1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Seedy Underbelly of Debt Collection

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Songbird, Aug 16, 2014.

  1. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    Seems to me that anything that gives a lender an incentive to loan money without any regard to whether it gets paid back (because the debt will have been sold to someone else long before) is an assbackwards way to do lending.
     
  2. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    That is not loaning money without regard to whether it gets paid back. It's adding in the default value of a loan (in the secondary market) when doing your risk assessment. If there was no default value (even if it is pennies on the dollar) the expected dollar value on loans goes down. If the lender is doing his or her due dilligence correctly, that means tighter lending standards. You can take less of a chance on a marginal risk, than you would knowing you can always get back something on the loan. As a result, the liquidity in the debt market decreases.
     
  3. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    Quite a big if.

    And maybe it will get fixed when we go back to a time when interest is what drove a lender's profits. Now it's fees.
     
  4. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Yes, it is an if. Lenders can be stupid when assessing their risk. Or more likely, in today's world external factors that skew the market can cause them to miscalculate their risk and incentivize them to take on more risk than they believe they are taking on.

    But that has nothing to do with a secondary / resale market for loans. That resale market might lower the risk involved in writing a loan with marginal credit worthiness (creating more loans), and make it perfectly reasonable to write loans you otherwise might not have. Beyond that, someone would be hard pressed to suggest any reason that a secondary market would cause lenders to write loans without ANY regard for the credit worthiness of the loan. Does the fact that you can sell a car on a secondary market mean you don't do any due diligence as to what you are you buying when shopping for a new car?

    Why would you be so concerned with what motivates a lender to lend? It can be interest. It can be fees. It can be the ability to resell the loan. It might be the ability to arbitrage the loan in an unrelated market. There can be endless reasons, and none of them are right or wrong. At the end of the day, a loan is a contract. If someone borrows money, they know the terms they borrowed under. If that includes fees in addition to interest, by virtue of the fact that both a creditor and a borrower agreed to those terms, the terms were enough to induce each of them to enter the agreement. Looking at it from the outside, why is that an inherently bad thing to you?
     
  5. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Oh, I never meant to suggest that he/she had been in default. It's just that he/she noted "regular" payments. And the difference, over the loan life, between "regular" payments and "always precisely on time" payments can be not so trivial.

    Suppose you borrow $10,000 at 10% for 10 years (monthly payments). Your monthly payment will be $132.15. Now, further suppose that you make your very first payment on the last day before it's late (let's say that's 15 days into the month), and you do the same throughout the life of the loan. You only get hit with extra interest that one month (because the remaining 119 payments are made 30 days apart). Yet after that 120th payment, you'll still owe close to the equivalent of one month's payment.

    The point is it doesn't take much (when interest rates are high) in the way of payment irregularity (just the normal stuff for those who aren't perfect, like me), for those end-of-loan amounts to be way out of whack as compared to what the coupon book says.
     
  6. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I didn't follow that Doc, but I still don't see how he could legitimately (as opposed to it being a mistake, which is what I thought he was suggesting) owe 4 times what he would have under the original terms, without having something drastically having changed -- for example, having missed payments, triggered fees under the original terms, a higher interest rate, etc.
     
  7. JayFarrar

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    Y'all are forgetting collection fees.

    Each time the debt was sold, the new buyer added in some percentage and then throw interest.
     
  8. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    They can't unilaterally change the terms of the loan you agreed to. You are only responsible for the terms of the promissory note you signed.

    I would guess they usually charge hefty collection fees, but those would have been spelled out in the promissory note.

    In this case, again, a collection fee wouldn't be triggered without a default. And the bottom line is, if you signed the papers, you agreed to those terms.
     
  9. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    I was just suggesting that the party in error in that circumstance might have been the borrower, not the original lender or the subsequent holder(s) of the debt. If you're relying strictly on your coupon book, and if you haven't paid EVERY payment PRECISELY on time, that book is going to lead you astray. And if interest rates are relatively high, it can lead you VERY astray.
     
  10. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    My mind keeps going back to the Tribune Company debacle.

    There were red flags waving at hurricane force. And IF IF IF the only way the lenders were going to see a profit was on the 8 percent interest Zell agreed to, the deal never would have gone through. Never. Because, well, it SHOULDN'T have gone through.

    Only the ancillary factors (fees, selling the debt) made just enough greedy people just blind enough to keep lurching it toward completion. "I'll get a fat bonus just as long as this horseshit deal closes, so . . . "

    This e-mail by an JPMorgan Chase analyst written during the deal sums up the perverse lending climate:

    "There is wide speculation that [Tribune] might have [taken on] so much debt that all of its assets aren't gonna cover the debt in case of (knock-knock) you know what. Well. that's what we [the bank's Tribune team] are saying, too. But we're doing this 'cause it's enough to cover our bank debt. So, lesson learned from this deal: our (here I mean JPM's) business strategy for TRB, but probably not only limited to TRB, is 'hit and run' --- we'll s_uck the sponsor's a$$ as long as we can s_uck out of the (dying or dead?) client's pocket, and we really don't care as long as our a$$ is well-covered. Fxxk 2nd/private guys --- they'll be swallowed by big a$$ banks like us, anyways."

    They knew the debt would not be repaid. They didn't care. It's a fucked up way to do banking.

    And people like me care because, SEVEN YEARS AFTER THE DEAL WENT THROUGH, we still are subject to a lawsuit filed by Aurelius Capital Management, claiming that the deal was fraudulent conveyance and thus any proceeds paid to shareholders --- i.e. BTExpress --- are subject to be clawed back FROM THOSE FORMER SHAREHOLDERS. So far the courts have given them the green light to proceed.
     
  11. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    True.

    But the lender can also (I would possibly even say "just as easily") be in error, particularly if the debt has been sold at least once. Record-keeping isn't so pristine on their side either.
     
  12. Was this a private student loan? If the loan was a federal loan, it would be in default within a year of not making payments, and tax refunds and wages would be garnished within a few years.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page