Tag: bankcard
I’ve recently been hearing a lot about how bankcard lenders are reacting to changes in legislation, and recent statistics clearly show that lenders have reduced bankcard acquisitions as they retune acquisition and account management strategies for their bankcard portfolios. At this point, there appears to be a wide-scale reset of how lenders approach the market, and one of the main questions that needs to be answered pertains to market-entry timing: Should a lender be the first to re-enter the market in a significant manner, or is it better to wait, and see how things develop before executing new credit strategies? I will dedicate my next two blogs to defining these approaches and discussing them with regard to the current bankcard market. Based on common academic frameworks, today’s lenders have the option of choosing one of the following two routes: becoming a first-mover, or choosing to take the role of a secondary or late mover. Each of these roles possess certain advantages and also corresponding risks that will dictate their strategic choices: The first-mover advantage is defined as “A sometimes insurmountable advantage gained by the first significant company to move into a new market.” (1) Although often confused with being the first-to-market, first-mover advantage is more commonly considered for firms that first substantially enter the market. The belief is that the first mover stands to gain competitive advantages through technology, economies of scale and other avenues that result from this entry strategy. In the case of the bankcard market, current trends suggest that segments of subprime and deep-subprime consumers are currently underserved, and thus I would consider the first lender to target these customers with significant resources to have ‘first-mover’ characteristics. The second-mover to a market can also have certain advantages: the second-mover can review and assess the decisions of the first-mover and develops a strategy to take advantage of opportunities not seized by the first-mover. As well, it can learn from the mistakes of the first-mover and respond, without having to incur the cost of experiential learning and possessing superior market intelligence. So, being a first-mover and second-mover can each have its advantages and pitfalls. In my next contribution, I’ll address these issues as they pertain to lenders considering their loan origination strategies for the bankcard market. (1) http://www.marketingterms.com/dictionary/first_mover_advtanage
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.
Learn More Image
