Loan Portfolio Monitoring

--by Tom Hannagan

I was hoping someone would ask about these risk management terms…and someone did. The obvious answer is that the “A” and the “O” are reversed. But, there’s more to it than that. First, let’s see how the acronyms were derived. RORAC is Return on Risk-Adjusted Capital. RAROC is Risk-Adjusted Return on Capital. Both of these five-letter abbreviations are a step up from ROE.

This is natural, I suppose, since ROE, meaning Return on Equity of course, is merely a three-letter profitability ratio. A serious breakthrough in risk management and profit performance measurement will have to move up to at least six initials in its abbreviation. Nonetheless, ROE is the jumping-off point towards both RORAC and RAROC.

ROE is generally Net Income divided by Equity, and ROE has many advantages over Return on Assets (ROA), which is Net Income divided by Average Assets. I promise, really, no more new acronyms in this post.

The calculations themselves are pretty easy. ROA tends to tell us how effectively an organization is generating general ledger earnings on its base of assets.  This used to be the most popular way of comparing banks to each other and for banks to monitor their own performance from period to period. Many bank executives in the U.S. still prefer to use ROA, although this tends to be those at smaller banks.

ROE tends to tell us how effectively an organization is taking advantage of its base of equity, or risk-based capital. This has gained in popularity for several reasons and has become the preferred measure at medium and larger U.S. banks, and all international banks. One huge reason for the growing popularity of ROE is simply that it is not asset-dependent. ROE can be applied to any line of business or any product. You must have “assets” for ROA, since one cannot divide by zero. Hopefully your Equity account is always greater than zero. If not, well, lets just say it’s too late to read about this general topic.

The flexibility of basing profitability measurement on contribution to Equity allows banks with differing asset structures to be compared to each other.  This also may apply even for banks to be compared to other types of businesses. The asset-independency of ROE can also allow a bank to compare internal product lines to each other. Perhaps most importantly, this permits looking at the comparative profitability of lines of business that are almost complete opposites, like lending versus deposit services. This includes risk-based pricing considerations. This would be difficult, if even possible, using ROA.

ROE also tells us how effectively a bank (or any business) is using shareholders equity. Many observers prefer ROE, since equity represents the owners’ interest in the business. As we have all learned anew in the past two years, their equity investment is fully at-risk. Equity holders are paid last, compared to other sources of funds supporting the bank. Shareholders are the last in line if the going gets rough. So, equity capital tends to be the most expensive source of funds, carrying the largest risk premium of all funding options. Its successful deployment is critical to the profit performance, even the survival, of the bank. Indeed, capital deployment, or allocation, is the most important executive decision facing the leadership of any organization.

So, why bother with RORAC or RAROC? In short, it is to take risks more fully into the process of risk management within the institution. ROA and ROE are somewhat risk-adjusted, but only on a point-in-time basis and only to the extent risks are already mitigated in the net interest margin and other general ledger numbers. The Net Income figure is risk-adjusted for mitigated (hedged) interest rate risk, for mitigated operational risk (insurance expenses) and for the expected risk within the cost of credit (loan loss provision).

The big risk management elements missing in general ledger-based numbers include: market risk embedded in the balance sheet and not mitigated, credit risk costs associated with an economic downturn, unmitigated operational risk, and essentially all of the strategic risk (or business risk) associated with being a banking entity. Most of these risks are summed into a lump called Unexpected Loss (UL). Okay, so I fibbed about no more new acronyms. UL is covered by the Equity account, or the solvency of the bank becomes an issue.

RORAC is Net Income divided by Allocated Capital. RORAC doesn’t add much risk-adjustment to the numerator, general ledger Net Income, but it can take into account the risk of unexpected loss. It does this, by moving beyond just book or average Equity, by allocating capital, or equity, differentially to various lines of business and even specific products and clients. This, in turn, makes it possible to move towards risk-based pricing at the relationship management level as well as portfolio risk management.  This equity, or capital, allocation should be based on the relative risk of unexpected loss for the different product groups. So, it’s a big step in the right direction if you want a profitability metric that goes beyond ROE in addressing risk. And, many of us do.

RAROC is Risk-Adjusted Net Income divided by Allocated Capital. RAROC does add risk-adjustment to the numerator, general ledger Net Income, by taking into account the unmitigated market risk embedded in an asset or liability. RAROC, like RORAC, also takes into account the risk of unexpected loss by allocating capital, or equity, differentially to various lines of business and even specific products and clients. So, RAROC risk-adjusts both the Net Income in the numerator AND the allocated Equity in the denominator. It is a fully risk-adjusted metric or ratio of profitability and is an ultimate goal of modern risk management. 

So, RORAC is a big step in the right direction and RAROC would be the full step in management of risk. RORAC can be a useful step towards RAROC. RAROC takes ROE to a fully risk-adjusted metric that can be used at the entity level.  This  can also be broken down for any and all lines of business within the organization. Thence, it can be further broken down to the product level, the client relationship level, and summarized by lender portfolio or various market segments. This kind of measurement is invaluable for a highly leveraged business that is built on managing risk successfully as much as it is on operational or marketing prowess.

Please refer to my blogs five and six for more information about ROE and the term “unpredictable variability:”  http://www.decisionanalyticsblog.experian.com/blog/risk-based-pricing-2

RORAC versus RAROC ?
--by Tom Hannagan

I was hoping someone would ask about these risk management terms…nd someone did. The obvious answer is that the “A” and the “O” are reversed. But, there’s more to it than that. First, let’s see how the acronyms were derived. RORAC is Return on Risk-Adjusted Capital. RAROC is Risk-Adjusted Return on Capital. Both of these five-letter abbreviations are a step up from ROE. This is natural I suppose since ROE, meaning Return on Equity of course, is merely a three-letter profitability ratio. A serious breakthrough in risk management and profit performance measurement will have to move up to at least six initials in its abbreviation. Nonetheless, ROE is the jumping-off point towards both RORAC and RAROC.

ROE is generally Net Income divided by Equity, and ROE has many advantages over Return on Assets (ROA), which is Net Income divided by Average Assets. I promise, really, no more new acronyms in this post.

The calculations themselves are pretty easy. ROA tends to tell us how effectively an organization is generating general ledger earnings on its base of assets.  This used to be the most popular way of comparing banks to each other and for banks to monitor their own performance from period to period. Many bank executives in the U.S. still prefer to use ROA, although this tends to be those at smaller banks.

ROE tends to tell us how effectively an organization is taking advantage of its base of equity, or risk-based capital. This has gained in popularity for several reasons and has become the preferred measure at medium and larger U.S. banks, and all international banks. One huge reason for the growing popularity of ROE is simply that it is not asset-dependent. ROE can be applied to any line of business or any product. You must have “assets” for ROA, since one cannot divide by zero. Hopefully your Equity account is always greater than zero. If not, well, lets just say it’s too late to read about this general topic.

The flexibility of basing profitability measurement on contribution to Equity allows banks with differing asset structures to be compared to each other.  This also may apply even for banks to be compared to other types of businesses. The asset-independency of ROE can also allow a bank to compare internal product lines to each other. Perhaps most importantly, this permits looking at the comparative profitability of lines of business that are almost complete opposites, like lending versus deposit services. This includes risk-based pricing considerations. This would be difficult, if even possible, using ROA.

ROE also tells us how effectively a bank (or any business) is using shareholders equity. Many observers prefer ROE, since equity represents the owners’ interest in the business. As we have all learned anew in the past two years, their equity investment is fully at-risk. Equity holders are paid last, compared to other sources of funds supporting the bank. Shareholders are the last in line if the going gets rough. So, equity capital tends to be the most expensive source of funds, carrying the largest risk premium of all funding options. Its successful deployment is critical to the profit performance, even the survival, of the bank. Indeed, capital deployment, or allocation, is the most important executive decision facing the leadership of any organization.

So, why bother with RORAC or RAROC? In short, it is to take risks more fully into the process of risk management within the institution. ROA and ROE are somewhat risk-adjusted, but only on a point-in-time basis and only to the extent risks are already mitigated in the net interest margin and other general ledger numbers. The Net Income figure is risk-adjusted for mitigated (hedged) interest rate risk, for mitigated operational risk (insurance expenses) and for the expected risk within the cost of credit (loan loss provision).

The big risk management elements missing in general ledger-based numbers include: market risk embedded in the balance sheet and not mitigated, credit risk costs associated with an economic downturn, unmitigated operational risk, and essentially all of the strategic risk (or business risk) associated with being a banking entity. Most of these risks are summed into a lump called Unexpected Loss (UL). Okay, so I fibbed about no more new acronyms. UL is covered by the Equity account, or the solvency of the bank becomes an issue.

RORAC is Net Income divided by Allocated Capital. RORAC doesn’t add much risk-adjustment to the numerator, general ledger Net Income, but it can take into account the risk of unexpected loss. It does this, by moving beyond just book or average Equity, by allocating capital, or equity, differentially to various lines of business and even specific products and clients. This, in turn, makes it possible to move towards risk-based pricing at the relationship management level as well as portfolio risk management.  This equity, or capital, allocation should be based on the relative risk of unexpected loss for the different product groups. So, it’s a big step in the right direction if you want a profitability metric that goes beyond ROE in addressing risk. And, many of us do.

RAROC is Risk-Adjusted Net Income divided by Allocated Capital. RAROC does add risk-adjustment to the numerator, general ledger Net Income, by taking into account the unmitigated market risk embedded in an asset or liability. RAROC, like RORAC, also takes into account the risk of unexpected loss by allocating capital, or equity, differentially to various lines of business and even specific products and clients. So, RAROC risk-adjusts both the Net Income in the numerator AND the allocated Equity in the denominator. It is a fully risk-adjusted metric or ratio of profitability and is an ultimate goal of modern risk management. 

So, RORAC is a big step in the right direction and RAROC would be the full step in management of risk. RORAC can be a useful step towards RAROC. RAROC takes ROE to a fully risk-adjusted metric that can be used at the entity level.  This  can also be broken down for any and all lines of business within the organization. Thence, it can be further broken down to the product level, the client relationship level, and summarized by lender portfolio or various market segments. This kind of measurement is invaluable for a highly leveraged business that is built on managing risk successfully as much as it is on operational or marketing prowess.

Please refer to my blogs five and six for more information about ROE and the term “unpredictable variability:”  http://www.decisionanalyticsblog.experian.com/blog/risk-based-pricing-2

--by Kelly Kent

When reviewing offers for prospective clients, lenders often deal with a significant amount of missing information in assessing the outcomes of lending decisions, such as:

• Why did a consumer accept an offer with a competitor?
• What were the differentiating factors between other offers and my offer, i.e. what were their credit score trends?
• What happened to consumers that we declined? Do they perform as expected or better than anticipated?
• What were their credit risk models?

While lenders can easily understand the implications of the loans they have offered and booked with consumers, they often have little information about two important groups of consumers:

1. Lost leads: consumers to whom they made an offer but did not book
2. Proxy performance: consumers to whom financing was not offered, but where the consumer found financing elsewhere

Performing a lost lead analysis on the applications approved and declined, can provide considerable insight into the outcomes and credit performance of consumers that were not added to the lender’s portfolio.

Lost lead analysis can also help answer key questions for each of these groups:

• How many of these consumers accepted credit elsewhere?
• What were their credit attributes?
• What are the credit characteristics of the consumers we're not booking?
• Were these loans booked by one of my peers or another type of lender?
• What were the terms and conditions of these offers?
• What was the performance of the loans booked elsewhere?
• Who did they choose for loan origination?

Within each of these groups, further analysis can be conducted to provide lenders with actionable feedback on the implications of their lending policies, possibly identifying opportunities for changes to better fulfill lending objectives. Some key questions can be answered with this information:

• Are competitors offering longer repayment terms?
• Are peers offering lower interest rates to the same consumers?
• Are peers accepting lower scoring consumers to increase market share?

The results of a lost lead analysis can either confirm that the competitive marketplace is behaving in a manner that matches a lender’s perspective.  It can also shine a light into aspects of the market where policy changes may lead to superior results. In both circumstances, the information provided is invaluable in making the best decision in today’s highly-sensitive lending environment.

 

--by Kari Michel

Most lenders use a credit scoring model in their decision process for opening new accounts; however, between 35 and 50 million adults in the US may be considered unscoreable with traditional credit scoring models. That is equivalent to 18-to-25 percent of the adult population. 

Due to recent market conditions and shrinking qualified candidates lenders have placed a renewed interest in assessing the risk of this under served population.  Unscoreable consumers could be a pocket of missed opportunity for many lenders. To assess these consumers, lenders must have the ability to better distinguish between consumers with a clear track record of unfavorable credit behaviors versus those that are just beginning to develop their credit history and credit risk models.

Unscoreable consumers can be split out into three populations:

• Infrequent credit users:  Consumers who have not been active on their accounts for the past six months, and who prefer to use non-traditional credit tools for their financial needs.

• New entrants:  Consumers who do not have at least one account with more than six months of activity; including young adults just entering the workforce,  recently divorced or widowed individuals with little or no credit history in their name, newly arrived immigrants, or people who avoid the traditional system by choice.

• Thin file consumers:  Consumers who have less than three accounts and rarely utilize traditional credit and likely prefer using alternative credit tools and credit score trends.

A study done by VantageScore® Solutions, LLC shows that a large percentage of the
unscoreable population can be scored with VantageScore* and a portion of these are credit-worthy (defined as the population of consumers who have a cumulative likelihood to become 90 days or more delinquent is less than 5 percent).  The following is a high-level summary of the findings for consumers who had at least one trade:

Lenders can review their credit decisioning process to determine if they have the tools in place to assess the risk of those unscoreable consumers.  As with this population there is an opportunity for portfolio expansion as demonstrated by the VantageScore study.

*VantageScore is a generic credit scoring model introduced to meet the market demands for a highly predictive consumer score. Developed as a joint venture among the three major credit reporting companies (CRCs) – Equifax, Experian and TransUnion.

-- by Kelly Kent

Source: Experian-Oliver Wyman Market Intelligence Reports

Analyzing recent trends from vintages published in the Experian-Oliver Wyman Market Intelligence Reports, there are numerous insights that can be gleaned from just a cursory review of the results.

Mortgage trends

As noted in an earlier posting, recent mortgage vintage analysis' show a broad range of behaviors between more recent vintages and older, more established vintages that were originated before the significant run-up of housing prices seen in the middle of the decade. The 30+ delinquency levels for mortgage vintages in 2005, 2006, and 2007 approach and in two cases exceed 10 percent of trades in the last 12 months of performance, and have spiked from historical trends, beginning almost immediately after origination. On the other end of the spectrum, the vintages from 2003 and 2002 have barely approached or exceeded 5 percent for the last 6 or 7 years.

Band card trends

As one would expect, the 30+ delinquency trends demonstrated within bankcard vintage analysis are vastly different from the trends of mortgage vintages. Firstly, card delinquencies show a clear seasonal trend, with a more consistent yearly pattern evident in all vintages, resulting from the revolving structure of the product. The most interesting trends within the card vintages do show that the more recent vintages, 2005 to 2008, display higher 30+ delinquency levels, especially the Q2 2007 vintage, which is far and away the underperformer of the group.

Within each vintage pool, an analysis can extend into the risk distribution and details of the portfolio and further segment the pool by credit score, specifically VantageScore.  In other words, the loans in this pool are only for the most creditworthy customers at the time of origination. The noticeable trend is that while these consumers were largely resistant to deteriorating economic conditions, each vintage segment has seen a spike in the most recent 9-12 months.

Given that these consumers tend to have the highest limits and lowest utilization of any VantageScore band, this trend encourages further account management consideration and raises flags about overall bankcard performance in coming months.

Even a basic review of vintage analysis pools and the subsequent analysis opportunities that result from this data can be extremely useful. This vintage analysis can add a new perspective to risk management, supplementing more established analysis techniques, and further enhancing the ability to see the risk within the risk.

--by Wendy Greenawalt 

In the last installment of my three part series dispelling credit attribute myths, we’ll discuss the myth that the lift achieved by utilizing new attributes is minimal, so it is not worth the effort of evaluating and/or implementing new credit attributes. First, evaluating accuracy and efficiency of credit attributes is hard to measure. Experian data experts are some of the best in the business and, in this edition, we will discuss some of the methods Experian uses to evaluate attribute performance.

When considering any new attributes, the first method we use to validate statistical performance is to complete a statistical head-to-head comparison. This method incorporates the use of KS (Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistic), Gini coefficient, worst-scoring capture rate or odds ratio when comparing two samples. Once completed, we implement an established standard process to measure value from different outcomes in an automated and consistent format. While this process may be time and labor intensive, the reward can be found in the financial savings that can be obtained by identifying the right segments, including:

• Risk models that better identify “bad” accounts and minimizing losses
• Marketing models that improve targeting while maximizing campaign dollars spent
• Collections models that enhance identification of recoverable accounts leading to more recovered dollars with lower fixed costs

Credit attributes
Recently, Experian conducted a similar exercise and found that an improvement of 2-to-22 percent in risk prediction can be achieved through the implementation of new attributes. When these metrics are applied to a portfolio where several hundred bad accounts are now captured, the resulting savings can add up quickly (500 accounts with average loss rate of $3,000 = $1.5M potential savings). These savings over time more than justify the cost of evaluating and implementing new credit attributes.

 

-- by Wendy Greenawalt  

In the second installment of my three part series, dispelling credit attribute myths, we will discuss why attributes with similar descriptions are not always the same. The U.S. credit reporting bureaus are the most comprehensive in the world. Creating meaningful attributes requires extensive knowledge of the three credit bureaus’ data. Ensuring credit attributes are up-to-date and created by informed data experts.  Leveraging complete bureau data is also essential to obtaining long-term strategic success.

To illustrate why attributes with similar names may not be the same let’s discuss a basic attribute, such as “number of accounts paid satisfactory.” While the definition, may at first seem straight forward, once the analysis begins there are many variables that must be considered before finalizing the definition, including:

• Should the credit attributes include trades currently satisfactory or ever satisfactory?
• Do we include paid charge-offs, paid collections, etc.?
• Are there any date parameters for credit attributes?
• Are there any trades that should be excluded?
• Should accounts that have a final status of "paid” be included?

These types of questions and many others must be carefully identified and assessed to ensure the desired behavior is captured when creating credit attributes. Without careful attention to detail, a simple attribute definition could include behavior that was not intended.  This could negatively impact the risk level associated with an organization’s portfolio. Our recommendation is to complete a detailed analysis up-front and always validate the results to ensure the desired outcome is achieved. Incorporating this best practice will guarantee that credit attributes created are capturing the behavior intended.

 

--by Kennis Wong

In Part 1 of Generic fraud score, we emphasized the importance of a risk-based approach when it comes to fraud detection. Here are some further questions you may want to consider.

What is the performance window?

When a model is built, it has a defined performance window. That means the score is predicting a certain outcome within that time period. For example, a traditional risk score may be predicting accounts that are decreasing in twenty-four months. That score may not perform well if your population typically worsens in two months. This question is particularly important when it relates to scoring your population. For example, if a bust-out score has a performance window of three months, and you score your accounts at the time of acquisition, it would only catch accounts that are busting-out within the next three months. As a result, you should score your accounts during periodic account reviews in addition to the time of acquisition to ensure you catch all bust-outs.  Therefore, bust out fraud is an important indicator. 

Which accounts should I score?

While it’s typical for creditors to use a fraud score on every applicant at the time of acquisition, they may not score all their accounts during review. For example, they may exclude inactive accounts or older accounts assuming those with a long history means less likelihood of fraud. This mistake may be expensive. For instance, the typical bust-out behavior is for fraudsters to apply for cards way before they intend to bust out. This may be forty-eight months or more. So when you think they are good and profitable customers, they can strike and leave you with seriously injury. Make sure that your fraud database is updated and accurate.  As a result, the recommended approach is to score your entire portfolio during account review. 

How often do I validate the score?

The answer is very often -- this may be monthly or quarterly. You want to understand whether the score is working for you – do your actual results match the volume and risk projections? Shifts of your score distribution will almost certainly occur over time. To meet your objectives over the long run, continue to monitor and adjust cutoffs.  Keep your fraud database updated at all times.

--- by Kennis Wong

In this blog entry, we have repeatedly emphasized the importance of a risk-based approach when it comes to fraud detection. Scoring and analytics are essentially the heart of this approach.

However, unlike the rule-based approach, where users can easily understand the results, (i.e. was the S.S.N. reported deceased? Yes/No; Is the application address the same as the best address on the credit bureau? Yes/No), scores are generated in a black box where the reason for the eventual score is not always apparent even in a fraud database.

Hence more homework needs to be done when selecting and using a generic fraud score to make sure they satisfy your needs. Here are some basic questions you may want to ask yourself:

What do I want the score to predict?
This may seem like a very basic question, but it does warrant your consideration. Are you trying to detect these areas in your fraud database? First-party fraud, third-party fraud, bust out fraud, first payment default, never pay, or a combination of these? These questions are particularly important when you are validating a fraud model. For example, if you only have third-party fraud tagged in your test file, a bust out fraud model would not perform well. It would just be a waste of your time.

What data was used for model development?
Other important questions you may want to ask yourself include:  Was the score based on sub-prime credit card data, auto loan data, retail card data or another fraud database? It’s not a definite deal breaker if it was built with credit card data, but, if you have a retail card portfolio, it may still perform well for you. If the scores are too far off, though, you may not have good result. Moreover, you also want to understand the number of different portfolios used for model development. For example, if only one creditor’s data is used, then it may not have the general applicability to other portfolios.

-- by Kelly Kent

In a recent article, www.CNNMoney.com reported that Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, said that the pace of recovery in 2010 would be moderate and added that the unemployment rate would come down quite slowly, due to headwinds on ongoing credit problems and the effort by families to reduce household debt.’

While some media outlets promote an optimistic economic viewpoint, clearly there are signs that significant challenges lie ahead for lenders. As Bernanke forecasts, many issues that have plagued credit markets will sustain themselves in the coming years. Therefore lenders need to be equipped to monitor these continued credit problems if they wish to survive this protracted time of distress.

While banks and financial institutions are implementing increasingly sophisticated and thorough processes to monitor fluctuations in credit trends, they have little intelligence to compare their credit performance to that of their peers.  Lenders frequently cite that they are concerned about their lack of awareness or intelligence regarding the credit performance and status of their peers.  Marketing intelligence solutions are important for management of risk, loan portfolio monitoring and related decisioning strategies.

Currently, many vendors offer data on industry-wide trends, but few vendors provide the information needed to allow a lender to understand its position relative to a well-defined group of firms that it considers its peers. As a result, too many lenders are performing benchmarking using data sources that are biased, incomplete, inaccurate, or that lack the detail necessary to derive meaningful conclusions.

If you were going to measure yourself personally against a group to understand your comparative performance, why would you perform that comparison against people who had little or nothing in common with you? Does an elite runner measure himself against a weekend warrior to gauge his performance? No; he segments the runners by gender, age, and performance class to understand exactly how he stacks up.

Today’s lending environment is not forgiving enough for lenders to make broad industry comparisons if they want to ensure long-term success. Lenders cannot presume they are leading the pack, when, in fact, the race is closer than ever.

-- By Kelly Kent

Source: Experian-Oliver Wyman Market Intelligence Reports

In the most recent release of the Experian-Oliver Wyman Market Intelligence Reports, each product report contains a series of vintage data reports that shed light on the delinquency, charge-off, and prepayment trends discussed earlier in this series.

These examples of vintage pool curves are taken from the Q2 2009 release and pertain to the mortgage product.

Vintage performance - delinquency
The performance metrics of each vintage are the essence of the benchmarking process. Having properly weighed and balanced each vintage pool, a comparison can be made to the performances of each pool. In the chart shown here, “30+ delinquency rates as % of
trades,” each vintage pool is tracked based on the months on book since its origination. For instance, the longest trend line belongs to the oldest vintage, Q2 2002, and reflects the 30+ delinquency rates over the past 84 months. Conversely, the newest vintage, Q2 2008, is the shortest trend line and reflects only the performance for the past 12 months for those trades. In this chart, it can be easily observed that the delinquency levels for the vintages from 2005, 2006, and 2007 deviate significantly from the older vintages and have spiked for the past 12 to 18 months while older vintages have behaved more consistently.

Distribution of trades
As mentioned earlier, vintage pools are defined by the score at origination for each of the loans within the pool. This is significant in that the distribution of loans will impact the ability to correctly benchmark against each pool. For instance, the chart shown here displays the distributions in each vintage pool, by VantageScore band. 

Despite the clear advantages of using vintage analysis, a benchmarking exercise will require significant weighing and balancing to ensure that the risk profiles of the portfolios are comparable.

Vintage performance - prepayment
Less prominent to delinquency trends are the prepayment trends of each pool. From the moment of origination, each pool begins to change its composition as a result of prepayments/closures which need to be considered in any analysis in order to understand the changing composition of each pool. It is vital that a user understand the shifting risk profile of each vintage, over time. The risk profile, by VantageScore for instance, may skew away from the higher quality consumers over time as prepayment removes them from the pool, leaving only the lowest-scoring consumers in the pool.

These are just three examples of the data required in order to perform vintage analysis. For the sake of brevity, other aspects of these analyses, such as geographic footprint, have been excluded.  These would also add significant insight to the analysis results.


 

-- By Kelly Kent

Vintage analysis, specifically vintage pools, present numerous useful opportunities for any firm seeking to further understand the risks within specific portfolios. While most lenders have relatively strong reporting and metrics at hand  for their own loan portfolio monitoring...these to understand the specific performance characteristics of their own portfolios -- the ability to observe trends and benchmark against similar industry characteristics can enhance their insights significantly.

Assuming that a lender possesses the vintage data and vintage analysis capability necessary to perform benchmarking on its portfolio, the next step is defining the specific metrics upon which any comparisons will be made. As mentioned in a previous posting, three aspects of vintage performance are often used to define these points of comparison:

1. Vintage delinquency including charge-off curves, which allows for an understanding of the repayment trends within each pool. Specifically, standard delinquency measures (such as 30+ Days Past Due (DPD), 60+ DPD, 90+ DPD, and charge-off rates) provide measures of early and late stage delinquencies in each pool.

2. Payoff trends, which reflect the pace at which pools are being repaid. While planning for losses through delinquency benchmarking is a critical aspect of this process, so, too, is the ability to understand pre-repayment tendencies and trends. Pre-payment can significantly impact cash-flow modeling and can add insight to interest income estimates and loan duration calculations.

As part of the Experian-Oliver Wyman Market Intelligence Reports, these metrics are delivered each quarter, and provide a consistent, static pool base upon which vintage benchmarks can be conducted.

Clearly, this is a rather simplified perspective on what can be a very detailed analysis exercise. A properly conducted vintage analysis needs to consider aspects such as: lender portfolio mix at origination; lender portfolio footprint at origination; lender payoff trends and differences from benchmarked industry data in order to properly balance the benchmarked data against the lender portfolio.
 

-- By Kari Michel

Bankruptcies continue to rise and are expected to exceed 1.4 million by the end of this year, according to American Bankruptcy Institute Executive Director, Samuel J. Gerdano.  Although, the overall bankruptcy rates for a lender’s portfolio is small (about 1 percent), bankruptcies result in high dollar losses for lenders.  Bankruptcy losses as a percentage of total dollar losses are estimated to range from 45 percent for bankcard portfolios to 82 percent for credit unions.  Additionally, collection activity is restricted because of legislation around bankruptcy.  As a result, many lenders are using a bankruptcy score in conjunction with their new applicant risk score to make better acquisition decisions. This concept is a dual score strategy.  It is key in management of risk, to minimize fraud, and in managing the cost of credit.

Traditional risk scores are designed to predict risk (typically predicting 90 days past due or greater).  Although bankruptcies are included within this category, the actual count is relatively small.   For this reason the ability to distinguish characteristics typical of a “bankruptcy” are more difficult.  In addition, often times a consumer who filed bankruptcy was in “good standings” and not necessarily reflective of a typical risky consumer.   By separating out bankrupt consumers, you can more accurately identify characteristics specific to bankruptcy.  As mentioned previously, this is important because they account for a significant portion of the losses.
 
Bankruptcy scores provide added value when used with a risk score. A matrix approach is used to evaluate both scores to determine effective cutoff strategies.   Evaluating applicants with both a risk score and a bankruptcy score can identify more potentially profitable applicants and more high- risk accounts.

-- by Wendy Greenawalt

In my last blog post I discussed the value of leveraging optimization within your collections strategy. Next, I would like to discuss in detail the use of optimizing decisions within the account management of an existing portfolio. Account Management decisions vary from determining which consumers to target with cross-sell or up-sell campaigns to line management decisions where an organization is considering line increases or decreases.  Using optimization in your collections work stream is key.

Let’s first look at lines of credit and decisions related to credit line management. Uncollectible debt, delinquencies and charge-offs continue to rise across all line of credit products. In response, credit card and home equity lenders have begun aggressively reducing outstanding lines of credit.    One analyst predicts that the credit card industry will reduce credit limits by $2 trillion by 2010. If materialized, that would represent a 45 percent reduction in credit currently available to consumers. This estimate illustrates the immediate reaction many lenders have taken to minimize loss exposure. However, lenders should also consider the long-term impacts to customer retention, brand-loyalty and portfolio profitability before making any account management decision.

Optimization is a fundamental tool that can help lenders easily identify accounts that are high risk versus those that are profit drivers. In addition, optimization provides precise action that should be taken at the individual consumer level.

For example, optimization (and optimizing decisions) can provide recommendations for:

• when to contact a consumer;
• how to contact a consumer; and
• to what level a credit line could be reduced or increased...

…while considering organizational/business objectives such as:

• profits/revenue/bad debt;
• retention of desirable consumers; and
• product limitations (volume/regional).

In my next few blogs I will discuss each of these variables in detail and the complexities that optimization can consider.

-- By Kari Michel

This blog completes my discussion on monitoring new account decisions with a final focus: scorecard monitoring and performance.  It is imperative to validate acquisitions scorecards regularly to measure how well a model is able to distinguish good accounts from bad accounts. With a sufficient number of aged accounts, performance charts can be used to:

• Validate the predictive power of a credit scoring model;
• Determine if the model effectively ranks risk; and
• Identify the delinquency rate of recently booked accounts at various intervals above and below the primary cutoff score.

To summarize, successful lenders maximize their scoring investment by incorporating a number of best practices into their account acquisitions processes:

1. They keep a close watch on their scores, policies, and strategies to improve portfolio strength.
2. They create monthly reports to look at population stability, decision management, scoring models and scorecard performance.
3. They update their strategies to meet their organization’s profitability goals through sound acquisition strategies, scorecard monitoring and scorecard management.
 

There are a lot of areas covered in your comment: efficiency; credit quality (human side or character in an impersonal environment); and policy adherence. 

We define efficiency and effectiveness using these metrics:

• Turnaround time from application submission to decision;
• Resulting delinquencies based upon type of underwriting (centralized vs. decentralized);
• Production levels between centralized and decentralized;
• Performance of the portfolio based upon type of underwriting; and
• Turnaround time from application submission to decision

Due to the nature of Experian’s technology, we are able to capture start and stop times of the typical activities related to loan origination.  After analyzing the data from 160+ financial institutions of all sizes, Experian publishes an annual small business benchmark report that documents loan origination process efficiencies and inefficiencies, benchmarking these as industry standards.  

Turnaround Time

From the benchmark report, we’ve seen that institutions that are centralized have consistently had a turnaround time that is half of those with decentralized environments.

Interestingly, turnaround time is also much faster for the larger institutions than for smaller.  This is confusing because the smaller community banks tend to promote the close relationship they have with their clients and their communities. Yet, when it comes to actually making a loan decision, it tends to take longer.

In addition to speed, another aspect of turnaround is consistency.  We all can think of situations where we were able to beat the stated turnaround times of the larger or the centralized institutions.  Unfortunately, these tend to be isolated instances versus the consistent performance that is delivered in the centralized environment.

Resulting delinquencies based upon type of underwriting/Performance of the portfolio based upon type of underwriting

Again, referring to the annual small business lending benchmark report, delinquencies in a centralized environment are 50% of those in a decentralized environment. 

I have worked with a number of institutions that allow the loan officer/relationship manager to “reverse the decision” made by a centralized underwriting group.  The thinking is that the human aspect is otherwise missing in centralized underwriting.  When the data is collected, though, the incremental business/portfolio that is approved by the loan officer (who is close to the client and knows the human side) is not profitable from a credit quality perspective.  Specifically, this incremental portfolio typically has a net charge-off rate that exceeds the net interest margin -- and this is before we even consider the non-interest expense incurred. 

Your choice: is the incremental business critical to your success…or could you more fruitfully direct your relationship officer’s attention elsewhere?

Production levels between centralized and decentralized

Not to beat a dead horse, but the multiple of two comes into play here too.  As one looks at the throughput of each role (data entry, underwriter, relationship manager/lender), the production levels of a centralized environment are typically double that of a decentralized.

It’s clear that the data point to the efficiency and effectiveness of a centralized environment

--  Kari Michel

This blog is a continuation of my previous discussion about monitoring your new account acquisition decisions with a focus on decision management. 

Decision management reports provide the insight to make more targeted decisions that are sound and profitable. These reports are used to identify: which lending decisions are consistent with scorecard recommendations; the effectiveness of overrides; and/or whether cutoffs should be adjusted.

Decision management reports include:

• Accept versus decline score distributions
• Override rates
• Override reason report
• Override by loan officer
• Decision by loan officer

Successful lending organizations review this type of information regularly to make better lending policy decisions.  Proactive monitoring provides feedback on existing strategies and helps evaluate if you are making the most effective use of your score(s). It helps to identify areas of opportunity to improve portfolio profitability. 

In my next blog, I will discuss the last set of monitoring reports, scorecard performance.

-- By Wendy Greenawalt

When consulting with lenders, we are frequently asked what credit attributes are most predictive and valuable when developing models and scorecards. Because we receive this request often, we recently decided to perform the arduous analysis required to determine if there are material differences in the attribute make up of a credit risk model based on the portfolio on which it is applied.

The process we used to identify the most predictive attributes was a combination of art and sciences -- for which our data experts drew upon their extensive data bureau experience and knowledge obtained through engagements with clients from all types of industries. In addition, they applied an empirical process which provided statistical analysis and validation of the credit attributes included. Next, we built credit risk models for a variety of portfolios including bankcard, mortgage and auto and compared the credit attribute included in each.

What we found is that there are some attributes that are inherently predictive regardless for which portfolio the model was being developed. However, when we took the analysis one step further, we identified that there can be significant differences in the account-level data when comparing different portfolio models.

This discovery pointed to differences, not just in the behavior captured with the attributes, but in the mix of account designations included in the model. For example, in an auto risk model, we might see a mix of attributes from all trades, auto, installment and personal finance…as compared to a bankcard risk model which may be mainly comprised of bankcard, mortgage, student loan and all trades.  Additionally, the attribute granularity included in the models may be quite different, from specific derogatory and public record data to high level account balance or utilization characteristics.

What we concluded is that it is a valuable exercise to carefully analyze available data and consider all the possible credit attribute options in the model-building process – since substantial incremental lift in model performance can be gained from accounts and behavior that may not have been previously considered when assessing credit risk.

-- by Jeff Bernstein

So, here I am with my first contribution to Experian Decision Analytics’ collections blog, and what I am discussing has practically nothing to do with analytics. But, it has everything to do with managing the opportunities to positively impact collections results and leveraging your investment in analytics and strategies, beginning with the most important weapon in your arsenal – collectors.

Yes, I know it’s a bit unconventional for a solutions and analytics company to talk about something other than models; but the difference between mediocre results and optimization rests with your collectors and your organization’s ability to manage customer interactions.

Let’s take a trip down memory lane and reminisce about one of the true landscape changing paradigm shifts in collections in recent memory – the use of skill models to become payment of choice.

AT&T Universal Card was one of the first early adopters of a radical new approach towards managing an emerging Gen X debtor population during the early 1990s. Armed with fresh research into what influenced delinquent debtors into paying certain collectors while dogging others, they adopted what we called a “management systems” approach towards collections.

They taught their entire collections team a new set of skills models that stressed bridging skills between the collector and the customer, thus allowing the collector to interact in a more collaborative, non-aggressive manner. The new approach enabled collectors to more favorably influence customer behavior, creating payment solutions collaboratively that allowed AT&T to become “payment of choice” when competing with other creditors competing for share of wallet.

A new of set of skill metrics, which we now affectionately call our “dashboard,” were created to measure the effective use of the newly taught skill models, and collectors were empowered to own their own performance – and to leverage their team leader for coaching and skills development. Team developers, the new name for front line collection managers, were tasked with spending 40-50% or more of their time on developmental activities, using leadership skills in their coaching and development activities.  

The game plan was simple.

• Engage collectors with customer focused skills that influenced behavior and get paid sooner.
• Empower collectors to take on the responsibility for their own development.
• Make performance results visible top-to-bottom in the organization to stimulate competitiveness, leveraging our innate desire for recognition.
• Make leaders accountable for continuous performance improvement of individuals and teams.

It worked. AT&T Universal won the Malcom Baldrige National Quality Award in 1992 for its efforts in “delighting the customer” while driving their delinquencies and charge-offs to superior levels. A new paradigm shift was unleashed and spread like wildfire across the industry, including many of the major credit card issuers and top tier U.S. banks, and large retailers.

Why do I bring this little slice of history up in my first blog?

I see many banking and financial services companies across the globe struggle with more complex customer situations and harder collections cases -- with their attention naturally focused on tools, models, and technologies. As an industry, we are focused on early lifecycle treatment strategy, identifying current, non-delinquent customers who may be at-risk for future default, and triaging them before they become delinquent. Risk-based collections and segmentation is now a hot topic. Outsourcing and leveraging multiple, non-agent based contact channels to reduce the pressures on collection resources is more important than ever. Optimization is getting top billing as the next “thing.”

What I don’t hear enough of is how organizations are engaged in improving the skills of collectors, and executing the right management systems approach to the process to extract the best performance possible from our existing resources. In some ways, this may be lost in the chaos of our current economic climate. With all the focus on analytics, segmentation, strategy and technology, the opportunity to improve operational performance through skill building and leadership may have taken a back seat.

I’ve seen plenty of examples of organizations who have spent millions on analytical tools and technologies, improving portfolio risk strategy and targeting of the right customers for treatment. I’ve seen the most advanced dialer, IVR, and other contact channel strategies used successfully to obtain the highest right party contact rates and the lowest possible cost. Yet, with all of that focus and investment, I’ve seen these right party contacts mismanaged by collectors who were not provided with the optimal coaching and skills.

With the enriched data available for decisioning, coupled with the amazing capabilities we have for real time segmentation, strategy scripting, context-sensitive screens, and rules-based workflow management in our next generation collections systems, we are at a crossroads in the evolution of collections.

Let’s not forget some of the “nuts and bolts” that drive operational performance and ensure success.

Something old can be something new. Examine your internal processes aimed at producing the best possible skills at all collector levels and ensure that you are not missing the easiest opportunity to improve your results.

Much of the discussion on Capitol Hill revolves around sufficient risk-based capital and the derivation of how much tier 1 capital and/or common equity capital is appropriate. Most of our solution offerings and consulting services address various aspects of risk management, from targeting prospective customers, through loan origination and risk-based pricing, to ongoing relationship management and portfolio monitoring. We have been addressing risk management with our clients long before the recent financial and economic crises. We are both ready and able to assist new and existing clients in many ways: to effectively and efficiently address the management of credit and other risks and to develop strategies that offer optimal risk-based profit performance. We are always monitoring regulatory developments and, as always, will strive to assist our clients with new best practices to operate as effectively as possible under any new regulations affecting risk management policies, processes and governance responsibilities.

Some articles that I’ve come across recently have puzzled me.

In those articles, authors use the terms “monetary base” and “money supply” synonymously -- but those terms are actually very different.

The monetary base (currency plus Fed deposits) is a much smaller number than the money supply (M1). The huge change in the “base”, which the Fed did affect by adding $1T or so to infuse a lot of quick liquidity into the financial system late in 2007/early 2008, does not necessarily impact M1 (which includes the base plus all bank demand deposits) all that much in the short-term, and may impact it even less in the intermediate-term if the Fed reduces its holdings of securities.  Some are correct, of course, in positing that a rotation out of securities by the Fed will tend to put pressure on market rates.

Some are equivocating the 2007 liquidity moves of the Fed, with a major monetary policy change. When the capital markets froze due to liquidity and credit risks in August/September of 2007, monetary policy was not the immediate risk, or even a consideration. Without the liquidity injections in that timeframe, monetary policy would have become less than an academic consideration.

Tying the “constrained” (which actually was a slowdown in growth of) bank lending to bank reserves on account at the Fed I don’t think their Fed reserve balance was ever an issue for lending. Banks slowed down lending because the level of credit risk increased. Borrowers were defaulting. Bank deposit balances were actually increasing through the financial crisis. [See my Feb 26 and March 5 blogs] So, loan funding, at least from deposit sources was not the problem for most banks. Of course, for a small number of banks that had major securities losses, capital was being lost and therefore not available to back increased lending. But demand deposit balances were growing.

Some authors are linking bank reserves to the ability of banks to raise liabilities, which makes little sense. Banks’ respective abilities to gather demand deposits (insured by the FDIC, at no small expense to the banks) was always wide open, and their ability to borrow funds is much more a function of asset quality (or net asset value) more than it relates their relatively small reserve balances at the Fed.

These actions may result in high inflation levels and high interest rates -- but it will be because of poor Fed decisions in the future, not because of the Fed’s action of last year. It will also depend on whether the fiscal (deficit) actions of the government are: 1) economically productive and 2) tempered to a recovery, or not. I think that is a bigger macro-economic risk than Fed monetary policy.

In fact, the only way bank executives can wisely manage the entity over an extended timeframe is to be able to direct resources across all possibilities on a risk-adjusted basis. The question isn’t whether risk-based pricing is appropriate for all lines of business, but rather how might or should it be applied.

For commercial lending into the middle and corporate markets, there is enough money at stake to warrant evaluating each loan and deposit, as well as the status of the client relationship, on an individual basis. This means some form of simulation modeling by relationship managers on new sales opportunities (including renewals) and the model’s ready access to current data on all existing pieces of business with each relationship. [See my April 24 blog entry.]

This process also implies the ability to easily aggregate the risk-return status of a group of related clients and to show lenders how their portfolio of accounts is performing on a risk-adjusted basis. This type of model-based analysis needs to be flexible enough to handle differing loan structures, easy for a lender to use and quick. The better models can perform such analysis in minutes. I’ve discussed the elements of such models in earlier posts.

But, with small business and consumer lending there are other considerations that come into play. The principles of risk-based pricing are consistent across any loan or deposit. With small business lending, the process of selling, negotiating, underwriting and origination is significantly more streamlined and under some form of workflow control.

With consumer lending, there are more regulations to take into account and there are mass marketing considerations driving the “sales” process.

Agreement covers what the new owner wants now and may decide it wants in the future. This a form of strategic business risk that comes with accepting the capital infusion from this particular source.