Recovery Management

Retail banks have more difficulties to act upstream because they do not always have the same tools for monitoring risks. Also the volume of customers does not allow individual monitoring as efficient and systematic. Finally, the financial stakes of unit operations are often more important at the BFI, tools KYC (Know Your Customer) are often much better.An effort to strengthen the prevention of counter-party risk should be primarily focused at the retail bank. To be most effective in monitoring customer, banks must improve their KYC tools and adapt information systems to ensure better traceability and customer knowledge.

As part of the difficulty in tracking customers, banks must also be able to manage more aggressively selecting records management solutions pre-fault available to them: credit retrieval, assignment of claims ...

And if despite this, the transition to recovery is inevitable, it must be managed at best to recover the money owed.

Banks now use three different modes of recovery: the recovery in house, outsourcing and the assignment of receivables. According to the amounts to be recovered, the volume of files to process and cost recovery charges / recoveries banks prioritize one mode over another.

Internalization of recovery is used when the amount of recovery is important. This method has the advantage of allowing banks to keep a close link with its customers (customer loyalty) and propose appropriate solutions according to their situations. They must be able to identify different types of debtors, and thus to distinguish the deadbeat clients temporarily in difficulty. In this case also, good customer knowledge is required in order to propose a debt restructuring to the right customers. Outsourcing is prioritized by banks to process a large volume of records of outstanding amounts and less homogeneous. External companies are mandated by the banks to to recover on their behalf for a fee depending on the amount recovered.