EOS Template-M

Report
Collection agencies and banks:
examples of partnership in Europe
and reality of Russian market.
Mariusz Kloska
Managing Director - EOS Russia
1
Number of average consumer credits per capita in kEUR – highest
values in Ireland, Spain and UK in Europe
Selected European countries
Ireland
6.8
Spain
5.0
United Kingdom
4.2
Greece
1.1
Croatia
0.9
Romania
0.9
Ukraine
0.8
Germany
2.1
Turkey
0.6
Belgium
2.1
Russia
0.5
Poland
2.1
Bulgaria
0.5
Baltic Countries
0.5
Italy
1.7
Portugal
1.5
Macedonia
0.5
Netherlands
1.5
Slovak Republic
0.4
Slovenia
1.4
Hungary
0.4
Czech Republic
2
3.2
Czech Republic
1.1
Serbia 0.1
Ratio of consumer credits to GDP – Ukraine and Poland with
highest percentage
Selected European countries in %
Ukraine
33.0
Poland
22.5
Spain
21.0
Ireland
16.1
Greece
7.9
Slovenia
7.8
Czech Republic
7.0
Germany
6.9
Italy
6.5
United Kingdom
14.2
Belgium
6.4
Romania
13.7
Russia
6.2
Turkey
11.4
Netherlands
4.2
Macedonia
10.5
Hungary
3.7
Bulgaria
10.3
Slovak Republic
Portugal
Baltic Countries
3
15.0
Croatia
9.3
8.4
Serbia
2.9
1.1
Average payments for banks decreased especially in Russia and
Poland dramatically from 2008-2010
2008 (=1)
2009
2010
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
0,88
0,87 0,88
0,74
0,67
0,71
0,54
0,58
Russia
4
1,00
1,00
0,56
0,48
Poland
Czech
Slovakia
Romania
0,63
0,58
Hungary
Average payments for banks decreased in most of the countries in
Eastern Europe except from ex-Yugoslavia
2008 (=1)
2009
2010
1,0 0,97 0,99
1,00 1,07
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,07
1,00
1,14
0,87 0,85
1,00
0,94
0,74
0,67
Bulgaria
5
Greece
Romania
Serbia
Macedonia
1) Telco data due to business in Slovenia. 2008 figures are not available
Slovenia1)
UK is a good example where markets can go in future in EE
UK
Market Maturity
Embryonic
EOS
 Top 10
 Market entry 1993
 Mostly contingency
collection, therefore
EOS does not
suffer from
impairments like
competitors
Growth
Maturity
Key Facts Debt Collection Market
Decline
 Most mature market after US, DP market
 A lot of private equity companies invested in NPL and
bought DCAs
 During financial crisis market suffers a lot (impairments)
 500 DCAs on the market
 High level of outsourcing – 42% of NPL are collected
from external DCAs
 47% of outstanding debts are older than 60 days
 NPL volume in 2009: EUR 155 bn (plus 44% compared
to 2008)
Key Market Players
 First Credit, EUR 85m revenue
 Lowell Group, EUR 56m
 Robinson Way, EUR 50m
 Moorcroft, EUR 50m
 Wescot, EUR 39m
 Aktiv Kapital, EUR 20m
Key Economic Figures
GDP ($bn)
GDP growth (%, local
currency)
Inflation (%)
Inhabitants (m)
Outstanding consumer
credits ($bn)
6
2009
2010e
2011e
2.183
2.222
2.297
-4,9
1,3
2,5
2,2
2,7
1,6
61,8
62,2
62,6
371,7
n/a
n/a
The debt management market in Poland
Key information about the market
 Changed profile of debtor,
 Debtors is more like client than enemy!
 Trade Information bureau
 Linear and progressive comission,
 Securitization Funds,
 E-court ,
 In total, the segment of debt recovery of purchased debt packages increased
in 2006 – 2009 by 22 percent,
 Size of collection market should be stabile bu 2014.
7
In Russia, Poland and Czech Republic a debt collection license is
not needed – only in Poland regarding servicing of funds
Summary
Regulations
debt collection
Bulgaria

Regulations
debt purchasing

No
Comments
No
No license required
Poland

No

No

No (but law for  EUR 350 k minimum capital required for
debt collection services
securitization)

No
License required
Czech
Republic

No
No license required
8
 License from Polish Financial Supervisory
Authority is only required if you handle
claims purchased by investments funds
(securitisation transactions)
 License only needed for servicing of NPLs
from investment funds

 Law under consideration regarding debt
collection license and fee policies towards
debtors
There are in Hungary and Romania regulations regarding debt
purchasing – only in Hungary a special license is required
Summary
Regulations
debt collection
Slovakia

No
Regulations
debt purchasing

Comments
No
No license required
Hungary

No

Yes
Special DP license required
Romania

No

Yes
No license required
9
 For debt purchasing special license is
needed, company must be an incorporation
with minimum of 200TEUR capital, direct
monitoring of authorities, detailed quarterly
reports to authorities necessary, long
procedure to receive license
 No special law in Romania regarding debt
collection services, only general laws
covering data and consumer protection
 Debt Purchase – laws are covering the
transfer/assignment of receivables; no
special vehicle is necessary for it. One
company can do DP and debt collection
How many competitors are there on the German market?
Month
No. of ‘registered’ debt
collection providers
07.2009
08.2009
09.2009
10.2009
1,457
1,512
1,558
1,628
…
08.2010
1,746
Increase in providers of pre-litigation legal services
 by about 24 competitors per month!
 by about 15% within 12 months!
And not forgetting approximately 150,000 lawyers!
The German debt collection market is highly competitive and only sparsely concentrated.
This also applies to the B2B debt collection niche!
10
Prove what you promise – USPs in the B2B market
We promise quality and we deliver quality – The proof
How our clients perceive our quality and service:
 Friendliness
Ø 4.44
 Availability
Ø 4.28
 Service focus
Ø 4.17
 Honesty
Ø 4.17
 Commitment
Ø 4.13
 Punctuality
Ø 4.12
 Response time
Ø 4.08
 Service quality
Ø 4.20
Very dissatisfied
Source: EOS KSI client satisfaction survey 2009 (Sept./Oct. 2009)
11
2
3
 Data protection
Ø 4.29
 Accuracy
Ø 4.13
 Competence
Ø 4.11
 Focus
Ø 3.97
 Processing time
Ø 3.75
 Realization
Ø 3.68
 Reporting
Ø 3.62
 Quality of
products
Ø 3.93
4
Very satisfied
Prove what you promise – USPs in the B2B market
We promise quality and we deliver quality – The proof
Even our defaulting clients experience quality and service:
 Understanding
Ø 4.27
 Availability
Ø 4.21
 Punctuality
Ø 4.12
 Friendliness
Ø 4.04
 Focus
Ø 4.12
 Data protection
Ø 4.09
 Competence
Ø 3.95
 Remain clients
Ø 3.80
 Neutrality
Ø 3.78
Ø 3.64
 Response time
Ø 3.89
 Honesty
Ø 3.79
 Transaction handling
quality
 No pressure
Ø 3.62
 Reasonableness
Ø 3.62
 Service quality
Ø 3.99
 Quality of service
Ø 3.86
Very dissatisfied
Source: EOS KSI defaulting client satisfaction survey 2010 (March 2010)
12
2
3
4
Very satisfied

similar documents