection to middle-class families.

This event will be POOLED for TV cameras, and OPEN to print, online, radio and still photographers. An RSVP is required to participate.

WHAT: FTC Chairman to Announce a New Debt Relief Rule to Protect Financially Distressed Consumers at Middle Class Task Force Event

WHO: Vice President Joe Biden, Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz

WHEN: Thursday, July 29, 2010, 1:30 PM ET

• Gather time: 1:00 PM ET at the White House stakeout location
• Camera pre-set: 12:30 PM ET

WHERE: Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Room 430

RSVP: Press who wish to cover this event should RSVP to press@ovp.eop.gov by tomorrow, Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 8:00 AM ET. **Press who DO NOT have a White House hard pass should include their Date of Birth and Social Security Number. All press must enter the White House at the Northwest Gate.**

Media’s Lack of Understanding About Debt Settlement’s Potential for Consumers

is Frustrating and Bad for Consumers

Sure, there are exceptions, but I’ve found that most media run the other way when it comes to covering debt settlement. They seem completely unwilling to get educated about do-it-yourself settlement options and about ethical debt settlement firms like CRN, that provide debt-stressed consumers with a valuable service and charge them fairly for that service, unlike most debt settlement firms. Instead, they either ignore debt settlement or they paint debt settlement firms with a broad brushstroke, characterizing every firm in the industry as a rip off.

Not only is this characterization unfair to those members of the settlement industry that truly want to help consumers get out of debt, but it’s also unfair to consumers who are burdened down with debt and looking for a way out. If they work with the right firm, debt settlement can be a great solution for many of those consumers. Yet, most media reports scare consumers about settlement and warn them to steer clear.

With countless consumers struggling to deal with mountains of debt and with the consumer bankruptcy rate on the rise, the media is doing consumers a disservice by not providing them with fair and balanced information about debt settlement. By fair and balanced I mean:

• explaining the goal of debt settlement

• detailing when settlement is an appropriate option and how it compares to other debt management options

• educating consumers about how to settle their own debts and the resources available to help them

• telling consumers how to chose a reputable debt settlement firm

• warning consumers about the warning signs that a firm is not on the up and up

So, I am issuing the media a challenge: Get informed about debt settlement! Understand how it can (and should) work and who it’s right for, warn consumers about the bad firms, and inform them about the good ones. Under the right circumstances, debt settlement can be a great option for consumers and every bit as legitimate an option as debt consolidation, working with a credit counseling agency or filing for bankruptcy. So, it’s time for the media to inform consumers who are drowning in debt that there is another option available to them — debt settlement.

Every day I receive a daily Google alert in my e-mail inbox that features links to articles, press releases and blogs about some aspect of debt settlement. It’s one of the ways that I stay abreast of what is happening in my industry and it’s the kind of information that any financially-troubled consumer might find by searching on the Internet for helpful resources using key words like debt settlement, debt problems, debt settlement firms, or debt negotiation. However, I’ve been dismayed to see that more often than most of what I read in these alerts is not factual and appears to have been written by debt settlement firms or their representatives with the goal of getting unsuspecting consumers who are confused and scared about their financial situation to work with them.

Here are common examples of the kinds of misleading blather I read in the alerts that show up in my e-mail box each morning:

• Press releases that supposedly are announcing news about a particular debt settlement firm or some aspect of settlement. In fact, the releases contain no news content of any sort and are being used by unethical firms to get consumers to click through to their web sites. At least one of the wire services transmitting these “press releases” appears to be little more than a vehicle for posting articles on the web and not a true wire service at all.

• Poorly written articles about settlement with titles that have been chosen to make it appear as though the articles actually provide valuable advice and information to consumers who need help managing their debts. In fact the information in these articles is marginally useful at best and sometimes totally misleading. You’ll find the real purpose of these articles in a closing paragraph where readers are encouraged to contact a debt relief network, which the articles claim is comprised of highly ethical settlement firms with proven track records for helping consumers. Don’t believe it!

• Half-written blog posts about some aspect of debt that are surrounded by lots of ads for debt settlement firms. I assume that the agenda of whoever writes these posts is less about completing the post and providing readers with truly useful advice and information and more about getting readers to click on one or more of the ads.

• For-profit debt settlement organizations that use names to make them sound like they are non-profits or that imply that they are affiliated with a federal government debt settlement program. The theory here is that consumers will be more apt to trust a non-profit or a firm that’s affiliated with the government. Fact: Debt settlement firms are businesses, not nonprofits, and there is no federal debt settlement program.

• Articles, blogs and press releases encouraging consumers to visit specific debt settlement forums before choosing a debt settlement firm. Supposedly, consumers who participate in these forums will have an opportunity to communicate directly with other consumers who are working happily with a debt settlement firm or who have already settled their debts with the help of a particular firm. Although there are legitimate forums where consumers can obtain truly useful information, some forums have been created by debt settlement firms or their representatives and if you participate in one of them, the consumers you communicate will be nothing more than people who are being paid by the firms to share information with you, to gain your trust and to recommend the firms to you. Other forums work a little differently. For example, in some of them, someone will try to get you to provide him with your name and e-mail address and then that individual will sell your information to a debt settlement firm. Not long after, the firm will contact you offering to help you resolve your debt problem.

Obviously you must be very, very careful when you search for debt settlement assistance online because there are a lot of firms out there who are willing to use underhanded and misleading tactics to gain your trust and who are all too ready to promise you the moon, take your money and give you little or nothing of real value in return. Therefore, before you share any information with anyone on a debt settlement forum, before you agree to work with any debt settlement firm or to pay the firm money, check it out with the Better Business Bureau, http://www.bbb.org/us/Find-Business-Reviews and with your state attorney general’s office, http://www.naag.org/attorneys_general.php. In other words, when it comes to debt settlement the old adage caveat emptor, or buyer beware, definitely applies.

Michael Bovee

Settlement with creditors is a great way to deal with debt when you are unable to maintain consistent payments. It is however, not a cake walk, though many in my industry will sell it as such.

This post was inspired by a consult I did this morning with a gentleman in Pennsylvania looking at settlement as an approach to dealing with his unmanageable debt. He wondered onto our website while searching out his options, after having already consulted with another company in the industry.

His unsecured debt totaled $22,000, spread out over 7 accounts. His minimum payments are just over $900.00 a month. His interest rates on most of the accounts are over 20%. That is what’s killing him. He would be able to meet minimums, but for the higher interest, and likely be very successful using an aggressive debt rollup, or debt snowball strategy, to get out of debt quickly and unscathed. His plight, when outlined to creditors, has thus far resulted in “Dude meets wall”.

The company he consulted with prior to me outlined a 36 month program where he could pay into an account roughly 300.00 for 36 months and poof, his debt is gone. Never mind that $3300 of that money set aside over that time will go to the settlement companies fees, I’ll get to that in a moment. The sales person with whom he consulted is selling rainbows and unicorns for a commission. The 36 month plan for his situation is ridiculous for some of the following reasons.

Two of the accounts we discussed have balances of about $1000.00 and another one for $1500.00. Enrolling these accounts in a plan like this, unless they are the first ones settled (even then not advisable, unless left with no choice) is futile and silly. The math doesn’t work. Optimum balance reduction through settlement only happens when you are delinquent, often very delinquent (5 months or more). When you stop paying, default interest rates of 29-32% will be applied, late payments will be assessed, all of which could result, in some cases, in over limit fees being tacked on. Depending on when settlement is reached the amount of the debt could now be double. Can the debt be settled? Absolutely, but using 50% savings as an example, what did you actually save? Nothing, or close enough to nothing to prove that the math doesn’t work.

What if we take these 3 smaller accounts out of the equation? We are now working on $18,000. By aggressively saving and setting aside every penny, this family could be out of debt in less than 12 months and limit to near nonexistent, the risk of being sued on unpaid debt.

Now, I was completely upfront with this consumer about the way I saw his situation and perhaps he appreciates the candor and becomes a member. Perhaps the other consult he had sounded more appealing, with its 36 months, low (too low) payment to his savings for settlement and easier sounding approach. He will pay the typical fee in this industry, which by their very nature is harmful to the settlement process. The sales person will make his commission (some cases I have seen, commissions are in excess of 70% of client fee) for selling rainbows and unicorns.

He may ultimately be out of debt in 36 months, but it will have been a very long 36 months, and he will have paid too much, experienced too much grief, may be sued on one or more accounts and may miss out on strategies that could have been beneficial to recover his credit standing much faster (this is whole different topic for another post).

Moral to this post: Don’t buy into rainbows and unicorns unless you are into paying a salesman’s bills when you can’t afford your own. The settlement industries frontline is, for the most part, populated by sales people motivated by commissions. Rarely do you find a place where you can consult with, and talk to an experienced debt specialist on first contact, prior to forking over any fees and whose motivation is your success, not your money.

If you have hit the debt wall and want to learn about all of your debt management options, including debt settlement, visit Consumer Recovery Network. While you’re there, learn about becoming a member of Consumer Recovery Network (CRN), with no risk to you, and find out if you should pursue debt negotiation.

By: Michael Bovee
CRN President

kajnremv3q