Using Models & Analysis to Optimize Expense

Report 4 Downloads 156 Views
Using Models & Analysis to Optimize Expense October 29, 2015

William “Brad” Bradley Senior Vice President Retail Credit Risk Management

SunTrust Auto Portfolio  ~$9 billion portfolio  Primarily originated though dealers  Very high credit quality  High FICO  Low DTI  Low LTV

 Low charge-off rates  Charge-offs increased during recession, but declined in recent years  Many loans that go early stage delinquency are just “sloppy payers” who cure prior to rolling to the next bucket

 Collections Team & Credit partnered to update the collections strategy 2

Previous Collections Strategy Distribution of Dials by Delinquency Bucket 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

90%

71% of dials through a live agent channel (dialer, manual, etc.) 29% of dials were through an automated channel

8% 1-29

30-59

1%

1%

0%

60-89 90-119 Delinquency Bucket

120+

 Dials prior to the strategy change were focused on early stage delinquency – Goal was to catch loans early to prevent late stage later  Required a large collections team to handle call volume

3

Roll Rates Roll Rates of 1-29DPD Bucket 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

95%

5% Cure/Remain

Roll to Worse Next Month Status

 Most of the accounts we were dialing in the 1-29DPD bucket were curing  Indicates we were spending a lot resources on loans that would cure anyway

 Decided that a model was needed to predict which loans in the 129DPD bucket would roll to 30-59DPD  Model could be used to guide strategy

4

Model Solution Roll Rates to 30DPD by Model Decile 25%

22% 85% of accounts that roll to 30DPD are captured in 50% of the population

20% 15%

17%

12%

10% 5% 1%

1%

2%

1

2

3

3%

4%

6%

6%

0% Lower Risk

4

5 6 Model Decile

7

8

9

10

Higher Risk

 We developed a model that predicted the probability of a loan in the 1-29DPD bucket rolling to 30-59DPD  Model incorporates credit variables as well as recent performance (# of times 1-29DPD in past 6 months)  DPD also in the model so as the account moves closer to 30DPD, the probability of roll increases 5

Collections Levers Lever

Calling Strategy

Skill Based Routing Intensity Placement Strategy

Options • • • •

Call/No Call Live Agent/Automated # of Attempts Skiptrace Efforts

• High Risk Accounts to Above Average Collectors • On-shore, Off-shore • # of Calls Per Month • Work, Place, Sell, Warehouse

 We have multiple options for implementing our calling strategy  The model can tell us which loans are most likely to roll but we need to test to determine the best strategy 6

Test Design All 1-29DPD Accounts

5% All Live Agent

5% All Automated

90% Existing Strategy

Randomly selected by last 2 digits of Loan Number

 10% of our accounts were randomly selected to go to test  Represented accounts in all risk deciles

 Test was run for 3 months, with a review of results afterwards  Daily monitoring occurred to ensure Operations was executing test  Previous instance where Operations Managers did not follow strategy leading to tainted results 7

Test Results – 30 Day Window Roll to 30+ Rate – Agent vs. Automated Test Groups Agent

30.0%

Automated 27.3%

25.0%

22.4%

20.0%

17.4% 16.7%

15.0% 10.0% 5.0%

9.1% 6.7%

1.1% 0.9%

1.8% 1.3%

3.4% 2.2%

4.6% 3.3%

5.7% 5.5%

11.7% 10.5%

6.4%

6.1% 5.0%

3.9%

0.0% 1

2 Lower Risk

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Total

Higher Risk

 Reviewing our results after 30 days show that our live agent channel performs better than the automated channel  A few deciles showed flipped results – this was attributed to small sample sizes  It appears as though we should be sending all accounts through our live agents… 8

Test Results – 60 Day Window Roll to 30+ Rate – Agent vs. Automated Test Groups Agent

30.0%

Automated

25.0% 20.0% 15.0%

12.3%

10.0% 5.0%

9.1%

1.0% 1.0%

2.2%

3.1%2.7%

4.4% 3.5%

5.7% 3.7%

4.3%3.6%

6.3% 4.6%

4

5

6

7

13.0% 11.9%

8.5%

6.4% 4.1%4.3%

1.1%

0.0% 1

2 Lower Risk

3

8

9

10

Total

Higher Risk

 After a loan rolls to 30+DPD, it automatically receives agent treatment

 This higher treatment leads to more cures and after 60 days, the number of 30+DPD loans is almost the same between channels 9

Test Results – Charge-Off Charge-Off Rate – Agent vs. Automated Test Groups Agent

4.0%

Automated 3.5% 3.5%

3.5%

3.3% 3.2%

3.0% 2.5%

2.2%

2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0%

0.0% 0.0%

1

0.3%

0.3%

2 Lower Risk

0.9% 0.6%

0.6% 0.2%

3

4

0.8%

0.9%

1.0% 0.9%

1.1%1.1% 0.8%

0.4%

0.2%

5

6

7

8

9

10

Total

Higher Risk

 Charge-off levels were essentially the same between the two test groups  We performed a cost benefit analysis and decided that we should implement the following:  Reduce call volumes to 1-29DPD  Switch call volumes in 1-29DPD to automated channels 10

New Collections Strategy Distribution of Dials by Delinquency Bucket 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Old Strategy

90%

New Strategy

81%

8% 1-29

16%

30-59

1% 2%

1% 1%

0% 0%

60-89 90-119 Delinquency Bucket

120+

 Call volumes moved away from early delinquency and towards higher delinquency

 Calls that are made in the early stage delinquency buckets are focused on the high risk accounts as determined by the model 11

New Collections Strategy Distribution of Dials by Channel 1-29DPD Bucket 80% 70%

71%

Old Strategy

New Strategy

76%

60% 50% 40% 30%

29%

24%

20% 10% 0% Live Agent

Automated Call Channel

 Call mix moved from mostly live agent to mostly automated  Win/win for customer and bank  Customer: Early delinquency now receives softer courtesy automated reminder call rather than a call from a collections agent  Bank: Reduced expense as automated calls are much less expensive, plus agents have more time to focus on solutions for customers who actually need help (rather than just a reminder to pay) 12

Strategy Results

As expected, after implementing the strategy, our 30-59 DPD delinquency rate increased by 40%

 The new strategy did cause an uptick in our 30-59DPD rates  Lesson learned – Remind executives multiple times prior to strategy implementation and after implementation so they understand this is going to happen 13

Strategy Results

 As expected, our 60-89 DPD and 90-119 DPD delinquencies remained flat other than some normal seasonal changes  This translated through to no impacts to charge-offs

14

Expense Savings Product

Expense Savings

C/O Impact

DDA

80%

$0

Auto

45%

$0

Real Estate

20%

$0

Credit Card

TBD

TBD

Recoveries

TBD

TBD

 We conducted this type of modeling and testing across all of the major portfolios and have generated significant savings thus far  Next steps include continuing to test the various levers we can pull to optimize expense while holding C/O down 15

Recommend Documents