OPTIMIZING REPOSSESSION RESULTS THROUGH EFFECTIVE VENDOR SCORE CARDINGNothing impacts repossession results more than setting up effective competition between your vendors using well-constructed vendor scorecards.  

TODAY’S TOPICSOptimizing Repossession Results Through Effective Vendor Score Carding

123

Review of various recovery performance metrics/scorecards

Review of various compliance metrics/scorecards

Review a suggested best practice model

LET’S GET STARTEDOptimizing Repossession Results Through Effective Vendor Score Carding

{}

REPO RECOVERY PERFROMANCE SCORE CARD EXAMPLES

MANY APPROACHESOptimizing Repossession Results Through Effective Vendor Score Carding

• Frequency

• Closed batch vs. total recoveries

• Incorporation of other recovery metrics

• Incorporation of compliance/SLS metrics

• Level of transparency

• Market share allocation strategy

CLOSED VS. OPEN BATCHOptimizing Repossession Results Through Effective Vendor Score Carding

June July Aug.Total Recoveries That Month / Total Cases Received that Month

28.7% 29.6% 29.3%

Final Recovery Rate on Cases Received that Month 33.6% 34.3% 34..9 %

Influencing Factors

• Changes in monthly volume • Timing of case placement during the month • Vendor resource strategy

CLOSED BATCH SCORECARD Optimizing Repossession Results Through Effective Vendor Score Carding

Month June July AugustAssignments 701 1490 1538Open 0 0 0DTR 4.5 6.2 5.2Recoveries 200 450 429Recovery Percentage 28.5% 30.2% 27.9%Positive close 200 305 485

Current open batch assignments

0

125

250

375

500

Assi

gnm

ents

0

400

800

1200

1600

June July August

BASIC SCORECARDOptimizing Repossession Results Through Effective Vendor Score Carding

Closed Batch Performance

Vendor A

Month January February March

Total assigned 1149 1088 1099Open 0 0 0Closed 565 600 599DTR 4.6 5 3.2Recoveries 584 488 500Recovery Percentage 50.8% 44.9% 45.5%

Cumulative PerformanceMonth January February March

Total assigned 1149 1088 1099Open 0 0 0Closed 631 596 602DTR 5.2 4.8 3.7Recoveries 518 492 497Recovery Percentage 45.1% 45.2% 45.2%

BASIC SCORECARD

• Lender does not identify other vendors

• Days to Repo (DTR) is tracked, but has no impact on performance score.

• Compares vendor to a cumulative average. Does not disclose anything about the other vendors

• Lender does not award market-share based on performance.

Highlights

INTERMEDIATE SCORECARDOptimizing Repossession Results Through Effective Vendor Score Carding

Aug-18

VendorInvoluntary Assignment

sInvoluntary Recoveries

Voluntary Assignments

Voluntary Recoveries

Voluntary Recovery

Rate

  Jul-18 Jul-18 Jul-18 Jul-18 Jul-18

Vendor A 334 143 3 3 100%

Vendor B 243 75 54 45 83%

Vendor C 371 164 5 4 80%

Vendor D 344 126 55 46 84% 1292 508 117 98 84%

Performance & Market Share 70% 20% 10%  

Results

Involuntary Repossessi

on Rate

Involuntary Repo Rate

Score

Avg days to repo

Involuntary

Avg days to repo

Voluntary

Avg Days to Involuntary Repo Score

Avg Days to Voluntary

Repo

Total Performance

Points

  90 Day 90 Day August August Aug-18 Aug-18 Aug-18

Vendor A 44.9% 70 5.3 14 18 2 90

Vendor B 47.9% 57 6.4 5 15 7 79Vendor C 41.7% 68 4.8 3 20 9 97

Vendor D 35.7% 62 4.8 3 20 10 92 43.0% 257 5.3 6 73 28 358

• Breaks out voluntary and involuntary cases separately

• Different weightings applied to repo rate, repo score and DTR

• All rolls up into a total performance score. Score formula is not shared

• Vendors are not identified but are compared

INTERMEDIATE SCORECARD CONTINUED

  Current 60 Day 90 Day Market Share

VendorTotal Points

Total Points

Total Points

Involuntary Assignment %

 

Vendor A 94 179 275 31%

Vendor B 95 176 262 27%

Vendor C 86 183 268 27%

Vendor D 69 161 250 15%

344 699 1055 100%

6-Month % To Best Performance  

Agency July-18 June-18 May-18 April-18 Average  

Vendor A 100% 83% 90% 100% 95%

Vendor B 96% 88% 100% 82% 93%

Vendor C 84% 95% 93% 88% 92%

Vendor D 97% 100% 88% 78% 88%

  94% 92% 93% 87% 92%

• Current score combined with 60 & 90 day scores to create an overall score

• Formal market share allocation determined monthly

• Separate 6 month comparison that rank orders vendors based on score vs. best performer

• Overall, pretty complicated and difficult for the vendors to really understand

Highlights

COMPLEX SCORECARDOptimizing Repossession Results Through Effective Vendor Score Carding

Vendor A Vendor B Recoveries by stateMonthly Results State

August

Total Assignments 378 582 20181st Placements 282 483 AK #REF!2nd Placements 89 94 AL 40.00%3rd+ Placements 6 5 AR #REF!Voluntary 9 21 AZ #REF!

Total Units Secured 111 234 CA #REF!1st Placements 95 202 CO #REF!2nd Placements 16 29 CT #REF!3rd+ Placements 0 3 DE #REF!Voluntary 10 18 FL 39.00%

Recovery % 29.37% 40.21% GA #REF!1st Placements 33.69% 41.82% HI #REF!2nd Placements 17.98% 30.85% IA #REF!3rd+ Placements 0.00% 60.00% ID #REF!

Voluntary 111.11% 85.71% IL #REF!Score has a 30% weighting 2 3 IN 20.00%

Total Closes 205 316 KS #REF!Positive Closes 134 153 KY 10.00%

Resolution % 64.81% 66.49% LA 22.00%Score has a 50% weighting 4.757 5.154 MA #REF!

Days to Repo 7 6 MD 60.00%Score has a 20% weighting 4 4 ME #REF!

• Does not identify Vendors that are being compared

• Measures performance on total assignments divided by recoveries (not batch)

• Tracks recovery rate by placement tier rather than an overall recovery rate

• Recoveries, Positive closes, and Days to repo all have a weighting that impact the performance score.

• Also measures, and tracks recoveries by state. No impact on market share allocation

Highlights

COMING NEXTOptimizing Repossession Results Through Effective Vendor Score Carding

{}

SOW & REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SCORE CARD EXAMPLES

SOW/COMPLIANCE SCORECARDOptimizing Repossession Results Through Effective Vendor Score Carding

Regulatory Compliance

Quality Category Goal June July August 3 Month AvgCompliance Score 90% 88% 90% 90% 88%

Regulatory Compliance Errors Allowed

Total Possible

Score

Aug-18 Aug-18

# Errors Score

Repossessions in error 0 25% 0 25%State Requirements 0 25% 0 25%

Personal Property Letter 0 20% 0 20%Late Repossession

Reporting 99%* 10% 11 0%

Account Closures 99%* 10% 1 10%QC Call Monitoring

99%* 10%

0 10%

Total 100% 0 90%Call Monitoring

Vendor A Total calls Call

Components # of Errors August 90 day averageResults 43 430 0 100.00 99.69Call Calibration results 2 20 0 100.00 100.00Call Monitoring Error Counts          

Vendor A June July AugustQC Call Disclosure 0 0 03rd Party Verification 0 0 0Verification 0 0 0Disclosure of Purpose 0 0 0Accurate Info provided 0 0 0Account Documented 0 0 0

Harassing or threatening language 0 0 0

• Separates Compliance into two sections. Regulatory compliance requirements and Call monitoring

• Multiple compliance issues measured and scorecard weighted

• Several SOW and regulatory compliance components are scored, and calculated to give an overall performance score

Highlights

AGENT ACTIVITY SCORECARDOptimizing Repossession Results Through Effective Vendor Score Carding

Total Incidents

Vendor Name January

February March Total

Overall 12 12 21 231Vendor A 8 5 14 118Vendor B 4 7 7 65Vendor C 0 0 0 48

Agent Activity

Vendor DetailsJanuary

February March Total

Agent related complaint 0 0 0 8Fees 0 0 0 5Personal Property 0 0 0 26Vehicle Damage 0 0 0 1Property Damage 0 0 0 2Repossession in error 0 0 0 0

Repossessed in Error

Vendor Name January

February March Total

Overall 0 0 0 11

• Focuses on agent performance

• Measures total incidents and breakdown by type

• Not formally incorporated into market share allocation. Rather, point of discussion

• RIE’s are tracked and compared with other vendors on the scorecard

Highlights

SOW PERFORMANCE SCORECARD 2Optimizing Repossession Results Through Effective Vendor Score Carding

Critical

Invoicing Goal Total Invoiced

Actual Performance Pass/Fail

Placement 95% 142 100% PassTotal 95% 629 100% Pass         

Invoice Accuracy Goal

Total Invoiced

Actual Performance Pass/Fail

Tier 1 95% 142 100% PassTotal 95% 629 99.4 Pass         Repossession Report 48Hrs Goal Total

Actual Performance Pass/Fail

Tier 1 95% 116 100% PassTotal 95% 499 99.8 Pass

Highlights• Lender focuses on SLA’s in the

overall scorecard

• Defined as critical vs. non critical

• Separate remediation for both

• Billing related and repo reporting timeliness considered critical

SOW PERFORMANCE SCORECARD 2 Optimizing Repossession Results Through Effective Vendor Score Carding

Non-Critical

Assignment Decisions Goal Actual Performance Pass/Fail

Tier 1 98% 100% PassTotal 98% 100% Pass

Repossession updates Goal Actual Performance Pass/Fail

Tier 1 98% 100% PassTotal 98% 100% Pass

Impound updates Goal Actual Performance Pass/Fail

Tier 1 98% 100% PassTotal 98% 100% PassRequirment: Updates required every 48 hours

Skip Updates Goal Actual Performance Pass/Fail

Tier 1 98% 100% PassTotal 98% 100% PassRequirement: Updates required every 14 days

Condition Reports Goal Actual Performance Pass/Fail

Tier 1 98% 100% PassTier2 98% 100% PassTotal 98% 100% PassRequirement: C/R need to be uploaded with in 2 business days of the repossession.  

• Additional SLA’s identified as non-critical but still measured

• No vendor comparison

• Performance tracked against target

• Simple pass or fail determination

• Rolls up into overall score that incorporates recovery performance

Highlights

BEST PRACTICE MODELOptimizing Repossession Results Through Effective Vendor Score Carding

• Focus on what is important to your institution • Fewer variables better • Make as transparent/understandable as possible

• Multiple vendors (2-3) • Fairly short assignment duration

• Max 30 days on forwarding case • Max 60 days on skip case

• Closed batch measurement • 4 tier rotation

• 2 pre charge off • 2 post charge off

• Monthly scorecards / market share allocation

THANK YOUOptimizing Repossession Results Through Effective Vendor Score Carding