Risk Management

-- 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 vintages 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. As below, the 30+ delinquency levels for mortgage vintages in 2005, 2006, and 2007 approach and in two cases exceed 10% 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% for the last 6 or 7 years.

Bankcard Trends

As one would expect, the 30+ delinquency trends demonstrated within bankcard vintages 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 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 the chart below, an alarming trend is evident. This chart provides the 30+ delinquency levels for the subset of VantageScore A and VantageScore B consumers at the time of origination. 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 Vantage Score band, this trend encourages further account management consideration and raises flags about overall bankcard performance in coming months.

As shown, even a basic review of vintage pools and the subsequent analysis opportunities that result from this data can be extremely useful. This 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 Matt Ehrlich

In my last entry, I talked about the challenges clients face in trying to meet multiple and complex regulatory requirements, such as FACT Act’s Red Flags Rule and the USA Patriot Act.  While these regulations serve both different and shared purposes, there are some common threads between the two:

1. You must consider the type of accounts and methods of account opening: The type of account offered - credit or deposit, consumer or business – as well as the method of opening – phone, online, or face-to-face – has a bearing on the steps you need to take and the process that will be established.

2. Use of consumer name, address, and identification number:The USA Patriot Act requires each of these – plus date of birth – to open a new account.  Red Flags stops short of “requiring” these for new account openings, but it consistently illustrates the use of these Personally Identifiable Information (PII) elements as examples of reasonable procedures to detect red flags.

3. Establishing identity through non-documentary verification:Third party information providers, such as a credit reporting agency or data broker, can be used to confirm identity, particularly in the case where the verification is not done in person.

Knowing what’s in common means you can take a look at where to leverage processes or tools to gain operational and cost efficiencies and reduce negative impact on the customer experience.  For example, if you’re using any authentication products today to comply with the USA Patriot Act and/or minimize fraud losses, the information you collect from consumers and authentication steps you are already taking now may suffice for a large portion of your Red Flags Identity Theft Prevention Program. 

And if you’re considering fraud and compliance products for account opening or account management – it’s clear that you’ll want something flexible that, not only provides identity verification, but scales to the compliance programs you put in place, and those that may be on the horizon.

--by Mike Sutton

I recently interviewed a number of Experian clients to determine how they believe their organizations and industry peers will prioritize collections process improvement over the next 24 months. Additional contributions were collected by written surveys. Here are several interesting observations:

All of the categories mentioned above were considered important by every respondent, but the most urgent priorities were not consistent across industries.

--by Matt Ehrlich

While the FACT Act’s Red Flags Rule seems to capture all of the headlines these days, it’s just one of a number of compliance challenges that banks, credit unions, and a myriad of other institutions face on a daily basis.  And meeting today’s regulatory requirements is more complicated than ever.  Risk managers and compliance officers are asked to consider many questions, including:

1. Do FACTA Sections 114 and 315 apply to me?
2. What do I have to do to comply?
3. What impact does this have on the customer’s experience?
4. What is this going to cost me in terms of people and process?

Interpretation of the law or guideline – including who it applies to and to whom it does not - varies widely.  Which types of businesses are subject to the Red Flags Rule?  What is a “covered account?”  If you’re not sure, you’re not alone - it’s a primary reason why the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) continues to postpone enforcement of the rule, while this healthy debate continues.

And by the way, FTC – it’s almost November 1st…aren’t we about due for another delay? But we’re not talking about just protecting consumers from identity theft and reducing fraud and protecting themselves using the Identity Theft Prevention Program.

The USA Patriot Act and “Know Your Customer” requirements have been around much longer, but there are current challenges of interpretation and practical application when it comes to identifying customers and performing due diligence to deter fraud and money laundering.  Since Customer Identification Programs require procedures based on the bank’s own “assessment of the relevant risks,” including types of accounts opened, methods of opening, and even the bank’s “size, location, and customer base,” it’s safe to say that each program will differ slightly – or even greatly.

So it’s clear there’s a lack of specificity in the regulations of the Red Flags Rule which cause heartburn for those tasked with compliance…but are there some common themes and requirements across the two?  The short answer is Yes.  In my next post, I’ll talk about the elements in common and how authentication products can play a part in addressing both.

-- by Keir Breitenfeld

In my previous three postings, I’ve covered basic principles that can define a risk-based authentication process, associated value propositions, and some best-practices to consider.

Finally, I’d like to briefly discuss some emerging informational elements and processes that enhance (or have already enhanced) the notion of risk-based authentication in the coming year.  For simplicity, I’m boiling these down to three categories:

1. Enterprise Risk Management – As you’d imagine, this concept involves the creation of a real-time, cross channel, enterprise-wide (cross business unit) view of a consumer and/or transaction.  That sounds pretty good, right?  Well, the challenge has been, and still remains, the cost of developing and implementing a data sharing and aggregation process that can accomplish this task.  There is little doubt that operating in a more silo’d environment limits the amount of available high-risk and/or positive authentication data associated with a consumer…and therefore limits the predictive value of tools that utilize such data.  It is only a matter of time before we see more widespread implementation of systems designed to look at a single transaction, an initial application profile, previous authentication results, or other relationships a consumer may have within the same organization -- and across all of this information in tandem.  It’s simply a matter of the business case to do so, and the resources to carry it out.

2. Additional Intelligence – Beyond some of the data mentioned above, some additional informational elements emerging as useful in isolation (or, even better, as a factor among others in a holistic assessment of a consumer’s identity and risk profile) include these areas:  IP address vs. physical address comparisons; device ID or fingerprinting; and biometrics (such as voice verification).  While these tools are being used and tested in many organizations and markets, there is still work to be done to strike the right balance as they are incorporated into an overall risk-based authentication process.  False positives, cost and implementation challenges still hinder widespread use of these tools from being a reality.  That should change over time, and quickly to help with the cost of credit risk.

3. Emerging Verification Techniques – Out-of-band authentication is defined as the use of two separate channels, used simultaneously, to authenticate a customer.  For example: using a phone to verify the identity of that person while performing a Web transaction.  Similarly, many institutions are finding success in initiating SMS texts as a means of customer notification and/or verification of monetary or non-monetary transactions.  The ability to reach out to a consumer in a channel alternate to their transaction channel is a customer friendly and cost effective way to perform additional due diligence.

-- by Keir Breitenfeld

In my previous two blog postings, I’ve tried to briefly articulate some key elements of and value propositions associated with risk-based authentication.  In this entry, I’d like to suggest some best-practices to consider as you incorporate and maintain a risk-based authentication program.

1. Analytics – since an authentication score is likely the primary decisioning element in any risk-based authentication strategy, it is critical that a best-in-class scoring model is chosen and validated to establish performance expectations.  This initial analysis will allow for decisioning thresholds to be established.  This will also allow accept and referral volumes to be planned for operationally.  Further more, it will permit benchmarks to be established which follow on performance monitoring that can be compared.

2. Targeted decisioning strategies – applying unique and tailored decisioning strategies (incorporating scores and other high-risk or positive authentication results) to various access channels to your business just simply makes sense.  Each access channel (call center, Web, face-to-face, etc.) comes with unique risks, available data, and varied opportunity to apply an authentication strategy that balances these areas; risk management, operational effectiveness, efficiency and cost, improved collections and customer experience.  Champion/challenger strategies may also be a great way to test newly devised strategies within a single channel without taking risk to an entire addressable market and your business as a whole.

3. Performance Monitoring – it is critical that key metrics are established early in the risk-based authentication implementation process.  Key metrics may include, but should not be limited to these areas: 

• actual vs. expected score distributions;
• actual vs. expected characteristic distributions;
• actual vs. expected question performance;
• volumes, exclusions;
• repeats and mean scores;
• actual vs. expected pass rates;
• accept vs. referral score distribution;
• trends in decision code distributions; and
• trends in decision matrix distributions. 

Performance monitoring provides an opportunity to manage referral volumes, decision threshold changes, strategy configuration changes, auto-decisioning criteria and pricing for risk based authentication.

4. Reporting – it likely goes without saying, but in order to apply the three best practices above, accurate, timely, and detailed reporting must be established around your authentication tools and results.  Regardless of frequency, you should work with internal resources and your third-party service provider(s) early in your implementation process to ensure relevant reports are established and delivered. 

In my next posting, I will be discussing some thoughts about the future state of risk based authentication.

-- by Heather Grover

I’m often asked in various industry forums to give talks about, or opinions on, the latest fraud trends and fraud best practices. Let’s face it –  fraudsters are students of their craft and continue to study the latest defenses and adapt to controls that may be in place.

You may be surprised, then, to learn that our clients’ top-of-mind issues are not only how to fight the latest fraud trends, but how they can do so while maximizing use of automation, managing operational costs, and preserving customer experience -- all while meeting compliance requirements.

Many times, clients view these goals as being unique goals that do not affect one another. Not only can these be accomplished simultaneously, but, in my opinion, they can be considered causal. Let me explain.

By looking at fraud detection as its own goal, automation is not considered as a potential way to improve this metric. By applying analytics, or basic fraud risk scores, clients can easily incorporate many different potential risk factors into a single calculation without combing through various data elements and reports. This calculation or score can predict multiple fraud types and risks with less effort, than could a human manually, and subjectively reviewing specific results. Through an analytic score, good customers can be positively verified in an automated fashion; while only those with the most risky attributes can be routed for manual review. This allows expensive human resources and expertise to be used for only the most risky consumers.

Compliance requirements can also mandate specific procedures, resulting in arduous manual review processes. Many requirements (Patriot Act, Red Flag, eSignature) mandate verification of identity through match results. Automated decisioning based on these results (or analytic score) can automate this process – in turn, reducing operational expense.

While the above may seem to be an oversimplification or simple approach, I encourage you to consider how well you are addressing financial risk management.  How are you managing automation, operational costs, and compliance – while addressing fraud?

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.

-- By Kelly Kent

In recent months, the topics of stress-testing and loss forecasting have been at the forefront of the international media and, more importantly, at the forefront of the minds of American banking executives. The increased involvement of the federal government in managing the balance sheets of the country’s largest banks has mixed implications for financial institutions in this country.

On one hand, some banks have been in the practice of building macroeconomic scenarios for years and have tried and tested methods for risk management and loss forecasting. On the other hand, in financial institutions where these practices were conducted in a less methodical manner, if at all, the scrutiny placed on capital adequacy forecasting has left many looking to quickly implement standards that will address regulatory concerns when their number is called.

For those clients to whom this process is new, or for those who do not possess a methodology that would withstand the examination of federal inspectors, the question seems to be – where do we begin?

I think that before you can understand where you’re going, you must first understand where you are and where you have been. In this case, it means having a detailed understanding of key industry and peer benchmarks and your relative position to those benchmarks. 

Even simple benchmarking exercises provide answers to some very important questions.

• What is my risk profile versus that of the industry?
• How does the composition of my portfolio differ from that of my peers?
• How do my delinquencies compare to those of my peers? How has this position been changing?

By having a thorough understanding of one’s position in these challenging circumstances, it allows for a more educated foundation upon which to build assessments of the future.
 

• Which clients are likely to need additional products or services?
• Has your top 15 percent changed?
  • If so, who has dropped out and who should be added?
• Which of your clients have a high potential of leaving your financial institution?
• When do you shift from client retention to credit risk management? 

• Maximizing client retention
• Maximizing cross-sell opportunities
• Minimizing loss potential due to credit-risk issues
• Minimizing loss potential due to operational risks
• Maximizing profitability through the timely identification o f risk and the appropriate allocation of capital

Below are a few risk management strategies that your financial institution can implement through the utilization of automated portfolio monitoring:

Special accounts strategies
Focus your internal resources on accounts with a high probability of recovery. Minimize "distractions" of resources and determine the probability of rehabilitation. By utilizing these strategies, your financial institution may be able to handle more accounts with same staff levels and have quicker and more accurate responses.

Focus your internal resources
Focus your risk management resources on the accounts that are showing signs of deterioration, those that have fallen below minimum thresholds and show a significant decline from prior year performance. By doing this you can avoid credit review by identifying continuing high performers and negligible declines in credit quality.
 

1.       Portfolio Management – You should really focus on this topic in 2009.  With many institutions already streamlining the origination process, portfolio management is the logical next step.  While the foundation is based in credit quality, portfolio management is not just for the credit side. 

2.       Review of Data (aka “Getting Behind the Numbers”) – We are not talking about scorecard validation; that’s another subject.  This is more general.  Traditional commercial lending rarely maintains a sophisticated database on its clients.  Even when it does, traditional commercial lending rarely analyzes the data. 

3.       Lowering Costs of Origination – Always a shoe-in for a goal in any year!  But how does an institution make meaningful and marked improvements in reducing its costs of origination? 

4.       Scorecard Validation – Getting more specific with the review of data.  Discuss the basic components of the validation process and what your institution can do to best prepare itself for analyzing the results of a validation.  Whether it be an interim validation or a full-sized one, put together the right steps to ensure your institution derives the maximum benefit from its scorecard.

5.       Turnaround Times (Response to Client) –Rebuild it.  Make the origination process better, stronger and faster.  No; we aren’t talking about bionics here -- nor how you can manipulate the metrics to report a faster turnaround time.  We are talking about what you can do from a loan applicant perspective to improve turnaround time.

6.       Training – Where are all the training programs?  Send in all the training programs!  Worry, because they are not here.  (Replace training programs with clowns and we might have an oldies song.)  Can’t find the right people with the right talent in the marketplace? 

7.       Application Volume/Marketing/Relationship Management – You can design and execute the most efficient origination and portfolio management processes.   But, without addressing client and application volume, what good are they?

8.       Pricing/Yield on Portfolio – “We compete on service, not price.” We’ve heard this over and over again.  In reality, the sales side always resorts to price as the final differentiator.  Utilizing standardization and consistency can streamline your process and drive improved yields on your portfolio.

9.       Management Metrics – How do I know that I am going in the right direction?  Strategize, implement, execute, measure and repeat.  Learn how to set your targets to provide meaningful bottom line results.

10.    Operational Risk Management – Different from credit risk, operational risk and its management, operational risk management deals with what an institution should do to make sure it is not open to operational risk in the portfolio. Items totally in the control of the institution, if not executed properly, can cause significant loss.

What do you think? As the end of April approaches, are these still hot topics in your financial institution?

The way in which you communicate with your customers really does impact the effectiveness of your collections operation.

At the heart of any collections management operation is the quality of the correspondence and, in particular, the tone of voice adopted with the debtor. In short, what you say is important, but how you say it has a critical impact on its effectiveness.

To help guide best practice in this area and provide areas for consideration when designing and implementing customer letters within a collections strategy, Experian commissioned a study to explore how consumers react to the words used to communicate with them about their debt.

Key findings:

• An appropriate tone, clear detail of the consequences and a conciliatory approach are effective in the early phases of collection 
• Fees and charges and negative impacts on credit ratings were key motivators to pay
•  Charges applied to an account for issuing a letter is disliked and likely to encourage many to contact the organisation to express their frustration 
• After 3 months a strong emphasis on serious action is appropriate, including reference to legal action or debt collection agency involvement 
• Support should be offered, wherever possible, to aid those in difficulty 
• Letters should avoid an informal and patronising tone 
• Lengthy letters have a low impact and are often not fully read, resulting in important messages being missed 
• Use of red to highlight and focus on a specific point is effective
• Use of red to highlight more than one point is counter-effective 

To download the entire paper* and view other best practice briefings, follow the link below to the global Experian Decision Analytics collections briefing papers page:

http://www.experian-da.com/resources/briefingpapers.html

* Secure download account required. You can sign up for one today - FREE.

Beyond the financial risk management considerations related to a bank’s capital, which would be directly impacted by Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) participation, it should be clear that TARP also involves business (or strategic) risk. We have spoken in the past of several major categories of risk: credit risk, market risk, operational risk and business risk. Business risk includes a variety of risks associated with the outcomes from strategic decision making, corporate governance considerations, executive behavior (for better or worse), management succession events (Apple and Steve Jobs, for instance) or other leadership occurrences that may affect the performance and financial viability of the business.

Aside from the monetary impact on the bank’s capital position, TARP involves a new capital securities owner being in the mix. And, with a roughly 20 percent infusion of added tier one capital, we are almost always talking about a very large, new owner relative to existing shareholders. The United States Department of the Treasury is the investor or holder of the newly issued preferred stock and warrants. The Treasury Department says it does not seek voting rights, but none-the-less has gotten them in at least some cases. The real “kicker” is embedded in the Treasury’s Securities Purchase Agreement – Standard Form. 

The most interesting clause, that appears to represent a very open-ended business risk to management decision making, is one relatively small paragraph, named Amendment, in the middle of Article V - Miscellaneous, just ahead of governing law (which is federal law, backed up by the laws of the State of New York).

Amendment begins normally enough, requiring the usual signed agreement of each party, but then states: “provided that the Investor may unilaterally amend any provision of this Agreement to the extent required to comply with any changes after the Signing Date in applicable federal statutes.” Wow. My reading of this is that if in the future Congress enacts anything that Treasury finds applicable to any aspect of the previously signed TARP Agreement, the bank is bound to go along. Regardless of whether the Treasury negotiates any voting rights, once the TARP Agreement is executed by the bank, management is not only bound by what is in the document to begin with, it is subject to future federal law as long as the TARP shares are held by the government. As a result, many banks have said no thank you to TARP.

At least four banks have recently paid back $340 million to repurchase the government’s shares. And, apparently another bank has offered to pay back $1 billion but, according to Andrew Napolitano at Fox Business Channel, the offer was turned down and the bank was threatened with adverse consequences if it persisted in its attempt to get out.

More pointed and public, and much larger in size, is the dance taking place now between Chrysler Corporation, Fiat, the UAW, four lead lenders and, you guessed it, the federal government. The secured loans in question total almost $7 billion and the government wants J.P. Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citicorp and Morgan Stanley to exchange $5 billion of the loans for Chrysler stock. The banks know they would do better (for their shareholders) by selling off Chryslers assets. This is an example of why bankruptcy exists. The stakes are large and so is the business risk of the influence from the government. It will be interesting to see how things turn out.

So, this new major owner does have a voice. If Congress wants certain lending volumes or terms, or they want certain compensation levels, it needs to be enacted into federal law. Short of having to pass a law, there is the implied threat of the big stick in the TARP agreement. The Purchase 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.

This post continues the feature from my colleague and guest blogger, Mark Sofietti, Associate Process Architect in Advisory Services at Baker Hill, a part of Experian.

In today’s market, the banking industry seems to be changing at a very rapid pace.  The current crisis that we are in, as an industry and as a nation, is forcing institutions to revisit risk management policies and procedures to make the appropriate changes needed to remain healthy and profitable.  However, the current crisis is not the only reason why institutions should focus on change management.  Change management needs to be appropriately handled in bad and good times.  Understanding change management is always a necessity to a well-run organization.  Whether it is a reorganization, a new software system, a new policy or moving to a new building, change can cause a great deal of stress and uncertainty -- but it can also cause benefits.

So, as managers, you may be asking, “What can I do to ensure that positive changes are happening within my organization?  What are some of the items that I should consider when I am bringing about organizational change?” 

There are four necessary steps that need to be taken in order to improve the success of an initiative that is causing change to an institution. I covered two in my last post. Here are the additional steps.

3. Consider methods of change
One method of change is the education of individuals about new ways of operating.  This method should be used when there is more resistance to change and when individuals lack a clear understanding or knowledge of the change being made.  Education may cause the implementation to take longer, but those involved will better understand the effects of the change.

A second method is gathering participation from different levels and skill sets within the organizations.  Building a team should be used when there is the highest risk of failure due to change resistance and when more information needs to be gathered before an effective implementation can be completed.

Negotiation is a method that is used when a group or person is going to be negatively affected by the change.  This method could alleviate the discomfort by giving the person or group some other benefit.  Negotiations could allow an organization to avoid resistance, but it may be very costly and time consuming to implement the change.

The coercion change method is when a change is implemented with little room for diversion from the plan.  Employees are told what the change is going to be and they have to accept it.  This method should be used when speed is of the utmost importance, or if the change is not going to be easily accepted.  Most employees do not like this approach and it may cause resentment or it might cause staff members to leave.

The final method of change uses manipulation, the conscious decision to share limited information about the change that is taking place.  This method should only be used when no other tactic will work, or if time or cost is major issues.  This approach is dangerous because it can lead to more problems in the future.

4. Create plan of action
A plan should be created for the implementation of change to clearly address reservations and define the change strategy.  It should include internal and external audiences who can be affected by the change.  It is common to forget those who are indirectly impacted by the change -- and these audiences (customers, for example) may be the most important.  Objectives of the change need to be clearly outlined in the plan in order to understand how the new future state of the organization will look and operate.  The plan needs to be communicated to all those involved so that the transition can be understood and everyone can be held accountable.  The plan should be periodically revisited after implementation in order to review progress.  Creating a plan of action is a very important step to ensure that those who resisted the change do not revert back to their old habits. 

Achieving change is not an easy process, especially when time is not on your side.  If you take a second look at the change that you are trying to implement and do the necessary planning, you have a greater chance for success than if you or your organization fails to fully evaluate the consequences. 

Effective change management should be part of any financial risk management process. Take charge of your institution’s future through a calculated approach to change management and your organization will be in a better position for the next change that is coming around the bend.
 

This post is a feature from my colleague and guest blogger, Mark Sofietti, Associate Process Architect in Advisory Services at Baker Hill, a part of Experian.

Change is inevitable.  If you are not changing, then you are standing still and the world around you is changing.  In today’s market, the banking industry seems to be changing at a very rapid pace.  The current crisis that we are in, as an industry and as a nation, is forcing institutions to revisit their risk management policies and procedures to make the appropriate changes needed to remain healthy and profitable.  However, the current crisis is not the only reason why institutions should focus on change management.  Change management needs to be appropriately handled in bad and good times.  Understanding change management is always a necessity to a well-run organization.  Whether it is a reorganization, a new collections software system, a new policy or moving to a new building, change can cause a great deal of stress and uncertainty -- but it can also cause benefits.

So, as managers, you may be asking, “What can I do to ensure that positive changes are happening within my organization?  What are some of the items that I should consider when I am bringing about organizational change?” 

There are four necessary steps that need to be taken in order to improve the success of an initiative that is causing change to an institution.

1.  Understand current situation and needs
The first item necessary to have a successful implementation of change is to understand the current climate and reason for the change.  People are scared of change and many believe that “if it is not broken, don’t fix it.”  This is why the reasons for change need to be understood and communicated to all employees.  Changing, just for the sake of changing, causes a great deal of unrest to a department or organization.  With clearly defined reasons and objectives, the implementation of change can have a lower degree of failure.

2.  Identify resistance
During change, there will be some form of resistance.  As a manager, you will need to have thought through from where resistance might come and consider how to work through confrontations. 

One type of major resistance can be people who are looking out for their own self-interests.  People have their own agendas within the workplace and could view change as a threat to their advancement.  When dealing with these situations, you will need to have a good deal of collaboration and involvement from these individuals in order to successfully implement change.  Note, given this resistance, that the change will not happen as quickly and your timelines should be appropriately set. 

Another major resistance that may slow down the implementation of change is the lack of trust in the leaders enacting the change.  In these situations, management should build teams of trusted and respected people whose objective is to eliminate underlying resistance. 

Finally, providing facts and examples regarding the change is a necessity for a successful implementation.  Doing so can reassure employees that the change being made is beneficial to the organization.

The next post will continue with the additional two necessary steps that need to be taken in order to improve the success of an initiative that is causing change to an institution.

 

Good day all. My last blog revolved around practical approaches to effective client relationship management. It time to get back to a “risk” type conversation.

I recently told my wife that if I hear the phrase “…in this economic environment …” uttered as a caveat one more time, I’m going to scream. I have truly come to anticipate the beginning or introduction to interviews and articles to lead in with this sentiment and it’s driving me nuts.

In these economic times (you can tell I’m from the sales side, I cleverly changed the phrase), it is clearly not business as usual within most financial institutions. Conversations with CEOs and bank presidents over the past two months have usually followed the same theme, “I’ve got money to lend, but I just can’t find a decent deal” or “I’ve got applications up the wazoo, but the quality just isn’t there.”

So, what is going on?
The obvious answer is that we are looking at applications more closely and the credit side (risk management guys) is deliriously happy because everytime they make a recommendation about “reviewing the opportunity further” they also don’t hesitate to mention, “in this economic environment.”

Really, what is the scoop and how do we adjust on the front line?
Clearly, we know that deeper reviews and management of risk is being undertaken. The problem is that the established standards are no longer valid. Yes, the basics ratios still need to be run, but let’s face it, in this economic environment a company’s historical performance is no longer an effective indicator as to their future performance. The playing field is no longer consistent. The past two to three years of financials are based on circumstances that no longer apply. This means that the analysts are having a difficult time establishing effective benchmarks from which to apply credit policy – and we know that those guys are the paragons of adaptability.

We are being asked to evaluate risk in an uncertain circumstance. We are looking at projected revenues and earnings and examining receivables. We are also comparing this business to others in the industry, determining which other market segments have a direct (and indirect) impact on the performance of this one, reviewing business plans and evaluating management depth and experience. And, at the end of the day, either saying no, saying yes but not so much or holding our breath and hoping that divine intervention shows us the way.

Does any of this should sound familiar to you?
It should. We see these type of deals all of the time and we call them the start-ups.

Ok, so what am I recommending? Quite simply, that we take a step back from our typical approach to the established business and engage with them the way we would a start-up.

When an opportunity or request presents itself, restrain the urge to go down the garden path. Slow down! No... stop! Take a deep breath, put on your “economic development hat ” and approach the deal the way you would if it were a start-up (and I don’t mean running away at top speed in the opposite direction screaming). You should: 

• look for or help them construct a short term (next four to six month) tactical action/priority plan;
• help them or review their 12-month business plan;
  o NOTE: If the business hasn’t realized that they need a short-term survival plan and a mid-term business plan… run! Run far and run fast!
• examine their market and have them explain why they will make it versus the competition;
• dig into their management expertise (think AIG);
• have them explain how their tactical and 12-month business plan will keep the doors open and the lights on (since its coming into summer we’ll cut them some slack on the heat); and finally
• review and revise their projections.

If at the end of this, you still feel that the deal has legs, it probably does, and you’ve done a pretty thorough job building the business case for the credit side.

Or, you could just lament that there really isn’t much out there in this economic environment.