The Structure and Practices of the

Debt Buying Industry

Federal Trade Commission

January 2013
January 2013

The Structure and Practices of the

Debt Buying Industry

Jon Leibowitz, Chairman

Edith Ramirez, Commissioner

Julie Brill, Commissioner

Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Commissioner

Joshua D. Wright, Commissioner

Federal Trade Commission
REPORT CONTRIBUTORS

BUREAU OF CONSUMER PROTECTION

Thomas Kane, Attorney, Division of Financial Practices 

Jason Schall, Attorney, Division of Financial Practices

Heather Allen, Attorney, Division of Financial Practices 

Daniel Dwyer, Attorney, Division of Financial Practices

Bevin Murphy, Attorney, Northeast Region 

Thomas Pahl, Assistant Director, Division of Financial Practices

Jessica Rich, Associate Director, Division of Financial Practices

Jose Oyola-Sepulveda, Paralegal, Division of Financial Practices

TJ Peeler, Visual Information Specialist, Division of Consumer and Business Education

BUREAU OF ECONOMICS

Daniel Becker, Economist, Division of Consumer Protection

Marc Luppino, Economist, Division of Consumer Protection

Margaret Patterson, Economist, Division of Consumer Protection

James Lacko, Deputy Assistant Director, Division of Consumer Protection

Janis Pappalardo, Assistant Director, Division of Consumer Protection

Ania Jaroszewicz, Research Analyst, Bureau of Economics

Benjamin Miller, Research Analyst, Bureau of Economics

Julie Miller, Research Analyst, Bureau of Economics

John Mountjoy, Research Analyst, Bureau of Economics

Joseph Remy, Research Analyst, Bureau of Economics

Eric Shaeffer, Research Analyst, Bureau of Economics

Michael Shores, Research Analyst, Bureau of Economics

Scott Syms, Research Analyst, Bureau of Economics

Aleksey Verkhivker, Research Analyst, Bureau of Economics
CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR DEBT BUYING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III.  STUDY METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A. Data Collected from Debt Buyers. 

B. Other Sources of Information. 

IV. THE DEBT BUYING MARKET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A. Consumer Credit and Debt Buying. .

B. The Debt Buying Industry. .

V. THE DEBT BUYING PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A. Seller Creation of Debt Portfolios  .

B. Seller Marketing of Portfolios  .

C. Buyer Analysis of Seller Portfolio Information. .

D. Buyers Bidding on Portfolios. .

E. Prices Buyers Paid for Portfolios. .

F. Contractual Agreements to Purchase Debt. .

VI. INFORMATION IN THE COLLECTION PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A. Legal Requirements for Information that Collectors Must Have and Use in Collecting on 

Debts  .

B. FTC Evaluation of Debt Buyer Information  .

VII. THE COLLECTION OF OLDER DEBTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A. Age and Accuracy of Debts that Debt Buyers Collect  .

B. Time-Barred Debt. .

VIII. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

APPENDICES

Tables. . 

Technical Appendix A: 6(b) Orders Sent to Debt Buyers. . 

Technical Appendix B: Portfolio-level Data Analysis. . 

Technical Appendix C: Analysis of Contracts. . 

Technical Appendix D: Describing Portfolio Data. . 

This report is available online at 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2013/01/debtbuyingreport.pdf. 

The online version of this report contains live hyperlinks. 
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In a 2009 study of the debt collection industry, the Commission concluded that the “most significant 

change in the debt collection business in recent years has been the advent and growth of debt buying.” 

“Debt buying” refers to the sale of debt by creditors or other debt owners to buyers that then attempt to 

collect the debt or sell it to other buyers. Debt buying can reduce the losses that creditors incur in providing 

credit, thereby allowing creditors to provide more credit at lower prices. Debt buying, however, also may 

raise significant consumer protection concerns.

The FTC receives more consumer complaints about debt collectors, including debt buyers, than about 

any other single industry. Many of these complaints appear to have their origins in the quantity and quality 

of information that collectors have about debts. In its 2009 study, the Commission expressed concern that 

debt collectors, including debt buyers, may have insufficient or inaccurate information when they collect 

on debts, which may result in collectors seeking to recover from the wrong consumer or recover the wrong 

amount.

The FTC initiated this debt buyer study in late 2009 for two main purposes. First, the FTC sought to 

obtain a better understanding of the debt buying market and the process of buying and selling debt. Second, 

the Commission wanted to explore the nature and extent of the relationship, if any, between the practice of 

debt buying and the types of information problems that the FTC has found can occur when debt collectors 

seek to recover and verify debts.

Many stakeholders recognize the concerns that have been raised about debt buying, including consumer 

groups, members of Congress, federal and state regulatory and enforcement agencies, and the debt buyer 

industry itself. Indeed, the debt buyer industry has launched a self-regulatory effort to address some of 

these concerns, and the FTC is encouraged by that effort. This study of debt buyers is the first large-scale 

empirical assessment of the debt buying sector of the collection industry. The FTC hopes that its findings 

contribute to a greater understanding of debt buying, enhance ongoing reform efforts, and prompt further 

study of the industry. 

STUDY OVERVIEW

To conduct its study, the Commission obtained information about debts and debt buying practices from 

nine of the largest debt buyers that collectively bought 76.1% of the debt sold in 2008, with six of these debt 

buyers providing the information the Commission used in most of its analysis. The FTC also considered its 

prior enforcement and policy work related to debt collection, as well as available research concerning debt 

buying. The study focused on large debt buyers because they account for most of the debt purchased; it did 

not address the practices of smaller debt buyers that are a frequent source of consumer protection concerns, a 

limitation that must be considered in evaluating the study’s findings. 

i
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

The Commission acquired and analyzed an unprecedented amount of data from the studied debt buyers, 

which submitted data on more than 5,000 portfolios, containing nearly 90 million consumer accounts, 

purchased during the three-year study period. These accounts had a face value of $143 billion, and the debt 

buyers spent nearly $6.5 billion to acquire them. Most portfolios for which debt buyers submitted data were 

credit card debt, with such debt accounting for 62% of all portfolios and 71% of the total amount that the 

buyers spent to acquire debts. In addition to these data, the debt buyers provided copies of many purchase 

and sale agreements between themselves and sellers of debts. The debt buyers also submitted narrative 

responses to questions concerning their companies and their practices, as well as the debt buying industry. 

The key findings of the study are as follows:

PRICES BUYERS PAID FOR PURCHASED DEBT

Buyers paid an average of 4.0 cents per dollar of debt face value. Analysis of the prices debt buyers 

paid for debt purchased in more than 3,400 portfolios showed that the average price was 4.0 cents per dollar 

of debt face value. Older debt sold for a significantly lower price than newer debt. The price of debt older 

than 15 years was virtually zero. Buyers paid similar prices for debt purchased from original creditors and 

resellers, once the analysis controlled for other observable characteristics of the debt, such as their age and 

type.

INFORMATION THAT DEBT BUYERS RECEIVED 

Buyers typically received the information required for validation notices. Buyers were likely to have 

received from sellers the information that the FDCPA currently requires that debt collectors include with 

validation notices at the beginning of the collection process, including the amount of the debt. They also 

either received or were likely aware of the name of the original creditor, which the FDCPA requires that they 

provide to consumers upon written request.

Buyers also typically received additional information that could make validation notices more 

useful, but they usually did not provide it to consumers. Buyers also typically received additional 

information that, if disclosed to consumers, might help consumers assess whether they are the correct debtor 

and whether the amount of the debt is correct. This information included the name of the original creditor, 

the original creditor’s account number, the debtor’s social security number, the date of last payment, and 

the date of charge-off. In the Commission’s experience, however, debt collectors, including debt buyers, 

generally do not include these types of additional information in their validation notices. 

Buyers rarely received dispute history. Buyers rarely received any information from sellers concerning 

whether a consumer had disputed the debt or whether the disputed debt had been verified – information 

that would bear on whether the consumer being contacted owes the debt and whether the amount being 

collected is correct. Moreover, buyers often did not receive information that would allow them to break 

ii
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

down the outstanding balance into principal, interest, and fees. The Commission has found that such 

information would assist consumers in determining if the amount of their debts is correct.

ACCOUNT DOCUMENTATION THAT DEBT BUYERS RECEIVED

Buyers received few underlying documents about debts. Although buyers received the data file and 

some other information about the debts, as discussed above, they obtained very few documents related to 

the purchased debts at the time of sale or after purchase. For most portfolios, buyers did not receive any 

documents at the time of purchase. Only a small percentage of portfolios included documents, such as 

account statements or the terms and conditions of credit.

WARRANTIES AS TO INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION THAT DEBT BUYERS RECEIVED

Accuracy of information provided about debts at time of sale not guaranteed. In purchase and sale 

agreements obtained in the study, sellers generally disclaimed all representations and warranties with regard 

to the accuracy of the information they provided at the time of sale about individual debts – essentially 

selling debts, with some limited exceptions, “as is.” The fact that portfolios were generally sold “as is” does 

not necessarily mean that information inaccuracies were prevalent, but it does raise concerns about how 

debt buyers handled purchased debts when such inaccuracies became apparent, and for which they had no 

recourse available from the seller.

Accuracy of information in sellers’ documents not guaranteed. Some contracts stated that when 

account documents were available from the seller, the accuracy of the information in the documents was not 

warranted.

DEBT BUYERS’ ABILITY TO OBTAIN ACCOUNT DOCUMENTATION

Limitations were placed on debt buyer access to account documents. Buyers were given a defined 

amount of time (e.g., typically between six months and three years) to request up to a specified maximum 

number of documents (e.g., equal to 10% to 25% of the number of debts in the portfolio) at no charge. 

After that, buyers were given an additional, defined amount of time to request documents for a fee, usually 

between $5 and $10 per document, with a maximum number of documents again specified. Debt sellers 

usually had substantial time, typically between 30 and 60 days, to respond to requests for documents. 

Availability of documents not guaranteed. Most purchase and sale agreements stated that documents 

may not be available for all accounts.

Additional limitations applied to the resale of purchased debt. If debt buyers resold debt to secondary 

buyers, the original creditors typically had no obligation to provide documents directly to the secondary 

iii
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

buyers; instead the secondary buyers were required to forward document requests through the original 

buyers, which sometimes added additional fees and delays.

CONSUMER DISPUTES OF DEBTS

Consumers disputed 3.2% of debts that buyers attempted to collect themselves. The data obtained 

in the study from the four debt buyers that submitted information on written and some oral disputes 

showed that consumers disputed 3.2% of the debts that debt buyers attempted to collect themselves. (The 

Commission did not obtain information on disputes of debts for which buyers hired third-party collectors to 

recover for them). There was no statistically significant relationship between the likelihood of a dispute and 

a debt’s age, face value, or whether it had been purchased from an original creditor or reseller. 

Consumers disputed an estimated one million debts each year. Although the 3.2% dispute rate may 

understate the extent of information problems in purchased debt, even a 3.2% dispute rate, if applied to 

the entire debt buying industry, indicates that each year buyers sought to collect about one million debts 

that consumers asserted they did not owe. The proper handling of this large number of disputed debts is a 

significant consumer protection concern.

VERIFICATION OF DISPUTED DEBTS

About half of disputed debts were reported as verified. Buyers reported that they had verified 

51.3% of the debts consumers disputed. Older debt was less likely to be verified. The Commission did 

not examine what buyers did to verify debts or whether the verification was adequate. Similarly, for the 

debts that had not been verified, the Commission did not have information to determine whether buyers 

attempted to verify the debts but could not, or whether they simply did not attempt verification. If this 

verification rate is applied to the one million debts estimated to have been disputed in the debt buying 

industry each year, it would indicate that each year about 500,000 disputed debts were not verified by 

buyers.

Few disputed debts were resold. Debt buyers in the study sold only 2.9% of their disputed debts, 

including 4.9% of verified disputed debts and 0.8% of unverified disputed debts. The FDCPA prohibits 

debt collectors, including debt buyers, from seeking to recover on unverified disputed debt, but it does not 

bar them from reselling such debts to other purchasers, or bar subsequent purchasers from seeking to collect 

the debt. Such sales, however, likely contribute to collectors seeking to recover from the wrong consumer or 

the wrong amount. 

DEBT AGE AND STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

Some debt was beyond the statute of limitations, though most was not. Many states have statute 

of limitations barring lawsuits to collect on a debt after a certain period, typically between three and six 

iv
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

years for credit card debts. Although the debt buyers studied purchased and collected on debts that were 

more than six years old, most of the debt that they purchased did not appear to be either old or beyond the 

statute of limitations. This finding, however, may not be applicable to the debts that smaller debt buyers not 

included in the study purchased.

Debt buyers generally know the ages of debts they are collecting. Information provided to debt buyers 

with the purchased debt generally included the age of the debt.

v
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

I. INTRODUCTION

In recent years, a significant focus of the FTC’s research and policy work has been identifying and 

addressing consumer protection problems relating to debt collection. In February 2009, the FTC issued 

a comprehensive report based on a two-day debt collection workshop, with findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations.1 The 2009 report concluded that the “law needs to be changed to require that debt 

collectors have better information, making it more likely their attempts to collect are for the right amount 

and are directed to the right consumer.”2 Similarly, in 2010, the Commission issued a report addressing debt 

collection litigation, finding that complaints filed in court often do not contain sufficient information about 

the debt(s) to allow consumers in their answers to admit or deny the allegations and to assert affirmative 

defenses.3

In its 2009 report, the Commission also found that “[t]he most significant change in the debt collection 

business in recent years has been the advent and growth of debt buying.”4 Creditors often sell debt that they 

have not collected to “debt buyers.” When debts are sold, the buyers receive information about the debtor 

and the debt from the sellers. Debt buyers also may resell the debt to other debt buyers. Many debts are 

purchased and resold several times over the course of years before either the debtor pays the debt or the 

debt’s owner determines that the debt can be neither collected nor sold.

As the debt buyer industry has expanded, the Commission also has seen a significant rise in the number 

of debt collection complaints it received directly from consumers. Many consumers reported that the debt 

collectors who contacted them attempted to collect debts they did not owe or, if they did owe a debt, more 

than what was owed.5

Because of the important role that debt buying now plays and the possible link between debt buying and 

consumer protection problems, the Commission determined that a better understanding of the debt buying 

industry was critical to future policy and law enforcement work in this area. Thus, in December 2009, the 

1 Federal Trade Commission, Collecting Consumer Debts: The Challenges of Change –A Workshop Report

(2009) [hereinafter Challenges of Change], available at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/debtcollection/dcwr.pdf.

2 Id. at i.

3 Federal Trade Commission, Repairing a Broken System: Protecting Consumers in Debt Collection Litigation 

and Arbitration (2010) [hereinafter Repairing a Broken System], available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/07/

debtcollectionreport.pdf. This report also found that during the collection process, consumers may unknowingly waive 

statute of limitations defenses that they could otherwise raise.

4 Challenges of Change, supra note 1, at 13.

5 For example, in 2009, consumers filed 27,420 complaints that were coded in the Consumer Sentinel database as “falsely 

represents character, amount, or status of debt.” These complaints represented 31.1% of all complaints about debt 

collectors. In addition, consumers filed 10,158 complaints that were coded in the Consumer Sentinel database as “refuses 

to verify the debt after debtor makes a written request.” These complaints represented 11.5% of all complaints about debt 

collectors. Note that some consumers filed complaints reporting both of these types of practices. Note also that some 

complaints assigned to these codes do not report that collectors attempted to collect from the wrong person or the wrong 

amount.

1
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

Commission commenced an extensive and rigorous study of debt buying, including the sellers and buyers 

of debts as well as the types and amounts of debt sold. As part of the study, the Commission sought to 

obtain a better understanding of the process that debt owners use to sell debts to debt buyers, the terms and 

conditions of their purchase and sale agreements, and the information that debt buyers obtain and use in 

connection with acquiring and collecting on debts. 

In this study, the Commission acquired and analyzed a massive amount of information relating to debt 

buying. Most significantly, the FTC used compulsory process to obtain extensive narratives and empirical 

data from nine large debt buyers. The Commission engaged in rigorous assessment of the information 

obtained, including a detailed empirical analysis. It also drew on its enforcement, research, and policy 

activities related to debt collection, and it reviewed the growing volume of professional literature concerning 

debt buying. The study focused on large debt buyers because they account for most of the debt purchased 

but did not address the practices of smaller debt buyers that, in the FTC’s experience, are a frequent source 

of consumer protection concerns. As noted in various places in the report, it is important to consider this 

limitation when evaluating certain of the study’s findings. Another limitation of the study is that the FTC 

did not directly assess the accuracy of the information that debt buyers used in collecting purchased debts or 

filing lawsuits on this debt.

The following report presents the results of the Commission’s debt buyer study. Part II describes the 

legal framework for debt buying. Part III is a description of the study’s methodology, and Part IV is a 

discussion of the genesis and current operation of the debt buying industry. Part V describes the debt buying 

process, including the creation and marketing of debt portfolios, bidding on such portfolios, the prices 

paid for various types of debt, and the purchase and sales agreements used in the sales. Part VI evaluates 

the information debt buyers have, or have access to, at critical junctures in collecting and suing to recover 

on debts, and the frequency with which debts are disputed and verified. Part VII discusses the collection of 

older debts. Finally, Part VIII is a brief conclusion.

2
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR DEBT BUYING

Federal and state laws apply to the conduct and information practices of debt buyers. In 1977, Congress 

passed the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”)6 to “eliminate abusive debt collection practices 

by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using [such] practices are not 

competitively disadvantaged,” and to encourage states to take measures protecting consumers from abusive 

debt collection practices.7 From 1977 until 2011, the Federal Trade Commission was the federal agency 

empowered to administer the FDCPA, as well as primarily responsible for enforcing it. In July 2011, 

pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank 

Act”),8 Congress transferred to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) the FTC’s role of 

administering the FDCPA.9 Both the FTC and the CFPB enforce the FDCPA. 

The FDCPA governs the activities of “debt collectors,” a term that includes debt buyers. The Act defines 

“debt collector” as “any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any 

business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects . . . debts 

owed or due . . . to another.”10 The FDCPA does not govern the debt collection activities of “creditors” 

collecting their own debts.11 The term “creditor” is defined as “any person who offers or extends credit 

creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed, but [not] any person to the extent that he receives an assignment 

or transfer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collection of such debt.”12 Some debt 

buyers have argued that because they collect debts they own, not debts others own, the FDCPA does not 

govern their activities because they are creditors. In the seminal decision in Kimber v. Federal Financial 

Corp., the court rejected that argument, holding that debt buyers that seek to recover on debts that were in 

6 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p (2006 & Supp. IV 2010). 

7 FDCPA § 802(e), 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e) (2006).

8 Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat 1376 (2010).

9 Dodd-Frank Act §1089; FDCPA § 814, 15 U.S.C. § 1692l.

10 FDCPA § 803(6), 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

11 Id. § 803(6)(A), 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(A).

12 Id. § 803(4), 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(4).

3
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

default when the debt buyers acquired them are debt collectors for purposes of the FDCPA.13 Since Kimber, 

many other courts have concluded that such debt buyers are debt collectors for purposes of the FDCPA.14

The FDCPA thus applies to the activities of debt buyers that purchase accounts in default. The FDCPA 

prohibits debt collectors from engaging in unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices in collecting on 

debts.15 The FDCPA also requires that debt collectors provide consumers, within five days after initially 

contacting them, with “validation notices” setting forth some basic information about their debts and 

their rights during the debt collection process.16 Further, if consumers “dispute” a debt within thirty 

days of receipt of validation notices, then debt collectors must suspend collection efforts until they obtain 

“verification” of the debts.17 Validation notices and the process of disputing and verifying debts are discussed 

in detail below in Part VI, Information in the Collection Process.

In addition to the FDCPA, debt buyers and other debt collectors are governed by Section 5 of the 

Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting 

commerce.”18 An act or practice is “unfair” under Section 5 if it “causes or is likely to cause substantial 

injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by 

countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.”19 A practice is considered “deceptive” if “there 

is a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in the 

circumstances, to the consumer’s detriment.”20 Certain practices by debt buyers and other collectors that 

13 668 F. Supp. 1480 (M.D. Ala. 1987). The Kimber court explained that Congress excluded creditors from the FDCPA 

because they “generally are restrained by the desire to protect their good will when collecting past due accounts,” while debt 

collectors “are likely to have no future contact with the consumer and often are unconcerned with the consumer’s opinion of 

them.” Id. at 1486 (quoting S. Rep. No. 95-382, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1695, 1696). Debt buyers that purchase 

debts that are in default, unlike original creditors, are not constrained by the need to maintain good will when seeking to 

recover on the debts of consumers who have defaulted. Debt buyers thus “are simply independent collectors of past due 

debts and thus clearly fall within the group Congress intended the Act to cover.” Id. at 1486.

14 See, e.g., McKinney v. Cadleway Props., Inc., 548 F.3d 496, 501 (7th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he purchaser of a debt in default is a 

debt collector for purposes of the FDCPA even though it owns the debt and is collecting for itself.”); FTC v. Check Investors, 

Inc., 502 F.3d 159, 170-74 (3d Cir. 2007) (“[A]n assignee may be deemed a ‘debt collector’ if the obligation is already in 

default when it is assigned.”) (quoting Pollice v. Nat’l Tax Funding, L.P., 225 F.3d 379, 403-04 (3d Cir. 2000)); Schlosser v. 

Fairbanks Capital Corp., 323 F.3d 534, 536 (7th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he Act treats assignees as debt collectors if the debt sought 

to be collected was in default when acquired by the assignee, and as creditors if it was not.”).

15 FDCPA §§ 806-808, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d-f.

16 Id. § 809(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a).

17 Id. § 809(b), 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b).

18 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1) (2006).

19 Id. § 45(n) (codifying the Commission’s unfairness analysis); see also Letter from the FTC to Hon. Wendell Ford and Hon. 

John Danforth, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, United States Senate, Commission Statement 

of Policy on the Scope of Consumer Unfairness Jurisdiction, reprinted in In re Int’l Harvester Co., 104 F.T.C. 949, 1079, 

1074 n.3 (1984) (‘‘Unfairness Policy Statement’’).

20 Federal Trade Commission Policy Statement on Deception, appended to In re Cliffdale Assocs., Inc., 103 F.T.C. 110, 174–83 

(1984) (“Deception Policy Statement”).

4
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

violate the FDCPA also violate Section 5 of the FTC Act.21 The Commission uses the FTC Act to stop 

unfair or deceptive debt collection practices by creditors22 and others that are not covered by the FDCPA.23

Another federal statute governing debt buyers is the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”),24 which 

imposes data privacy and accuracy standards on consumer reporting agencies (often referred to as “credit 

bureaus”) and entities, including debt buyers and other debt collectors, that use consumer reports or furnish 

information to them. Debt collectors and other entities that furnish information to consumer reporting 

agencies (often referred to as “furnishers”) violate the FCRA if they report information they know or have 

reasonable cause to believe is inaccurate.25 The FCRA also allows consumers to dispute the completeness 

or accuracy of information, including delinquent accounts, on their credit reports, and requires furnishers 

to conduct “reasonable investigations” of disputes submitted directly to them concerning the accuracy of 

information reported.26

In addition to these federal statutes, many states have enacted laws, issued regulations, or adopted 

court rules that restrict or limit the activities of debt collectors or debt buyers. Many of the state laws are 

comparable to the FDCPA in prohibiting unfair, deceptive, or abusive debt collection practices.27 Some also 

require that debt buyers be licensed to collect from consumers located in that state.28 State regulations also 

may address collection activities in which some debt buyers engage, such as collecting on time-barred debt.29 

21 In its enforcement actions against debt collectors covered by the FDCPA, the Commission often alleges that the same 

practices violate both Section 5 and one or more FDCPA provisions. See, e.g., Complaint at ¶¶ 41-49, United States v. 

Luebke Baker & Assocs., No. 1:12-cv-1145 (C.D. Ill. May 11, 2012), available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/05/luebkenr.

shtm; Complaint at ¶¶ 35-50, United States v. West Asset Mgmt., Inc., No. 1:11-cv-0746 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 10, 2011), available 

at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/03/wam.shtm.

22 The Commission does not, however, have jurisdiction over banks, thrifts, and federal credit unions. 15 U.S.C. § 45.

23 See, e.g., FTC v. Payday Financial, LLC, No. 11-3017 (D.S.C. Sept. 6, 2011), available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/09/

payday.shtm; FTC v. Cash Today, Ltd, No. 3:08-CV-590 (D. Nev. Nov. 6, 2008), available at http://www.ftc.gov/

opa/2008/11/cashtoday.shtm.

24 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681x (2006 & Supp. IV 2010).

25 FCRA § 623(a)(1)(A), 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(1)(A).

26 Id. § 611(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a); id. § 623(b)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1681s-2(b)(1); 16 C.F.R. § 660.4; 12 C.F.R § 1022.43. 

Unlike the thirty-day period for written disputes under FDCPA § 809(b), the FCRA regulations require furnishers to take 

the same steps no matter when a consumer submits a written dispute.

27 See, e.g., Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788-1788.33 (West 2012); 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 7311 (West 2012); Wash Rev. Code

§ 19.16.250 (2012); Pub. Finance Co. v. Van Blaricome, 324 N.W.2d 716, 724 (Iowa 1982) (“Congress passed a Fair Debt 

Collection Practices Act in 1977 which is similar to the Iowa act.”); Lawrence A. Young and Jeffery D. Coulter, Practicing 

Law Inst., Recent Developments in Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, State Collection Law and Debt Collection Class Action 

Litigation, at 553, 592 (PLI Corporate Law and Practice, Course Handbook Ser. No. B7-7188, 1997) (“A state debt 

collection act may have many provisions that parallel those in the FDCPA.”).

28 See, e.g., Idaho Code Ann. § 26-2223 (2012); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 93, § 24A (West 2012); N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann.

§ 58-70-1 (West 2012).

29 See, e.g., 940 Mass. Code Regs. 7.00 (2012); N.M. Code R. § 12.2.12.9 (LexisNexis 2012); Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392 

(West 2012).

5
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

States also are increasingly imposing more rigorous standards on the conduct of debt collectors (including 

debt buyers) in litigation to recover on debts.30

Finally, in addition to these legal requirements, industry self-regulation may govern the conduct of debt 

buyers that belong to trade associations. DBA International, the largest trade association of debt buyers, 

has issued standards of conduct of its members.31 In early 2012, DBA International announced that it had 

created a Debt Buyer Certification Task Force to assess the feasibility of a comprehensive National Debt 

Buyer Certification Program, and the work of this task force is continuing.32 ACA International, Inc., the 

largest trade association of debt collectors, also has issued standards of conduct for debt collectors, which 

would apply to the conduct of its members that are debt buyers.33

30 See, e.g., Md. R. 3-306; 2009 N.C. Sess. Laws 573; Admin. Directive, No. 2011-1, Consumer Debt Collection Actions (Del. 

Ct. C.P. Mar. 16, 2011), available at http://www.courts.delaware.gov/CommonPleas/docs/AD2011-1ConsumerDebt0.pdf.

31 DBA Int’l, Ethics Rules and Ethical Considerations for DBA Members, available at http://www.

dbainternational.org/what_is_dba/code_of_ethics.asp. DBA International represents more than 600 member 

organizations, including professional debt buyer companies as well as vendor and affiliate companies. DBA Int’l,

Comments for the FTC Debt Collection Workshop 3 (June 2, 2007), available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/

debtcollectionworkshop/529233-00010.pdf; DBA International Member Roster, DBA Int’l, http://www.dbainternational.

org/membership/roster.asp (last updated Nov. 30, 2012). 

32 DBA International Appoints Members of Certification Task Force, DBA Int’l (Apr. 25, 2012), http://www.dbainternational.

org/news/dba_taskforce2.asp; DBA International to Launch Certification Task Force, DBA Int’l (Feb. 17, 2012), http://www.

dbainternational.org/news/dba_taskforce.asp. 

33 ACA Int’l, Code of Ethics and Code of Operations 4 (rev. ed. 2010) [hereinafter ACA Code of Ethics], available 

at http://www.acainternational.org/files.aspx?p=/images/12909/codeofethics-ops_2010.pdf. The current ACA Code of 

Ethics was originally adopted on July 25, 2007. Id. ACA International represents more than 5,000 members, including 

third-party collection agencies, debt buyers, attorneys, creditors, and vendor affiliates. About ACA, ACA Int’l, http://

www.acainternational.org/about.aspx (last visited Jan. 4, 2013). As of 2007, ACA represented approximately 95 percent of 

debt collectors located in the United States. Rozanne M. Andersen & Andrew M. Beato, ACA Int’l, Comments of ACA 

International Regarding the Debt Collection Workshop 7 n.6 (June 6, 2007), available at http://www.ftc.gov/comments/

debtcollectionworkshop/529233-00016.pdf.

6
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

III. STUDY METHODOLOGY

The findings, conclusions, and recommendations set forth in this report are based on an analysis of data 

and information obtained from debt buyers, the FTC’s extensive experience in debt collection matters, and 

a review of prior research, professional literature, and information elicited from industry representatives, 

consumer advocates, government officials, academics, and others.

A. DATA COLLECTED FROM DEBT BUYERS

In December 2009, the Commission issued identical orders to nine of the largest debt buyers in the 

United States.34 The nine firms receiving orders were chosen from among the ten largest purchasers of 

consumer debt in 2008, as estimated by The Nilson Report.35 According to this same report, debt buyers in 

2008 purchased $72.3 billion in consumer debt, including credit card, medical, utility, auto, and mortgage 

debt. Of that total, $55.5 billion, or 76.8%, was credit card debt bought directly from issuers. The nine 

selected debt buyers collectively purchased 76.1% of all consumer debt sold in 2008. The nine debt buyers 

that received orders were:

x Sherman Financial Group, LLC

x Encore Capital Group Inc.

x eCAST Settlement Corp. 

x NCO Portfolio Management, Inc.

x Arrow Financial Services, LLC

x Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C.

x Unifund Corp.

x B-Line, LLC 

x Asta Funding, Inc.

34 The FTC has the authority to issue such orders under Section 6(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 46(b) 

(2006). Although there are hundreds, if not thousands, of debt buyers in the United States, the Commission limited its 

orders to nine debt buyers because seeking information from more than nine debt buyers would have triggered Paperwork 

Reduction Act requirements that would have significantly delayed the study. See 44 U.S.C. § 3502(3)(A)(i) (2006).

35 Credit Card Debt Sales in 2008, 921 Nilson Rep. 10 (Mar. 2009) [hereinafter Nilson Report]. See the source note to 

Table 1 in the Table Appendix regarding Nilson Report data. The nine debt buyers purchased $55.0 billion (76.1%) 

of the estimated total $72.3 billion in debt sold in 2008. One other large debt buyer, Asset Acceptance, was under FTC 

investigation at the time the FTC issued its orders. The Commission has since entered into a settlement agreement with 

Asset Acceptance. See United States v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, No. 8:12-cv-182 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2012), available at

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/01/asset.shtm. See infra notes 199-201 and accompanying text for further discussion of this 

case.

7
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

Credit card debt was by far the most common type of debt these debt buyers purchased. In 2008, these 

buyers purchased 78.2% of all credit card debt that card issuers sold directly to debt buyers.36 Table 1 shows 

the total amount of debt purchased and the amount of debt bought directly from credit card issuers in 2008 

by each of the nine debt buyers.37

Although the study obtained information from debt buyers that collectively purchased most (76.1%) 

of the debt in the United States, it did not examine information from small debt buyers, debt buyers that 

purchase most of their debt from other debt buyers, and debt buyers under FTC investigation at the time 

the agency issued its 6(b) orders. The Commission’s experience suggests that these types of debt buyers are 

likely to be a source of significant consumer protection problems.38 Therefore, their practices may be an 

appropriate area for future study and examination.

The FTC’s orders required that the recipients produce extensive data about their business practices 

and how they receive, acquire, and transfer information about consumer debts. Each debt buyer received 

an identical order, a model order of which is attached to this report as Exhibit 1. Technical Appendix A

contains an overview of some of the key data requests. The data provided in response to these requests are 

described in detail throughout the body of the report and the appendices.

The debt buyers submitted data from more than 5,000 portfolios purchased during the three-year study 

period. These portfolios contained nearly 90 million consumer accounts, reflecting nearly $143 billion in 

consumer debt (face value). The nine firms spent nearly $6.5 billion to acquire these debts from both credit 

issuers and resellers of debt.39

Most of the empirical analysis conducted for this report is based on data submitted by six of the nine 

debt buyers. One of the debt buyers receiving the Commission’s order, Arrow Financial Services, exited the 

debt buying business in the middle of the sampling period and did not have the infrastructure to provide 

all of the data necessary for the analysis. In addition, two other debt buyers receiving the Commission’s 

36 Nilson Report, supra note 35, at 10. The nine debt buyers purchased $43.4 billion (78.2%) of the $55.5 billion in credit 

card debt purchased directly from card issuers in 2008. Id.

37 Two of the debt buyers, eCAST Settlement Corp. and B-Line, LLC, purchase only debts of consumers who have filed 

bankruptcy. Some of the other seven debt buyers also purchase a percentage of bankruptcy accounts, but the majority of 

their purchases are debts of consumers who have not filed for bankruptcy protection at or prior to the time of the debt 

purchases.

38 For example, the Commission’s action against Asset Acceptance included allegations that the company could not substantiate 

claims it made about debts and that it frequently sought to collect the wrong amount or from the wrong consumer. 

Complaint at ¶¶ 54-55, United States v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, No. 8:12-cv-182 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 2012), available at

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/01/asset.shtm; see also Kaulkin Ginsberg’s Global Debt Buying Report: Experts Analyze 

the Worldwide Debt Buying Market 32 (2006) [hereinafter Global Debt Buying] (“Buyers in the secondary market 

also need to be concerned about purchasing fraudulent accounts that are comprised of inaccurate or even fictitious data. . . . 

So while the secondary market for delinquent debts provides smaller debts buyers with opportunities to acquire portfolios 

that they would otherwise be unable to source from creditors, this process is not without its risks. These risks increase 

significantly with the number of times that a portfolio has been bought and sold.”).

39 See infra Table 2 and Technical Appendix D.

8
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

orders, B-Line, LLC and eCAST Settlement Corp., specialize in purchasing bankruptcy debt. Because of 

the particular practices of this specialized type of debt buyer, they also could not provide much of the data 

necessary for the analysis. As a result, these three firms were excluded from most of the empirical analysis.

B. OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION

In addition to information obtained from the selected debt buyers, the FTC considered research and 

professional literature related to debt buying, including articles and reports from academics,40 news sources,41

consulting firms,42 and government entities.43 The Commission also surveyed and reviewed publications 

from industry and consumer groups.44

FTC staff elicited additional information through meetings with consumer advocates and industry 

representatives. Staff met with attorneys from the National Consumer Law Center and several attorneys in 

private practice who frequently represent consumers in lawsuits alleging illegal collection practices. Staff also 

met with representatives from two industry organizations: DBA International, which has approximately 

600 active debt buying members, and ACA International, whose Asset Buyers Division has approximately 

350 members. The Commission further considered information obtained during the staff’s meeting with 

40 See, e.g., Christopher R. Drahozal & Samantha Zyontz, Creditor Claims in Arbitration and in Court, 7 Hastings Bus. L.J.

77 (2011); Judith Fox, Do We Have a Debt Collection Crisis? Some Cautionary Tales of Debt Collection in Indiana, 24 Loy. 

Consumer L. Rev. 355 (2012); Timothy E. Goldsmith & Natalie Martin, Testing Materiality Under the Unfair Practices Acts: 

What Information Matters When Collecting Time-Barred Debts?, 64 Consumer Fin. L.Q. Rep. 372 (2010); Peter A. Holland, 

The One Hundred Billion Dollar Problem in Small Claims Court: Robo-Signing and Lack of Proof of Debt Buyer Cases, 6 J. 

Bus. & Tech. L. 259 (2011); Mary Spector, Debts, Defaults and Details: Exploring the Impact of Debt Collection Litigation on 

Consumers and Courts, 6 Va. L. & Bus. Rev. 257 (2011); Lauren Goldberg, Note, Dealing in Debt: The High Stakes World of 

Debt Collection After FDCPA, 79 S. Cal. L. Rev. 711 (2006).

41 See, e.g., Chris Seeres, Debt Buyers on the Rise: More Arrest Warrants, Phantom Debts, Real Anguish, Star Trib. (MinneapolisSt. Paul), June 27, 2010, at A1; David Segal, Debt Collectors Face a Hazard: Writer’s Cramp, N.Y. Times, Nov. 1, 2010, at 

A1; Jessica Silver-Greenberg, Boom in Debt Buying Fuels Another Boom — in Lawsuits, Wall St. J., Nov. 29, 2010, at A1, 

available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052702304510704575562212919179410.html.

42 See, e.g., Global Debt Buying, supra note 38, at 26-27; Robert J. Andrews, Debt Collection Agencies in the US, IBISWorld 

Indus. Rep. 56144, at 14 (2010).

43 See, e.g., U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, Credit Cards: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Could Better 

Reflect the Evolving Debt Collection Marketplace and Use of Technology (2009) [hereinafter GAO FDCPA 

Report], available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/300/295588.pdf.

44 See, e.g., DBA Int’l, DBA International’s Paper on the Collection of Past Statute Debts (2007), available at 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/debtcollectionworkshop/529233-00033.pdf; DBA Int’l, The Debt Buying Industry: 

A White Paper (2012), available at http://media.idahostatesman.com/smedia/2012/01/22/08/29/128SRK.So.36.

pdf; Ernst & Young, The Impact of Third-Party Debt Collection on the National and State Economies (2012), 

available at http://www.acainternational.org/files.aspxp=/images/21594/2011acaeconomicimpactreport.pdf (commissioned 

by ACA International); Robert J. Hobbs & Rick Jurgens, Nat’l Consumer Law Ctr., The Debt Machine: How the 

Collection Industry Hounds Consumers and Overwhelms the Courts (2010), available at http://www.nclc.org/

images/pdf/pr-reports/debt-machine.pdf; Robert J. Hobbs & Chi Chi Wu, Nat’l Consumer Law Ctr., Model Family 

Financial Protection Act (2012), available at http://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/debt_collection/model_family_financial_

protection_act.pdf; Rachel Terp & Lauren Bowne, PAST DUE: Why Debt Collection Practices and the Debt 

Buying Industry Need Reform Now (2011), available at http://www.defendyourdollars.org/pdf/Past_Due_Report_2011.

pdf.

9
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

Kaulkin Ginsberg Co., a market research firm that studies and consults with debt buyers and other members 

of the debt collection industry. FTC staff also met with the staff of the Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau concerning the debt buyer industry generally and the availability of information about the industry. 

Staff sought to meet and confer with banks and the American Bankers Association to discuss their debt sales 

practices, but they declined to meet. 

Finally, in preparing this report, the Commission relied on its own extensive experience in debt 

collection matters. The FTC has brought more than 80 law enforcement actions over more than three 

decades alleging illegal debt collection practices, including actions against debt buyers.45 The Commission 

also has a robust history of conducting research and policy work related to debt collection issues. For 

example, as noted above, the FTC in recent years has hosted a series of public workshops and roundtables 

about debt collection issues, which culminated in the Commission issuing two comprehensive reports on the 

debt collection industry.46

45 See, e.g., Complaint, United States v. Luebke Baker & Assocs., No. 1:12-cv-1145 (C.D. Ill. May 11, 2012), available at http://

www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/05/luebkenr.shtm; United States v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, No. 8:12-cv-182 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2012), 

available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/01/asset.shtm; Complaint, United States v. West Asset Management, No. 1:11-

cv-0746 (N.D. Ga. March 10, 2011), available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/03/wam.shtm; Complaint, United States 

v. Whitewing Fin. Group, Inc., No. H-06-2102 (S.D. Tex. June 22, 2006), available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/07/

whitewing.shtm; Complaint, FTC v. Capital Acquisitions & Mgmt Corp., No. 04C778 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 2, 2004), available at

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/12/camco.shtm.

46 See Challenges of Change, supra note 1; Repairing a Broken System, supra note 3. The Commission also held a 

workshop on debt collection technologies in 2011. See Debt Collection 2.0: Protecting Consumers as Technologies Change, 

Federal Trade Commission (Apr. 28, 2011), http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/debtcollectiontech/index.shtml.

10
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

IV. THE DEBT BUYING MARKET

A. CONSUMER CREDIT AND DEBT BUYING

In a credit transaction, a creditor and a consumer enter into a contract under which the consumer 

receives money to make purchases now in exchange for promising to repay the creditor over time the amount 

received plus interest. Like other contracts, credit contracts are of little value if the parties cannot enforce 

them.47 Creditors use debt collection to recover on these contracts if consumers do not repay the amounts 

they owe. Debt collection reduces the amounts that creditors lose from debts, both directly (by collecting on 

the debts) and indirectly (by making it more likely that consumers will incur debt only if they can and will 

repay it). By reducing the losses that creditors incur in providing credit, debt collection also allows creditors 

to provide more credit at lower prices – that is, at lower interest rates.48

Creditors use a variety of methods to recover on debts they own. Creditors can and often do collect 

on their own debts. In addition, many creditors retain others to collect debts on their behalf. Creditors 

retain such “third-party” debt collectors for many reasons. Third-party debt collectors often have greater 

expertise (e.g., knowledge of the legal requirements to collect debt in a particular jurisdiction) or enhanced 

infrastructure (e.g., a specialized database and communication technologies) that allow them to collect more 

efficiently than creditors can. The costs of acquiring such expertise or infrastructure may be impractical 

or inefficient for small creditors, but even large creditors may find third-party debt collection to be costefficient. 

Although creditors traditionally either collected their debts themselves or retained a third-party debt 

collector to collect on their behalf, creditors now have a third option. Creditors may sell debts they own to 

debt buyers. Debt buyers, in turn, may either try to collect on purchased debts themselves, hire a third-party 

debt collector to recover on these debts for them, or resell these debts to other debt buyers. As with the 

collection of debts, the selling of debts by creditors decreases the losses they incur in extending credit, which, 

in turn, is likely to lead to an increase in the amount of credit extended and a decrease in the price of that 

credit.49

47 Benjamin E. Hermalin, Avery W. Katz, & Richard Craswell, Contract Law, in 1 Handbook of Law and Economics 99 (A. 

Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell eds., 2007).

48 A number of empirical studies in the economics and finance literatures have found that greater efficiency in the judicial 

enforcement of credit contracts results in the greater availability or lower cost of credit. See, e.g., Marcela Cristini, 

Ramiro Moya, & Andrew Powell, Inter-American Dev. Bank Research Network Working Papers, The Importance 

of an Effective Legal System for Credit Markets: The Case of Argentina n.R-428 (2001); Kee-Hong Bae & Vidhan 

K. Goyal, Creditor Rights, Enforcement, and Bank Loans, 64 J. Fin. 823 n.2 (2009); Daniela Fabbri & Mario Padula, Does 

Poor Legal Enforcement Make Households Credit-Constrained? 28 J. Banking & Fin. 2369 (2004); Tullio Jappelli, Marco 

Pagano, & Magda Bianco, Courts and Banks: Effects of Judicial Enforcement on Credit Markets, 37 J. Money, Credit, & 

Banking 223 n.2 (2005); Luc Laeven & Giovanni Majnoni, Does Judicial Efficiency Lower the Cost of Credit?29 J. Banking 

& Fin. 1791 (2005).

49 See supra note 48.

11
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

In some circumstances, creditors may prefer to use third parties to collect debts rather than selling 

them to debt buyers. Third-party debt collection affords creditors greater control over how debt collectors 

interact with consumers, which may be important to creditors that are particularly interested in avoiding 

reputational harm (e.g., hospitals collecting on medical debts). Ongoing cooperation between creditors and 

third-party debt collectors also may result in an efficient and effective collection process that leads to greater 

returns for creditors than selling the debts.

In other circumstances, creditors may prefer to sell their debts. For example, creditors may sell debts to 

avoid the costs of coordinating and monitoring the conduct of third-party debt collectors. Or creditors may 

choose to receive an immediate and guaranteed amount from debt sales rather than receiving a delayed and 

uncertain amount as a result of the efforts of third-party debt collectors.50 Creditors also may use thirdparty collectors to try to recover on debts before selling them to debt buyers. Published studies and trade 

press accounts indicate that banks and other original creditors that sell charged-off debt often use third-party 

collectors to try to recover on the debt for a period of time before selling it.51

B. THE DEBT BUYING INDUSTRY

1. DEBT SELLERS AND DEBTS SOLD

The practice of creditors selling consumer debts on a large scale has its origins in the savings and loan 

crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s.52 During the crisis, the Resolution Trust Corporation, the federal 

entity assigned to liquidate failed thrifts, auctioned off nearly $500 billion in unpaid loans that creditors had 

owned.53 The success of these sales in producing revenue persuaded other creditors to commence selling 

their debts.54

According to industry sources, two broad trends during the first decade of the twenty-first century 

fostered the growth of the debt buying industry.55 First, consumers took on increasing amounts of revolving 

50 See Andersen & Beato, supra note 33, at 29. 

51 Bad-Debt Prices Up Amid Supply Shortage, Collections & Credit Risk (July 2, 2010), http://www.collectionscreditrisk.

com/news/bad-debt-prices-up-amid-supply-shortage-3002377-1.html (“[D]ebt prices dropped in 2009 as the quality of the 

debt coming into the market declined because of the severity of the recession. This led many lenders to work charge-off debt 

longer in hopes of earning a better return than they could by selling it.”); Robert Hunt, Collecting Consumer Debt in America, 

Fed. Reserve Bank of Phila. Bus. Rev., Q2 2007, at 12 (“In the case of credit cards, for example, creditors typically hire 

third-party collectors at 180 days, the point at which the creditor charges off the balance.”). Additionally, publicly-traded 

Encore Capital Group has stated in its 10-K report for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2008, at page 10, “we believe 

that issuers of credit cards are increasingly using outsourced, off-shore alternatives in connection with their collection of 

delinquent accounts in an effort to reduce costs. If these off-shore efforts are successful, these issuers may decrease the 

number of portfolios they offer for sale and increase the purchase price for portfolios they offer for sale.” 

52 Andrews, supra note 42, at 14; Goldberg, supra note 40, at 725; Seeres, supra note 41, at 1A.

53 Andrews, supra note 42, at 14; Seeres, supra note 41, at 1A; Silver-Greenberg, supra note 41.

54 Andrews, supra note 42, at 14.

55 Global Debt Buying, supra note 38, at 5.

12
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

debt, especially credit card debt, as well as other non-revolving personal debts, such as student loans, which 

meant that creditors generally had more debt available for collection or sale. Second, most major credit card 

issuers (most of which are large banks) changed their overall accounts receivable management strategies to 

incorporate the routine sale of debts to others.56

Today, the market for the sale of debt has evolved such that many creditors appear to be able to quickly 

monetize delinquent debts. Perhaps the most important source of debts for the debt buyer market is socalled “charged-off debt.”57 After the passage of time, banks must “charge off” credit card debts to comply 

with federal banking regulations.58 In contrast, cash proceeds from the sale of debt (including credit card 

debt) can be counted as assets for capital requirements. In a 2009 study of credit card debt collection, the 

Government Accountability Office found that five of the six largest credit card issuers sold at least some of 

their delinquent credit card debt to debt buyers.59

Industry-wide data show that bank sales of credit card debt directly to debt buyers account for 75% or 

more of all debt sold.60 Even though the total amount of debt that buyers purchase has varied substantially 

over time, credit card debt has consistently comprised about 75% of the debt sold to debt buyers.61

56 Id. at 5, 19.

57 Creditors consider consumers who are late in paying as being “delinquent” on their debts. Creditors may continue to collect 

on delinquent debts, but after a period of time creditors consider consumers to be in “default” on their debts. Creditors may 

continue to collect on debts in default, but after the passage of a specified period of time, creditors must “charge-off” such 

debts, that is, no longer treat them as assets for capital requirements under federal banking regulations. 

58 Federal regulations prohibit banks and other depository institutions from counting toward their capital requirements 

debts that are in bankruptcy or delinquent more than a specified number of days. Banks and other depository institutions 

specifically must charge off installment loan debts by the end of the month in which the debts become 120 days past due, 

credit card loan debts by the end of the month in which they become 180 days past due, and debts in in bankruptcy within 

60 days of the bank’s receipt of notification that consumers have filed for bankruptcy. Uniform Retail Credit Classification 

and Account Management Policy, 65 Fed. Reg. 36903-01 (June 12, 2000). Although banks and other depository 

institutions cannot count charged-off debts toward their capital requirements, these debts remain their assets and they can 

continue to seek a return on these assets through collecting on them or selling them to debt buyers. Note that different 

regulatory and accounting rules may be applicable to the delinquent debts of creditors that are not depository institutions 

(e.g., auto lenders, telecommunications companies, utility providers, hospitals, etc.).

59 GAO FDCPA Report, supra note 43, at 26. The GAO’s methodology for its study included interviewing representatives of 

the six largest credit card issuers (as measured by total outstanding credit card loans, as of December 31, 2007).

60 See infra Table 3. Credit card debts are also asserted to be the largest source of business for the third-party debt collectors 

that owners of debts – often banks – hire to collect. See Andrews, supra note 42, at 16.

61 ACA International reported that debt buyers purchased $110 billion, face value, in debts in 2005, and that 90 percent of 

these, or $99 billion in face value, were credit card debts. See Andersen & Beato, supra note 33, at 40. These amounts are 

well in excess of the amounts reported by The Nilson Report. Nilson Report, supra note 35. The difference may be due 

to the inclusion of debt sales from one debt buyer to another in the ACA International figures; it is also possible that ACA 

International and The Nilson Report use different methods of estimating credit card and total debt sales, and therefore arrive 

at different estimates.

13
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

In the Commission’s study, 62% of portfolios purchased by the debt buyers were credit card portfolios.62 

Credit card debt also accounted for 71% of the total amount spent by the debt buyers to purchase debts and 

comprised 65% of the face value of all debts acquired.63 

2. DEBT BUYERS 

Since the commencement of large-scale sales of debts in the late 1980s, the number and variety of debt 

buyers in the marketplace have evolved.64 Two large debt buyers, Commercial Financial Systems, Inc. and 

Creditrust Corporation, entered the debt buying market in a substantial manner in the late 1980s, but both 

firms had filed for bankruptcy by the end of the 1990s.65 In the early 2000s, a number of smaller debt 

buyers entered the market to fill the gap that their departure created.66 The number and type of debt buyers 

expanded rapidly in the 2000s, especially during the period from 2004-06,67 as a result of, among other 

things, increases in the amount of debt available for purchase and the ready availability of capital to finance 

debt-buying enterprises and debt purchases.68 This expansion slowed during the latter part of the last decade 

because of decreases in the amount of debt available for sale, the inability of consumers to repay their debts 

as a result of the economic downturn, and the unavailability of capital.69 

Even though expansion abated somewhat in recent years, there now appear to be hundreds, if not 

thousands, of entities of varying sizes that purchase debts.70 While there are many debt buyers, large debt 

buyers purchase most debt. In particular, as discussed above, the nine debt buyers the Commission studied 

purchased 76.1% of all consumer debt sold in 2008.71

In general, there do not appear to be significant barriers to entry into the debt buying industry. While 

some states require that debt buyers be licensed as debt collectors, state licensing requirements do not appear 

62 See infra Table 4 and Technical Appendix D. This percentage excludes portfolios that were identified by debt buyers as 

bankruptcy portfolios. As discussed in Technical Appendix D, however, we estimated that at least 60% of all bankruptcy 

portfolios were comprised of credit card debt.

63 Id. These percentages exclude portfolios that were identified by debt buyers as bankruptcy portfolios.

64 See generally Terp & Bowne, supra note 44, at 2-4.

65 Global Debt Buying, supra note 38, at 5.

66 Id.

67 Darren Waggoner, Debt-Buying Leaders Consider 2010 Outlook, Collections & Credit Risk (Jan. 5, 2009), http://www.

collectionscreditrisk.com/news/debt-buying-leaders-consider-2010-outlook-3000124-1.html.

68 Nilson Report, supra note 35, at 10; Debt-Buying Leaders Consider 2010 Outlook, Cardline, Jan. 8, 2010.

69 Bad-Debt Market Prices Up, Supply Down, Collections & Credit Risk, May 23, 2011; Investors Return to Debt Buying: 

Prices Still High, Collections & Credit Risk, July 2010, at 21. 

70 See DBA Int’l, Comments for the FTC Debt Collection Workshop, supra note 31, at 2 (“[T]here are hundreds (if not 

thousands) of entities purchasing debt . . . .”); Silver-Greenberg, supra note 41 (“More than 450 debt buyers scooped up an 

estimated $100 billion in distressed loans [in 2009], according to the latest estimates by Kaulkin-Ginsberg, a debt collection 

industry advisor.”).

71 See Robert M. Hunt, Fed. Reserve Bank of Phila., Overview of the Collections Industry, Presentation at the 2007 FTC Debt 

Collection Workshop (Oct. 10, 2007), at 11 (“[The debt buying] market is relatively concentrated – 10 firms bought 81% of 

bad credit card debt in 2006.”).

14
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

to impose any significant burdens on a new entrant, especially a new entrant that is already licensed in a state 

as a third-party debt collector.72 Many of the thousands of third-party debt collectors could be considered 

potential entrants into the debt buying market because they have the expertise needed to collect on debt 

accounts.73 Entry also could come from firms that have not previously been organized as third-party debt 

collectors. However, some industry analysts have noted that the ability of firms to purchase debt, especially 

credit card debt, may be contingent on the availability of financing in capital markets.74

Publicly traded debt buying firms consistently describe the debt buying market as being competitive 

and fragmented.75 Vigorous competition among debt purchasers also appears to be indicated by the 

frequent changes in the rankings of the industry’s largest firms. Table 5 lists the 14 firms that have been 

ranked among the top purchasers of credit card debt between 2005 and 2011.76 Four of these 14 firms are 

72 See, e.g., Alaska Stat. § 08.24.110 (2012) (requiring an application, available at http://www.dced.state.ak.us/occ/pub/

coa4106.pdf, fees, surety bond, and fingerprints; licensee must be at least nineteen years of age, possess a high-school 

equivalent education, and not been disbarred or convicted of a felony, larceny or embezzlement); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 

649.085 (LexisNexis 2011) (requiring an application, available at http://www.fid.state.nv.us/Applications/InstallmentLoan/

Non-Depository_Initial_App.pdf, fees, surety bond, fingerprints, and financial statement; licensee must be a US citizen who 

will maintain an office in the US, and not been convicted of a felony or fraud or within ten years had a collection agency 

license suspended or revoked); Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-20-107 (2012) (requiring an application, available at http://www.

tn.gov/commerce/boards/collect/documents/CSBCollectionAgencyapplication110911.pdf, fees, surety bond, and proposed 

six-month budget; licensee must not have within the last seven years been disbarred, convicted of fraud or a felony, or filed 

for bankruptcy).

73 See Global Debt Buying, supra note 38, at 122 (“Some debt buyers . . . expect increased competition from contingency 

collection agencies and collection law firms in the years to come. These companies, of course, already specialize in the 

collection of delinquent debt, and thereby have some of the resources necessary for success in the debt buying field.”); 

Stephanie Eidelman, Creditors Play an Unrecognized and Powerful Role in the Debt Collection Process, Forbes (Nov. 29, 

2011), http://www.forbes.com/sites/insidearm/2011/11/29/creditors-play-an-unrecognized-and-powerful-role-in-thedebt-collection-process/ (“There are approximately 5,000 third party debt collection agencies in the U.S. The majority of 

those are small companies with revenues under $1-2 million.”). The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has estimated 

that there are approximately 4,500 debt collection firms in the U.S. The CFPB further estimates that the median for 

annual receipts among collection firms is roughly $500,000. Defining Larger Participants in Certain Consumer Financial 

Product and Service Markets, 77 Fed. Reg. 9592, 9599 (proposed Feb. 17, 2012) (to be codified at 12 C.F.R. pt. 1090). 

Approximately 175 debt collection firms with annual receipts in excess of $10 million generate approximately 63 percent 

of collection receipts in the industry. Defining Larger Participants in Certain Consumer Financial Product and Service 

Markets, 77 Fed. Reg. at 9599; Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau. Annual Report to Congress on the Fair Debt 

Collection Practices Act 13 (2012), available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201203_cfpb_FDCPA_annual_

report.pdf.

74 See, e.g., Global Debt Buying, supra note 38, at 9 (“Debt buyers must be well capitalized to participate in [the credit card 

sector] of the [debt buying] market.”); Mark Russell, Credit Card Debt Buying Market Showing Signs of Life, Inside Arm, July 

20, 2011 (“Financing remains a challenge, particularly for newly formed debt buyers and small or mid-sized debt purchasing 

companies.”).

75 See, e.g., Asset Acceptance Capital Corp., Annual Report (Form 10-K), at 9 (Mar. 12, 2010); Asta Funding, Inc., Annual 

Report (Form 10-K), at 10 (Dec. 29, 2009); Encore Capital Group, Annual Report (Form 10-K), at 4 (Feb. 11, 2009); 

Portfolio Recovery Assocs., Inc, Annual Report (Form 10-K), at 12 (Feb. 16, 2010). NCO Group, the parent company 

of debt buyer NCO Portfolio Management, discussed competition in the broader category of business process outsourcing 

in its 10-K report for the year ended December 31, 2009, but also indicated, at p. 4, that the market for purchased debt 

portfolios was very competitive. See NCO Group, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10-K), at 4 (March 31, 2010).

76 This table is based upon various issues of the Nilson Report. See, e.g., Nilson Report, supra note 35.

15
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

publicly-traded, and the rest are privately held.77 As shown in the table, there is often substantial year-toyear variation in these rankings. Although Sherman Financial has been the largest purchaser of debts directly 

from credit issuers in all but one of the years presented, there have been some large swings in the firms 

claiming the second highest rank in purchases.78 For example, NCO Portfolio Management held the second 

highest rank in 2005, but then dropped out of the top ten rankings for 2006 through 2008, edging back 

into the top 10 (in the ninth highest ranking) in 2009, but was not among the top 10 purchasers in 2010 or 

2011.79 In addition to the competition these debt buyers face from one another, they also may face potential 

competition from credit issuers, which may choose not to sell their debts and instead continue to collect the 

debts themselves or through contractual relationships with third-party debt collectors.80

77 The publicly-traded firms that were among the top 10 purchasers of debt directly from credit card issuers were Asset 

Acceptance Capital Corp., Asta Funding Inc., Encore Capital Group Inc., and Portfolio Recovery Associates. A fifth 

publicly-traded firm, First City Financial Corp., was not in the top 10 rankings.

78 Arrow Financial rose from the tenth highest ranking in 2005 to the second highest ranking in 2008, only to exit the industry 

thereafter. Encore Capital was ranked tenth among direct buyers from credit card issuers in 2006, but was ranked second in 

2009, first in 2010, and then again second in 2011.

79 NCO Portfolio Management made a strategic business decision to reduce its participation in this segment of the market in 

2009 and 2010. See NCO Group, Inc., supra note 75, at 4.

80 See, e.g., Asset Acceptance Capital Corp., supra note 75, at 9 (“We compete with a wide range of other purchasers of 

charged-off consumer receivables, third party collection agencies, other financial service companies and credit originators 

that manage their own consumer receivables.”); Asta Funding, Inc., supra note 75, at 10 (“We compete with: other 

purchasers of consumer receivables, including third-party collection companies; and other financial services companies who 

purchase consumer receivables.”); Encore Capital Group, supra note 75, at 4 (“We compete with a wide range of collection 

companies, financial services companies and a number of well-funded, entrants with limited experience in our industry. 

We also compete with traditional contingency collection agencies and in-house recovery departments.”); Portfolio Recovery 

Associates, Inc., supra note 75, at 12 (“We face competition ... [from] ... other purchasers of defaulted consumer receivables 

portfolios, third-party contingent fee collection agencies and debt owners that manage their own defaulted consumer 

receivables rather than outsourcing them.”).

16
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

V. THE DEBT BUYING PROCESS

Owners of debt create, market, offer, and sell portfolios of debt. Debt buyers identify, bid for, and 

purchase these portfolios. Purchase and sale agreements set forth the terms under which owners of debt sell 

debt portfolios to debt buyers. Among other things, these contracts state the information that owners of 

debt provide to debt buyers at the time of sale, as well as the information that debt buyers may obtain from 

them and on what terms after the time of sale. The interaction between potential sellers and buyers of debt 

in the debt buying process and the contracts between sellers and buyers are critical to understanding the use 

of information in the debt buying system.81

A. SELLER CREATION OF DEBT PORTFOLIOS 

1. CREATION OF PORTFOLIOS BY ORIGINAL CREDITORS

Most original creditors try to collect on debts before selling them to others, whether by collecting on the 

debts themselves, hiring one or more third-party debt collectors, or both. Throughout the collection process, 

original creditors may decide to sell some or all of the debts they own and that they or their third-party debt 

collectors have not been able to recover.82

Debts sold by original creditors are typically bundled into portfolios.83 Debts within original creditor 

portfolios generally share common attributes, such as the type of credit issued,84 the elapsed time since 

the consumer accounts went into default, and the number of third-party debt collection firms with which 

creditors placed the accounts prior to the creditors offering them for sale. Other debt sellers may create 

portfolios with debts where the debtors share common features. For instance, some portfolios contain only 

debts from debtors with recent credit scores within a given range, or debtors whose last known address was 

within particular states. Debts that have been settled, challenged by consumers, or in active litigation are 

81 Much of the discussion in Part V of this report is derived from confidential commercial information that debt buyers 

provided to the Commission about their company’s business practices. To protect the debt buyers that submitted this 

information from harm to their ability to compete, the statements about business practices in this Part are not attributed to 

specific firms.

82 For example, an original creditor that first attempts to collect accounts internally, then places the accounts with one 

collection agency — the “primary” collection agency — then places the remaining accounts with a secondary collection 

agency, may sell a portion of the charged-off accounts at each collection stage (e.g., 25% immediately after charge-off, 25% 

after the primary agency, and 100% of remaining eligible accounts after the secondary agency; other creditors may refer the 

accounts to additional contingency collectors).

83 Bundling accounts into portfolios reduces the transactions costs of exchange.

84 Most debt sellers create portfolios with debts that are all the same type of debt. For example, banks may bundle credit card 

debts together into portfolios, but would not bundle together credit and medical debts, because banks do not typically 

extend medical credit. Similarly, issuers of medical credit would sell portfolios that were formed exclusively of medical debts, 

and not of telecommunications or auto loan debts. Some banks may bundle into a portfolio a variety of bank-issued or 

serviced credit products, such as nationally-branded credit cards (“Visa” or “Mastercard”), “private label” credit cards, credit 

card accounts issued by another bank acquired through merger, consumer loans, and overdrafts.

17
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

typically not included in portfolios. Under most purchase and sale agreements, a buyer can return these socalled “ineligible accounts” to the seller for a refund.85

When offering portfolios, sellers in the debt buying industry generally categorize the age of debt as 

follows:86

x Fresh debts are typically up to 6 months in age, and the original creditors sell them without making 

any attempt to collect following charge-off;

x Primary debts are typically up to 12 months in age, and the original creditors have hired one thirdparty debt collector to try to recover following charge-off; and

x Secondary and tertiary debts are typically up to 18 or 30 months in age respectively, and the 

original creditors have hired two or more third-party debt collectors to attempt to recover following 

charge-off.

Original creditors also sometimes create portfolios of debts of consumers who have filed for bankruptcy. 

Some debt buyers specialize in purchasing bankruptcy portfolios. Such portfolios are generally selected 

based on the type of bankruptcy protection sought, which is typically Chapter 7 or Chapter 13. In Chapter 

7 bankruptcies, an individual’s debts that are not satisfied by a sale of the debtor’s non-exempt assets are 

discharged — that is, the consumer is no longer liable for them as a matter of law. In contrast, in Chapter 

13 bankruptcy, an individual remains liable for all or part of debts as part of a repayment plan.87 As shown 

in Table 4, debt buyers appear willing to pay more for debts for consumers in Chapter 13 compared to 

Chapter 7.88

Like non-bankruptcy portfolios, bankruptcy portfolios will typically be organized around a single 

type of debt, e.g., credit card debts. Unlike non-bankruptcy portfolios, however, the debts within a given 

bankruptcy portfolio may not be categorized as “fresh,” “primary,” “secondary,” or “tertiary,” as those terms 

are used to describe debts not in bankruptcy.89 Rather, portfolios of accounts in bankruptcy tend to be 

85 See infra Technical Appendix C, at p. C-15 (discussing put-back rights).

86 See, e.g., Global Debt Buying, supra note 38, at 26-27. Note that these terms and these time periods do not necessarily 

have a precise meaning within the industry.

87 In Chapter 7 bankruptcy, debt is generally discharged and the debtor is released from liability for the discharged debt. 11 

U.S.C. § 727 (2006). The bankruptcy trustee sells the debtor’s non-exempt assets and uses the proceeds to reimburse 

creditors. 11 U.S.C. §§ 704, 726 (2006 & Supp. IV 2010); see also Liquidation Under the Bankruptcy Code, Admin. Off. 

U.S. Cts., http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/Bankruptcy/BankruptcyBasics/Chapter7.aspx (last visited Jan. 4, 2013). 

In Chapter 13 bankruptcy, an individual’s debts are reorganized, and a repayment plan is developed whereby the debtor 

repays all or part of the debts owed. 11 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1330; see also Individual Debt Adjustment, Admin. Off. U.S. Cts, 

http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/Bankruptcy/BankruptcyBasics/Chapter13.aspx (last visited Jan. 4, 2013). 

88 See also Global Debt Buying, supra note 38, at 50 (describing varying prices for bankruptcy portfolios depending on the 

type of bankruptcy).

89 According to one of the debt buyers in the study, original creditors typically do not use the number of prior third-party 

collectors in developing criteria for inclusion in bankruptcy portfolios.

18
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

organized around the age of the debts based on the elapsed time since the consumer filed for bankruptcy, 

because the time of this event is more likely to predict when the bankruptcy proceedings will be resolved.90

2. CREATION OF PORTFOLIOS BY DEBT BUYERS AS RESELLERS

If the purchase and sale agreements under which debt buyers acquired debt do not limit their ability to 

resell debts in portfolios, some debt buyers may include these debts in portfolios they offer for sale to other 

debt buyers — that is, they become resellers that are sometimes called “secondary debt sellers.” The debt 

buyers that purchase debts from resellers of debt are correspondingly sometimes known as “secondary debt 

buyers.”

Resellers generally use one of three methods to create and develop portfolios to offer to debt buyers:

x Resellers may buy portfolios from an original creditor and then immediately sell the entire portfolio, 

as is, to debt buyers.

x Resellers may buy portfolios from an original creditor, repackage the debts into new portfolios based 

on more specific criteria, and then sell these portfolios to debt buyers. For example, a reseller may 

purchase a national portfolio of credit card debts, create state-specific portfolios from the national 

portfolio, and then resell the state-specific portfolios separately to other debt buyers.

x Resellers may buy portfolios from an original creditor, attempt to collect on the debts in the 

portfolio, and then sell some or all of the debts that it cannot collect to other debt buyers.91

Resellers apparently often create portfolios of debt at the specific request of another debt buyer. A 

debt buyer may contact a prospective reseller and identify the type or types of debts it seeks to purchase. 

The criteria that prospective purchasers use to identify debts for a resold portfolio might include some 

combination of the type of debts, the value of the debts, the age of the debts, the state in which the 

consumers reside, and the status of the debts (e.g., debts in bankruptcy or debts of deceased consumers). In 

creating a portfolio that conforms to the potential purchaser’s specifications, resellers generally include debts 

from a number of portfolios they own.

Some of the debt buyers from which the Commission received data in response to its 6(b) orders were 

resellers of debts. Most of the portfolios these firms created and sold to others contained only credit card 

debts. Some of them included a combination of two or more types of debts — for example, a combination 

of credit card debt and automobile loans. Other portfolios contained only automobile loans, personal loans, 

telecommunication debts, retail debts, or healthcare debts.

90 Indeed, some individual debts may be current at the time the consumer files for bankruptcy, because consumers generally file 

for bankruptcy based on their aggregate debt level relative to their assets and income.

91 See Global Debt Buying, supra note 38, at 29.

19
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

B. SELLER MARKETING OF PORTFOLIOS 

After creating portfolios for sale, original creditors and resellers (collectively “sellers”) market them to 

debt buyers. Sellers may directly contact buyers they think are well-qualified and try to persuade them to 

purchase portfolios. Debt buyer industry representatives report that some large sellers (e.g., major credit card 

issuers) sell debts only to purchasers with well-established reputations and demonstrated financial strength. 

Large sellers apparently employ these selection criteria to decrease their risk of reputational harm as a result 

of the conduct of the debt buyers in collecting on debts as well as to decrease the sellers’ credit risk. Some 

sellers use preexisting business relationships or specific contractual agreements to limit the buyers to which 

they sell their portfolios.

Other sellers of debt, however, market their portfolios much more broadly. Some sellers use mailing lists, 

clearinghouses, and telephone calls to inform potential buyers of portfolios they have for sale. Many sellers 

advertise on web sites the portfolios on which they are seeking bids from prospective buyers, or they use 

emails to alert potential buyers to purchase opportunities.

In addition to responding to seller-initiated marketing efforts, some debt buyers actively seek 

opportunities to purchase portfolios. Some debt buyers have in-house personnel who regularly contact 

sellers to see whether they are offering any portfolios for sale. Buyers also network, attend industry events, 

exhibit at trade shows, advertise in trade publications, maintain websites, and make contacts through 

industry associations, or other informal groups to contact sellers.

Once debt buyers learn that a seller is offering a particular portfolio, the buyers must determine whether 

to bid on the portfolio, and, if so, at what price. Sellers provide documents and information B known as 

“bid files” B to potential purchasers so that they can make such bidding decisions. The information that 

debt sellers include in bid files varies greatly by seller, portfolio type, and other factors. One debt buyer 

in the Commission’s study, for example, indicated that debt brokers arranging sales on behalf of sellers92

generally provide a “comprehensive” package to prospective purchasers, while the amount of information 

sellers provide in non-brokered sales is highly variable.

Although the information that debt sellers make available to prospective purchasers varies significantly, 

the most common part of bid files are “data files.” Data files, usually one or more spreadsheets, provide 

information about individual debts in a portfolio (either a sample of the debts or all of them) such as 

consumers’ names, addresses, phone numbers, and social security numbers; original account numbers; 

original balances; charge-off balances; charge-off dates; interest rates; the identity of original creditors; 

92 A debt broker is someone who acts as an intermediary on behalf of the originator or reseller of debt. First-time debt buyers 

often purchase through brokers until they have built relationships sufficient to purchase debt directly. See ACA Int’l,

Buying Receivables 14 (3d ed. 2007).

20
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

date the account was opened; and last payment date.93 Some information in the initial data file (usually 

information relating to the identity of debtors) may be redacted or “masked.”

In addition to data files, sellers sometimes include “seller surveys” in bid files. Seller surveys are brief 

questionnaires that sellers prepare and complete to provide prospective purchasers with information such as 

the type of debt, original issuer, past collection or settlement efforts, portfolio selection criteria, and terms for 

obtaining documentation from the seller in the future. Some debt buyers stated that seller surveys usually 

are included in bid files. Such surveys, however, did not appear in some of the bid files that the Commission 

reviewed.94

Sellers occasionally include information in bid files other than data files and seller surveys. Some 

sellers may include a draft purchase and sale agreement with their preferred terms of sale and ask potential 

buyers to submit proposed changes to that agreement. Others may include additional documentation 

for specialized portfolios. Sellers of bankruptcy portfolios, for example, may provide the bankruptcy case 

number, chapter of the Bankruptcy Code, filing date, outstanding balance as of filing date, and proof of 

claim balance for the debts in portfolios.

C. BUYER ANALYSIS OF SELLER PORTFOLIO INFORMATION

Once they have received marketing and bid file information from sellers, potential purchasers analyze 

this information to determine whether, and for what price, they are willing to bid on the portfolio. Potential 

purchasers may use several methods of quantitative analysis to evaluate how much to bid, employing 

internally and externally developed computer models. In determining how much to bid, these models often 

consider the average balance per debt in the portfolio, the average number of months since the creditor 

charged off the debt, the average number of months since the debtor made the last payment, the states in 

which the debtors reside, the distribution of balances on the debts, the prevalence of time-barred debts, 

and the type of accounts being sold. Potential buyers also may consider their past revenues and expenses 

in purchasing and collecting on comparable portfolios. Because debt buyers compete with each other in 

bidding on portfolios, they consider the precise methods they use to determine what to bid on portfolios to 

be proprietary and highly confidential.

Buyers also may use the information provided in a seller’s survey, such as how many third-party collectors 

tried to collect on the debts on behalf of the creditors before or after the creditors charged off the debts. In 

addition, buyers may also consider their own experience with different collection strategies, the availability 

and cost of information about the debts, and the potential resale value of the portfolio. Some debt buyers 

93 Sellers often require potential purchasers to execute confidentiality agreements to obtain bid files. Under these agreements, 

potential buyers often are required to destroy such materials if they do not purchase the portfolios.

94 Seller surveys also appear to be less common in portfolios of debt for which the debtors have declared bankruptcy.

21
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

reported that they also consider factors extrinsic to the portfolio itself, such as the availability of financing 

and predictions regarding the general economic environment.95

D. BUYERS BIDDING ON PORTFOLIOS

Sellers usually establish a specified period of time for prospective purchasers to evaluate portfolios 

and submit their bids. Prospective purchasers generally make an offer expressed as a percentage of the 

outstanding principal balance of debts in the portfolio (e.g., 5% on $1,000,000 in debt), but they also can 

make an offer expressed as a specific sum (e.g., $50,000). In determining the outstanding principal balance 

of the debts in the portfolio for bid purposes, debt sellers usually exclude interest accrued on debts after the 

creditors charged off the debt, because collectors rarely are able to recover such interest. At the end of the 

period of time for bids, debt sellers usually accept the highest bid they receive and inform bidders as to their 

decision.

E. PRICES BUYERS PAID FOR PORTFOLIOS

The price of debt portfolios has fluctuated over the years depending on the supply of and demand for 

debt in the marketplace.96 Based on the information that debt buyers provided in response to its 6(b) orders, 

the Commission evaluated the relationship between characteristics of debts in portfolios and the prices debt 

buyers paid for them. The FTC analyzed data for approximately 3,400 portfolios that six going-concern 

debt buyers not specialized in bankruptcy debt purchased between July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2009. These 

portfolios contained nearly 76 million debt accounts (i.e., individual consumer debts). Full details on the 

data and statistical methods used for this analysis are provided in Technical Appendix B. 

Table 6 presents the average or “mean” characteristics of debt accounts purchased by these six debt 

buyers. Table 6 breaks down these mean characteristics based on the type of debt seller, that is, original 

creditors, resellers, and all sources.

95 The information that debt buyers in the Commission’s study said that they considered generally was consistent with what 

ACA recommends that its debt buyer members consider before bidding on portfolios. ACA Int’l, supra note 92, at 16-18; 

ACA Int’l, Due Diligence Guidelines 6-13 (2d ed. 2009).

96 See, e.g., Andrews, supra note 42, at 8 (reporting that debt prices rose from 2004 to 2007 as demand increased, in large part 

because buyers often were seeing returns of approximately three times the prices paid); Bad Debt Prices Soar as Supply Slows, 

Collections & Credit Risk, Sept. 2010; Bad-Debt Market Prices Up, Supply Down, Collections & Credit Risk, June 

2011 (debt buyers were paying 10 cents on the dollar or more for the freshest accounts, depending on the type of portfolio, 

in large part because the supply of available debt remained low because of tighter credit standards that lenders imposed); Bill 

Grabarek, How Low Can They Go?, Cards & Payment Source, Oct. 1, 2009, at 20 (price of newly charged-off credit card 

debt dropped from as much as 14 cents per dollar of debt in early 2008 to between 4 and 7 cents per dollar as of August 

2009); Investors Return to Debt Buying; Prices Still High, Collections & Credit Risk, July 2010, at 21 (prices increased in 

2010 as a result of improved economic conditions and a reduction in the supply of debt as creditors significantly reduced the 

number of credit cards they issued in 2008 and 2009).

22
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

Debt buyers in the sample acquired the vast majority of debts (a little over 80 percent) from the original 

creditor, almost 40 percent of which were credit card debts.97 Medical and telecommunication debts also 

comprised a considerable share of the debts that the buyers acquired from original creditors. A little over a 

quarter of the debts acquired from original creditors had a face value greater than one thousand dollars.

On average, debt buyers paid 4.0 cents for each dollar of debt.98 It is important to note, however, that 

although the price paid by debt buyers for debts is low relative to their face value, it does not necessarily 

follow that the profit from collecting on those debts will be high.99 First, debt buyers do not recover the face 

value of all of the debts that they purchase. Debt buyers typically do not attempt collections on all accounts 

they purchase,100 do not usually realize recoveries on every account for which collections are attempted,101

and do not typically recover the full face value on accounts for which they do realize recoveries. Second, 

debt buyers, like any other debt collectors, also incur substantial costs in collecting on debts. 

The FTC also conducted a regression analysis to determine what factors influenced the price at which 

debt sellers sold portfolios to debt buyers.102 Table 7 presents the results of that analysis. The regression 

model predicts that debt considered as “baseline debt” for purposes of the analysis had an average price of 

7.9 cents per dollar of outstanding debt balance. The baseline corresponds to a credit card debt that is less 

than 3 years old, acquired from the original creditor, with a face value less than one thousand dollars, and 

that had never been sent to a contingency collector.103

As shown in Table 7, debt buyers generally paid less for older debts than for newer ones. The FTC’s 

analysis suggests that debt buyers paid on average 3.1 cents per dollar of debt for debts that were 3 to 6 years 

old and 2.2 cents per dollar of debt for debts that were 6 to 15 years old compared to 7.9 cents per dollar for 

97 These and other figures in Table 6 represent percentages of debt accounts. Figures presented earlier in this report showing 

credit card debt comprising a higher percentage of all sold debt were based on percentages of total portfolios, face values, and 

expenditures.

98 This figure was derived from the sample of portfolios used in the regression analysis, described below. The average price 

for all portfolios submitted to the FTC was 4.5 cents per dollar of debt. The Commission’s estimate of the prices paid on 

average for debts generally is consistent with other estimates of debt prices. See, e.g., Hunt, supra note 71, at 11 (“Average 

price of $1 in bad [credit] cards loans was 5.3 cents [in 2006].”).

99 In 2007, ACA International stated that debt buyers expected at that time to recover 2.5 times what they paid to acquire 

accounts over a period of five years. Andersen & Beato, supra note 33, at 41. Debt buyers’ expenses, of course, would have 

to be deducted from these revenues to determine the profit that debt buyers realize.

100 For example, Encore stated the following in its 2008 annual report: “We use our collection resources judiciously and 

efficiently by not deploying resources on accounts where the prospects of collection are remote. For example, for accounts 

where the debtor is currently unemployed, overburdened by debt, incarcerated, or deceased, no collection method of any 

sort is assigned.” Encore Capital Group, supra note 75, at 4.

101 Terp & Bowne, supra note 44, at 3 (“[Debt] buyers hope to make a profit by collecting at least a small percentage of [the 

accounts they purchase].”).

102 Regression analysis is a statistical technique for estimating the relationship between one or more “explanatory” variables, such 

as the age and type of debt, and a “dependent” variable, such as the price of debt. More specifically, the regression analysis 

shows how price varies when any one of the explanatory variables changes, holding the other explanatory variables constant.

103 All of the other reported coefficient estimates in Table 7 should be interpreted as the predicted difference in debt price 

relative to this baseline type of debt.

23
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

debts less than 3 years old.104 Finally, debt buyers paid effectively nothing for accounts that were older than 

fifteen years. Debt buyers presumably pay less for older debts because their expected return from collecting 

on those debts is lower, likely reflecting the fact that the consumers may be less willing or able to pay the 

debt or the consumers may be more difficult for debt buyers to locate.

The amount purchasers paid for debts also varied by the type of debt. As shown in Table 7, relative to 

credit card debt, the debt buyers paid substantially more for mortgage debt and significantly less for debts 

such as medical and utility debt.105 The debt buyers, on average, also paid less for debts for which sellers 

previously hired third-party collectors to try to recover and for debts for which there was no information, or 

incomplete information, about third-party collection attempts. Unsuccessful third-party collection efforts 

may indicate a lower probability of collection, and likely explain why debt buyers are not as willing to pay 

as much for these debts. Similarly, debt buyers may be wary of debt for which the seller has not disclosed 

whether previous collection activities occurred, because these debts may have been subject to unsuccessful 

collection efforts.

The regression analysis did not find any statistically significant differences between the prices paid for 

debt purchased from resellers versus debt purchased from original creditors, once one controls for the other 

characteristics of the debt. This suggests that the difference in the average sales prices of debt from the two 

types of sellers is due to differences in the age, type, and previous collection history of debts sold, rather than 

the type of seller.106

F. CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS TO PURCHASE DEBT

Once a debt seller has decided to accept a debt buyer’s bid on a portfolio, the two parties enter into a 

purchase and sale agreement to consummate the deal. The debt buyers in the Commission’s study submitted 

a substantial number of purchase and sale agreements for the FTC’s review. A comprehensive discussion of 

these contracts and their terms is set forth in Technical Appendix C. This section provides an abbreviated 

version of the information in the appendix, with a particular emphasis on the terms of purchase and sale 

agreements that might affect the transfer of information about debts from debt sellers to debt buyers.

Although debt sellers and debt buyers are both parties to purchase and sale agreements, sellers generally 

appear to draft them. Each debt buyer in the study submitted purchase and sale agreements with a variety 

of structures, organization, and phrasing. Where different debt buyers entered into purchase and sale 

104 This pattern of prices across different types of debt is consistent with what the FTC has found in its law enforcement 

investigations.

105 The substantially higher price for mortgage debt may be due to the fact that mortgage debt is generally secured by real 

property and because debt buyers included some portfolios of mortgages on which consumers were current with their 

payments. 

106 See infra Technical Appendix B at p. B-9; see also Global Debt Buying, supra note 38, at 25(“[T]he price of a debt 

portfolio is directly related to the age of the portfolio and the number of times that the underlying accounts have been 

worked by other collection agencies.”).

24
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

agreements with the same seller, however, the structure, organization, and phrasing of these agreements were 

virtually identical. In general, the only differences among these agreements were the quantity of the debts 

in the portfolio and the prices paid. Debt sellers thus appear to be responsible for many of the terms and 

conditions governing the sale of debt.

The purchase and sale agreements typically defined the type of debt being sold in terms of broad debt 

categories (e.g., credit cards, loans, medical debts, etc.) and descriptors of past collection activities, such 

as the number of times the owners of the debts had placed them with contingency and other third-party 

collectors. The description of debt portfolios in purchase and sale agreements was consistent with how sellers 

describe portfolios when they are created, marketed, and advertised to debt buyers.

Debt sale contracts determine how debts and information about them pass from debt sellers to debt 

buyers. Some contract features may also affect: (1) information debt buyers receive about the debts 

they purchase; (2) remedies available to debt buyers in the event that purchased accounts lack accurate 

information or may not be collectable; (3) how debt buyers interact with consumers; and (4) the resale of 

purchased debts to other debt buyers.

In many purchase and sale agreements, sellers disclaimed all warranties and representations regarding 

the accuracy of the information they provided at the time of sale about individual debts, essentially selling 

the debts, with some limited exceptions, “as is.” Contracts typically gave debt buyers some refund, or “putback,” rights when purchased debts did not have the attributes necessary to be included in the portfolio 

of debts sold. For example, debt buyers typically could put back “ineligible accounts” to debt sellers that 

included debts owed by consumers who had died or who had declared bankruptcy on or before a specific 

date prior to the transfer of ownership to the debt buyer. Purchase and sale agreements tended to provide 

debt buyers with a relatively easy and low cost means of providing proof that a consumer had died or entered 

bankruptcy prior to the specified date.107

In contrast, most purchase and sale agreements provided very limited, if any, right for debt buyers to 

put back debts to debt sellers on the grounds that information from debt sellers about individual debts was 

missing or inaccurate. As noted above, contracts commonly stated that debts were sold “as is and with all 

faults.” However, the fact that debts were generally sold “as is” does not necessarily mean that errors or 

inaccuracies were or were not prevalent.108 The study did not test the accuracy of the information conveyed 

by debt sellers to debt buyers. Accordingly, the study does not permit any conclusions to be drawn as to the 

prevalence of errors or inaccuracies in debts generally sold “as is.”

107 Put-back rights also were extended to debts that were the result of fraud or whose balances included amounts attributable to 

fraud. The documentation that debt sellers required for these debts to be put back appears to have been less consistent but 

generally more rigorous than the documentation required for debt buyers to put back debts because of death or bankruptcy.

108 There may be other reasons why debt information generally is not warranted. For example, it may be costly for sellers to 

determine whether each returned debt was truly inaccurate or simply had been uncollectible for the buyer. 

25
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

Purchase and sale agreements for debt portfolios typically put limitations on the rights of debt buyers to 

acquire copies of documents associated with creating and servicing debts included in the portfolios. Debt 

buyers often were given a defined amount of time (typically between six months and three years) to request 

a defined maximum number of documents at no charge.109 Some contracts also limited the frequency with 

which debt buyers could submit requests to obtain document copies. After the period for debt buyers to 

receive information at no cost ended, or after debt buyers had obtained the maximum number of free copies, 

whichever came first, the debt sale contracts specified the price (usually between five and ten dollars and 

sometimes higher per document) and quantity of documents that debt buyers had the option of purchasing. 

Purchase and sale agreements also often specified a time after which debt buyers would no longer be able to 

exercise this option. Debt sellers under these contracts often had substantial time, typically up to sixty days, 

to comply with requests from debt buyers for documents.

Contracts typically also included some terms and conditions regulating each party’s post-sale interactions 

with consumers. These restrictions could make it more difficult for consumers to learn that original creditors 

sold their debts to others or to learn of the origins of debts that debt buyers are attempting to collect from 

them. No contracts required credit issuers (or subsequent resellers) to notify consumers that their debts had 

been sold to a debt buyer. Further, debt buyers were often restricted in how they could use the names of the 

original creditors (or other debt sellers) in communications with debtors.110 For example, some contracts 

expressly prohibited debt buyers from using the original creditor or other seller’s name in the subject line 

of letters sent to consumers.111 And contracts often prohibited debt buyers from giving consumers (even 

in response to in-bound calls or letters from consumers) contact information for the original creditor or 

other debt seller, which likely means that debt buyers were prohibited from sharing the specialized credit 

issuer contact information they acquired as a result of the sale (i.e., the name, phone number, fax number, 

mailing address, etc.) of any of the seller’s employees or divisions that served as a contact point for the debt 

buyer. Debt buyers, however, were not prohibited from providing consumers with the official postal address 

of the original creditor, possibly because Section 809(b) of the FDCPA requires debt collectors to provide 

consumers with the name and address of the original creditor if consumers request that information.112 

Most contracts contained terms addressing actions the original creditor or other debt seller would take 

if it received consumer payments for debts that had been sold. If the debt seller was a bank selling debts 

arising from credit it had extended, contracts often permitted a lag of sixty days between the bank’s receipt 

of the consumer’s payment and the forwarding of that payment to the debt buyer. Some contracts also 

109 The maximum number of copies was often specified in terms of a percentage of debts sold, typically between 10% and 25% 

of the number of accounts sold.

110 The Commission has recommended that the FDCPA be modified to require that the validation notice include the original 

creditor’s name. Challenges of Change, supra note 1, at 26.

111 A few contracts that the FTC evaluated related to portfolios of co-branded credit card debts, and these typically prohibited 

debt buyers from referring to the co-branded entities in any written communications to consumers and limited the mention 

of the co-branded entities to telephonic communications with consumers.

112 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) (2006).

26
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

provided that banks would not reduce the amount forwarded to the debt buyer as a service fee for an initial 

period of time, but allowed the deduction of service fees after that period.113 None of the contracts required 

banks receiving consumer payments on debts that had been sold to notify consumers that their payments 

had been forwarded to debt buyers. Delays in forwarding payments and the fees deducted for doing 

so could result in delayed posting of payments to accounts and discrepancies between the amounts that 

consumers and debt buyers believed had been paid on debts.114

The FTC did not receive any contracts that were written specifically to sell debts that were beyond the 

statute of limitations. Although some contracts permitted debt buyers to put back out-of-statute debts, most 

were either silent about out-of-statute debts or expressly stated that sellers’ inclusion of out-of-statute debts 

was not a breach of the contract.115

The debt buyers in the study asserted that they use purchase and sale agreements in reselling debts that 

are substantially similar to the agreements they enter into when purchasing debts from original creditors. 

The FTC’s review of the purchase and sale agreements that these resellers produced corroborates this 

assertion. Some contracts between debt sellers and debt buyers expressly prohibited debt buyers from 

reselling any of the debts acquired under the contract, or placed restrictions on when and to whom the debt 

buyer could resell the debts. More commonly, however, contracts permitted debt buyers to resell debts, but 

required either that the original debt seller pre-approve the resale or that the debt buyer notify the debt seller 

prior to resale. Virtually all contracts that permitted debt buyers to resell debts required that they state in 

their contracts with purchasers of the resold debts that: (1) the purchasers of the resold debts were subject 

to the terms and conditions of the original purchase and sale agreements; and (2) the original sellers had no 

obligations to the purchasers of the resold debts. In particular, original sellers had no obligation to provide 

copies of documents directly to purchasers of resold debts; instead, these purchasers were required to forward 

113 Contracts where sellers were not depository banks, however, generally reflected faster transmission of consumer payments. 

Service fees for forwarding payments to debt buyers also were relatively uncommon in contracts for debts other than credit 

card accounts. 

114 It should be noted, however, that the Commission has no information on how frequently consumers sent payments to credit 

issuers instead of the debt buyers that had purchased their accounts, nor whether banks customarily took the full time lag 

permitted to them when forwarding such payments to debt buyers. Likewise, the FTC lacks information on the significance 

of such delays, and the reduction in consumer payments due to forwarding bank service, in comparison to other probable 

causes of “wrong amount” account balances.

115 Note that to resolve allegations that a debt buyer made deceptive claims in seeking to collect on time-barred debt, the 

consent order in Asset Acceptance imposed restrictions on the debt buyer’s resale of time-barred debt, including prohibiting 

the sale, transfer, or assignment of the right to commence any arbitration or legal action to recover on any time-barred debt 

for which the buyer had made order-mandated disclosures. Consent Decree at 13-14, United States v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 

No. 8:12-cv-00182 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2012), available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/01/asset.shtm.

27
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

any requests through the original purchaser.116 Original sellers also did not typically accept “put-backs” of 

ineligible debts from buyers of resold debt.117

Some contracts for the resale of debt indicated that debt buyers reselling debts charged additional fees or 

added transmittal time when passing copies of document requests and documents up and down the chain 

between purchasers of resold debts and the original seller. The time and cost involved in obtaining these 

copies may create a disincentive for requesting them, including in situations where such information would 

be useful to debt buyers in verifying disputed debts.

116 Similarly, if the original credit issuer, or any subsequent owner of a debt, received a consumer payment on a debt they no 

longer owned, contracts typically required only that the recipient forward the payment to the party to whom they sold the 

debt, even if that party no longer owned the debt.

117 Note, however, that some debt buyers extended additional put-back rights binding themselves, but not the original credit 

issuer, when they resold debt. 

28
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

VI. INFORMATION IN THE COLLECTION PROCESS

Debt buyers acquire, evaluate, and use information about debts and debtors throughout the process of 

collecting on debts. Debt buyers may obtain this information from sellers, third-parties, consumers, and 

others. If debt buyers have sufficient and accurate information about debts, they are more likely to recover 

on them.118 Debt buyers therefore have an incentive to pay for information about debts so long as the 

benefit from a greater likelihood of recovery exceeds the cost of the information.

In recent years, serious concerns have been raised about the sufficiency and accuracy of the information 

that debt buyers have at all stages of the collection process. Consumer groups have said that debt buyers 

typically receive from debt sellers at the time of sale only an electronic spreadsheet containing minimal 

information about debts and debtors.119 They also have charged that debt buyers often do little or nothing 

to verify debts if consumers dispute their validity – that is, they do not conduct an adequate investigation of 

consumer claims that they are not the debtor or that the amount of the debt being collected is incorrect.120

The Commission’s enforcement actions and its policy work reflect similar concerns. For example, in its 

2012 action against debt buyer Asset Acceptance, the FTC alleged that the company failed to adequately 

verify disputed debts.121 And in its 2009 report on debt collection, the Commission underscored the 

importance of data accuracy and debt verification for debt buyers and other debt collectors.122 The FTC also 

has brought numerous actions against debt collectors alleging that they made unsubstantiated claims that 

consumers owed debts or the amount of these debts, in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.123

118 Emily Grace, Documentation Dilemmas, Collector, Nov. 2010, at 22 (“As collectors, we’d love to have better 

documentation. It would only increase recoveries.” (quoting Dan Buell, vice president, Experian)); see also Global Debt 

Buying, supra note 38, at 134 (“[I]f a seller provides a lot of data, buyers will become more efficient, and this benefits both 

buyers and sellers.” (quoting Stacey Schacter, CEO, EMCC)).

119 Hobbs & Wu, supra note 44, at 4; 1 Nat’l Consumer Law Ctr., Fair Debt Collection § 1.5.4.5 (7th ed. 2011); Terp & 

Bowne, supra note 44, at 7.

120 See Nat’l Consumer Law Ctr. & Nat’l Ass’n of Consumer Advocates, Comments for the FTC Debt Collection Workshop 

12-13 (June 6, 2007), available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/debtcollectionworkshop/529233-00018.pdf.

121 United States v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, No: 8:12-cv-00182 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2012), available at http://www.ftc.gov/

opa/2012/01/asset.shtm (debt collector settled allegations that it violated the FTC Act by lacking a reasonable basis 

for representing to borrowers that they owed a debt (1) when the debt collector had reason to believe certain portfolios 

contained unreliable data and (2) after the borrowers disputed the debt); see also United States v. Allied Interstate, Inc., No. 

0:10-cv-04295 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2010), available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/10/alliedinterstate.shtm (debt collector 

settled allegations that it violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by lacking a reasonable basis for representing to borrowers that 

they owed a debt after the borrowers disputed the debt); United States v. Credit Bureau Collection Servs., No. 2:10-cv-169 

(S.D. Ohio Feb. 24, 2010), available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/03/creditcollect.shtm (debt collector settled allegations 

that it violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by lacking a reasonable basis for representing to borrowers that they owed a debt);

FTC v. EMC Mortg. Corp., No. 4:08-cv-338 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2008), available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/09/

emc.shtm (mortgage servicer settled allegations that it violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by lacking a reasonable basis for 

representations that it made to borrowers, including claims about the unpaid principal amount, the due date, the interest 

rate, the delinquency status, and fees and corporate advances that prior mortgage loan servicers had assessed).

122 Challenges of Change, supra note 1, at 30-34.

123 See infra note 134 and accompanying text.

29
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

Similarly, the Commission, consumer advocates, and academics have issued studies, reports, and articles 

questioning the sufficiency and accuracy of the information and documentation supporting the complaints 

debt buyers file in court,124 and advocating changes in such information and documentation.125 Private 

actions similarly have challenged the sufficiency and accuracy of the information that debt buyers have 

offered to prove that consumers owed debts.126 And state courts and attorneys general have issued rules 

increasing the pleading requirements of debt buyers, and sometimes other debt collectors, initiating debt 

collection litigation.127 These developments are intended to provide sufficient information for consumers to 

defend themselves in court, and for courts to evaluate the merits of debt collection complaints.

As part of this study, the FTC undertook an extensive evaluation of the information that debt buyers 

obtain and use in connection with collecting debts. 

A. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INFORMATION THAT COLLECTORS MUST 

HAVE AND USE IN COLLECTING ON DEBTS 

Federal law establishes minimum requirements for the information debt collectors must have at 

various times during the collection process. Section 809(a) of the FDCPA requires that collectors provide 

consumers with a written “validation notice,” with information about the debt, within five days after their 

initial communication with consumers. The validation notice must contain (1) the amount of the debt; 

(2) the name of the current owner of the debt; and (3) statements explaining, among other things, the 

124 See, e.g., Repairing a Broken System, supra note 3, at iii, 16-17; Robert Martin, Dist. Council 37 Mun. Emps. Legal 

Servs., Where’s the Proof? When Debt Buyers Are Asked to Substantiate Their Claims in Collection Lawsuits 

Against NYC Employees and Retirees, They Don’t 3 (2009) [hereinafter Where’s the Proof?], available at http://www.

dc37.net/benefits/health/pdf/MELS_proof.pdf (New York legal services provider found that debt buyers provided proof of 

the debt in only 5.5% of the cases in which proof was requested); Terp & Bowne, supra note 44, at 7; Holland, supra note 

40; Spector, supra note 40, at 291-92 (in more than 95% of 507 collection lawsuits that debt buyers filed in Dallas County, 

Texas, the complaints failed to provide any information regarding the date of default or a breakdown of the amount owed by 

principal, interest, and fees).

125 See GAO FDCPA Report, supra note 43.

126 See, e.g., Class Action Complaint at 3-8, Vassalle v. Midland Funding LLC, No. 3:11-CV-00096 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 17, 

2011) (challenging practice of “robo-signing” affidavits used in debt collection lawsuits); see also Midland Funding LLC v. 

Brent, 644 F. Supp. 2d 961, 966-69 (N.D. Ohio 2009) (describing the challenged affidavit production practice). Note 

that the FTC filed an amicus brief in the Midland lawsuit opposing a proposed settlement because it provided only a small 

payment to consumers (capped at $10), and consumers would surrender their rights under the FDCPA and state laws to 

challenge Midland’s actions related to the company’s use of affidavits in debt collection lawsuits. FTC’s Brief as Amicus 

Curiae, Vassalle v. Midland Funding LLC, No: 3:11-CV-00096 (N.D. Ohio June 21, 2011), available at http://www.ftc.

gov/os/2011/06/110621midlandfunding.pdf. The court ultimately approved the settlement agreement in Midland without 

making changes to the agreement. Vassalle v. Midland Funding LLC, No: 3:11-CV-00096, 2011 WL 3557045 (N.D. Ohio 

Aug. 12, 2011).

127 See, e.g., Md. R. 3-306(d) (Sept. 8, 2011) (requiring debt buyers to submit a series of documents and information when 

seeking a judgment by affidavit, including documents establishing the existence of the account and the chain of title, and 

an itemization of the debt); Admin. Directive, No. 2011-1, Consumer Debt Collection Actions ¶ 1 (Del. Ct. C.P. Mar. 16, 

2011), available at http://www.courts.delaware.gov/CommonPleas/docs/AD2011-1ConsumerDebt0.pdf (requiring all debt 

collection complaints to include, among other things, the name of the original creditor, the full chain of the assignment of 

the debt, and an itemized accounting of the amount due).

30
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

right of consumers under the FDCPA to dispute debts and to request the name and the address of the 

original creditor, if different from the creditor that owns the debt. To ensure that consumers have sufficient 

information about debts, the FTC has recommended that Congress amend Section 809(a) to require that 

validation notices also include: (1) the name of the original creditor; (2) an itemization of the principal, total 

interest, and total fees that make up the debt; and (3) two additional statements notifying consumers of two 

significant rights they have under the FDCPA.128

After a debt collector provides a consumer with a validation notice, Section 809(b) of the FDCPA gives 

consumers the right to dispute the debt. Pursuant to Section 809(a)(4), the validation notice must disclose 

to consumers that they have thirty days to dispute the debt and that their dispute must be in writing. For 

example, a consumer may contend that the collector is trying to collect from the wrong person or collect 

the wrong amount. If a consumer notifies a debt collector, in writing, within thirty days after receipt of a 

validation notice that he or she is disputing the debt, the collector must discontinue collecting on the debt 

(or the disputed portion of the debt) until the collector obtains “verification” of the debt and mails it to the 

consumer. Among other things, Congress intended Section 809(b) to address the problem of debt collectors 

collecting from the wrong person, the wrong amount, or both.129

In its 2009 Debt Collection Workshop Report, the Commission found that many debt collectors 

respond to verification requests simply by confirming that the demand for payment is consistent with the 

information in the collector’s possession and then informing consumers in writing that they have verified 

the debt.130 The FTC determined that a more substantial investigation of disputed debts was consistent 

with and would further the Congressional intent behind Section 809(b).131 In particular, the Commission 

concluded that the FDCPA should be amended to clarify that collectors must conduct reasonable 

investigations that are responsive to the specific disputes consumers have raised to verify debts.132 The 

information that is responsive to these specific disputes will vary, but it is likely to involve obtaining and 

evaluating information beyond the limited information that sellers provide to debt buyers at the time of sale.  

For example, assume that a consumer’s telephone number is correct in the records of an original creditor 

but the creditor transposes the last two digits of the number in the documents it provides to a debt buyer. 

If a recipient of the call from the debt buyer disputes the debt, the debt buyer would not discover the error 

128 Challenges of Change, supra note 1, at 26. The consumer rights are contained in two FDCPA sections: FDCPA § 

809(b), 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) (2006), which provides that, if a consumer disputes a debt or requests verification of the debt 

in writing within thirty days of receiving the validation notice, the debt collector must suspend collection efforts until it 

obtains verification of the debt and mails it to the consumer; and FDCPA § 805(c), 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c), which requires a 

debt collector to cease contacting a consumer about a debt if the consumer so requests in writing.

129 S. Rep. No. 95-382, at 4 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1695, 1699; see also Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394, 

406 (4th Cir. 1999) (purpose of verification is to prevent debt collectors from “dunning the wrong person or attempting to 

collect debts which the consumer has already paid”).

130 Challenges of Change, supra note 1, at 32.

131 Id.

132 Id. at 33.

31
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

if it only checks the documents it received from the original creditor, but it would discover the error if it 

reviewed the original creditor’s records.

In addition to the FDCPA, debt collectors also must comply with Section 5 of the FTC Act. A collector 

that makes an objective claim to a consumer without a “reasonable basis” for it engages in deception 

in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. 133 Debt collectors make express or implied representations 

at many stages of the collection process that particular consumers owe debts in a specific amount. For 

instance, during a phone call with a consumer a debt collector might state “I am collecting the $1,000 

you owe on your credit card.” The FTC has emphasized in numerous law enforcement actions134 and 

policy pronouncements135 in recent years that debt collectors that do not have adequate support for such 

representations are engaged in deception in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.

The Commission has explained that whether a debt collector has a reasonable basis for a claim that 

the consumer owes a debt is a very fact-specific inquiry.136 In particular, whether a debt collector has 

information to substantiate the claim generally will depend, in part, on when in the collection process the 

collector makes the claim.137 The FTC has explained that, “[i]n many situations, the account information 

that a debt collector receives from the owner of the debt may provide a reasonable basis for asserting that a 

consumer owes the debt, even if the debt collector has attempted to collect from the wrong consumer or to 

133 Federal Trade Commission Policy Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation, appended to In re Thompson Med. Co., 

104 F.T.C. 648, 839 (1984), aff’d, 791 F.2d 189 (D.C. Cir. 1986). The Statement sets forth the requirement, articulated 

in prior Section 5 cases, that advertisers must have a reasonable basis for making objective claims before the claims are 

disseminated. Id.

134 See, e.g., United States v. Luebke Baker & Assocs., No. 1:12-cv-01145 (C.D. Ill. May 23, 2012), available at http://www.ftc.

gov/opa/2012/05/luebkenr.shtm (debt collector settled allegations that it violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by lacking a 

reasonable basis for representing to borrowers that they owed a debt); United States v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, No: 8:12-cv00182 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2012), available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/01/asset.shtm (debt collector settled allegations 

that it violated the FTC Act by lacking a reasonable basis for representing to borrowers that they owed a debt (1) when the 

debt collector had reason to believe certain portfolios contained unreliable data and (2) after the borrowers disputed the 

debt); United States v. Allied Interstate, Inc., No. 0:10-cv-04295 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2010), available at http://www.ftc.gov/

opa/2010/10/alliedinterstate.shtm (debt collector settled allegations that it violated the FTC Act by lacking a reasonable 

basis for representing to borrowers that they owed a debt after the borrowers disputed the debt); United States v. Credit 

Bureau Collection Servs., No. 2:10-cv-169 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 24, 2010), available at http://ftc.gov/opa/2010/03/creditcollect.

shtm (debt collector settled allegations that it violated the FTC Act by lacking a reasonable basis for representing to 

borrowers that they owed a debt); FTC v. EMC Mortg. Corp., No. 4:08-cv-00338 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2008), available at 

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/09/emc.shtm (mortgage servicer settled allegations that it violated the FTC Act by lacking 

a reasonable basis for representations made to borrowers, including claims about the unpaid principal amount, due date, 

interest rate, delinquency status, and fees and corporate advances that prior mortgage loan servicers had assessed); see also 

FTC v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. 2-10-cv-04193 (C.D. Cal. June 7, 2010), available at http://www.ftc.gov/

opa/2010/06/countrywide.shtm (mortgage servicer settled allegations that it violated the FTC Act by lacking a reasonable 

basis for representations made to borrowers in bankruptcy, including claims about amounts owed for pre-petition arrearage 

and the amount and delinquency status of post-petition payments).

135 See, e.g., Challenges of Change, supra note 1, at 2, 24-25.

136 Id. at 25.

137 Id.

32
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

collect the wrong amount.”138 Indeed, in certain circumstances, it may be reasonable to rely on information 

received from the creditor that sold the debt. The Commission also has emphasized, however, that once a 

consumer has informed the debt collector that he or she does not owe a debt, or does not owe the amount 

claimed, the collector is likely to need more information before once again claiming that the consumer owes 

the debt.139

In addition to FDCPA and the FTC Act requirements,140 state laws also impose standards that debt 

collectors must meet when they file a complaint in court to recover on a debt through the litigation 

process.141 Most complaints filed to collect on debts are filed in state courts, and, therefore, state laws, 

regulations, and rules largely govern what information debt buyers need to have and provide with their 

complaints when they decide to commence litigation.

In 2010, the Commission reported that the system for resolving consumer debt disputes through 

litigation was seriously flawed.142 Among other problems, the FTC found that debt collection complaints 

often do not contain sufficient information to allow consumers to admit or deny the allegations and assert 

affirmative defenses.143 The Commission recommended that states consider requiring that debt collection 

complaints include the following information: (1) the name of the original creditor and the last four digits of 

the original account number; (2) the date of default or charge-off and the amount due at that time; (3) the 

name of the current owner of the debt; (4) the total amount currently due on the debt; and (5) a breakdown 

of the total amount currently due by principal, interest, and fees.144 In response to the FTC’s report, 

138 Id. The Commission, however, has alleged that a debt collector made unsubstantiated claims in violation of Section 5 of the 

FTC Act in collecting on debts where the collector knew or should have known that the debts it was trying to collect were 

not valid because of the owner of the debt’s deceptive sales practices. Complaint at ¶ 45-47, United States v. Luebke Baker & 

Assocs., No. 1:12-cv-01145 (C.D. Ill. May 11, 2012), available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/05/luebkenr.shtm.

139 The Commission, for example, has alleged that a debt buyer made unsubstantiated claims to consumers when it did not 

obtain or review information about individual debts it purchased even after it learned that some portfolios it purchased 

contained significant amounts of unreliable data, including Social Security numbers, addresses, and other identification 

information. Complaint at ¶ 49, United States v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, No. 8:12-cv-182 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 2012), 

available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/01/asset.shtm.

140 Note that the FDCPA and Section 5 of the FTC Act apply to the conduct of debt collectors, including attorneys, in 

collecting on debts, including collecting on them through litigation. See Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291, 294 (1995) 

(holding that the FDCPA applies to lawyers engaged in litigation). Given the problems the Commission has found in debt 

collection litigation, as discussed below, the application of the FDCPA to such litigation provides important protections for 

consumers.

141 See supra note 127 and accompanying text. 

142 Repairing a Broken System, supra note 3, at i.

143 Id. at 17.

144 Id.

33
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

several states have enacted or adopted measures requiring that debt collectors or debt buyers include more 

information about debts and debtors in the complaints they file in litigation.145

B. FTC EVALUATION OF DEBT BUYER INFORMATION 

The Commission’s study obtained and analyzed data from debt buyers concerning the type and amount 

of information they obtain during the debt collection process. The data the FTC obtained and analyzed, 

however, are subject to two important limitations. First, the data evaluated did not include information 

about debt collection litigation actions, and, therefore, the Commission can neither make findings nor offer 

conclusions as to the sufficiency and accuracy of information debt buyers have or offer in connection with 

matters in litigation.146 Second, the study did not directly evaluate the accuracy of the information that debt 

buyers obtained but instead focused on what types of information debt buyers obtained, as well as when and 

how they obtained it. Notwithstanding these limitations, the Commission believes that the data it obtained 

and analyzed provide valuable insights into the relationship between debt buyers and information in the debt 

collection system. The data also identify some key issues for future study.

1. INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM SELLERS AT TIME OF PURCHASE

In its study, the Commission obtained information from debt buyers concerning the data files and media 

they received from debt sellers at the time of sale. The FTC was able to analyze the data files for over 5 

million accounts that debt sellers transmitted to debt buyers at the time of purchase.147 As shown in Table 

8, debt buyers received the following information about debtors: (1) over 98% of debt accounts included 

the name, street address, and social security number of the debtor; (2) 70% set forth the debtor’s home 

telephone number, and 47% and 15% listed work and mobile telephone numbers, respectively; (3) 65% 

included the debtor’s birth date; and (4) less than 1% revealed the debtor’s credit score.

In addition, the debt buyers acquired the following information about the original creditor’s account: 

(1) 100% of accounts included the original creditor’s account number; (2) 10% stated the credit limit on the 

145 See, e.g., Response of Creditors’ Counsel Identified to Delaware Court of Common Pleas Administrative 

Directive 2011-1 – Consumer Debt Collection Actions 1 (2011), available at http://www.courts.delaware.gov/

commonpleas/docs/comment2n.pdf (noting that the Delaware Court of Common Pleas stated that the FTC reports were 

among the sources consulted in drafting an Administrative Directive setting forth pleading and practice requirements in debt 

collection cases); Standing Comm. on Rules of Practice & Procedure, 171st Report, at 6-7 (2011), available at http://

www.mdcourts.gov/rules/ruleschanges.html (noting that the FTC’s report was among the sources consulted in developing 

changes in Maryland court rules). 

146 Many courts have concluded that the complaints and documentation filed in individual cases were inadequate. See, e.g., 

Nelson v. First Nat’l Bank Omaha, No. A04-579, 2004 WL 2711032 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2004); MBNA Am. Bank, 

N.A. v. Nelson, No. 13777/06, 2007 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4317 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. May 24, 2007); Citibank (SD), N.A. v. Martin, 

807 N.Y.S.2d 284 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2005); Asset Acceptance Corp. v. Proctor, 804 N.E.2d 975 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004); Atlantic 

Credit & Fin., Inc. v. Giuliana, 829 A.2d 340 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003); Chase Bank USA v. Rader, No. CI-08-01186, 2009 WL 

2757904 (Pa. Ct. Common Pleas Mar. 17, 2009); First Select Corp. v. Grimes, No. 2-01-257-CV, 2003 WL 151940 (Tex. 

App. Jan. 23, 2003).

147 This analysis excludes accounts sold to companies that specialize in bankruptcy debt.

34
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

account; (3) 62% specified the type of debt; (4) 46% specified the name of the original creditor;148 and (5) 

30% indicated the interest rate charged on the account.

The debt buyers further obtained the following information about the amounts debtors owed: (1) 

100% of accounts included the outstanding balance; (2) 72% listed the amount the debtor owed at chargeoff; (3) 11% stated the principal amount; and (4) 37% listed finance charges and fees.

Finally, the data files contained information about key dates relating to the debts: (1) 97% of accounts 

indicated the date the debtor opened the account: (2) 90% revealed the date the debtor made his or her last 

payment; (3) 83% stated the date the original creditor charged off the debt; and (4) 35% set forth the date 

of first default.

The Commission also was able to assess the documentation, or “media,” that debt buyers received 

from debt sellers at the time of purchase in addition to the data files. Debt buyers submitted information 

on documentation received at the time of purchase for 333 portfolios, containing 3.9 million accounts, 

purchased during the six-month period from March through August of 2009.149 Our evaluation of this 

submission showed that debt buyers received documents at the time of purchase for only a relatively small 

percentage of these debts. As shown in Table 9, the six buyers included in the analysis reported that they 

had received documents for 12% of the accounts in the portfolios submitted from this period.150 The debt 

buyers reported receiving only three types of documents: account statements, received for 6% of accounts, 

“terms and conditions” documents, also received for 6% of accounts, and account applications documents, 

received for less than 1% of accounts. Buyers typically received just one type of document per account.151 

The accounts for which documents were received were highly concentrated in particular portfolios. Only 

13% of the portfolios contained any account documents, but overall within this set of portfolios, documents 

148 Although only about half of the accounts identified the original creditor, buyers were likely to receive this information in 

other ways as well. For example, the identity of the creditor will be obvious in purchases from the creditor. In addition, 

many contracts specified that the contract between the original creditor and the original buyer be attached to the contract 

in any subsequent resale. Although the name of the creditor was not included in the data files for many accounts, the FTC 

believes that buyers will generally know the name of the original creditor when purchasing debt.

149 The information included in the FTC’s analysis was submitted by six going-concern debt buyers not specialized to 

bankruptcy recoveries. Three debt buyers submitted information on the documents received at the time of purchase for 

all of the portfolios they purchased during this time period. The other three buyers did not have the information readily 

available, and because of the likely burden of compiling it, were permitted to provide the information for a small sample of 

the portfolios they purchased during the period. About 52% of the accounts in the portfolios for which the FTC received 

information were submitted by one buyer, and about 87% were submitted by two buyers.

150 If the data from the debt buyers that submitted only samples of their portfolios are weighted by the total number of 

accounts purchased in this period, the estimated percentage of accounts for which any document was received at the time of 

purchase would decrease to 6%.

151 Buyers received more than one type of document for less than 1% of all accounts for which information was provided. 

Accounts for which account statements were received typically received multiple statements, usually sufficient to show the 

account statement history extending back for a year or more.

35
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

were received for 90% of the accounts.152 Credit card debt was the most common debt type for which 

buyers received documents. Of the accounts for which debt buyers received documents, 90% related to 

credit card debt.

Thus, the Commission’s analysis reveals that the debt buyers usually had all the information that the 

FDCPA currently requires debt buyers to provide consumers in validation notices at the beginning of 

the collection process – specifically the name of the current creditor (i.e., the debt buyer itself) and the 

amount of the debt. Buyers also received additional information from sellers, such as the name of the 

original creditor,153 the original creditor’s account number, the debtor’s social security number, the date 

of last payment, and the date of charge-off. In the Commission’s experience, debt collectors, including 

debt buyers, generally do not provide this information to consumers when they provide consumers with 

validation notices. If such information (with appropriate truncations to account and social security numbers 

to protect privacy) is provided to consumers at the time collectors provide validation notices,154 it might help 

consumers determine whether they are the debtor and whether the amount of the debt is correct. 

The Commission’s study also revealed that there were important limitations on the information that debt 

buyers received at time of sale. Most significantly, debt buyers often did not receive the information needed 

to break down outstanding balances on accounts into principal,155 interest, and fees. The FTC has said that 

debt collectors should be required to include this information in validation notices to assist consumers in 

determining whether the amount owed is correct. Moreover, as discussed above, when debt buyers received 

information about debts at the time of sale, sellers generally disclaimed all warranties and representations 

with respect to the accuracy of this information.

In addition, sellers usually did not include in the data files they provided to buyers at time of sale 

information about the specifics of the collection history of the individual debts in their portfolios. Sellers 

may have tried to collect on debts themselves or retained third-party collectors to recover on their behalf. 

During these collection attempts, collectors may have obtained information to help them locate consumers 

who have moved, often referred to as “skip-tracing” information; made notes as to their interactions 

with consumers; received written disputes from consumers; and sought to verify disputed debts. Such 

information may not have existed for some debts in some portfolios. But even if the sellers or their third152 If the data from the debt buyers that submitted samples of their portfolios are weighted by the total number of portfolios 

purchased in this period, the estimated percentage of portfolios in which any document was received at the time of purchase 

increases to 20% (even though the percentage of accounts decreases, as noted above).

153 As discussed above, although only about half (46%) of the accounts identified the original creditor in the data files buyers 

received from sellers, buyers were likely to have the original creditor’s name from other sources. See supra note 148.

154 The Commission has recommended that validation notices include the name of the original creditor. See Challenges of 

Change, supra note 1, at 27-28. It has also recommended that complaints in debt collection cases state the name of the 

original creditor, the last four digits of the original account number, and the date of default or charge-off. See Repairing a 

Broken System, supra note 3, at iii.

155 As discussed above, however, debt buyers obtained information about the amount owed at charge-off for 72% of accounts.

36
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

party collectors had received, collected, and retained such information, they did not include it in data files 

provided to purchasers at the time of sale. 

One particularly important aspect of collection history is a debt’s dispute history. Based on the FTC’s 

enforcement experience, debt sellers typically do not provide dispute history information to buyers at the 

time of sale. The dispute history of debts indicates whether consumers disputed them when sellers sought 

to collect and whether sellers verified them if disputed. Knowing the dispute history of debts could be very 

relevant to debt buyers in assessing whether consumers in fact owe the debts and whether the amounts of the 

debts are correct. 

The Commission’s analysis also reveals that the information that debt buyers conveyed to other debt 

buyers when debt was resold was very similar to the information that original creditors provided to debt 

buyers. Resellers conveyed to debt buyers the same type of data file information about specific debts (e.g., 

consumer name, social security number, original creditor name, account balance, charge-off date, last 

payment date, and opening date) that they received from original creditors. With respect to media, most 

resellers156 appeared to provide debt buyers with the purchase and sale agreement, a bill of sale, and, in some 

case, documents showing price calculations or additional transaction-specific documents.157 This suggests 

that the initial debt buyers generally do not discard158 any information they receive from the original 

creditor, but also that they typically do not supplement the information they provide to secondary debt 

buyers to reflect their experience in collecting on debts.159

2 RATE AT WHICH CONSUMERS DISPUTE DEBTS THAT DEBT BUYERS ATTEMPT TO COLLECT

Consumer disputes of debts can provide some insight into how often debt buyers seek to recover from 

the wrong consumer or recover the wrong amount. As explained in more detail in Technical Appendix B, 

the Commission calculated the dispute rate for a sample of portfolios purchased by the studied debt buyers 

between July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2009. Only four of the surveyed debt buyers were able to provide data 

on disputes. Moreover, these four debt buyers provided dispute rate information only for debts that the 

156 One debt buyer noted that some resellers may provide the debt buyer at the time of resale with an electronic copy of all 

media in the reseller’s possession related to the relevant debts, although the buyer also stated that it obtains the majority of 

documents about debts through requesting them from the reseller after the time of purchase.

157 For example, for transactions that include debts subject to a bankruptcy proceeding or judgment debts, the reseller may 

provide the debt buyer with a limited power of attorney to effect the transfer of the debts from the name of the reseller to the 

name of the debt buyer.

158 Note that information about debtors and debt may become problematic even if no information is lost. For example, with 

the passage of time, addresses and the telephone numbers of debtors often may become incorrect even if the information 

from the original creditor is not lost.

159 Consistent with the conclusion that purchasers of debts receive comparable information about these debts regardless of 

whether the seller is the original creditor or a debt buyer, the Commission conducted a regression analysis that revealed 

that, after controlling for other debt characteristics, there was no statistically significant relationship between debt price and 

whether the debt buyer purchased it from the original creditor or a reseller. See infra Table 7.

37
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

debt buyers collected themselves, not on debts that the debt buyers placed with third-party collectors for 

recovery.160

It is also important to note what is meant by the term “dispute” in this context. As discussed above, the 

FDCPA gives consumers thirty days following the receipt of a validation notice to file a written dispute with 

collectors. The Commission requested data on both written and oral disputes. As noted below, however, 

not all debt buyers kept records of oral disputes, and thus the analysis is limited to the information about 

disputes that the debt buyers were able to provide.

The Commission’s analysis shows that consumers disputed 3.2% of the accounts on which debt buyers 

in the sample attempted to collect. If this 3.2% dispute rate were applied across the entire debt buying 

industry, it would result in consumers disputing about 1 million debts each year that debt buyers purchased, 

that is, about 3 million debts during the three-year period the Commission studied.161

It is critical to note that the 3.2% dispute rate the FTC calculated may not accurately capture the extent 

of information problems with debts on which debt buyers are collecting. In fact, on balance, it is likely 

to understate these problems. First, consumers may not receive validation notices,162 and even those who 

receive notices that raise questions and concerns about a debt may not submit disputes to collectors.163 For 

example, some consumers may not read or understand the validation notice because it does not identify the 

original creditor, they may assume it is junk mail, or they find writing a letter to be unduly burdensome. 

Second, because the only debt buyers in the study were larger debt buyers that purchased many of their 

debts directly from original creditors, the dispute rate found in the study is not necessarily reflective of the 

dispute rate in the industry overall, which includes smaller debt buyers and debt buyers that purchase debts 

160 Debt buyers attempted collection solely by themselves on 26.8% of purchased debts, both by themselves and through thirdparty collectors on 31.9% of debts, solely through third-party collectors on 29.2% of debts, and did not attempt collections 

through any means on 12.1%. See infra Table 10. An analysis of how various debt characteristics affected the likelihood 

that buyers attempted internal and third-party collection is presented in Table 11.

161 The nine debt buyers surveyed by the FTC purchased about 89 million debts over the three-year sample period. These 

debt buyers accounted for an estimated 76% of industry purchases, as measured by face value of the purchased debt. This 

implies that about 117 million debts were purchased by the industry over the three-year period, assuming that the average 

face value per account is similar in the rest of the industry as in the surveyed debt buyers. The total number of relevant 

accounts is reduced to about 110 million if the two surveyed debt buyers that specialize in purchasing bankruptcy debt, and 

do not engage in collection efforts directly with consumers, are excluded. Adjusting this figure to also reflect the fact that 

the surveyed debt buyers that did not specialize in bankruptcy debt attempted collection efforts, either internally or through 

third-party collectors, on only 87.9% of their purchased debts, yields an estimate of about 96 million debts purchased 

during the three-year period on which debt buyers attempted collection. Applying the 3.2% dispute rate to this figure yields 

an estimate of about 3 million disputed debts over the three year period, or about 1 million per year.

162 For instance, a debt buyer may send a validation notice to the consumer’s home address as identified by the seller, yet the 

consumer might not receive it if he has moved.

163 Note that the FDCPA implicitly recognizes that consumers may not dispute debts that are problematic in that Section 

809(c) expressly precludes courts from construing a consumer’s failure to dispute a debt as an admission that the consumer 

is liable for the debt. 15 U.S.C. §1692g(c) (2006). However, the FTC’s orders asked for written disputes generally, and did 

not limit those to written disputes in response to FDCPA validation notices. We do not know to what extent, if any, the 

buyers in the study included non-FDCPA dispute letters (e.g., a letter received more than 30 days after the validation notice) 

and included them in the dispute numbers they provided in response to the orders.

38
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

from other debt buyers. Third, because the information used to determine the dispute rate did not include 

disputes raised in response to collection efforts of third-party collectors retained by debt buyers164 and 

because debt buyers appear more likely to retain third parties to collect on more difficult debts, the exclusion 

of these debts might well have lowered the dispute rate. Fourth, not all of the debt buyers kept records of 

oral disputes, which (again) lowers the calculated dispute rate.165

On the other hand, there also are reasons the dispute rate might overstate problems with debt buyers’ 

collecting from the wrong consumer or the wrong amount. For example, because the validation notice lists 

the current owner of the debt (i.e., the debt buyer) rather than the original creditor, consumers may dispute 

the debts because they have had no dealings with, and thus do not recognize, the debt buyer.166 Also, 

consumers may mistakenly dispute the amount of a debt that is actually correct and subsequently verified.

For all of these reasons, the Commission does not believe that the dispute rate can be used as a precise 

or definitive indicator of the extent of information problems with debt being collected by debt buyers. 

Nevertheless, even the 3.2% dispute rate the FTC found indicates that debt buyers seek to collect on more 

than a million debts each year that consumers assert that they do not owe or that they owe in a different 

amount. This is a significant consumer protection concern. If the dispute rate understates the prevalence of 

information problems, which is likely, the concern would be even stronger.

Finally, the FTC’s analysis revealed that there was no statistically significant relationship between the 

likelihood that a debt was disputed and a debt’s age or face value.167 The Commission’s analysis also did not 

find any statistically significant difference between dispute rates for debts purchased directly from original 

creditors and for debts purchased from resellers of debts. Note, however, that this result may not be the case 

for tertiary or later debt buyers, which were not included in the study.

3. DOCUMENTS DEBT BUYERS OBTAINED FROM SELLERS AFTER PURCHASE

As discussed above, the debt buyers in the FTC study typically received some information about the 

debts at the time of sale, including the account number, outstanding balance, and basic information about 

the debtor. Moreover, purchase and sale agreements typically allowed debt buyers to obtain after purchase 

a certain amount of documentation from debt sellers upon request at no charge. Sellers typically agreed 

to provide buyers with documents free of charge for between 10% and 25% of the debts purchased, with 

time to request such media limited to between six months and three years after the date of sale. In addition, 

164 Of the debts that the studied debt buyers sought to collect, debt buyers sought to collect 26.8% through internal collections, 

29.2% through placement with third-party collectors, and 31.9% through both internal collections and placement with 

third-party collectors.

165 The dispute rate also does not necessarily include all disputes relating to items on consumers’ credit reports, including 

disputes that were made by consumers to a credit reporting agency as opposed to directly to the debt collector.

166 The Commission’s recommendation that the name of the original creditor be listed on the validation notice likely would 

decrease the probability of such disputes arising.

167 See infra Table 12.

39
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

the purchase and sale agreements usually required that debt buyers pay for information about debts that 

exceeded the amount permitted without charge under the agreements. Debt buyers typically paid a charge 

(usually between $5 and $10 per document, but sometimes higher) to original creditors for this additional 

information.

Debt buyers may obtain additional documents after purchase from original creditors for a number of 

reasons. In some circumstances, they might acquire such documentation to enhance their collections. Debt 

buyers also might obtain these documents to comply with regulatory requirements, including investigating 

and verifying debts that consumers have disputed. Debt buyers further might obtain such documentation 

to include with a complaint or to support their arguments in debt collection litigation. The data in the 

FTC’s study, however, neither permit the Commission to determine why the studied debt buyers acquired 

additional information nor allow the FTC to determine the percentage of disputed debts or litigated matters 

for which debt buyers obtained additional information.

The Commission’s study does, however, provide insight into the types of additional documentation debt 

buyers obtained after purchase and how often they obtained it. Table 13 shows the percentage of accounts 

for which various types of documents were obtained after purchase, and the percentage of portfolios for 

which these documents were obtained for any account, based on an analysis of 1,477,720 accounts in 

202 portfolios. Debt buyers obtained account statements after purchase for 6% of accounts, account 

applications for 6% of accounts, and terms and conditions documents for 8% of accounts. Payment 

history documents and affidavits each were obtained for less than 1% of accounts, as were all other types 

of documents combined. These findings show that the debt buyers obtained additional documentation for 

only a relatively small percentage of debts after the time of purchase. Although documents were obtained 

for only a relatively small percentage of accounts, this percentage was greater than the percentage of accounts 

that were disputed, though the Commission could not assess whether these documents actually were used for 

dispute verification. The Commission also generally did not have information on the extent to which buyers 

may have requested documents that sellers did not provide because the documents were not available.

4. DEBT BUYER VERIFICATION OF DEBTS THAT CONSUMERS DISPUTED

The information submitted in the study further provides insight into debt buyers’ verification of debts 

that consumers have disputed. As shown in Table 14, the Commission’s analysis of 713,308 disputed debts 

in 1,853 portfolios revealed that debt buyers reported that they verified 51.3% of the debts that consumers 

had disputed.168 In addition, debt buyers reported that they were more likely to verify debts that they had 

obtained from the original creditor (55.7%) than debts they had acquired from other debt buyers (35.9%). 

Regression analysis, presented in Table 15, indicates that debt buyers were significantly less likely to report 

verification of disputed medical, telecommunications, and utility debt, as compared to verification of credit 

168 As is the case with the dispute data, noted above, only four of the debt buyers were able to submit data on their verification 

of debts.

40
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

card debt.169 Debt buyers also were significantly less likely to verify debt that was more than six years old, 

as compared to debt less than three years old. The analysis also indicates that debt buyers were less likely 

to verify debt purchased from resellers rather than original creditors, but this result was only marginally 

significant.

This finding suggests that debt buyers may have been able to verify a significant percentage of disputed 

debts (though the verification rate differs by the age and type of debt). The FTC notes two important 

caveats, however. First, the Commission did not itself determine that these debts were verified, but rather 

relied on the debt buyers to report whether the debts had been verified.170 Second, the Commission does 

not know what the debt buyers in the study actually did to verify disputed debts. As the FTC has explained, 

“[m]any debt collectors have responded to verification requests by only confirming in writing for consumers 

that the amount demanded is what the creditor claims is owed.” The Commission stated that, rather than 

conducting such a minimal inquiry, “a more substantial investigation of disputed debts is consistent with 

and would further the Congressional intent behind Section 809(b),” namely, addressing the “problem of 

debt collectors collecting from the wrong person, the wrong amount, or both.”171

The FTC also examined the extent to which debt buyers sold disputed debt. Only two of the surveyed 

debt buyers provided data on the sale of disputed debt. Overall, these debt buyers sold 2.9% of their 

disputed debts, including 4.9% of verified disputed debts and 0.8% of unverified disputed debts. For debt 

purchased from resellers, these debt buyers sold 3.8% of disputed debts, including 9.7% of verified disputed 

debts and 0.5% of unverified disputed debts.172 Because the Commission received information from so few 

debt buyers on this point, further study is needed on this issue.

169 Although the verification rate figures presented above in this paragraph are based on information provided by four of the 

surveyed debt buyers, technical issues limited the sample of the regression analysis to the data provided by three of the debt 

buyers.

170 Because debt buyers have an obligation under Section 809(b) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) (2006), to verify debts 

that consumers dispute in writing within 30 days of receipt of a validation notice, this creates an incentive for debt buyers to 

report disputed debts as verified if there is uncertainty as to whether the verification is adequate.

171 Challenges of Change, supra note 1, at 32. Although what is necessary for such an investigation is a fact-specific inquiry, 

often a reasonable investigation should include obtaining, evaluating, and providing to the consumer more information than 

the collector used before making its claim that the consumer owes the debt. For example, the following may be relevant to 

an investigation into whether the contacted consumer is the debtor: (1) identifying information of the debtor (e.g., name, 

address, birth date, and social security number); (2) credit application; and (3) billing statements. Similarly, the following 

may be relevant when a consumer disputes the amount of the debt: (1) terms and conditions; (2) billing statements; and 

(3) pay history. If a consumer disputes the debt buyer’s right to collect the debt, information and documents related to the 

chain of ownership of the debt — such as an affidavit of sale or lien transfer — may be relevant. For any dispute, documents 

or information voluntarily provided by consumers (e.g., proof of payment) should also be considered by the debt buyer.

172 See infra Table 14.

41
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

VII.THE COLLECTION OF OLDER DEBTS

As original creditors sell their debt to debt buyers, and debt buyers, in turn, resell debts to other debt 

buyers, the debts being collected inevitably get older. The ageing of debts in the debt buying process raises 

two main concerns. First, the information that collectors have about these debts may become less accurate 

over time, making it more likely that collectors will seek to recover from the wrong consumer, recover the 

wrong amount, or both.173 Second, collectors may sue or threaten to sue about debts that are time-barred 

– that is, beyond the applicable statute of limitation.174 Collecting on time-barred debts without disclosing 

that the collector cannot sue to recover is deceptive in some circumstances. The information that the 

Commission obtained and analyzed during the study provides insight on these two concerns.

A. AGE AND ACCURACY OF DEBTS THAT DEBT BUYERS COLLECT 

In response to its 6(b) orders, the Commission received information about the mean and standard 

deviation of the ages of the accounts in each portfolio purchased by the debt buyers. Debt buyers provided 

the age of the debt at the time they purchased the debt rather than the age of the debt at the subsequent time 

or times that they attempted collecting on it. Debt buyers also calculated the age of the debt at the time 

since charge-off rather than the time since default.

The Commission used this information to estimate the proportion of accounts in the following 

categories based on age at acquisition: three years old or less; three to six years old; six to fifteen years old; 

over fifteen years old; and unreported age. Most states’ statutes of limitations are between three and six 

years, and no state’s statute of limitations is longer than fifteen years.175 Debt that is less than three years old 

was presumably not time-barred. Debt between three and six years old was likely a mix of time-barred and 

non-time barred debt. Most, but not all,176 debt that was older than six years old at the time of acquisition 

was likely time-barred. Debt that was over fifteen years old at purchase was generally time-barred.

173 See, e.g., Hobbs & Wu, supra note 44, at 4 (“As a result of this lack of documentation for sometimes very old debts, debt 

buyers frequently pursued flawed claims.”); Peter A. Holland, Defending Junk-Debt-Buyer Lawsuits, Clearinghouse Rev. J. 

Poverty L. & Pol’y, May-June 2012, at 12, 13-15. 

174 Such debt is also known as “stale” debt, or “out of statute” debt.

175 See Goldberg, supra note 40, at 750 (“Each state imposes a statute of limitations, typically ranging from three to six years, 

after which a debtor is no longer legally obligated to pay the debt and can have a judgment dismissed in court.”); Steven P. 

Mandell & Stephen J. Rosenfeld, Practicing Law Inst., Drafting Software Licenses For Litigation, in Understanding the 

Intellectual Property License 2009, at 741, 762 (PLI Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, and Literary Property, Course 

Handbook Ser. No. 19149, 2009) (“The statute of limitations on actions for breach of a written agreement usually ranges 

from three to 15 years.”).

176 Some states have statutes of limitations that are greater than six years. See, e.g., 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/13-206 

(West 2012) (ten-year limitation in Illinois for written contracts); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 413.090 (West 2012) (fifteen-year 

limitation in Kentucky for written contracts); R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. § 9-1-13(a) (West 2012) (ten-year limitation in Rhode 

Island for written and non-written contracts). In addition, for some debt, the statute of limitations may have been tolled, 

such as during bankruptcy, or a consumer may have made a partial payment on the debt. See, e.g., 11 U.S.C. § 108(c) 

(2006) (tolling statute of limitations during pendency of bankruptcy proceedings); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-520(a) (West 

2012) (restarting state statute of limitations upon part payment).

42
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

The Commission’s analysis of the data estimates that: (1) 68.2% of the debt that debt buyers in the study 

purchased was less than three years old at the time it was acquired; (2) 19.3% of the debt was between three 

and six years old; (3) 11.3% of the debt was between six and fifteen years old; and (4) 0.8% of debt was 

over fifteen years old at the time of acquisition.177 As noted above, however, the Commission’s study did not 

include data from small debt buyers, debt buyers that purchase most of their debt from other debt buyers, 

and debt buyers who were under FTC investigation. In the FTC’s law enforcement experience, many 

purchasers of older debts and debts with larger numbers of past placements with third-party collectors are 

smaller firms. There also were substantial variations in the average age of accounts across different portfolio 

types.

The Commission’s analysis might suggest that the debt on which debt buyers collect is not old and is 

generally not beyond the applicable statute of limitations. Two features of the data in the study, however, 

caution against reaching such a conclusion. First, over 80% of the debt analyzed in the study was debt that 

debt buyers purchased directly from original creditors, while many debt buyers not in the study purchase 

their debts from other debt buyers. Because debts purchased from original creditors tend to be newer than 

debts purchased from other debt buyers, the studied debt buyers may own debts that generally are newer 

than those of other debt buyers. This is shown by the debts analyzed in the study that were purchased from 

other debt buyers: (1) 37.9% of the debt purchased from resellers was less than three years old; (2) 32.1% 

was between three and six years old; (3) 27.5% was between six and fifteen years old; and (4) 2.6% was over 

fifteen years old.178 Second, even for the debts in the study, as noted above, their age was calculated based on 

the age at the time of purchase, not at the time of collection. Because debt buyers may collect on debts for a 

significant period of time, using the date of purchase will understate the age of debts that they are collecting.

The data the Commission received also provide insight as to whether the collection methods debt buyers 

used to collect on purchased debt varied by the age of the debt. The FTC evaluated these issues for debts in 

the age categories mentioned above — less than three years old, between three and six years old, between six 

and fifteen years old, and over fifteen years old at the time of purchase. Overall, the debt buyers attempted 

to collect themselves on 58.7% of debt and sent 61.1% of debt to third-party debt collectors.179 A regression 

analysis found that debt buyers are more likely to attempt in-house collection for debt three to fifteen years 

old compared to debt less than three years old, and more likely to send debt to third-party collectors for debt 

six to fifteen years old, again compared to debt less than three years old.180 It further found that debt buyers 

177 See infra Table 6.

178 Id.

179 See infra Table 10. These figures are not mutually exclusive. Debt collectors attempt to both collect internally and through 

third party collectors on 31.9% of debts. Debt buyers did not attempt collection through either means on 12.1% of debt.

180 As noted in note 179, supra, these results are not mutually exclusive, as debt collectors attempted to collect a significant 

percentage of debts both internally and through third party collectors.

43
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

are less likely to send debts more than 15 years old to third-party collectors compared to debts less than three 

years old, but that result was only marginally significant.181

The FTC also used the data that debt buyers submitted to examine whether the rate at which consumers 

dispute debts, and the rate at which the debt buyers reported they were able to verify disputed debts, varied 

with the age of the debt. The FTC’s regression analysis found no statistically significant differences in the 

dispute rate across debts of different ages.182 

The Commission did find statistically significant differences in the verification rate across debts of 

different ages. Regression analysis found that for baseline debt, which consisted of debt that was less than 

three years old, 58.4% of the debt disputed by consumers was verified, but similar disputed debt aged six 

years or more was verified only 36.1% of the time.183 The data did not allow the Commission to assess 

whether debt buyers were less likely to verify disputed older debts because they attempted verification less 

often or because their attempts to verify such debt were unsuccessful. Moreover, the data do not show 

whether the debts that the debt buyers self-reported as verified were, in fact, properly verified. These results 

indicate that debt buyers verify older disputed debts less frequently than newer disputed debts, but they do 

not reveal why such a difference exists. Further study is needed to examine the reasons for these differences.

B. TIME-BARRED DEBT

A major concern related to debt buying is the conduct of some debt buyers in collecting, threatening 

to sue, or suing on debt that is time-barred. The FDCPA and the FTC Act impose limitations on the 

ability of debt collectors, including debt buyers, to engage in such conduct. State laws also are increasingly 

imposing additional restrictions on collection efforts relating to time-barred debt. Through this study, the 

Commission sought to determine to what extent debt buyers use various methods to recover on time-barred 

debt.

Statutes of limitations set a maximum time after the accrual of a cause of action in which a plaintiff may 

file suit. Statutes of limitations serve a variety of purposes. They reflect the legislative judgment that “it is 

unjust to fail to put the adversary on notice to defend within a specified period of time.”184 They also are 

designed to “protect defendants and the courts from having to deal with cases in which the search for truth 

181 See infra Table 11.

182 See infra Table 12.

183 See infra Table 15. The difference between this and the baseline result is significant at the one-percent level. The verification 

rate for debt three to six years old was not significantly different than for baseline debt. Baseline debt was defined for the 

regression analysis as credit card debt that is less than 3 years old, acquired from the original creditor, with a face value less 

than $1000, and that had never been sent to a contingency collector.

184 United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 117 (1979).

44
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

may be seriously impaired by the loss of evidence, whether by death or disappearance of witnesses, fading 

memories, disappearance of documents, or otherwise.”185

The protection that statutes of limitations provide to consumers is not automatic, however. In most 

states, the expiration of the statute of limitations on a debt does not extinguish the debt.186 Instead, the 

running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that consumers themselves must raise and prove 

before courts will dismiss actions to collect on their debts. As the Commission has noted, because 90% 

or more of consumers sued in these actions do not appear in court to defend, filing these actions creates a 

risk that consumers will be subject to a default judgment on a time-barred debt. To decrease this risk, the 

FTC has recommended that states change their laws to require collectors to prove that debts are not timebarred, rather than placing on consumers the burden of raising the defense of the running of the statute of 

limitations. The Commission further has recommended that states revise their laws to require that collectors 

plead the date of default and applicable statute of limitations in their complaints.187

1. LITIGATION AND THREATENED LITIGATION TO COLLECT ON TIME-BARRED DEBT 

Both federal and state laws restrict the ability of debt buyers to file or threaten to file actions to recover 

on time-barred debts. It is well-established that it is a violation of the FDCPA for a debt collector (including 

a debt buyer) to file an action in court to collect on a time-barred debt.188 It likewise is a clear violation of 

185 Id.

186 In Mississippi and Wisconsin, the expiration of the statute of limitations extinguishes the debt. Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-3 

(2012); Wis. Stat. Ann. § 893.05 (West 2012).

187 Repairing a Broken System, supra note 3, at 30.

188 Bringing an action on time-barred debt has been held to be an unfair practice in violation of § 807, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e 

(2006). See, e.g., Basile v. Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore LLC, 632 F. Supp. 2d 842, 845 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (“Courts 

have held that the filing of a time-barred lawsuit violates the FDCPA.”); Kimber v. Fed. Fin. Corp., 668 F. Supp. 1480, 1487 

(M.D. Ala. 1987).

45
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

the FDCPA to threaten to file such an action.189 States also have imposed new requirements designed to 

prevent or deter filing actions to recover on time-barred debts.190 

Notwithstanding its clear illegality and the consensus among interested parties that collectors should not 

engage in it,191 some consumer advocates contend and one recent study192 concluded that debt buyers, in 

fact, do file or threaten to file actions to recover on time-barred debt.193 The information the FTC received 

in response to its 6(b) orders did not permit the agency to assess how often debt buyers filed actions in court 

to recover on debts that were beyond the statute of limitations or the effect of such actions on consumers. 

In light of the concerns raised about such actions and recent changes in state law, however, the Commission 

concludes that further empirical work would be worthwhile to assess the prevalence of such actions and 

whether additional changes in law, procedures, or practice are needed to prevent or deter them.

2. DISCLOSURES REGARDING TIME-BARRED DEBT

Debt collectors, including debt buyers, may violate the law not only if they file an action to collect on 

time-barred debt, but also if they engage in deception in collecting on time-barred debt. When collectors 

attempt to recover on debts, in many circumstances, such efforts may convey or imply to consumers that 

the collectors could sue them if they do not pay. If the debts are time-barred, this message would be 

189 Threatening to sue on time-barred debt has been held to violate various sections of the FDCPA: § 807, using false, 

deceptive, or misleading representations to collect a debt; § 807(2)(A), falsely representing the character, amount, or legal 

status of a debt; § 807(5), threatening to take an action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken; 

and § 807(10), using a false representation or deceptive means to collect a debt. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e (2006); see also, e.g., 

Freyermuth v. Credit Bureau Servs., Inc., 248 F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir. 2001) (holding by implication that the threat of 

litigation or actual litigation on a time-barred debt violates the FDCPA); Walker v. Cash Flow Consultants, Inc., 200 F.R.D. 

613, 616 (N.D. Ill. 2001) (finding that sending a collection letter that included a threat of litigation after the statute of 

limitations on the debt had expired would violate the FDCPA); Beattie v. D.M. Collections, Inc., 754 F. Supp. 383, 393 (D. 

Del. 1991) (“[T]he threatening of a lawsuit which the debt collector knows or should know is unavailable or unwinnable by 

reason of a legal bar such as the statute of limitations is the kind of abusive practice the FDCPA was intended to eliminate.”); 

Kimber, 668 F. Supp. at 1487 (finding that a debt collector violated the FDCPA when it filed a lawsuit on a time-barred 

debt without having first determined that the limitations period had actually been tolled).

190 North Carolina enacted a statute in 2009 that prohibits debt buyers, and those collecting on their behalf, from attempting 

to collect on time-barred debt and from receiving a default judgment or summary judgment without providing evidence 

establishing the date of last payment, which can be used to calculate the date on which the statute of limitations expires. 

N.C.G.S. § 58-70-115(4), 155(b)(7) (2012). Connecticut also altered its rules of civil procedure in 2010 to provide that 

a debt collection plaintiff bringing a small claims court action cannot be granted a default judgment without an affidavit 

stating “the basis upon which the plaintiff claims the statute of limitations has not expired.” Conn. R. Sup. Ct. § 24-24(b)

(1)(B) (2012).

191 ACA Code of Ethics, supra note 33, at 4; see also DBA Int’l, Ethics Rules and Ethical Considerations for DBA 

Members ER 5-102, available at http://www.dbainternational.org/what_is_dba/code_of_ethics.asp (“A Member shall not 

. . . [k]nowingly advance a claim or defense that is unwarranted under existing law, except that it may advance such claim or 

defense if it can be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.”).

192 A legal service provider in New York analyzed a sample of cases in its office and found that over 50% of cases for which 

sufficient information was available were based on debt for which the statute of limitations had expired. Letter from Robert 

A. Martin, Assoc. Dir., DC 37 Mun. Emps. Legal Servs., to the FTC (Feb. 11, 2010) (on file with the FTC) (supplementing 

the information described in Where’s the Proof?, supra note 124, at 9, 11).

193 See, e.g., Nat’l Consumer Law Ctr. & Nat’l Ass’n of Consumer Advocates, supra note 120, at 3-4, 31-32; Where’s the 

Proof?, supra note 124, at 9, 11.

46
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

false or misleading, because the collectors in fact cannot legally file an action against them if they do not 

pay. Information about the consequences of not paying debts being collected appears to be important to 

consumers in deciding whether to pay debts and in what order to pay debts.194

Similar concerns arise when collectors request or accept partial payments on time-barred debts. When 

a collector makes such a request or accepts such a partial payment, in many circumstances, such efforts 

may convey or imply to consumers that they have only obligated themselves in the amount of the partial 

payment. For example, if a collector offers to accept a $50 payment on a $500 time-barred credit card debt, 

a consumer may believe that the $50 payment itself is the only consequence to him or her from making 

the payment. Nevertheless, under the laws of most states, a partial payment on a time-barred debt revives 

the entire balance of the debt for a new statute of limitations period.195 This consequence likely would be 

important to consumers in deciding whether to make the payment.

In its 2010 Litigation Report, the FTC addressed whether debt collectors, including debt buyers, must 

make disclosures to prevent deception in collecting on time-barred debts. The report stated that “most 

consumers do not know or understand their legal rights with respect to the collection of time-barred debt,” 

so attempts to collect on stale debt in many circumstances may create a misleading impression that the 

consumer could be sued, violating Section 5 of the FTC Act and Section 807 of the FDCPA.196 To avoid 

creating such a misleading impression, the Commission stated that if a collector knows or should know 

that it is collecting on time-barred debt, then it generally must inform the consumer that “(1) the collector 

cannot sue to collect the debt and (2) providing a partial payment would revive the collector’s ability to sue 

to collect the balance.”197 State and local governments similarly have started requiring that collectors must 

194 A 2010 study examined whether consumers’ responses to collection efforts are affected by the knowledge that a debt is timebarred. Goldsmith & Martin, supra note 40. The study concluded that “[t]hose participants who were told that the debt 

could not be enforced through court action chose different repayment options than participants who were not told about 

time-barred debt.” Id. at 380. In the study, 34% of subjects said they would decline to pay a hypothetical debt when they 

were told the debt “cannot be enforced against you through court action because the enforcement period has run out.” Id.

at 377-80. Only 6% of subjects said they would decline to pay when they had not received the notice. Id. This difference 

was statistically significant. Id. at 378-79. The Goldsmith and Martin study therefore supports the notion that a debt’s 

unenforceability is material to at least some consumers.

195 See, e.g., Jenkins v. Gen. Collection Co., 538 F. Supp. 2d 1165, 1173 (D. Neb. 2008) (“Voluntary payment of any part of 

principal or interest tolls the statute of limitations and a new right of action accrues after each payment.”); United States v. 

Glens Falls Ins. Co., 546 F. Supp. 643, 645 (N.D.N.Y. 1982) (“[A]t common law, part payment of a debt starts the statute of 

limitations running anew in that part payment is tantamount to a voluntary acknowledgment of the existence of the debt, 

from which the law implies a new promise to pay the balance.”); Young v. Sorenson, 121 Cal. Rptr. 236, 237 (Ct. App. 1975) 

(“[P]art payment of a debt or obligation is sufficient to extend the bar of the statute. The theory on which this is based is 

that the payment is an acknowledgment of the existence of the indebtedness which raises an implied promise to continue the 

obligation and to pay the balance.”). Assuming in the example above that the state had a six-year statute of limitation period 

to file an action on credit card debts, then the $50 payment would revive the right to file an action for the $450 balance on 

the debt for six more years.

196 Repairing a Broken System, supra note 3, at 26.

197 Id. at 28.

47
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

disclose similar types of information to prevent deception and assist consumers in making better-informed 

decisions.198

The Commission recently brought an action against a debt buyer that allegedly collected on time-barred 

debt without disclosing to consumers that they could no longer be sued on the debt. The U.S. Department 

of Justice, on behalf of the FTC, filed a complaint against Asset Acceptance, LLC (“Asset”) alleging 

that when Asset collects time-barred debt, “[m]any consumers do not know if the accounts that Asset is 

attempting to collect are beyond the statute of limitations. . . . When Asset contacts consumers to collect 

on a debt, many consumers believe they could experience serious negative consequences, including being 

sued, if they fail to pay the debt.”199 The complaint alleged that it was deceptive for Asset to fail to disclose 

to consumers that they could not be sued if they did not pay.200 Asset agreed to a settlement under which 

it was required to disclose such information when it collects on debts that it knows or should know are 

time-barred.201 Asset also agreed not to sue on time-barred debts for which it had made such disclosures as 

well as not to sell, transfer, or assign to another the right to sue on such debts. Following the Commission’s 

action in Asset Acceptance, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau recently entered into a settlement 

agreement with a bank collecting on its own debts that requires the bank to provide disclosures concerning 

the expiration of the bank’s litigation rights when collecting debt that is barred by the applicable statute of 

limitations.202

198 In 2009, New York City enacted a law prohibiting debt collection agencies from collecting “a debt on which the statute of 

limitations for initiating legal action has expired unless such agency first provides the consumer such information about the 

consumer’s legal rights as the commissioner prescribes by rule.” N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 20-493.2 (2012) (effective July 16, 

2009). Following the FTC’s 2009 report, the Attorney General of New Mexico also issued a rule in 2010 requiring debt 

collectors seeking to recover on debts they know or have reason to know are time-barred to disclose to consumers that they 

cannot be sued if they do not pay and that they will revive their debts under New Mexico law if they take certain actions. 

21 N.M. Reg. 1191 (Dec. 15, 2010), available at http://www.nmcpr.state.nm.us/nmregister/xxi/xxi23/xxi23.pdf. In 2012, 

the Attorney General of Massachusetts further issued a regulation that requires collectors seeking to recover on debts they 

know or have reason to believe are time-barred to “disclose[] that the debt may be unenforceable through a lawsuit because 

the time for filing suit may have expired, and that the debtor is not required” to make any payment on the debt or take any 

other action that could waive the consumer’s rights regarding the running of the statute of limitations. 940 Mass. Code 

Regs. 7.07(24) (2012).

199 Complaint at ¶ 34, United States v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, No. 8:12-CV-182-T-27EAJ (M.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 2012), available at

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/01/asset.shtm. The Commission vote authorizing the staff to refer the complaint and consent 

decree to the Department of Justice was 3-1, with Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch voting no.

200 Id. at ¶¶ 81-82.

201 The Asset-required disclosure states that: (1) “The law limits how long [the consumer] can be sued on the debt,” and (2) 

“Because of the age of [the consumer]’s debt, we will not sue [the consumer] for it.” Consent Decree, United States v. Asset 

Acceptance, LLC, No. 8:12-cv-182-T-27EAJ (M.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2012), available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/01/

asset.shtm. FTC staff also recently closed an investigation of a debt buyer that had commenced disclosing clearly and 

prominently in collecting on time-barred debt that they could not sue consumers who did not pay. See Letter from Jessica 

Rich, Assoc. Dir., Div. of Fin. Practices, FTC, to Anthony E. DiResta, Esq., Counsel for RJM Acquisitions LLC (Aug. 27, 

2012), available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/closings/staffclosing.shtm.

202 In re Am. Express Centurion Bank, Salt Lake City, Utah, FDIC-12-315b, FDIC-12-316k, 2012-CFPB-0002 (Oct. 1, 2012), 

at 6-7 (Joint Consent Order, Joint Order for Restitution, and Joint Order to Pay Civil Money Penalty), available at http://

files.consumerfinance.gov/f/2012-CFPB-0002-American-Express-Centurion-Consent-Order.pdf.

48
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

The debt collection industry claims it is difficult to determine whether a debt is time-barred because 

different statutes of limitations could apply and there could be facts that tolled or restarted the statute of 

limitations.203 The data the Commission received from debt buyers suggest that debt buyers usually are 

likely to know or be able to determine whether the debts on which they are collecting are beyond the statute 

of limitations. As discussed above, the information debt buyers receive as part of the process of bidding on 

debts and the information they receive when purchasing debts usually indicates the date of last payment 

or the charge-off dates for debts.204 In most circumstances, this information should allow debt buyers to 

readily determine if debt is time-barred. Moreover, to the extent that there are questions about the date of 

last payment or charge-off information, it is unclear why debt buyers cannot seek this information from the 

original creditor or from a reseller of debt.

VIII. CONCLUSION

The FTC undertook this study to gain insight into debt buying and, in particular, to learn more about 

the information debt buyers obtain from sellers and use in the collection of debts. The study examined the 

information obtained and used at key stages in the debt buying and collection process – at the time of sale, 

when debt buyers initiate collection and send “validation notices” to consumers, when consumers dispute 

debts, and when debt buyers undertake to verify disputed debts. 

This was the first major empirical study of debt buyers, and further analysis of certain issues clearly is 

needed. In particular, the study did not include data from any smaller debt buyers, firms that, in the FTC’s 

experience, are frequently a source of consumer protection problems. The study also was not able to answer 

certain questions, such as why debt buyers did not disclose more information to consumers with validation 

notices, why they did not seek additional information post-sale, and why they did not verify nearly onehalf of the disputed debts. The study also did not assess the litigation practices of debt buyers, a frequent 

source of consumer protection problems. Finally, the study did not directly examine the accuracy of the 

information debt buyers receive and use to collect debts. Consumers would benefit from future study and 

examination of these and other issues relating to debt buying.

203 ACA Int’l, Comments of ACA International in Response to the New Mexico Attorney General’s Request for Comment Re: 

Revised Proposed Rules and Regulations Concerning Collection of Time-Barred Debts 4-5 (Feb. 27, 2009), available at

http://www.acainternational.org/files.aspx?p=/images/13351/acanmformalcomments-time-barreddebt.pdf. A corollary of 

this argument is that if a debt collector incorrectly informs a consumer that a debt is time-barred, the debt collector could be 

liable under the FDCPA for making a material misrepresentation. Id.

204 Although there may be some circumstances in which debt buyers and other debt collectors may find it difficult to determine 

the relevant statute of limitations (e.g., which state’s law is applicable), in most circumstances the debt buyers in the study 

appear to have had the factual information necessary to determine whether the debts on which they were collecting were 

time-barred. Indeed, they would have had to make these determinations about debts to avoid violating the FDCPA through 

suing or threatening to sue on time-barred debts.

49
The Structure and Practices of the Debt Buying Industry

Since the Commission launched its study of debt buyers, it has continued to receive a high level 

of complaints regarding debt collectors, more than for any other industry. Many of these complaints 

reported that debt collectors were attempting to collect debts the consumer did not owe, or, if they did 

owe debts, for amounts that were greater than what was actually owed. Thus, the sufficiency and accuracy 

of the information used in the collection of debts remains a significant consumer protection concern. The 

Commission hopes that this debt buyer study will contribute to a greater understanding of debt buying, 

enhance ongoing reform efforts in the debt buyer industry, and prompt further study of the industry and its 

practices.

50
TABLES
T-1

Table 1: Debt Buyers in FTC Study1

Company Name Total Consumer Debt 

Bought in 2008 (by face 

value, in billions)

Consumer Debt Bought 

Directly from Credit Card 

Issuers in 2008

(by face value, in billions)

Sherman Financial Group

LLC, New York, NY

$16.00 $15.48

Encore Capital Group Inc., 

San Diego, CA

$6.56 $4.22

eCAST Settlement Corp., New 

York, NY

$5.86 $3.47

NCO Portfolio Management, 

Inc., Horsham, PA

$5.40 $1.60 (est.)

Arrow Financial Services 

LLC, Niles, IL

$5.07 $4.60

Portfolio Recovery Associates,

LLC, Norfolk, VA

$4.58 $3.89 (est.)

Unifund Corp., Cincinnati, OH $4.30 $3.60

B-Line, LLC, Seattle, WA $3.76 $3.39

Asta Funding, Inc., 

Englewood Cliffs, NJ

$3.49 $3.14 (est.)

TOTAL $55.02 $43.39

1 Credit Card Debt Sales in 2008, 921 NILSON REP. 10 (Mar. 2009) [hereinafter NILSON REPORT], including all 

estimated figures. Although The Nilson Report’s methodology in obtaining these data is unknown, the data are 

widely cited within the collections industry, and even if imprecise or generated by a proprietary methodology, are 

likely to reflect the relative positions of firms and year-to-year trends. See U.S. GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE,

CREDIT CARDS: FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT COULD BETTER REFLECT THE EVOLVING DEBT 

COLLECTION MARKETPLACE AND USE OF TECHNOLOGY (2009), http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09748.pdf 

(citing NILSON REPORT, but noting that NILSON REPORT officials declined the GAO’s request to discuss the 

methodology employed in obtaining data); KAULKIN GINSBERG, GLOBAL DEBT BUYING REPORT: EXPERTS 

ANALYZE THE WORLDWIDE DEBT BUYING MARKET 17-18 (2006) (explaining NILSON REPORT’S reasons for 

declining to disclose methodology). Data from 2008 were used to determine recipients of the Commission’s 

order, as those were the most recent available data at the time the study was designed.
T-2

Table 2: Basic Characteristics of Submitted Portfolios

Account 

status at time 

of purchase

Portfolios Accounts Face Values (a) Acquisition Expenditures (b)

# % # % $ %

Avg. FV 

of 

accounts

$ %

per $ of 

Face 

Value

Charge-off 3,087 61% 77,675,862 87% $104,733,044,243 73% $1,348 $5,014,641,267 78% $0.04788

Bankruptcy 1,966 39% 11,357,757 13% $38,194,615,739 27% $3,363 $1,426,349,243 22% $0.03734

Total 5,053 100% 89,033,619 100% $142,927,659,982 100% $1,605 $6,440,990,510 100% $0.04506

Table Notes:

(a) Aggregate face values were computed by multiplying the average face value of accounts in each portfolio (as requested at 

specification II.A.3.g) by the number of accounts in each portfolio (as requested at specification II.A.3.c), and then summing across 

all relevant portfolios. Average face value figures were calculated by dividing the relevant aggregate face value by the relevant 

aggregate number of accounts. 

(b) Specification II.A.3.e requested the amount paid for each portfolio. Acquisition expenditures per dollar of face value figures were 

calculated by summing the amount paid for each portfolio across all relevant portfolios and then dividing by the relevant total face 

value as described in (a), above. 
T-3

Table 3: Charged-Off Credit Card Accounts Debt Buyers Purchased Directly from 

Creditors

Year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Face Value of Chargedoff Credit Card Debt 

Purchased Directly From 

Credit Card Issuers, in $ 

Billion

$66.44 $52.59 $68.23 $55.53 $44.20 $40.32 $51.78

Above, as a Percentage of 

the Face Value of All 

Debt Purchased by Debt 

Buyers

75% 89% 75% 77% 74% 75% 81%

Source: The Nilson Report, Issue Nos. 857, 880, 901, 921, 946, 969, and 992. See n.1, Table 1, supra, regarding 

Nilson Report data.
T-4

Table 4: Characteristics of Portfolios Submitted by Nine Debt Buyers

Type of Debt Accounts Within 

Charge-off Portfolios (a)

Portfolios Accounts Face Values (m) Acquisition Expenditures (n)

#

% of All 

Chargeoff 

Portfolios

#

% of All 

Chargeoff 

Accounts

% of All 

Chargeoff 

Portfolios

Avg. Face 

Value of 

Accounts

% of Chargeoff 

Portfolios

Per $ of Face 

Value

Credit Card (b) 1918 62% 35,220,694 45% 65% $1,943 71% $0.05224

Medical (c) 530 17% 21,500,329 28% 7% $345 3% $0.01909

Consumer Loans (d) 161 5% 1,014,011 1% 4% $3,785 2% $0.03219

Utilities 73 2% 1,483,133 2% 1% $480 0% $0.01718

Telecomm 68 2% 11,299,647 15% 5% $438 3% $0.02983

Mixed (e) 66 2% 2,067,028 3% 6% $3,026 3% $0.02595

Auto Loans (f) 59 2% 1,084,058 1% 7% $6,489 2% $0.01560

Other(g) 57 2% 2,832,530 4% 2% $898 2% $0.03229

“Credit cards & Lines of 

Credit”(h) 54 2% 276,779 0% 2% $7,229 3% $0.06598

Student Loans 52 2% 416,974 1% 0% $735 0% $0.03484

Mortgages(i) 35 1% 20,683 0% 1% $48,669 10% $0.50442

Overdrafts 8 0% 439,651 1% 0% $447 0% $0.05017

Not Stated 4 0% 155 0% 0% n/a 0% $0.00094

Bad Checks 2 0% 20,190 0% 0% $156 0% $0.01944

Sub-total (j) 3087 100% 77,675,862 100% 100% $1,348 100% $0.04788

Type of Bankruptcy Filing 

Within Bankruptcy Portfolios

# % of All 

BK

Portfolios

# % of All 

BK 

Accounts

% of All 

BK 

Portfolios

Avg. Face 

Value of 

Accounts

% of BK 

Portfolios

Per $ of Face 

Value

Bankruptcy Portfolios:(k)

Chp. 13 Bankruptcy (l) 1690 86% 7,977,364 70% 61% $2,931 99% $0.06067

Chp. 7 Bankruptcy 276 14% 3,380,393 30% 39% $4,382 1% $0.00052

Sub-total 1966 100% 11,357,757 100% 100% $3,363 100% $0.03734

Total of All Portfolios 5053 89,033,619 $1,605 $0.04506

Table Notes:

(a) Firms freely designated account descriptors.

(b) “Credit Card” includes general purpose credit cards (often specifically designated as “Visa,” “MasterCard,” etc.) as well as accounts 

designated “private label credit card,” “subprime credit card,” “consumer credit card,” and “business credit card.” Although we 

collectively treat these as “credit cards,” the distinctions among sub-types may be important to firms. See, for example, Portfolio Recovery 

Associates’ 10-K report for the year ended December 31, 2009, at p. 7, where “major credit cards” are distinguished from “private label 

credit cards” when listing “Life to Date Purchased Face Value of Defaulted Consumer Receivables.” 

(c) “Medical” includes accounts designated by some firms as “healthcare.” A small percentage of these portfolios were comprised of 

accounts with very high average face values (e.g., five and even six figure amounts) that suggest large hospital bills. The vast majority of 

the portfolios, however, were comprised of accounts that had low and mid three figure balances, as reflected by the average face value of 

accounts calculated for all submitted medical portfolios.

(d) “Consumer Loans” also includes accounts designated as “installment loans,” “personal loans,” and “unsecured consumer loans.”

(e) “Mixed” includes firms’ own use of the descriptor “mixed” as well as instances where firms used multiple account descriptors within 

portfolios (e.g., “credit card, consumer loans, auto,” or “credit card, auto, consumer loan, installment loan, telecom,” etc.) and we assigned 

the term “mixed.” “Credit cards” were expressly mentioned in “mixed” portfolios more often than any other descriptors (58 portfolios) 

and “auto” was the second most frequently used descriptor (25 portfolios). Accordingly, the true percentages of all submitted accounts 

that fell into the categories “credit card” and “auto” exceed the percentages attributed to these categories in the table. 

(Table continued on next page.)
T-5

Table 4: Characteristics of Portfolios Submitted by Nine Debt Buyers (continued)

Table Notes (continued):

(f) “Auto Loans” may include loans that are secured by vehicles as well as unsecured loans (i.e., auto loan deficiencies) which result 

when the value of repossessed autos fall short of the outstanding loan amounts. 

(g) This includes instances where firms self-reported “other” or “misc.” as the type of debt, as well as some express but infrequently used 

debt account descriptors, such as “debt consolidation service.” 

(h) Several firms used the express descriptor “credit cards and lines of credit,” even though they also report “credit cards.” No firms 

reported portfolios comprised solely of “lines of credit.” Because of this, we have opted to break-out “credit cards & lines of credit” 

as a separate category. While these portfolios could have been placed into the “mixed” category, that would have obscured the fact 

that “credit cards & lines of credit” portfolios had average face values ($7,229) that were more than twice the average face values of 

other “mixed” portfolios ($3,026). 

(i) The average expenditure per dollar of face value for mortgage accounts is sensitive to the presence of a small number of mortgage 

portfolios for which the average acquisition expenditures per dollar of face value was in excess of 75 cents on the dollar; some of 

these portfolios were expressly linked to contracts for the purchase of performing mortgage loans. In contrast, a significant number of 

mortgage portfolios had average acquisition expenditures per dollar of face value that were below one cent on the dollar; some of 

these portfolios were expressly linked to contracts which indicated that the portfolios pertained to properties that had already been 

foreclosed on and/or for which the consumer had declared bankruptcy. The median acquisition expenditure per dollar of face value 

for all mortgage portfolios was $0.10000, or ten cents on the dollar. 

(j) Cumulative rounding errors may prevent percentage figures from summing to 100%.

(k) Five of the seven firms who reported purchases of bankruptcy portfolios also revealed the type of debt within the portfolios; 84% of 

their bankruptcy portfolios were comprised of credit card debt. These five firms purchased 72% of the 1,966 self-reported bankruptcy 

portfolios. Accordingly, we estimate that at least 60% of all bankruptcy portfolios are comprised of credit card debt (84% of 72% is 

60%).

(l) Three firms expressly indicated the Bankruptcy Chapter pertaining to their self-reported bankruptcy portfolios. Three other firms 

indicated in their narrative reports that virtually all of their purchases of bankruptcy portfolios pertained to Chapter 13 filings. One 

firm used “Paying Bankruptcy” as a descriptor, and we have assumed that to indicate a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

(m) To conserve space horizontally, the aggregate face values for each type of debt account have been omitted. Aggregate face values 

were computed by multiplying the average face value of accounts in each portfolio (as requested at specification II.A.3.g) by the 

number of accounts in each portfolio (as requested at specification II.A.3.c), and then summing across all portfolios of the same type. 

Average face value figures were calculated by dividing the relevant aggregate face value by the relevant aggregate number of 

accounts. 

(n) To conserve space horizontally, the aggregate acquisition expenses for each type of debt account have been omitted. Specification 

II.A.3.e requested the amount paid for each portfolio. Acquisition expenditures per dollar of face value figures were calculated by 

summing the amount paid for each portfolio across all portfolios of the same type and then dividing by the relevant total face value as 

described in (m), above. 
T-6

Table 5: The 10 Largest Direct Purchasers of Consumer Debt from Credit Card 

Issuers, by Year, 2005 to 2011

Firm Name

Firm Rank for Direct Purchases of Credit Card Debt (by 

Face Value), as Given by The Nilson Report, by Year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011*

Sherman Financial 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

Arrow Financial 10 6 6 2 n/a n/a n/a

Encore Capital 5 10 5 3 2 1 2

Portfolio Recovery 7 2 2 4 4 4 3

Unifund 4 3 4 5 5 5 8

eCast 8 5 9 6 n/a n/a 9

B-Line 3 n/a 8 7 n/a 10 10

Asta Funding 6 4 3 8 10 n/a n/a

Asset Acceptance n/a 7 7 9 6 6 5

Collect America/Square Two Financial 9 8 10 10 7 3 4

NCO Portfolio Mgmt. 2 n/a n/a n/a 9 n/a n/a

Zenith Acquisitions n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 9 n/a

Ophrys n/a n/a n/a n/a 8 7 6

Fourscore n/a 9 n/a n/a n/a 8 7

Source: Data for this table were drawn from The Nilson Report, Issue Nos. 857, 880, 901, 921, 946, 969, and 992. 

A rank “n/a” in any given year may mean either that the firm was not in the top 10 firms, or that they were not 

ranked at all. Some unranked firms may have exited the industry, or not yet entered the industry. 
T-7

Table 6: Sample Characteristics of Debts Purchased by Six Debt Buyers

Debt Characteristics Debt Acquired from:

Original Creditor Debt Buyer All Sellers

Average Price Per Dollar of Debt $0.043 $0.029 $0.040

Debt Age:

 0 to 3 years 75.2% 37.9% 68.2%

 3+ to 6 years 16.3% 32.1% 19.3%

 6+ to 15 years 7.5% 27.5% 11.3%

 15+ years 0.4% 2.6% 0.8%

 Not Reported 0.6% 0.0% 0.5%

Debt Face Value:

 0 to 1 thousand dollars 72.5% 67.4% 71.5%

 1+ to 5 thousand dollars 20.0% 25.2% 21.0%

 5+ to 20 thousand dollars 7.0% 6.7% 6.9%

 20+ thousand dollars 0.5% 0.7% 0.5%

Account Type:

 Auto Loans 1.4% 18.5% 4.6%

 Consumer Loans 1.5% 0.1% 1.2%

 Credit Cards 36.4% 49.0% 38.8%

 Medical 33.4% 0.0% 27.1%

 Mortgages 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

 Overdraft 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

 Telecommunications 16.3% 9.1% 15.0%

 Utility 2.2% 0.0% 1.7%

 Other 8.7% 23.4% 11.5%

Previously Sent to Contingency Collector 47.8% 57.5% 49.6%

Previously Sent to Contingency Collector: Not Reported 47.1% 31.7% 44.2%

Not Acquired from Original Creditor 0.0% 100.0% 18.8%

# of Portfolio Observations 3,036 363 3,399

# of Accounts 61,534,019 14,281,636 75,815,655

Notes: All percentages are of purchased debt accounts. The distributions of debt age and face value were calculated 

assuming a gamma distribution characterized by the portfolio average and standard deviation of these variables.
T-8

Table 7: Regression Model of Purchase Price Per Dollar of Debt

Variables Coeff. Std. Error

Baseline Price Per Dollar $0.079 $0.008 ***

Debt Age:

 3+ to 6 years -$0.048 $0.005 ***

 6+ to 15 years -$0.057 $0.006 ***

 15+ years -$0.092 $0.027 ***

 Not Reported $0.012 $0.037

Debt Face Value:

 1+ to 5 thousand dollars $0.002 $0.015

 5+ to 20 thousand dollars -$0.023 $0.024

 20+ thousand dollars -$0.066 $0.183

Account Type:

 Auto Loans -$0.011 $0.007

 Consumer Loans -$0.011 $0.005 **

 Medical -$0.030 $0.006 ***

 Mortgages $0.479 $0.169 ***

 Overdraft -$0.011 $0.008

 Telecommunications -$0.017 $0.006 ***

 Utility -$0.036 $0.008 ***

 Other -$0.030 $0.005 ***

Previously Sent to Contingency Collector -$0.014 $0.003 ***

Previously Sent to Contingency Collector: Not Reported -$0.016 $0.004 ***

Not Acquired from Original Creditor $0.004 $0.004

R^2 0.65

# of Portfolio Observations 3,399

Total Face Value of All Accounts $114,051,119,500

Notes: While the model is estimated using portfolio aggregates, it is equivalent to a model estimated using accountlevel data. Model includes debt buyer fixed effects for the six firms included in the estimation sample. The baseline 

corresponds to a credit card debt that is less than 3 years old, acquired from the original creditor, with a face value 

less than one thousand dollars, and that had never been sent to a contingency collector. The predicted price per 

dollar is averaged across all debt buyers. Robust standard errors are reported. Statistical significance is denoted by 

“***” when significant at the 1% level, “**” when significant at the 5% level, and “*” when significant at the 10% 

level.
T-9

Table 8: Data File Information Obtained at Time of Sale1

Type of Information

Percentage of 

Accounts for Which 

Debt Buyers Obtained 

the Specified 

Information at Time 

of Purchase

(5,087,032 Accounts)2

Percentage of 

Portfolios for Which 

Debt Buyers Obtained 

the Specified 

Information for Any 

Account at the Time 

of Purchase 

(511 Portfolios)2

Percentage of Accounts for Which Debt Buyers Obtained 

the Specified Information at Time of Purchase

for Selected Types of Debt3

Credit 

Cards 

(3,973,695 

Accounts)

Consumer 

Loans 

(51,036 

Accounts)

Medical 

(206,900 

Accounts)

Utility 

(24,895 

Accounts)

CH 7 

Bankruptcy

(220,801 

Accounts)

CH 13 

Bankruptcy 

(28,846

Accounts)

Account Information

 Original Account Number 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

 Original Creditor Name 46% 52% 43% 43% 0% 0% 79% 2%

 Account Open Date 97% 93% 99% 96% 65% 0% 100% 100%

 Type of Debt 62% 36% 71% 65% 18% 100% 0% 0%

 Credit Limit 10% 17% 7% 0% 0% 0% 53% 0%

 Interest Rate 30% 23% 30% 40% 0% 0% 46% 0%

Debtor Information

 Name 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 100% 100% 100%

 Social Security Number 98% 98% 98% 100% 96% 82% 100% 100%

 Street Address 99% 97% 100% 100% 97% 0% 100% 100%

 Home Telephone Number 70% 91% 68% 88% 66% 0% 100% 88%

 Work Telephone Number 47% 85% 43% 73% 14% 0% 96% 72%

 Mobile Telephone Number 15% 33% 11% 11% 0% 0% 79% 2%

 Birth Date 65% 65% 64% 54% 66% 0% 98% 2%

 Credit Score < 1% 1% <1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Balance

 Current Balance 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 100% 100% 100%

Balance Breakdown

 Balance at Charge-Off 72% 70% 74% 73% 48% 0% 99% 97%

 Principal Amount411% 12% 9% 30% 32% 0% 0% 0%

 Principal Amount or 

111Charge-Off Balance 82% 78% 82% 75% 66% 0% 99% 97%

 Finance Charges and Fees537% 39% 43% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

(Table continued on next page.)
T-10

Table 8: Data File Information Obtained at Time of Sale (continued)

Type of Information

Percentage of 

Accounts for Which 

Debt Buyers Obtained 

the Specified 

Information at Time 

of Purchase

(5,087,032 Accounts)2

Percentage of 

Portfolios for Which 

Debt Buyers Obtained 

the Specified 

Information for Any 

Account at the Time 

of Purchase 

(511 Portfolios)2

Percentage of Accounts for Which Debt Buyers Obtained 

the Specified Information at Time of Purchase

for Selected Types of Debt3

Credit 

Cards 

(3,973,695 

Accounts)

Consumer 

Loans 

(51,036 

Accounts)

Medical 

(206,900 

Accounts)

Utility 

(24,895 

Accounts)

CH 7 

Bankruptcy

(220,801 

Accounts)

CH 13 

Bankruptcy 

(28,846

Accounts)

Key Dates6

 Date of Last Payment 90% 92% 93% 70% 49% 0% 98% 96%

 Date of Charge-Off 83% 91% 89% 100% 14% 0% 74% 99%

 Date of First Default 35% 28% 41% 25% 0% 0% 0% 7%

Table Notes

1This table is based on responses to specification II.D.1 by six going-concern debt buyers not specialized to bankruptcy recoveries. Four firms submitted data on all 

portfolios purchased in the relevant time period (March through August of 2009). Two firms did not hold the requested data in spreadsheet form and were permitted 

to provide a small sample from portfolios purchased in the relevant period in order to reduce their costs of compliance.

2 These figures are based on information from all responses received to specification II.D.1. 

3 These figures are based on accounts for which we were able to identify the type of debt. Type of debt was identified either by matching the portfolio, through its 

portfolio identification number, to data provided in response to specification II.A.3 (limited to the overlap period of March through June of 2009) or through other 

information that accompanied the portfolio, for example, sometimes the portfolio name identified the type of debt, sometimes data within the portfolio identified the 

type of debt, and sometimes other exhibits or correspondence from the debt buyer identified the type of debt. The type of debt was identified for 91% of the accounts 

and 82% of the portfolios submitted. Although data responsive to II.D.1 did not always include information on the type of debt, debt buyers would likely obtain this 

information in the process of purchasing debt portfolios.

4

“Principal Amount” may be less relevant for revolving forms of debt, such as credit cards, than it is for closed-end loans. 

5

“Finance Charges and Fees” reflects an aggregation of the variety of fees and finance charges found in the data fields. Some of these charges were further 

distinguished by specific dates or events (e.g., at or since delinquency, at or since charge-off, etc.). Reporting styles varied greatly across portfolios. 

6 The date of last payment, charge-off or first default can be used to determine when a debt falls outside of the statute of limitations. 
T-11

Table 9: Documents Obtained at Time of Sale

Type of Document

Percentage of Accounts for Which Debt 

Buyers Received the Specified 

Document at Time of Purchase

(3,862,018Accounts)

Percentage of Portfolios for 

Which Debt Buyers Received 

the Specified Document for 

Any Account at the Time of 

Purchase 

(333 Portfolios)2 

Any Document 12% 13%

Account Statements 6% 9%

Terms and Conditions 6% 3%

Account Applications < 1% 3%

Table Notes

1 This table is based on responses to specification II.D.1 by six going-concern debt buyers not specialized to 

bankruptcy recoveries. Three debt buyers submitted information on all portfolios purchased in the relevant 

time period (March through August of 2009). The other three debt buyers did not have the information readily 

available, and because of the likely burden of compiling it, were permitted to provide the information for a 

small sample of the portfolios purchased during the period. About 52% of the accounts in the portfolios for 

which the FTC received information were submitted by one buyer, and about 87% were submitted by two 

buyers. If data from the debt buyers that submitted only samples of their portfolios are weighted by the total 

number of accounts and portfolios purchased in this time period, the estimated percentage of accounts for 

which any document was received at the time of purchase decreases to 6% and the estimated number of 

portfolios in which any document was received increases to 20%.

2 About 1.5% of portfolios came with more than one type of document. 
T-12

Table 10: Breakdown of Debt Buyer Actions After Purchase

Debt Acquired from:

Original Creditor Debt Buyer All Sellers

Attempted to Collect:

 Internally Only 24.3% 37.3% 26.8%

 w/ Contingency Collectors Only 32.0% 17.7% 29.2%

 Internally & w/ Contingency Collectors 31.6% 33.0% 31.9%

 All 87.9% 88.0% 87.9%

No Attempt to Collect:

 Subsequently Not Sold 7.3% 9.1% 7.6%

 Subsequently Sold 4.9% 2.9% 4.5%

 All 12.1% 12.0% 12.1%

# of Portfolio Observations 1,984 271 2,255

# of Accounts 28,076,421 6,853,756 34,930,177
T-13

Table 11: Regression Models of the Probability that Debt Buyers Attempt Different 

Collection Methods

Variables Attempted to Sent to 

Collect Internally Contingency Collector

Coeff. Std. Error Coeff. Std. Error

Baseline Probability of Collection Attempt 64.10% 5.92% *** 77.96% 7.17% ***

Debt Age:

 3+ to 6 years 16.14% 5.70% *** -6.32% 7.59%

 6+ to 15 years 20.80% 6.17% *** 17.22% 8.57% **

 15+ years 36.71% 44.68% -55.77% 31.66% *

 Not Reported -8.09% 3.21% ** -25.22% 16.61%

Debt Face Value:

 1+ to 5 thousand dollars -12.76% 11.79% -23.57% 11.35% **

 5+ to 20 thousand dollars 1.87% 13.05% -10.62% 15.22%

 20+ thousand dollars -90.08% 73.90% -51.36% 54.03%

Account Type:

 Auto Loans -36.85% 13.14% *** -9.62% 5.71% *

 Consumer Loans 5.72% 4.97% 5.85% 4.00%

 Medical -7.67% 5.32% -32.18% 6.67% ***

 Mortgages 149.65% 53.90% *** -20.98% 45.85%

 Overdraft -0.24% 4.89% -7.67% 9.49%

 Telecommunications 24.22% 6.77% *** -10.82% 4.51% **

 Utility 8.40% 3.81% ** -23.76% 3.76% ***

 Other -9.04% 3.91% ** -47.35% 10.90% ***

Previously Sent to Contingency Collector -7.70% 3.66% ** 4.65% 2.60% *

Previously Sent to Contingency Collector: -6.29% 4.63% 9.41% 3.18% ***

Not Reported

Not Acquired from Original Creditor -13.22% 5.04% *** 2.80% 3.96%

R^2 0.77 0.75

# of Portfolio Observations 2,514 2,722

# of Accounts 39,733,260 45,869,466

Notes: Results are reported for separate regressions. Collection attempt outcomes are not mutually exclusive. 

While the models are estimated using portfolio aggregates, they are equivalent to linear probability models 

estimated using account-level data. Therefore, predicted probabilities are not constrained between 0 and 100 

percent. Models include debt buyer fixed effects for the five firms included in the estimation sample. The baseline 

corresponds to a credit card debt that is less than 3 years old, acquired from the original creditor, with a face value 

less than one thousand dollars, and that had never been sent to a contingency collector. The predicted probability is 

averaged across all debt buyers. Robust standard errors are reported. Statistical significance is denoted by “***”

when significant at the 1% level, “**” when significant at the 5% level, and “*” when significant at the 10% level.
T-14

Table 12: Regression Model of the Probability of Accounts Receiving Internal 

Collection Attempts Being Subsequently Disputed

Variables Coeff. Std. Error

Baseline Probability of Dispute 0.03% 2.51%

Debt Age:

 3+ to 6 years 0.68% 1.17%

 6+ years -0.73% 1.25%

 Not Reported 4.28% 8.38%

Debt Face Value:

 1+ to 5 thousand dollars 1.84% 3.26%

 5+ to 20 thousand dollars 1.23% 4.10%

 20+ thousand dollars -0.35% 10.92%

Account Type:

 Auto Loans 0.05% 1.81%

 Consumer Loans -2.69% 1.32% **

 Medical -0.27% 0.87%

 Mortgages -10.04% 9.34%

 Overdraft 0.68% 4.97%

 Telecommunications 0.72% 0.76%

 Utility -0.02% 0.64%

 Other 1.15% 1.12%

Previously Sent to Contingency Collector 1.92% 0.48% ***

Previously Sent to Contingency Collector: Not Reported 1.09% 0.85%

Not Acquired from Original Creditor -1.34% 0.98%

R^2 0.36

# of Portfolio Observations 2,114

# of Accounts 16,445,501

Notes: While the model is estimated using portfolio aggregates, it is equivalent to a linear probability model 

estimated using account-level data. Therefore, predicted probabilities are not constrained between 0 and 100 

percent. The model includes debt buyer fixed effects for the four firms included in the estimation sample. The 

baseline corresponds to a credit card debt that is less than 3 years old, acquired from the original creditor, with a face 

value less than one thousand dollars, and that had never been sent to a contingency collector. The predicted 

probability is averaged across all debt buyers. Because of the extremely small number of accounts with ages above 

fifteen years that received a collection attempt by debt buyers, the “15+ years” category was collapsed into the “6+ 

to 15 years” category for the estimation of the dispute rate and verification rate models. All regressors are imputed 

based on portfolio-level aggregates and the corresponding standard errors are bootstrapped accordingly. Statistical 

significance is denoted by “***” when significant at the 1% level, “**” when significant at the 5% level, and “*”

when significant at the 10% level.
T-15

Table 13: Documents Obtained After Sale1

Type of Document

Percentage of Accounts for 

Which Debt Buyers Obtained 

the Specified Document After 

Purchase

(1,477,720 Accounts)

Percentage of Portfolios for Which 

Debt Buyers Obtained the 

Specified Document for Any 

Account After Purchase 

(202 Portfolios) 

Account Statements 6%297%3

Terms and Conditions 8%48%

Account Applications 6%557%

Payment History Documents < 1% 11%

Affidavits <1% 28%

All Other Types of Documents, 

Combined <1% 24%

Table Notes

1 This table is based on responses to specification II.D.2 submitted by five of the six going-concern debt buyers not 

specialized to bankruptcy recoveries. (The sixth firm did not submit a response because it held the requested 

information in a manner that would have required a costly manual review even if sampling had been used.) None of 

these five firms submitted information for all portfolios purchased during the relevant time period (March through 

August of 2009). Two firms submitted information for large subsets of the portfolios they purchased during the 

period. No sampling method was identified in their responses, possibly suggesting the submitted information 

represented all of the portfolios for which any documents were obtained post-purchase. Combined, these two firms 

submitted the information on 85% of the accounts and 86% of the portfolios used in this analysis. The remaining 

three firms provided small random samples drawn from portfolios purchased during the period. 

2 This figure is based on information provided by three firms. These three firms each provided the number of 

accounts for which particular types of documents were obtained. Their responses comprised 85% of the accounts 

and 90% of the portfolios for which information was submitted. The other two firms submitted information on the 

number of documents obtained, but not on the number of accounts for which they obtained documents. However, 

one or both of these firms are included in the tabulations for some of the other types of documents, as explained 

below. 

3 This figure is based on information provided by four firms. Together, these four firms submitted the information 

on 94% of the portfolios used in this analysis. The fifth firm reported the aggregate number of account statements 

obtained but not indicate how these documents corresponded with particular portfolios. 

4 This figure is based on information from four firms. In addition to the three firms noted in table note 2, above, one 

of the other two firms reported that they did not obtain any terms and conditions documents, implying that the 

number of accounts for which terms and conditions documents were obtained was zero. 

5 This figure is based on information from all five firms. In addition to the three firms noted in table note 2, above, 

the other two firms reported that they did not obtain any application documents, implying that the number of 

accounts for which application documents were obtained was zero. 
T-16

Table 14: Breakdown of Debt Buyer Actions After Receiving Dispute

Debt Acquired from:

Original Creditor Debt Buyer All Sellers

Verified Debt:

 Subsequently Not Sold 53.3% 32.4% 48.8%

 Subsequently Sold 2.5% 3.5% 2.5%

 All 55.7% 35.9% 51.3%

Did Not Verify Debt:

 Subsequently Not Sold 43.9% 63.8% 48.3%

 Subsequently Sold 0.4% 0.3% 0.4%

 All 44.3% 64.1% 48.7%

# of Portfolio Observations 1,686 167 1,853

# of Accounts 553,587 159,721 713,308

Notes: The proportion of verified/non-verified debts that are subsequently sold is imputed based on the two firms 

that reported this information.
T-17

Table 15: Regression Model of the Probability of Disputed Accounts Being Verified

Variables Coeff. Std. Error

Baseline Probability of Verification 58.40% 2.89% ***

Debt Age:

 3+ to 6 years 0.60% 3.85%

 6+ years -22.33% 3.84% ***

 Not Reported 11.43% 15.32%

Debt Face Value:

 1+ to 5 thousand dollars 14.47% 37.67%

 5+ thousand dollars -9.65% 18.11%

Account Type:

 Auto Loans 0.18% 8.15%

 Consumer Loans 1.68% 3.12%

 Medical -14.23% 4.00% ***

 Mortgages -21.93% 23.25%

 Overdraft -4.14% 10.41%

 Telecommunications -15.67% 3.34% ***

 Utility -8.55% 2.08% ***

 Other 3.90% 2.73%

Previously Sent to Contingency Collector 4.26% 1.83% **

Previously Sent to Contingency Collector: Not Reported 6.42% 2.27% ***

Not Acquired from Original Creditor -7.06% 3.74% *

R^2 0.82

# of Portfolio Observations 1,692

# of Accounts 527,319

Notes: While the model is estimated using portfolio aggregates, it is equivalent to a linear probability model 

estimated using account-level data. Therefore, predicted probabilities are not constrained between 0 and 100 

percent. Model includes debt buyer fixed effects for the three firms included in the estimation sample. The baseline 

corresponds to a credit card debt that is less than 3 years old, acquired from the original creditor, with a face value 

less than one thousand dollars, and that had never been sent to a contingency collector. The predicted probability is 

averaged across all debt buyers. Because of the extremely small number of accounts with face values above twenty 

thousand dollars that received a collection attempt by debt buyers and that were subsequently disputed, the “20+ 

thousand dollar” category was collapsed into the “5-20 thousand dollar” category for the estimation of the 

verification rate model. All regressors are imputed based on portfolio-level aggregates and the corresponding 

standard errors are bootstrapped accordingly. Statistical significance is denoted by “***” when significant at the 1% 

level, “**” when significant at the 5% level, and “*” when significant at the 10% level.
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A:

6(B) ORDERS SENT TO DEBT BUYERS
A-1

Technical Appendix A: 6(b) Orders Sent to Debt Buyers

To better understand what information the debt buyers obtained from sellers prior to 

purchasing debt portfolios, the orders required the debt buyers to provide the following for 

portfolios they purchased or bid on: (1) advertising and other marketing materials, (2) 

information and documentation relating to the portfolio that the debt buyer obtained before 

deciding whether to bid on the portfolio, and (3) a description of the process through which they 

learned of portfolios being offered for sale and the process they used to evaluate a portfolio 

before determining whether to bid on it.1

The Commission also obtained data about debt portfolios that the debt buyers purchased 

during a three-year period between July 2006 and June 2009, including: (1) the number and types 

of consumer debt accounts in each portfolio purchased; (2) the average age and face value of the 

accounts; and (3) the amount the debt buyer paid for the portfolio.2

The orders further asked the debt buyers to describe the information and documents about 

portfolios they obtain from sellers at the time of purchase, including whether, and in what ways, 

this information varies depending on the type of debt in the portfolio (e.g., credit card, auto loan, 

or medical debt).3 The debt buyers also produced copies of a number of the contracts that they 

entered into with sellers to purchase debt portfolios.4 In addition, for a sample of portfolios 

purchased between March 2009 and August 2009, the Commission obtained the information that 

 

1

 See infra Exhibit 1, Specification II.B.2, II.B.3, and II.B.4.

2

 Id. at Specification II.A.3.

3

 Id. at Specification II.D.1.

4

 Id. at Specification II.C.1 and II.C.2.
A-2

the debt buyer obtained from the seller at the time of purchase.5

The orders also required the debt buyers to describe the terms and conditions under which 

they were permitted to obtain additional information from the seller about accounts in a portfolio 

after the time of purchase. The debt buyers were required to provide the additional information 

they obtained after the time of purchase for a sample of portfolios purchased during the period 

March 2009 through August 2009.

6

The Commission also obtained data about how debt buyers handled accounts after they 

were purchased. For example, the debt buyers were required to state how many accounts they

attempted to collect using in-house collectors, how many they sent to third-party collection 

agencies, and how many they resold to other debt buyers.7 If in-house collection attempts were 

made, the debt buyers were asked to produce data regarding accounts that consumers disputed, 

including whether the debt buyers provided the consumer with verification of the debts and 

whether they resold disputed accounts.8

Because some debt buyers resell some accounts they have purchased to other debt buyers, 

the orders required that the debt buyers produce the same types of data for transactions in which 

they sold debt as for transactions in which they bought debt.9 The debt buyers were asked to 

produce the information they provided to secondary debt buyers at the time of purchase and after 

the time of purchase for a sample of portfolios they purchased during the period March 2009 

 

5

 Id. at Specification II.D.1. To reduce the burden on responding debt buyers, the Commission accepted 

information from a sample of portfolios in lieu of producing information about all portfolios during that time period.

6

 Id. at Specification II.D.2. To reduce the burden on responding debt buyers, the Commission accepted 

information from a sample of portfolios in lieu of producing information about all portfolios during that time period.

7

 Id. at Specification II.A.3.

8

 Id. at Specification II.A.5.

9

 Id. at Specification II.E, II.F, and II.G.
A-3

through August 2009.10

 

10

 Id. at Specification II.G.2 and II.G.3. To reduce the burden on responding debt buyers, the Commission accepted 

information from a sample of portfolios in lieu of producing information about all portfolios during that time period.
A-4

EXHIBIT 1: Model 6(b) Order

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

COMMISSIONERS: Jon Leibowitz, Chairman

Pamela Jones Harbour 

William E. Kovacic 

J. Thomas Rosch

FTC Matter No. P104801

ORDER TO FILE A SPECIAL REPORT

Pursuant to a resolution of the Federal Trade Commission (henceforth the “Commission” 

or the “FTC”) dated December 16, 2009, titled “Resolution Directing the Use of Compulsory 

Process to Study the Practice of Debt Buying,” a copy of which is enclosed, [COMPANY] is 

ordered to file a Special Report with the Commission no later than February 25, 2010, containing 

the information and documents specified herein.

The Special Report should restate each item of this Order with which the corresponding 

answer is identified. The Report is required to be subscribed and sworn to by an official of 

[COMPANY] who has prepared or supervised the preparation of the Report from books, records, 

correspondence, and/or other data and material in its possession, custody or control. If any 

Specification cannot be answered fully, provide the information that is available and explain in 

what respects and why the answer is incomplete. 

Please provide the data, information, and documents requested in the following 

Specifications, consistent with the Definitions and Instructions attached as Exhibit A. 
A-5

SPECIFICATIONS

I. Background Information. Please provide the following information:

A. Identify by full name, business address, telephone number, and official capacity, the 

officers of the Company who have prepared or supervised the preparation of its response 

to this Order.

B. Identify the Company by full name, address, and state of incorporation.

II. Interrogatories and Document Requests. 

A. Debt Buyer Business Information

1. For each of the years 2006, 2007, and 2008, state the Company’s annual total 

revenues earned from (a) collecting on purchased debt, (b) selling debt portfolios, and 

(c) other debt collection-related activities; and state the Company’s annual total 

profits earned from (a) collecting on purchased debt, (b) selling debt portfolios, and 

(c) other debt collection-related activities.

2. State the number of portfolios the Company purchased during each of the years 2006, 

2007 and 2008.

3. For each portfolio the Company purchased between July 1, 2006, and June 30, 2009, 

provide:

a. A unique numerical identification number;

b. The portfolio seller’s name;

c. The number of consumer accounts in the portfolio;

d. The types of accounts included (e.g., credit card, medical, auto, etc.);

e. The amount the Company paid for the portfolio;

f. The average and standard deviations of the face value of accounts;

g. The average and standard deviations of the age of accounts; 

h. The number and average face value of accounts the Company attempted to collect 

using in-house collectors;

i. The number and average face value of accounts the Company sent to collection 

agencies or collection law firms on a contingency basis;

j. The number and average face value of accounts the Company sold without first 

attempting to collect;

k. The number and average face value of accounts which were not sold and for 

which no collection effort was attempted;

l. The number and average face value of accounts that have been:

(1) owned only by the original creditor prior to the Company’s purchase;

(2) owned by one debt buyer prior to the Company’s purchase;

(3) owned by two debt buyers prior to the Company’s purchase; and

(4) owned by three or more debt buyers prior to the Company’s purchase;

m. The number and average face value of accounts that were:
A-6

(1) not placed with any contingency collectors prior to purchase by the Company;

(2) placed with one contingency collector prior to purchase by the Company;

(3) placed with two contingency collectors prior to purchase by the Company; 

and

(4) placed with three or more contingency collectors prior to purchase by the 

Company.

Provide documents showing how the Company arrived at the information provided in 

response to this specification.

4. Describe the Company’s policies and procedures concerning whether to add interest, 

fees, or other charges to the amount owed on the accounts it purchases. If interest, 

fees, or other charges are added, describe how the Company determines how much to 

add to the balance of an account. Provide all manuals and other documents that relate 

to these policies and procedures.

5. For each portfolio the Company purchased between July 1, 2006, and June 30, 2009, 

provide:

a. The portfolio identification number assigned in 3a;

b. The number and average face value of accounts the Company attempted to collect 

for which the consumer disputed all of the debt in writing;

c. The number and average face value of accounts the Company attempted to collect 

for which the consumer disputed part of the debt in writing;

d. The number and average face value of accounts the Company attempted to collect 

for which the consumer disputed all or part of the debt orally;

e. The number and average face value of accounts for which the Company provided 

written verification of the debt to the consumer after receiving a written dispute;

f. The number and average face value of accounts for which the Company provided 

written verification of the debt to the consumer after receiving an oral dispute;

g. The number and average face value of accounts that were disputed which the 

Company sold without sending written verification to the consumer;

h. The number and average face value of accounts that were disputed which the 

Company sold after sending written verification to the consumer;

i. The number and average face value of accounts that were disputed in writing and 

that were:

(1) owned only by the original creditor prior to purchase by the Company;

(2) owned by one debt buyer prior to purchase by the Company; and

(3) owned by two or more debt buyers prior to purchase by the Company;

j. The number and average face value of disputed debts that had been:

(1) owned only by the original creditor prior to purchase by the Company and for 

which the Company sent written verification to consumers;

(2) owned by one debt buyer prior to purchase by the Company and for which the 

Company sent written verification to consumers; and

(3) owned by two or more debt buyers prior to purchase by the Company and for 

which the Company sent written verification to consumers;

k. The average number of phone numbers called per account; and
A-7

l. The average number of incorrect parties reached per account.

Provide documents showing how the Company arrived at the information provided in 

response to this specification.

6. Identify all purchasers to whom the Company has resold accounts, and state how 

many accounts the Company sold to each purchaser. For each purchaser, state the 

number of accounts the Company sold for which the consumer paid to the Company 

(a) a portion of the amount owed, and (b) none of the amount owed. Provide 

documents showing how the Company arrived at the information provided in 

response to this specification.

B. Purchasing of Debt

1. Describe the process through which sellers create portfolios to be offered for sale, 

including whether accounts in portfolios are grouped by age of debt, by type of 

creditor, by similarly sized accounts, by other categories, or by a combination of these 

categories.

2. Describe the process through which the Company learns of portfolios of consumer 

accounts being offered for sale. Provide all advertising and other marketing materials 

relating to any portfolios the Company has purchased or bid on.

3. Describe the information and documents that the Company obtains or obtains access 

to from sellers before the Company decides whether to purchase a portfolio of 

consumer accounts. For every portfolio that the Company purchased or bid on, 

provide all information and documentation relating to the portfolio that the Company 

obtained or obtained access to before deciding whether to bid on or purchase it.

4. Describe the process the Company uses to evaluate a portfolio before determining 

whether to bid on or purchase it. Provide all manuals and other documents relating to 

this decision-making process. 

C. Contracts to Purchase Debt

1. Describe the agreements in which the Company is required to purchase accounts from 

debt sellers on a regular basis, often called “forward-flow agreements,” including the 

process through which the Company chooses to enter into a forward-flow agreement. 

To the extent the Company is not required to purchase every portfolio that a seller 

offers as part of a forward-flow agreement, describe how the Company selects which 

of these portfolios to purchase, including a description of the documents that the 

sellers provide or provide access to before the Company decides whether to purchase 

a portfolio. Provide copies of the forward-flow agreements to which the Company is 

a party, and provide the portfolio identification numbers of the portfolios associated 

with each contract.
A-8

2. Describe each of the different types of contracts that the Company has used when 

buying consumer accounts. Provide a copy of all contracts that the Company has 

used to buy consumer accounts, and list the portfolio identification numbers of the 

portfolios associated with each contract.

D. Information About Purchased Debt

1. Describe the information and documents about a portfolio that the Company obtains 

or obtains access to from the seller at the time the Company purchases a portfolio. To 

the extent that the information varies depending on the type of debt in the portfolio 

(e.g., credit card, auto loan, or medical debt), describe the differences, including 

whether the completeness or reliability of documentation and other information varies 

by type of debt, by original creditor, or by some other consideration. For each 

portfolio purchased during the period March 2009 through August 2009, provide: (a) 

the portfolio identification number; and (b) all information about the portfolio the 

Company obtained or obtained access to from the seller at the time of purchase, 

including the schedule of accounts and the bill of sale.

2. Describe the terms and conditions under which the Company is permitted to obtain or 

obtain access to additional information from the seller about accounts in a portfolio 

after the time of purchase. For each portfolio the Company purchased during the 

period March 2009 through August 2009, provide: (a) the portfolio identification 

number; and (b) all additional information the Company has obtained or obtained 

access to from the seller since the time of purchase.

E. Selling of Debt

1. For each portfolio the Company has sold, provide: (a) the name of the buyer; (b) the 

number of consumer accounts; (c) the types of debt included (e.g., credit card, 

medical, auto, etc.); (d) the total face value of the accounts in the portfolio; (e) the 

amount the buyer paid; and (f) the average face value of the accounts in the portfolio. 

Provide documents showing how the Company arrived at the information provided in 

response to this specification.

2. Describe the Company’s policies and procedures for determining whether to resell to 

another debt buyer accounts on which the Company has not collected any amount. 

Provide all manuals and other documents relating to these policies and procedures.

3. Describe the Company’s policies and procedures for determining whether to resell to 

another debt buyer accounts on which the Company has collected some, but not all, of 

the debt. Provide all manuals and other documentation that relate to these policies 

and procedures.

F. Contracts to Sell Debt

1. Describe each of the different types of contracts that the Company has used when 

selling consumer accounts. Provide a copy of all contracts that the Company has 
A-9

used to sell consumer accounts. To the extent that some contracts are identical to 

each other except for the names of the other parties to the contract, provide only one 

of the contracts and provide a list of the other parties on those contracts that the 

Company is not producing in response to this request.

G. Information About Sold Debt

1. Describe the terms and conditions under which a Secondary Debt Buyer can obtain or 

obtain access to documents and other information about an account from the

Company or from the original creditor at the time the Secondary Debt Buyer 

purchases from the Company the portfolio containing the account. Provide all 

manuals and other documents that relate to these terms and conditions.

2. Describe the information and documents that the Company provides or provides 

access to Secondary Debt Buyers at the time it sells a portfolio. To the extent the 

information varies depending on the type of debt in the portfolio (e.g., credit card, 

auto loan, or medical debt), describe the differences. For each portfolio the Company 

sold during the period March 2009 through August 2009, provide (a) the portfolio 

identification number; and (b) all information the Company provided or provided 

access to the Secondary Debt Buyer at the time of purchase, including the schedule of 

accounts and the bill of sale.

3. Describe the terms and conditions under which a Secondary Debt Buyer can obtain or 

obtain access to documents and other information about an account from the 

Company or the original creditor after the time of purchase from the Company. 

Provide all manuals and other documents that relate to these terms and conditions. 

For each portfolio that the Company sold to a Secondary Debt Buyer during the 

period March 2009 through August 2009 and for which the Company has provided or 

provided access to documents and other information to the Secondary Debt Buyer 

after the time of purchase, provide: (a) the portfolio identification number; and (b) all 

documents and other information the Company provided, directly or indirectly, to the 

Secondary Debt Buyer after the time of purchase.

4. Describe the terms and conditions under which a Tertiary Debt Buyer can obtain or 

obtain access to documents and other information about an account from the 

Company or the original creditor. Provide all manuals and other documents that 

relate to these terms and conditions. For each account for which the Company has 

provided or provided access to Tertiary Debt Buyers in 2009, provide: (a) the 

portfolio identification number of the portfolio in which the account was sold to the 

Secondary Debt Buyer; and (b) all documents and other information the Company 

provided, directly or indirectly.

H. Information About Computer Systems
A-10

1. Identify and describe all computer databases or other software used to maintain, 

update, and analyze records of consumer accounts, collection calls, collection 

payments, and other collection data. Provide:

a. The name of the database;

b. The time period during which the database was used;

c. A list of the tables in each database and a list of the data fields in each table;

d. Whether the database was purchased, developed in-house, or custom-designed for 

the company;

e. If the database was purchased, provide the name of the manufacturer and seller;

f. If the database was custom-designed, provide the name of the company or parties

that designed it;

g. The name of any relational database programs (such as Oracle, Access, or 

MySQL) used as a back-end in the database software; and

h. Any manuals that apply to the database software.

2. Describe the process used to ensure that debt information arrives in a useable form 

 when purchasing portfolios of debt, and describe how data about debts is entered into 

the Company’s database.

a. For each portfolio of debt purchased by the Company, describe the file format in 

which debt data was provided from the debt seller.

 3. Identify and describe all computer programs (aside from databases) that the Company 

uses in the collection of debts. Include programs such as dialers and skip tracing 

software.

a. Provide the time period during which each program was used;

b. If the software was purchased, provide the name of the software manufacturer and 

the seller; and

c. If the software was custom-designed, provide the name of the company or parties 

that designed it.

4. Specifically identify and describe the Company’s policies and procedures for:

a. Recording Consumer Communications;

b. Updating relevant databases in response to Consumer Communications; and

c. Responding to Consumer Communications.

EXHIBIT A

DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

For the purposes of this Order, the following specific definitions and instructions apply unless 

otherwise specified:

DEFINITIONS

1. “All” means “any and all.” “Any” means “any and all.”
A-11

2. “And” as well as “or” shall be construed both conjunctively and disjunctively, as necessary, 

in order to bring within the scope of any Specifications all information that otherwise might 

be construed to be outside the scope of the Specification.

3. “Company” or “You” means [COMPANY] and all directors, officers, employees, agents, 

consultants, and other persons working for or on behalf of [COMPANY].

4. “Consumer Communication” means

a. A written request from a consumer that the company cease communication;

b. A written notification from a consumer that a debtor being sought in collection calls to 

the consumer is not at the telephone number being called and/or that the consumer has no 

knowledge of the debtor’s location;

c. An oral request from a consumer that the company cease communication; or

d. An oral notification from a consumer that a debtor being sought in collection calls to the 

consumer is not at the telephone number being called and/or that the consumer has no 

knowledge of the debtor’s location.

5. “Contingency collector” means a debt collection agency or collection law firm that collects 

on behalf of another entity and receives from the agency a contingency fee based on the 

amount of money the agency or firm collects.

6. “Describe” means to provide information sufficient to allow a reasonable and complete 

understanding of the substance of any policy, procedure, or other referenced matter. Where 

“describe” is specified, if summaries, compilations, lists, or synopses are available that are 

sufficient to provide a reasonable and complete understanding of the requested information, 

these should be provided in lieu of the underlying documents.

7. “Document” means the complete original and any non-identical copy (whether different from 

the original because of notations on the copy or otherwise), regardless of origin or location, 

of any written, typed, printed, transcribed, taped, recorded, filmed, punched, computerstored, or graphic matter of every type and description, however and by whomever prepared, 

produced, disseminated, or made, including but not limited to any advertisement, book, 

pamphlet, periodical, contract, correspondence, file, invoice, memorandum, note, telegram, 

report, record, handwritten note, working paper, routing slip, chart, graph, paper, index, map, 

tabulation, manual, guide, outline, script, abstract, history, calendar, diary, agenda, minute, 

code book, electronic mail, and computer material (including print-outs, cards, magnetic or 

electronic tapes, discs, and such codes or instructions as will transform such computer 

materials into easily understandable form).

8. “Each” shall be construed to include “every,” and “every” shall be construed to include 

“each.”

9. “Including,” “e.g.,” and “such as” mean “including but not limited to.”

10. “Portfolio” means a collection of consumer accounts that are sold as a group.
A-12

11. “Relating to” or “with respect to” any given subject means in whole or in part constituting, 

containing, concerning, embodying, reflecting, discussing, explaining, describing, analyzing, 

identifying, stating, referring to, dealing with, or in any way pertaining to.

12. “Secondary Debt Buyer” means a debt buyer that purchases a portfolio or portfolios from the 

Company.

13. “Tertiary Debt Buyer” means a debt buyer that purchases a portfolio or portfolios from a 

Secondary Debt Buyer.

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Submission Information. Please send responses to Margaret Patterson, Bureau of 

Economics, Federal Trade Commission, 601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Mail Drop NJ-4136, 

Washington, D.C. 20580. Ms. Patterson may be reached at (202) 326-3472. A 

representative of [COMPANY] does not need to personally deliver the responses. Each 

Specification of this Order contemplates a complete search of all of [COMPANY]’s files and 

any other materials otherwise in [COMPANY]’s possession, custody, or control. Responsive 

material should be submitted on a rolling basis, with those documents and/or files that 

constitute a complete response to a given Specification to be submitted as soon as possible 

prior to the final return date.

a. Prior to production of any of the materials requested in this Order, [COMPANY] should 

confer with Commission staff to ensure that the data and documents to be produced in 

response to this Order are consistent with the staff’s understanding of what each data item 

represents. Additionally, if [COMPANY] wishes to produce data or documents in a 

format other than one of those specified in this Order, please contact Commission staff to 

discuss this option before doing so.

2. Applicable Time Period: Unless otherwise specified, provide all information and 

documents for the period from July 1, 2006, up to and including June 30, 2009.

3. Time for Compliance. Any request to extend the time for compliance with this Order will 

be resolved under Commission Rule of Practice 2.12(b). 16 C.F.R. § 2.12(b).

4. Material Withheld, Claims of Privilege. If [COMPANY] withholds all or any portion of 

any responsive piece of data or document for any reason, including an asserted privilege, 

state in writing individually for each piece of data or document: its type, title, subject matter, 

and date; the names, addresses, positions, and organizations of each author and recipient; and 

the specific grounds for claiming that the document is privileged, as well as facts sufficient to 

support such a claim. For each piece of responsive data, or document, withheld under a 

claim that it constitutes or contains attorney work product, also state whether the document 

was prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial and, if so, identify the anticipated 

litigation or trial upon which the assertion is based.
A-13

5. Data/Documents Lost or Destroyed. If data or documents responsive to a particular 

Specification no longer exist, but are known to have been in existence, please: (1) state the 

circumstance under which they were lost or destroyed; (2) describe the data or documents to 

the fullest extent possible; (3) identify persons having knowledge of the content of such 

documents; and (4) provide a statement of the data or document retention policies.

6. Verb Tenses, Plural vs. Singular. In each Specification, the present tense shall be 

construed to include the past tense, and the past tense shall be construed to include the 

present tense. The singular shall be construed to include the plural, and the plural shall be 

construed to include the singular. 

7. Document Organization. This set of instructions should be followed for all document 

submissions, whether submitted in electronic form or in hard copy:

a. All documents submitted in response to Specifications should be Bates-stamped or 

otherwise sequentially numbered.

b. Provide a master list showing all documents produced, identified by document Bates or 

control number, name of the person, department, and, if applicable, the entity (e.g., 

subsidiary or affiliate) that created the document, and the Specification number to which 

the document is responsive.

c. Documents that may be responsive to more than one Specification of this Order need not 

be submitted more than once; however, please indicate, for each document submitted, 

each Specification to which the document is responsive. If any documents responsive to 

this Order have been previously supplied to the Commission, in lieu of re-supplying those 

materials it is permissible to identify the document(s) previously provided and the date of 

submission.

8. Submission of Electronically Stored Information. The following guidelines refer to any 

electronically stored information (“ESI”) the Company submits. But, before submitting any 

ESI, You must confirm with the FTC that the proposed formats and media types that contain 

ESI will be acceptable to the government.

a. Magnetic and other electronic media types accepted

i. CD-R CD-ROMs formatted to ISO 9660 specifications. 

ii. DVD-ROM for Windows-compatible personal computers. 

iii. IDE and EIDE hard disk drives, formatted in Microsoft Windows-compatible, 

uncompressed data.

iv. Note: Other types of tape media used for archival, backup, or other purposes such as 

4mm & 8mm DAT and other cassette, mini-cartridge, cartridge, and DAT/helical 

scan tapes, DLT, or other types of media will be accepted only with prior approval.

b. File and record formats
A-14

i. E-mail: The FTC accepts MS Outlook PST files, MS Outlook MSG files, and Lotus 

Notes NSF files. Any other electronic submission of email will be accepted only with 

prior approval.

ii. Scanned Documents: Image submissions accepted with the understanding that 

unreadable images will be resubmitted in original, hard copy format in a timely 

manner. Scanned Documents must adhere to the following specifications:

(a) All images must be multi-page, 300 DPI - Group IV TIFF files named for the 

beginning bates number.

(b) If the full text of the Document is available, that should be provided as well. The 

text should be provided in one file for the entire Document or email, named the 

same as the first TIFF file of the Document with a *.TXT extension.

(c) Note: Single-page, 300 DPI - Group IV TIFF files may be submitted with prior 

approval if accompanied by an acceptable load file such as a Summation or 

Concordance image load file which denotes the appropriate information to allow 

the loading of the images into a Document management system with all 

Documents breaks (document delimitation) preserved. OCR accompanying 

single-page TIFF submissions should be located in the same folder and named the 

same as the corresponding TIFF page it was extracted from, with a *.TXT 

extension.

iii. Other ESI files: The FTC accepts word processing Documents in ASCII text, 

WordPerfect version X3 or earlier, or Microsoft Word 2003 version or earlier. 

Spreadsheets should be in MS Excel 2003 (*.xls) version or earlier. Database files 

should be in MS Access 2003 or earlier. PowerPoint presentations may be submitted 

in MS PowerPoint 2003 or earlier. Other proprietary formats for PC files should not 

be submitted without prior approval. Files may be submitted using the compressed 

ZIP format to reduce size and ease portability. Adobe Acrobat PDF (*.pdf) may be 

submitted where the normal business practice storage method is PDF.

iv. Note: Database files may also be submitted with prior approval as delimited ASCII 

text files, with field names as the first record, or as fixed-length flat files with 

appropriate record layout. For ASCII text files, field-level documentation should also 

be provided and care taken so that delimiters and quote characters do not appear in 

the data. The FTC may require a sample of the data to be sent for testing.

c. Security

i. All submissions of ESI to the FTC must be free of computer viruses. In addition, any 

passwords protecting Documents or files must be removed or provided to the FTC.

ii. Magnetic media shall be carefully packed to avoid damage and must be clearly 

marked on the outside of the shipping container:

MAGNETIC MEDIA -- DO NOT X-RAY

MAY BE OPENED FOR POSTAL INSPECTION.
A-15

9. Submission of Documents in Hard Copies. Any hard copy documents or narrative 

responses shall be submitted as follows:

a. The FTC accepts hard copies of documents where the normal business practice storage 

method for these documents is in such a format – and only if such documents are not 

maintained also in electronic form. Documents and/or narrative responses submitted in 

hard copy shall be submitted in sturdy cartons not larger than 1.5 cubic feet. Number 

each such box and mark each such box with corporate identification and the name(s) of 

the person(s) whose files are contained in the box.

b. All hard copy documents responsive to these Specifications shall be produced in 

complete form, unredacted unless privileged, and in the order in which they appear in the 

Company’s files (unless otherwise specified).

c. Unless otherwise stated, legible photocopies may be submitted in lieu of original 

documents, provided that the originals are retained in their state at the time of service of 

this Order. Further, copies of original documents may be submitted in lieu of originals 

only if they are true, correct, and complete copies of the original documents. A complete 

copy of each document should be submitted even if only a portion of the document is 

within the terms of the Specification. The document shall not be edited, cut, or 

expunged, and shall include all covering letters, memoranda, transmittal slips, 

appendices, tables, or other attachments, and all other documents referred to in the 

document or attachments.

d. Transport hard copies using a delivery method that offers a tracking service, such as UPS 

or FedEx, or the equivalent. If a courier is used, ensure that there are no stops between 

pickup and delivery.

10. Sensitive Personally Identifiable Information. If any material called for by these requests 

contains sensitive personally identifiable information or sensitive health information of any 

individual, please contact us to discuss whether it would be appropriate to redact the sensitive 

information. If that information will not be redacted, contact us to discuss ways of protecting 

the information during production, including encrypting any electronic copies of such 

material with encryption software such as SecureZip and providing the encryption key in a 

separate communication.

For purposes of these requests, sensitive personally identifiable information includes: an 

individual’s Social Security number alone; or an individual’s name or address or phone 

number in combination with one or more of the following: date of birth, Social Security 

number, driver’s license number or other state identification number, or a foreign country 

equivalent, passport number, financial account number, credit card number, or debit card 

number. Sensitive health information includes medical records and other individually 

identifiable health information relating to the past, present, or future physical or mental 

health or conditions of an individual, the provision of health care to an individual, or the past, 

present, or future payment for the provision of health care to an individual.

11. Verification. The attached verification form should be executed by the official supervising 

compliance with this request and notarized.
A-16

VERIFICATION

This response to the Order of the Federal Trade Commission for information, 

together with any and all attachments thereto, was prepared and assembled under 

my supervision. The information is, to the best of my knowledge, true, correct, 

and complete. 

 

TYPE OR PRINT NAME AND TITLE

____________________________________________ 

SIGNATURE

Subscribed and sworn to before me at the City of __________, State of _____________,

this __________ day of _______________ 2009.

__________________________________

Notary Public

My commission expires: __________________________.
A-17

By the direction of the Commission.

Jon Leibowitz

Chairman

SEAL

Date of Order: ________________________, 2009

The Special Report required by this Order,

or any inquiry concerning it, should be

addressed to the attention of:

Margaret Patterson

Bureau of Economics

Federal Trade Commission 

601 New Jersey Ave., NW, NJ-4143

Washington, DC 20580 

(202) 326-3472 (telephone)

(202) 326-3443 (facsimile)

mpatterson@ftc.gov

Thomas E. Kane

Division of Financial Practices

Bureau of Consumer Protection

Federal Trade Commission

601 New Jersey Ave., NW, NJ-3158

Washington, DC 20580

(202) 326-2304 (telephone)

(202) 326-3768 (facsimile)

tkane@ftc.gov
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B:

PORTFOLIO-LEVEL DATA ANALYSIS
B-1

Technical Appendix B: Portfolio-level Data Analysis

I. Introduction

This technical appendix analyzes data submissions provided by debt buying companies in 

order to shed light on how the debt buying market operates. Specific questions that our analysis 

attempts to address include:

1. How are debt portfolios composed?

2. To what extent do debt buyers attempt to collect on time-barred debt?

3. What debt characteristics are predictive of disputes and the verification of disputes?

We provide details on all of the major steps taken in the corresponding analysis, including how 

the sample of debt buying companies was constructed, what statistical methods were used, and 

what were the main findings of this analysis.

II. Data

For our analysis, we use portfolio-level data for each portfolio purchased by a sample of 

debt buying companies between July 1, 2006 and June 20, 2009. The FTC sent 6(b) orders to 

nine debt buying firms.1 Arrow Financial Services exited the debt buying business in the middle 

of our sampling time frame and did not have the ability to provide the requested data. 

Additionally, although FTC staff was generally aware of the business models of B-Line, LLC 

and eCAST Settlement Corp., we discovered the full extent to which they specialize in 

bankruptcy debts after receiving their responses to the 6(b) orders. Because of the particular 

 

1

 These firms included: Asta Funding, Inc.; Arrow Financial Services, LLC; B-Line, LLC; eCAST Settlement 

Corp.; Encore Capital Group, Inc.; NCO Portfolio Management, Inc.; Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC; Sherman 

Financial Group, LLC; and Unifund Corp.. Encore Capital is a holding company that does not purchase, sell, or 

collect debt. These functions are performed by Encore’s subsidiaries, including Midland Credit Management 

(MCM), Inc. and Midland Funding, LLC. These subsidiaries voluntarily submitted data in response to the 6(b) 

order sent to Encore Capital.
B-2

practices of this specialized type of debt buyer, the bankruptcy debt buying firms did not have 

information responsive to those provisions of the 6(b) orders used in the analyses described in 

this appendix. As a result, these three firms were excluded from our sample.

The debt characteristics that are observed for each portfolio in the data include average 

debt age in months,2the standard deviation of debt age, the type of debt included in the portfolio 

(e.g., credit card, auto loan, etc.), the number of debts sent to contingency collectors prior to 

purchase, whether the portfolio was acquired from the original creditor, and the purchase price of 

the portfolio.3 The data also include information on the actions undertaken on the portfolios by 

the debt buyers after purchase and the number of accounts disputed by consumers. Our analysis 

is restricted to portfolios that are not missing information for any of these variables.4 

It is important to note that the characteristics of the debts purchased by our sample are 

more likely to be reflective of debts purchased by other debt buyers of comparable size and with

similar business practices than debts purchased by smaller debt buyers and those with different 

business practices. They are also more likely to be representative of debts sold within the period 

covered by the sampling timeframe of our investigation than debts sold in other time periods. 

They are not necessarily reflective of the debts purchased by smaller debt buying firms or by the 

overall industry. 

 

2

 “Age” is defined as the time between debt charge-off and purchase. See infra p. B-6.

3

 The 6(b) orders did not request that debt buyers provide information on the acquisition date of portfolios or on the 

bankruptcy status of the accounts comprising each portfolio. Some firms did voluntarily provide this information 

for some or all of their portfolios. Although it would be appropriate to include these variables if data were available 

for all portfolios in the sample, including them for only part of the sample is not desirable because the corresponding 

conditional average estimates would be potentially misleading. Sensitivity analysis using available data on 

acquisition date and bankruptcy status produces results generally similar to those presented here for the debt 

characteristics consistently observed in the data.

4

 The six debt buyers submitted data from 3,418 portfolios. Of these, 19 were not included in our analysis of the 

determinants of debt price because of missing data.
B-3

III. Statistical Methods

The debt buyers provided us with portfolio-level data that aggregate account-level 

information. However, our primary interest is in providing statistical evidence on the 

characteristics of accounts and on how such characteristics are predictive of debt buyer activities 

that are conducted at the account-level. Therefore, it is necessary to weight portfolio-level 

observations by the number of accounts in the portfolio in order to construct appropriate 

summary statistics for accounts.

Part of our investigation focuses on how individual accounts are packaged into portfolios. 

In order to address this particular question, we conduct an analysis of variance (ANOVA). 

According to the law of total variance:

var( ) var( [ | ]) [var( | )] x E x J E x J

The first term is the part of the total variance of a debt characteristic, x, that is explained by the 

portfolio, J, to which the account is assigned. The second term is the part of total variance that is 

unexplained by portfolio designation. Using appropriate weights, we are able to calculate both 

terms for a select number of debt characteristics found in our data. We are then able to 

statistically test whether accounts appear to be grouped into portfolios by the debt characteristic. 

The formula for the corresponding one-way ANOVA F-test statistic is:

explained variance

unexplained variance

F

This F-statistic follows the F-distribution with P − 1, N −P degrees of freedom under the null 

hypothesis, where P is the number of portfolios and N is the number of accounts. The null 

hypothesis in this case is that the assignment of accounts to portfolios is independent of the debt 

characteristic.
B-4

It is similarly necessary to appropriately weight portfolio-level observations for our 

analysis of how account characteristics predict debt buyer activities. One can model the 

expectation of a particular debt buyer activity or outcome, 

y

, conditional on a vector of debt 

characteristics, 

X

, as a linear function:

(1) (2) ( )

0 1 2 [ | ] K E y X x x x ij ij ij ij k ij

where this function includes K unknown parameters, , corresponding to each of the debt 

characteristics, and where j denotes the portfolio and i denotes the account in the portfolio. If 

this is the conditional linear expectation function (CEF) of the account-level microdata, it also 

holds that:

(1) (2) ( )

0 1 2 [ | ] K E y X x x x j j j j k j

where 

j

y

and 

X j

are the average values of y and X for all accounts in portfolio j. Because 

sample moments converge to population moments, it follows that weighted least squares (WLS) 

estimation of the CEF on the grouped, or portfolio-level, data will produce estimates of CEF 

parameters that are consistent and equivalent to those that would be produced using accountlevel microdata.5

In other words, we are able to estimate regression parameters that are relevant 

to an analysis of accounts even though we only have portfolio-level aggregate data.

Debt buyer activities observed in the data, such as whether a debt buyer attempts to 

collect a debt internally, can be thought of as binary variables (with a value of one symbolizing 

that the debt buyer attempted to collect on a particular debt and a value of zero symbolizing that 

it did not attempt to collect that debt). It follows that the conditional expectation of y is 

equivalent to the conditional probability that y is equal to one, or:

 

5

 For a more in depth discussion of regression analysis using grouped data, see Angrist, Joshua D. and Jorn-Steffen 

Pischke (2009). Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton University Press: Princeton 

and Oxford.
B-5

[ | ] Pr[ 1| ] E y X y X ij ij ij ij

Therefore, our WLS estimates can specifically be interpreted as parameter estimates from a 

linear probability model (LPM) based on account-level microdata. Because the data report only 

proportions for these binary variables at the portfolio level, this precludes the estimation of other 

binary dependent variable models, such as logit or probit models.6

Certain outcomes in our data are only relevant for a subset of accounts contained in each 

portfolio. For example, we observe whether an account is disputed if and only if the debt buyer 

attempted to collect on that account using internal methods. An issue with our data is that for 

some analyses we only observe average characteristics for all accounts within the portfolio, 

instead of the average characteristics for the relevant accounts. In mathematical terms we 

observe the sample equivalent of 

( ) [ ] k E xij

for each portfolio instead of

( ) [ | 1] k E x d ij ij

, where 

ij d

is 

a binary variable that indicates whether an account is relevant (

1 ij d

). In order to deal with this 

limitation of the data, we define the underlying characteristics of accounts, 

( ) k

ij x

, as binary 

variables and then take advantage of the properties of conditional probabilities in order to 

suggest a way to impute the unobserved 

( ) [ | 1] k E x d ij ij

for each portfolio. Specifically, if the 

underlying characteristics of accounts, 

( ) k

ij x

, are defined as binary variables, it holds that:

( ) ( ) [ | 1] Pr[ 1| 1] k k E x d x d ij ij ij ij

Based on the definition of a conditional probability, it follows that:

( )

( ) ( ) Pr[ 1]

Pr[ 1| 1] Pr[ 1| 1]*

Pr[ 1]

k

k k ij

ij ij ij ij

ij

x

x d d x

d

 

6

 The benefit of LPM parameter estimates is that they are more easily interpretable than those derived from logit or 

probit models. However, the corresponding predicted probabilities of a LPM are not bounded between zero and 

one, as is the case with these other models. 
B-6

The first term on the right hand side, 

( ) Pr[ 1| 1] k

ij ij d x

, can be estimated using the data.7 The 

sample equivalents for the numerator and denominator of the second term are observed directly 

from the data for each portfolio. Therefore, we construct imputed values of the average 

characteristics for all relevant accounts in each portfolio as is implied by the conditional 

probability definition by multiplying these estimated and observed terms. In the corresponding 

analyses, we bootstrap the standard errors of the predictor variables to address the fact that these 

variables are imputed instead of observed.

Finally, it is important to note that we include debt buyer fixed effects (e.g., controls for 

debt buyer identity) in all of our regression models. This was primarily done to account for 

potential measurement error that might result from different reporting practices across debt 

buying firms. These fixed effects are also likely to account for unobserved debt characteristics, 

to the extent that debt buyers selectively purchase debts with different types of unobserved 

characteristics. Additionally, debt buyer fixed effects might capture differences in business 

practices across firms. Even with the inclusion of these fixed effects, we would argue that 

readers should exercise caution in interpreting our regression results as demonstrating causal 

relationships between debt account characteristics and the outcomes of interest (e.g., price, 

likelihood of a disputed account being verified, etc.).

IV. Results

IV.A Mean Sample Characteristics

Table B1 presents the mean characteristics of debt accounts purchased by our sample of 

debt buyers. Means are further broken out by the source of purchase - original creditors, debt 

 

7

 As we have noted, LPM estimates of conditional probabilities are not necessarily bounded between zero and one. 

As part of our imputation algorithm, we include rules that top code predicted probabilities that are above one as 

equal to one and bottom code predicted probabilities below zero as equal to zero.
B-7

buyers, and all sources. The debt size and age distributions reported in the table were calculated 

by using the means and standard deviations reported by the debt buyers for each portfolio and 

assuming a gamma distribution. The calculated distributions for debt size and age (and the 

results of our subsequent analyses) are not significantly affected by this distributional 

assumption. 

Debt buyers in our sample acquired the vast majority of their debt accounts (a little over 

80 percent) from the original creditor. On average, debt buyers paid 4.0 cents for each dollar of 

debt. Almost 40 percent of these were credit card debts. Medical and telecommunication debts 

also comprised a considerable share of the debts that buyers acquired from original creditors. A 

little over a quarter of debts acquired from original creditors had a face value greater than one 

thousand dollars. 

On average, debt buyers paid less for accounts acquired from other debt buyers than for 

accounts acquired from original creditors. This lower price likely reflects the fact that debt 

buyers selectively sell accounts that they acquire from original creditors and that they are more 

likely to sell accounts with lower expected yields (i.e., accounts they were not able to collect). 

At the same time, this difference in price might be a result of the fact that resold debts are 

observably older, are more likely to have been previously sent to contingency collectors, and 

have slightly larger face values than those sold by original creditors (with these characteristics 

conveying to the purchaser a lower expected yield).

One concern with debt resale is that it might increase the likelihood that account 

information is lost as it is passed along from debt buyer to debt buyer (possibly as a result of 

repackaging accounts into new portfolios). However, from the limited data that we have on the 
B-8

completeness of account information, this does not appear to be the case.8 Debt portfolios 

acquired from other debt buyers are less likely to be missing information on debt age and 

whether the account had previously been sent to contingency collectors. 

IV.B Allocation of Debt Accounts to Portfolios

To evaluate how debt accounts are allocated to portfolios, we conducted an ANOVA of debt 

age and face value. We are able to conduct such an analysis because the data include both the 

within portfolio standard deviation and portfolio mean for these two debt characteristics. These 

variables, in turn, allow us to calculate the within and between portfolio components of the total 

variance of debt age and face value within our sample. The corresponding results are presented 

in Table B2. They suggest that accounts are grouped into portfolios by debt age. This result is 

highly statistically significant. Grouping of accounts into portfolios by debt age is apparent for 

portfolios sold by both original creditors and debt buyers. These results also hold when we 

separately consider different types of debt. While the data suggest that debt accounts in our 

sample are grouped by debt age, it is important to note that this relationship is not necessarily 

causal. We would see the same pattern in the data if those constructing portfolios used another 

criterion to group debt accounts that happened to be correlated with account age.

Conversely, we find that accounts are not grouped into portfolios by face value. This 

result holds for portfolios sold by both original creditors and debt buyers, as well as for different 

types of debt. It is possible that accounts are not grouped into portfolios by face value as a 

means of diversification in order to reduce the risk associated with the portfolio. We are not able 

to conduct a similar analysis for categorical variables, such as debt type. However, most of the 

debt buyer submissions listed one debt type instead of multiple types per portfolio, suggesting 

 

8

 Analysis of the price paid for debt purchased from original creditors and resellers is consistent with this finding. 

See infra p. B-10.
B-9

that portfolios group accounts of similar debt types.

IV.C Determinants of Portfolio Price

To evaluate how different debt characteristics affect price, we conducted a regression 

analysis. These results are presented in Table B3. The regression model predicts a baseline 

average price per dollar of debt of 7.9 cents across all debt buyers in the sample. The baseline 

corresponds to a credit card debt less than 3 years old, acquired from the original creditor, with a 

face value less than one thousand dollars, and that had never been sent to a contingency 

collector. All of the reported coefficient estimates should be interpreted as the predicted 

difference in debt price relative to the baseline. For example, our regression estimates suggest 

that debt buyers pay on average 4.8 cents less per dollar of debt for debts that are 3 to 6 years old 

compared to debts less than 3 years old.

Debt buyers generally pay less for older debts. In particular, they pay effectively zero for 

accounts that are older than fifteen years.9 Relative to credit card debt, debt buyers pay 

substantially more for mortgage debt (on average 48 cents per dollar of debt more) and less for 

other types of debt such as medical, telecommunications, and utility debt.10 On average, debt 

buyers pay less for accounts that have been previously sent out to contingency collectors and for 

accounts missing information on past contingency collection attempts. 

Interestingly, once we control for other debt characteristics, we find no statistically 

significant relationship between debt price and whether or not a debt is purchased from the 

original creditor. In other words, debt buyers appear to be willing to pay the same price for 

 

9

 The negative coefficient on debt older than 15 years is larger than the base line estimate, seemingly indicating a 

negative price. However, a joint significance test indicates that the price is not significantly different than zero.

10

 The substantially higher price for mortgage debt may be due to the inclusion of some portfolios of performing 

mortgages purchased by the debt buyers.
B-10

otherwise similar debts regardless of whether they are sold by the original creditor or another 

debt buyer. The differences in the average price of debt purchased from the two sources, as 

shown in Table B1, is therefore most likely due to different observable characteristics of the 

debt.

If account information were lost as it was passed along from debt buyer to debt buyer, we 

would expect debt buyers to take this into account in their valuation of debts and to pay less for 

accounts acquired from other debt buyers. However, we do not see this in the regression results. 

Possible interpretations of this result are either that information loss is not prevalent or that it 

does not affect the expected yield of accounts. Alternatively, it could be the case that any 

negative effect of information loss on price is balanced by some positive effect of unobserved 

characteristics typical of debts resold by debt buyers.11

IV.D Determinants of Debt Buyer Collection Practices

In addition to information on debt characteristics and prices, the portfolio-level data 

provided by each debt buying company also contain information on actions undertaken by the 

debt buyer after the purchase of each portfolio, including: the number of accounts the debt buyer 

referred to an outside contingency collector, the number of accounts the debt buyer attempted to 

collect internally, the number of accounts the debt buyer attempted to collect internally that were 

subsequently disputed, and the number of disputed accounts that the debt buyer verified. In the 

sections that follow, we evaluate to what extent debt characteristics predict these outcomes.12

 

11

 Our subsequent analysis provides weak evidence that debts acquired from debt buyers are both less likely to be 

disputed and less likely to be verified if they are disputed. These two tendencies would likely have opposite effects 

on price.

12

 Two debt buying firms did not provide us with information on account disputes and dispute verification. 

Additionally, one of these did not provide us with information on account collection attempts, since it does not 

perform collection activities (which are handled by an affiliate or other collection companies). As a result, these 

firms are not included in the estimation samples for these corresponding analyses.
B-11

Table B4 presents a breakdown of debt buyer activity after they purchase a debt. Debt 

buyers attempted to collect on around 88 percent of the acquired debts in our sample. Collection 

measures include both internal collection efforts on the part of debt buyers as well as sending 

debts out to contingency collectors. The overall collection rate is the same both for debts 

acquired from the original creditor and for those acquired from another debt buyer. However, 

debt buyers are more likely to rely on internal collection efforts when attempting to collect on an 

account acquired from another debt buyer. In a small number of cases (4.5 percent of all 

acquired debts), buyers resell accounts without attempting to collect on them. The majority of 

these resold accounts are debts purchased from the original creditor.

To evaluate how different debt characteristics affect the likelihood that buyers attempt 

different collection methods, we conducted a series of regression analyses. These results are 

presented in Table B5. The regression models predict that debt buyers attempt to internally 

collect 64 percent of accounts with baseline characteristics and send 78 percent of accounts out 

to contingency collectors.13 Again, the baseline corresponds to a credit card debt less than 3 

years old, acquired from the original creditor, with a face value less than one thousand dollars,

and that had never been sent to a contingency collector. Debt buyers are less likely to try to 

internally collect on debts that were not acquired from the original creditor and on accounts 

missing information on debt age. They are also substantially more likely to attempt to internally 

collect mortgage debts and substantially less likely to send medical and utility debts to 

contingency collectors relative to credit card debts.

To what extent do debt buyers collect on time-barred debts, that is, debt that is outside the 

statute of limitations? While an important policy question, it is also a difficult question to 

 

13

 It is important to note that these two outcomes are not mutually exclusive. 
B-12

answer given the limitations of our data. Specifically, whether a debt is time-barred depends on 

the applicable statute of limitations. However, our data only include information on debt age and 

does not identify the relevant statute of limitations for individual debts. Nonetheless, 

information about the statute of limitations that states generally apply permits a rough 

assessment of how much of the debt in the study appears to be time-barred. There are no states 

that have a statute of limitations that is less than three years or greater than fifteen years. Most 

states have a statute of limitations between three and six years. Reviewing account-level records, 

it does appear that original creditors sell time-barred debts to debt buyers.14 The ages of these 

time-barred debts ranged from just over three years to more than fifteen years. Our regression 

results suggest that debt buyers are more likely to both attempt to collect internally and send to 

contingency collectors debts that are six to fifteen years old. However, this result could reflect 

that debt buyers are more likely to focus collection efforts on debts that are approaching their 

statute of limitations, instead of suggesting that they are more likely to try to collect on timebarred debts.

Debts that are very likely to be time-barred (i.e., older than fifteen years) are extremely 

rare, comprising less than one percent of our sample.15 In the regression analysis of the 

collection activities of debt buyers, the standard errors that correspond to this category are quite 

large. In other words, our estimated collection rates for these very old debts are quite imprecise. 

However, the results of this analysis suggest that debt buyers do attempt to internally collect at 

 

14

 Debt buyers submitted examples of final purchase data files for select portfolios acquired from original creditors. 

These data files included account-level information on debt age, debt type, and state of issue that allowed us to 

determine whether a debt account was past the statute of limitations. The selected portfolios are not necessarily 

representative of the full set of portfolios included in our sample. In addition, the sample of these selected 

portfolios was too small to conduct an independent statistical analysis of the corresponding data files. 

15

 It is possible that the statute of limitations may have been tolled for some of these debts, for example, because the 

debt was part of a bankruptcy.
B-13

least some of these accounts. According to our estimates, debt buyers attempt to collect on 

debts that are older than fifteen years at least 29 percent of the time (based on the lower bound of 

a 95 percent confidence interval calculated for the estimated coefficient for debt older than 15 

years). Conversely, it does not appear that debt buyers send these very old debts to contingency 

collectors based on this analysis (i.e., we cannot reject the claim that debt buyers do not send any 

of these very old debts to contingency collectors). 

IV.E Determinants of Consumer Disputes 

As previously highlighted, debt buyers may attempt to collect on purchased debt through 

either internal collection efforts, sending accounts out to contingency collectors, or some 

combination of both. In our data, we only observe disputes for accounts that the debt buyer tried 

to collect internally.16 Approximately 3.2 percent of the accounts that the debt buyers in our 

sample attempted to internally collect were subsequently disputed. We have no information on 

the incidence of disputes when collections are outsourced to contingency collectors. The 

collection methods that debt buyers choose to employ likely depend on their expectations about 

whether or not a given debt will be disputed. Therefore, our analysis of disputes arising from 

internal collection attempts is not necessarily informative with regards to disputes potentially 

arising from other types of collection activity.

To evaluate how different debt characteristics predict the likelihood that the consumer 

disputes a debt that the debt buyer is trying to internally collect, we conducted a regression 

analysis. These results are presented in Table B6.

17

 The regression model suggests that 

 

16

 As noted above, data on disputes and verification were submitted by four of the surveyed debt buyers.

17

 Because of the extremely small number of accounts with ages above fifteen years that received a collection 

attempt by debt buyers, the "15+ years" category was collapsed into the "6+ to 15 years” category for the estimation 

of the dispute rate and verification rate models.
B-14

consumers dispute around 0.3 percent of debts with baseline characteristics, with this amount not 

being statistically different than zero. Debts previously sent to contingency collectors are more 

likely to be disputed while consumer loan debts are less likely to be disputed relative to credit 

card debt. Conversely, we find no statistically significant relationship between a debt’s age or 

face value and the likelihood that it is disputed. Dispute rates for debts purchased directly from 

the original creditor are not statistically significantly different from those purchased from other 

debt buyers.

In general, the observed debt characteristics (e.g., age, face value, etc.) are not strong 

predictors of whether or not a debt subject to internal collection efforts is subsequently disputed. 

Debt characteristics explain only 36 percent of the variation in this outcome. Conversely, these 

same characteristics are highly predictive of debt buyer initiated actions, such as purchase price, 

whether a debt is subject to internal collection efforts, and whether a disputed debt is verified. 

Specifically, debt characteristics explain between 65 and 82 percent of the variation in these 

outcomes. It is important to note that it is the consumer that ultimately decides whether or not to 

respond to a collection attempt by disputing the debt. Therefore, it is likely that debtor 

characteristics (which we do not observe) are important determinants of disputes. Alternatively, 

it could be the case that observable debt characteristics are just not good predictors of whether a 

debt is in fact valid and that debt validity, which we do not observe, drives disputes.

IV.F Determinants of Disputed Debt Verification

Debt buyers successfully verify a little over half of disputed debts.18 Table B7 presents a 

breakdown of debt buyer activity after a debt that they attempted to internally collect was 

subsequently disputed. The verification rate is substantially higher for debts acquired from the 

 

18

 If a dispute is not successfully verified, the data do not distinguish between whether the debt buyer did not 

attempt to verify the disputed debt or whether the debt buyer attempted to and failed to verify the debt account.
B-15

original creditor than for those acquired from another debt buyer. It is important to note that 

whether a dispute is successfully verified is self-reported by the debt buyer. However even if 

debt buyers overstate their ability to successfully verify disputed debts, the data still suggest that 

a very small fraction of all disputed debts (less than 3 percent) are subsequently resold.19

Table B8 presents a regression analysis of how well different debt characteristics predict

the likelihood that a disputed debt is subsequently verified. 20 The regression model predicts that 

debt buyers verify almost 60 percent of disputed debts with baseline characteristics.21 Many debt 

types have lower verification rates than credit card debt, particularly medical, 

telecommunications, and utility debt. Older debts are substantially less likely to be verified. 

Our results also suggest that debts acquired from other debt buyers are around seven 

percentage points less likely to be verified (even after we account for the direct effect of debt 

age). However, this effect is only marginally statistically different from zero. This finding is 

weakly consistent with the idea that debt buyers lose some level of access to the information 

necessary for debt verification when they do not purchase debts from the original creditor.

 

19

 It is important to note that only two debt buyers submitted information relating to the sale of disputed debt.

20

 Because of the extremely small number of accounts with face values above twenty thousand dollars that received 

a collection attempt by debt buyers and that were subsequently disputed, the "20+ thousand dollar" category was 

collapsed into the "5-20 thousand dollar" category for the estimation of the verification rate model.

21

 The estimation algorithm resulted in all of the portfolios of one debt buyer being dropped from the estimation, 

leaving three debt buyers in the sample.
B-16

V. Tables

Table B1: Sample Characteristics of Debts Purchased by Six Debt Buyers

Debt Characteristics Debt Acquired from:

Original Creditor Debt Buyer All Sellers

Average Price Per Dollar of Debt $0.043 $0.029 $0.040

Debt Age:

 0 to 3 years 75.2% 37.9% 68.2%

 3+ to 6 years 16.3% 32.1% 19.3%

 6+ to 15 years 7.5% 27.5% 11.3%

 15+ years 0.4% 2.6% 0.8%

 Not Reported 0.6% 0.0% 0.5%

Debt Face Value:

 0 to 1 thousand dollars 72.5% 67.4% 71.5%

 1+ to 5 thousand dollars 20.0% 25.2% 21.0%

 5+ to 20 thousand dollars 7.0% 6.7% 6.9%

 20+ thousand dollars 0.5% 0.7% 0.5%

Account Type:

 Auto Loans 1.4% 18.5% 4.6%

 Consumer Loans 1.5% 0.1% 1.2%

 Credit Cards 36.4% 49.0% 38.8%

 Medical 33.4% 0.0% 27.1%

 Mortgages 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

 Overdraft 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

 Telecommunications 16.3% 9.1% 15.0%

 Utility 2.2% 0.0% 1.7%

 Other 8.7% 23.4% 11.5%

Previously Sent to Contingency Collector 47.8% 57.5% 49.6%

Previously Sent to Contingency Collector: Not 

Reported 47.1% 31.7% 44.2%

Not Acquired from Original Creditor 0.0% 100.0% 18.8%

# of Portfolio Observations 3,036 363 3,399

# of Accounts 61,534,019 14,281,636 75,815,655

Notes: All percentages are of purchased debt accounts. The distributions of debt age and face value were calculated 

assuming a gamma distribution characterized by the portfolio average and standard deviation of these variables. 
B-17

Table B2: Analysis of Variance of Select Account Characteristics

Account Characteristics Debt Acquired from:

Original Creditor Debt Buyer All Sellers

Debt Age:

 % of Variance Explained 68.4% 79.5% 75.5%

 by Portfolio Assignment

 One-way ANOVA:

 F-statistic 2.17 3.88 3.08

 P-value 0.0000*** 0.0000*** 0.0000***

Debt Face Value:

 % of Variance Explained 30.6% 1.7% 13.5%

 by Portfolio Assignment

 One-way ANOVA:

 F-statistic 0.44 0.02 0.16

 P-value 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

# of Portfolio Observations 3,036 363 3,399

# of Accounts 61,534,019 14,281,636 75,815,655

Notes: The null hypothesis of the one-way ANOVA F-test is that assignment of accounts to portfolios is 

independent of the account characteristic. Statistical significance is denoted by “***” when significant at the 1% 

level, “**” when significant at the 5% level, and “*” when significant at the 10% level. 
B-18

Table B3: Regression Model of Purchase Price Per Dollar of Debt

Variables Coeff.

Std. 

Error

Baseline Price Per Dollar $0.079 $0.008 ***

Debt Age:

 3+ to 6 years -$0.048 $0.005 ***

 6+ to 15 years -$0.057 $0.006 ***

 15+ years -$0.092 $0.027 ***

 Not Reported $0.012 $0.037

Debt Face Value:

 1+ to 5 thousand dollars $0.002 $0.015

 5+ to 20 thousand dollars -$0.023 $0.024

 20+ thousand dollars -$0.066 $0.183

Account Type:

 Auto Loans -$0.011 $0.007

 Consumer Loans -$0.011 $0.005 **

 Medical -$0.030 $0.006 ***

 Mortgages $0.479 $0.169 ***

 Overdraft -$0.011 $0.008

 Telecommunications -$0.017 $0.006 ***

 Utility -$0.036 $0.008 ***

 Other -$0.030 $0.005 ***

Previously Sent to Contingency Collector -$0.014 $0.003 ***

Previously Sent to Contingency Collector: Not 

Reported -$0.016 $0.004 ***

Not Acquired from Original Creditor $0.004 $0.004

R^2 0.65

# of Portfolio Observations 3,399

Total Face Value of All Accounts $114,051,119,500

Notes: While the model is estimated using portfolio aggregates, it is equivalent to a model estimated using accountlevel data. Model includes debt buyer fixed effects for the six firms included in the estimation sample. The baseline 

corresponds to a credit card debt that is less than 3 years old, acquired from the original creditor, with a face value 

less than one thousand dollars, and that had never been sent to a contingency collector. The predicted price per 

dollar is averaged across all debt buyers. Robust standard errors are reported. Statistical significance is denoted by 

“***” when significant at the 1% level, “**” when significant at the 5% level, and “*” when significant at the 10% 

level.
B-19

Table B4: Breakdown of Debt Buyer Actions After Purchase

Debt Acquired from:

Original Creditor Debt Buyer All Sellers

Attempted to Collect:

 Internally Only 24.3% 37.3% 26.8%

 w/ Contingency Collectors Only 32.0% 17.7% 29.2%

 Internally & w/ Contingency Collectors 31.6% 33.0% 31.9%

 All 87.9% 88.0% 87.9%

No Attempt to Collect:

 Subsequently Not Sold 7.3% 9.1% 7.6%

 Subsequently Sold 4.9% 2.9% 4.5%

 All 12.1% 12.0% 12.1%

# of Portfolio Observations 1,984 271 2,255

# of Accounts 28,076,421 6,853,756 34,930,177
B-20

Table B5: Regression Models of the Probability that Debt Buyers Attempt Different

Collection Methods

Variables Attempted to Sent to 

Collect Internally Contingency Collector

Coeff.

Std. 

Error Coeff.

Std. 

Error

Baseline Probability of Collection 

Attempt 64.10% 5.92% *** 77.96% 7.17% ***

Debt Age:

 3+ to 6 years 16.14% 5.70% *** -6.32% 7.59%

 6+ to 15 years 20.80% 6.17% *** 17.22% 8.57% **

 15+ years 36.71% 44.68% -55.77% 31.66% *

 Not Reported -8.09% 3.21% ** -25.22% 16.61%

Debt Face Value:

 1+ to 5 thousand dollars -12.76% 11.79% -23.57% 11.35% **

 5+ to 20 thousand dollars 1.87% 13.05% -10.62% 15.22%

 20+ thousand dollars -90.08% 73.90% -51.36% 54.03%

Account Type:

 Auto Loans -36.85% 13.14% *** -9.62% 5.71% *

 Consumer Loans 5.72% 4.97% 5.85% 4.00%

 Medical -7.67% 5.32% -32.18% 6.67% ***

 Mortgages 149.65% 53.90% *** -20.98% 45.85%

 Overdraft -0.24% 4.89% -7.67% 9.49%

 Telecommunications 24.22% 6.77% *** -10.82% 4.51% **

 Utility 8.40% 3.81% ** -23.76% 3.76% ***

 Other -9.04% 3.91% ** -47.35% 10.90% ***

Previously Sent to Contingency Collector -7.70% 3.66% ** 4.65% 2.60% *

Previously Sent to Contingency Collector: -6.29% 4.63% 9.41% 3.18% ***

Not Reported

Not Acquired from Original Creditor -13.22% 5.04% *** 2.80% 3.96%

R^2 0.77 0.75

# of Portfolio Observations 2,514 2,722

# of Accounts 39,733,260 45,869,466

Notes: Results are reported for separate regressions. Collection attempt outcomes are not mutually exclusive. 

While the models are estimated using portfolio aggregates, they are equivalent to linear probability models 

estimated using account-level data. Therefore, predicted probabilities are not constrained between 0 and 100 

percent. Models include debt buyer fixed effects for the five firms included in the estimation sample. The baseline 

corresponds to a credit card debt that is less than 3 years old, acquired from the original creditor, with a face value 

less than one thousand dollars, and that had never been sent to a contingency collector. The predicted probability is 

averaged across all debt buyers. Robust standard errors are reported. Statistical significance is denoted by “***”

when significant at the 1% level, “**” when significant at the 5% level, and “*” when significant at the 10% level.
B-21

Table B6: Regression Model of the Probability of Accounts Receiving Internal

Collection Attempts Being Subsequently Disputed

Variables Coeff. Std. Error

Baseline Probability of Dispute 0.03% 2.51%

Debt Age:

 3+ to 6 years 0.68% 1.17%

 6+ years -0.73% 1.25%

 Not Reported 4.28% 8.38%

Debt Face Value:

 1+ to 5 thousand dollars 1.84% 3.26%

 5+ to 20 thousand dollars 1.23% 4.10%

 20+ thousand dollars -0.35% 10.92%

Account Type:

 Auto Loans 0.05% 1.81%

 Consumer Loans -2.69% 1.32% **

 Medical -0.27% 0.87%

 Mortgages -10.04% 9.34%

 Overdraft 0.68% 4.97%

 Telecommunications 0.72% 0.76%

 Utility -0.02% 0.64%

 Other 1.15% 1.12%

Previously Sent to Contingency Collector 1.92% 0.48% ***

Previously Sent to Contingency Collector: Not 

Reported 1.09% 0.85%

Not Acquired from Original Creditor -1.34% 0.98%

R^2 0.36

# of Portfolio Observations 2,114

# of Accounts 16,445,501

Notes: While the model is estimated using portfolio aggregates, it is equivalent to a linear probability model 

estimated using account-level data. Therefore, predicted probabilities are not constrained between 0 and 100 

percent. The model includes debt buyer fixed effects for the four firms included in the estimation sample. The 

baseline corresponds to a credit card debt that is less than 3 years old, acquired from the original creditor, with a face 

value less than one thousand dollars, and that had never been sent to a contingency collector. The predicted 

probability is averaged across all debt buyers. Because of the extremely small number of accounts with ages above 

fifteen years that received a collection attempt by debt buyers, the “15+ years” category was collapsed into the “6+ 

to 15 years” category for the estimation of the dispute rate and verification rate models. All regressors are imputed 

based on portfolio-level aggregates and the corresponding standard errors are bootstrapped accordingly. Statistical 

significance is denoted by “***” when significant at the 1% level, “**” when significant at the 5% level, and “*”

when significant at the 10% level.
B-22

Table B7: Breakdown of Debt Buyer Actions After Receiving Dispute

Debt Acquired from:

Original Creditor Debt Buyer All Sellers

Verified Debt:

 Subsequently Not Sold 53.3% 32.4% 48.8%

 Subsequently Sold 2.5% 3.5% 2.5%

 All 55.7% 35.9% 51.3%

Did Not Verify Debt:

 Subsequently Not Sold 43.9% 63.8% 48.3%

 Subsequently Sold 0.4% 0.3% 0.4%

 All 44.3% 64.1% 48.7%

# of Portfolio Observations 1,686 167 1,853

# of Accounts 553,587 159,721 713,308

Notes: The proportion of verified/non-verified debts that are subsequently sold is imputed based on the two firms 

that reported this information.
B-23

Table B8: Regression Model of the Probability of Disputed Accounts Being Verified

Variables Coeff.

Std. 

Error

Baseline Probability of Verification 58.40% 2.89% ***

Debt Age:

 3+ to 6 years 0.60% 3.85%

 6+ years -22.33% 3.84% ***

 Not Reported 11.43% 15.32%

Debt Face Value:

 1+ to 5 thousand dollars 14.47% 37.67%

 5+ thousand dollars -9.65% 18.11%

Account Type:

 Auto Loans 0.18% 8.15%

 Consumer Loans 1.68% 3.12%

 Medical -14.23% 4.00% ***

 Mortgages -21.93% 23.25%

 Overdraft -4.14% 10.41%

 Telecommunications -15.67% 3.34% ***

 Utility -8.55% 2.08% ***

 Other 3.90% 2.73%

Previously Sent to Contingency Collector 4.26% 1.83% **

Previously Sent to Contingency Collector: Not 

Reported 6.42% 2.27% ***

Not Acquired from Original Creditor -7.06% 3.74% *

R^2 0.82

# of Portfolio Observations 1,692

# of Accounts 527,319

Notes: While the model is estimated using portfolio aggregates, it is equivalent to a linear probability model 

estimated using account-level data. Therefore, predicted probabilities are not constrained between 0 and 100 

percent. Model includes debt buyer fixed effects for the three firms included in the estimation sample. The baseline 

corresponds to a credit card debt that is less than 3 years old, acquired from the original creditor, with a face value 

less than one thousand dollars, and that had never been sent to a contingency collector. The predicted probability is 

averaged across all debt buyers. Because of the extremely small number of accounts with face values above twenty 

thousand dollars that received a collection attempt by debt buyers and that were subsequently disputed, the “20+ 

thousand dollar” category was collapsed into the “5-20 thousand dollar” category for the estimation of the 

verification rate model. All regressors are imputed based on portfolio-level aggregates and the corresponding 

standard errors are bootstrapped accordingly. Statistical significance is denoted by “***” when significant at the 1% 

level, “**” when significant at the 5% level, and “*” when significant at the 10% level.
TECHNICAL APPENDIX C:

ANALYSIS OF CONTRACTS
C-1

Technical Appendix C: Analysis of Contracts

1. Introduction

Contracts for the purchase and sale of consumer debts determine how consumer debt 

accounts pass from debt sellers to debt buyers, and some contract features may also affect debt 

buyers’ collection practices. Accordingly, our investigation for this report included an 

examination of such contracts. 

Surveyed firms were asked to provide us with copies of contracts associated with 

portfolios purchased during the period of inquiry. Respondents were permitted to produce one 

example of each type or variety of responsive contract, and the submissions suggest that “type or 

variety” was interpreted in a variety of ways, such that many of the sellers from whom debt 

buyers purchased portfolios were not represented among the contracts submitted.

1

 The contracts 

submitted were not a random sample of contracts used throughout the industry, nor were they a 

random sample of each respondent’s contracts. Consequently, we cannot say that the frequency 

with which particular contractual features of interest were found in the submission would also be 

found with that same frequency amongst all contracts used in the debt buying industry, or even 

amongst all contracts used by any respondent.2 Nonetheless, the contract submissions yielded a 

rich variety of contractual terms and conditions, and we believe they have aided our 

understanding of how the debt buying industry works. 

 

1

 Surveyed debt buyers submitted more than 5,000 portfolios of purchased debts and approximately 350 contracts. 

2

 Accordingly, deliberately non-specific terms, such as “few,” “some,” “many,” and “most,” are used instead of 

percentage figures in the discussion below when referring to the frequency with which certain contract features are 

present in the submission of contracts. The use of percentage measures might tempt some readers of this report to 

make projections to the industry where none is warranted. Additionally, since we are reporting on contracts 

submitted by a relatively small set of firms, and some contract terms of interest are used relatively infrequently 

across firms, or are present to a more pronounced degree in the contracts of one or only a few firms, reporting on 

these contract features with numerical specificity might permit a reader with specialized knowledge about one or a 

few firms to infer which firm or firms’ contracts were being discussed.
C-2

2. General Contract Features

Broadly considered, the contracts observed were similar, regardless of the specific 

pairings of sellers and buyers, the type of debt involved, and whether the contracts were for 

“spot” portfolio sales or for a series of forward flow portfolio sales.3 We nonetheless observed 

many distinct styles of contracts within the submission of each respondent debt buyer, even 

when the type of debt being sold was the same in each contract. That is, no “in-house” 

contractual style uniquely associated with each debt buyer was observed. We also observed, 

however, that certain contracts were virtually identical (save for particulars of price, quantities, 

dates, etc.) across debt buyers. In some debt buyers’ submissions, the names of debt sellers had 

not been redacted from these contracts, and we observed that a given debt seller wrote virtually 

identical contracts with different debt buyers. In some instances we were able to identify the 

original credit issuer of debts being resold from one debt buyer to another, and observed that the 

terms and conditions in the resale contract tracked the terms and conditions in the credit issuer’s 

contracts. The contracts submission therefore suggests that many of the terms and conditions 

governing the sale of consumer debts may largely be set by credit issuers.4

 

3

 Under forward-flow contracts, debt accounts with specified attributes are sold at regular intervals (typically 

monthly) at a common unit price negotiated between the buyer and the seller at the outset of the contract. Forward 

flow contracts typically include termination clauses which permit either party to refuse to make the remaining 

exchanges under the contract, for cause, without being held to have breached the contract. Termination clauses are 

generally triggered by specific failures to perform, and not by prevailing market conditions. Each party to a forward 

flow contract bears a risk that price changes in the “spot” market will move in an adverse manner, such that the 

locked-in forward flow price becomes disadvantageous relative to the prevailing spot price. When spot market 

prices change dramatically, relative to the forward flow price, the disadvantaged party may find it more profitable to 

breach the contract (and risk the payment of damages) rather than to purchase (or sell) the portfolio(s) at the 

previously agreed-to forward flow price. See, for example, Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. Unifund Portfolio A LLC, No. 

09 Civ. 9795, 2010 WL 3565169 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2010), concerning Unifund’s refusal to purchase the July 2008 

monthly portfolio under a forward flow contract, entered into with Chase Bank on January 1, 2008, as a result of a 

large decline in spot market prices relative to what had been prevailing at the time the contract had been signed. 

4

 The majority of selling parties in the contracts submitted for this study were credit issuers. In some contracts, 

intermediaries sold debts on behalf of credit issuers. In other instances, entities that had previously purchased the 

debts were reselling them to our surveyed firms, sometimes after having made collection efforts on the debt 

accounts. Contracts where the seller was a credit issuer typically included terms and conditions that specified 

contractual terms for any subsequent resale of the debts. Both the purchase contracts analyzed in this section, and 
C-3

All contracts were similar in the sense that they all addressed:

what type of debt accounts were included in the portfolio being sold by the contract

the purchase price of the portfolio;

what rights and obligations each party had in connection to the accounts, and to each 

other, prior to the exchange;

how and when the sale would occur; and

what rights and obligations each party had in connection to the accounts, and to each 

other, following the exchange.

These common contractual features can be delineated as pre-sale, at-sale, and post-sale 

terms and conditions. Pre-sale and at-sale terms addressed what was to be exchanged between 

parties, how the exchange was to take place, and some aspects of the conduct of each party prior 

to the exchange. Post-sale contractual features encompassed many diverse terms and conditions 

that affected ongoing relations between sellers and buyers, as well as some aspects of the 

conduct of either or both parties as it related to consumers. The analysis below follows this 

delineation, and the greater part is devoted to terms and conditions that affected the post-sale 

environment in which debt buyers engaged in debt collection activities on the purchased 

accounts.

3. Pre-Sale and At-Sale Contract Features

(a) Identifying the Assets Being Sold

Contracts must identify the assets being sold and the parties to the contract. Some of the 

submitted contracts identified debts merely as “certain accounts receivable” and redacted the 

identities of the sellers in ways that made it difficult to infer what types of debt were being sold. 

The specific types of debt being transacted would have been known, of course, by the parties to 

the contract. 

 

the approximately 70 additional contracts we received where our surveyed debt buyers were sellers of debt, confirm 

that original credit issuers’ requirements for the presence of particular terms and conditions in resale contracts were 

honored. 
C-4

Contracts generally referred to a “bid file” and stated that the consumer accounts sold by the 

contract would not be materially different from those included in the bid file, or that the 

attributes of the portfolio would not differ materially from those of the bid file.5 Virtually all 

contracts stated that the accounts sold were not chosen in a manner that was materially adverse to 

the buyer.6 Some forward flow contracts stated that each portfolio sold under the contract would 

represent a random-sample of the seller’s relevant accounts. We observed some contracts which 

stated that no accounts within the portfolio would have balances below a certain amount, often 

$100.

7

 In a few instances, contracts stated that the percentage (by value) of accounts in the 

portfolio associated with consumers residing in particular states would not differ from the 

proportion of such accounts in the bid file.8 Beyond this, we saw nothing in the contracts to 

suggest that credit issuers or debt buyers selected portfolios for specific consumer attributes.9

 

5

 When “spot” portfolios are being sold, the bid file may represent a random sample of the accounts being sold. 

When “forward flow” portfolios are being sold, accounts in the bid file are reflective of the seller’s past 

underwriting standards and collection and charge-off practices, such that future portfolios sold pursuant to the 

forward flow contract are likely to be statistically similar to those in the bid file, providing the seller does not change 

its practices. 

6

 Some contracts identified particular attributes of the past collection practices associated with accounts in the 

portfolio, such as whether the accounts had ever been placed with third party collection agencies, and, if so, how 

many different collection agencies had previously attempted to collect on the accounts. 

7

 Typically, these contracts further stated that the minimum balance threshold would be met without the inclusion of 

interest charges or late payment fees.

8

 For example, a few contracts stated the portfolio sold “shall be materially similar to the Accounts set forth in the 

Bid File” with respect to “the percentage of the aggregate Unpaid Balance of Accounts for which the primary 

Borrower's address as reflected in the Sale File is in the states of Florida, Pennsylvania and Texas.” A few other 

contracts contained similar language, but referred to the states of California, Florida, Texas, New York, and Illinois. 

None of these contracts, however, revealed what the percentage of such accounts had been in the related bid files. 

We cannot determine, therefore, whether portfolios were being constructed to include few or many accounts from 

consumers in these states. While specifying the proportion of accounts in a portfolio that related to consumers 

residing in particular states could be consistent with “forum shopping,” it could also be consistent with debt buyer 

preferences based on state or local licensing laws, laws pertaining to statutes of limitations or other laws affecting 

collections, a debt buyer’s distribution of staff or regional offices, or even with respect to local economic conditions 

that could affect the probability of successful collections. (“Forum shopping” in a debt buying context refers to the 

notion that debt buyers select portfolios on the basis of jurisdictions in which collection suits against consumers may 

be more easily brought and won.) 

9

 For example, we did not find any contracts where particular consumer attributes, such as a credit score (current, 
C-5

(b) Purchase Price of the Portfolio

Contracts commonly referenced a “Closing File,” in essence, a snap-shot of the portfolio 

of accounts being sold, that was created a very short time, typically no more than a few days, 

before the sale occurred.10 The Closing File presented a good-faith estimate of what actual 

account balances would be on the day the transaction occurred.11 The purchase price percentage 

rate agreed to by the parties was applied to the aggregate account balance on the Closing File, 

resulting in the purchase price of the portfolio. The debt buyer then arranged to convey the 

purchase price to the debt seller in the manner specified by the contract. 

(c) Pre-Sale Information Sharing 

Contracts typically included a discussion of information sharing between sellers and 

buyers that occurred during the bidding process and/or the contract negotiation process. This 

information sharing can include information about some or all of the consumer accounts to be 

transferred, as well as proprietary information about each party. Both parties agreed to keep this 

information confidential. In particular, buyers were prohibited from contacting consumers 

before the sale occurred.

(d) How and When the Sale Will Occur

Contracts typically specified a time and place for the receipt of the buyer’s payment and a 

subsequent transfer to the buyer of the “Sale File.” Contracts indicated that Sale Files included 

an enumeration of the consumer debt accounts sold and their balances on the day of the sale, 

 

past, or changes there-in), age, or occupation were selection criteria for the accounts included in the portfolio. 

10

 Some contracts identify the date on which the Closing File is created as the “File Creation Date,” while others use 

“Cut-off Date.”

11

 Sellers often stipulated that they would cease collection efforts on the accounts, including recalling accounts that 

had been placed with contingency collectors, at some specified time prior to the File Creation Date. This helps to 

assure that the account balances on the sale date will be approximately the same as the account balances on the File 

Creation Date, but does not guarantee such equivalency.
C-6

referred to as the “Sale Date” (sometimes also referred to as the “Transfer Date”), as well as 

other information about each account and the consumer(s) associated with those accounts. The 

specific types of information that conveyed at sale (as well as some information that may convey 

shortly following the sale) was often specified by reference to other files which were 

electronically delivered to the buyer and which we could not observe.12 

(e) Adjustments to Complete the Sale

While contracts typically stated that sellers would refrain from active collection attempts 

on the accounts under consideration for sale in the period immediately prior to the sale, events 

may nonetheless occur which make the face value of some accounts different on the Sale Date 

than they were in the Closing File. For example, consumer payments could be made to these 

accounts as a lagged response to past collection efforts, a past charge to the account could be 

reversed, or a past payment made to the account by check could be reversed due to insufficient 

funds in the consumer’s account. Accordingly, all contracts addressed the manner in which 

adjustments would be made to either the purchase price or the number and value of accounts sold 

if the aggregate face value of accounts in the Closing File did not equal the aggregate face value 

of accounts in the Sale File. 

4. Post-Sale Contract Features

The contract features that most interested us were ones that affected how debt buyers 

collected upon purchased accounts. These contract features primarily concerned what 

information debt buyers received about consumer debt accounts, what remedies were available to 

debt buyers in the event that purchased accounts lacked accurate information or were not as 

 

12

 Some contracts, however, included hard copies of exhibits that detailed the specific data fields present in the Sale 

Files. We observed differences across contracts in terms of the types of data that conveyed with sale, but the hard 

copy exhibits did not reflect whether each type of data was always delivered for each account. 
C-7

represented by sellers, what limitations credit issuers placed upon how debt buyers, or their 

employees and agents, interacted with consumers, and whether and how debt buyers could resell 

purchased debt accounts. These features are examined below.

(a) Quality and Quantity of Account-level Information

The act of extending consumer credit creates records that contain information about 

consumer debtors.13 Debt buyers are largely dependent upon credit issuers for the provision of 

information required to identify consumers and the amounts consumers owe on the debts they 

purchase.14 Some of the information debt buyers receive from debt sellers is acquired 

immediately post-sale, and other information is provided on an as-needed basis at the debt

buyers’ request.

i. Account Information Provided Immediately Post-Sale

All debt sales contracts provided some account level data immediately post-sale, but 

different contracts specified different types of data to be provided. Some contracts specified a 

relatively narrow set of account data, such as the consumer’s name, SSN, some contact 

information, account number, and the account balance. Other contracts specified a broader set of 

information that may have included additional contact information, including that of a co-debtor, 

as well as information on the date and amount of the last payment the consumer made on the 

account and the date and amount of the last purchase made on the account.

Contracts revealed that both sellers and buyers knew that some accounts included within 

a portfolio might have incomplete or inaccurate data, including data on important information 

 

13

 Some consumer information that enters credit issuers’ records at the time credit is first extended may, of course, 

become outdated with the passage of time.

 

14

 Debt buyers may also use “skip tracers,” credit bureaus, and other third-party sources to obtain information about 

the consumers whose debts they purchase.
C-8

such as the then-current balances on accounts. In some instances, debt buyers may have been 

able to acquire, at a later date, particular pieces of account level data that were missing at the 

time of sale. In other instances, data missing from the account records at the time of sale may 

not have been recoverable. There was generally no post-purchase remedy available to buyers 

when accounts had missing or inaccurate data. 

Examples of contract language attesting to the mutual understanding between sellers and 

buyers that debt account information may be inaccurate or incomplete, and that buyers may be 

without recourse against sellers when that was the case, included the following:15 

“Buyer acknowledges, understands and agrees (i) that Seller makes no representations or 

warranties whatsoever, express or implied, as to the accuracy of the Current Balance ....” 

(spot resale of automotive loans) 

“Buyer shall have no right, whatsoever, to make any claim against Seller should the 

actual unpaid balance of any Loan be different from the Current Balance of such Loan set 

forth in the Loan Schedule delivered to the Buyer in connection with the sale of such 

Loan.” (spot sale of credit card accounts) 

“Buyer acknowledges and agrees ... Bank has not and does not represent, warrant or 

covenant the nature, accuracy, completeness, enforceability or validity of any of the 

Accounts and supporting documentation provided by Bank to Buyer, and, subject to the 

terms of this Agreement, all documentation, information, analysis and/or correspondence, 

if any, which is or may be sold, transferred, assigned and conveyed to Buyer with respect 

to any and all Accounts is sold, transferred, assigned, and conveyed to Buyer on an AS 

IS, WHERE IS basis, WITH ALL FAULTS.” (original emphasis) (spot sale of bank 

accounts and receivables)

“Except as stated elsewhere in this Agreement, the Purchased Accounts are sold “as is”, 

and without warranty of any kind, express or implied regarding the Purchased Accounts 

(including, without limitation, warranties pertaining to validity, collectability, accuracy, 

sufficiency of information. SELLER expressly disclaims any implied warranties of 

merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.” (spot sale of telecom accounts)

 

15

 To protect the confidentiality of our respondents’ data, we are unable to provide specific citations to contracts. 

Contract excerpts quoted throughout this section often appear in numerous contracts, and only a few suggestive 

citations, indicating the type of contract (forward flow or spot), the type of debt sold, and the designation “resale” if 

the seller is not also the credit issuer, are used.
C-9

Very rarely, however, contracts included clauses such as the following:

“SELLER represents and warrants that each Account is enforceable for its full principal 

balance ... and is the legal, valid, and binding obligation of the maker thereof” (spot sale 

of “unsecured consumer credit card accounts and related receivables, contract rights and 

assets”)

ii. Additional Account Information That May be Requested by the 

Buyer

Debt buyers may sometimes wish to obtain copies of account documents created when 

credit was issued or in connection with the credit issuer’s servicing of accounts.16 Information 

found in these documents may help debt buyers improve collection efforts and/or investigate 

consumer disputes.17 These documents may also be required in connection with court filings 

when debt buyers sue consumers. 

The submitted contracts indicated that account documents typically remained the 

property of the issuing creditor after the accounts were sold.18 Because these documents did not 

convey with the sale of accounts, contracts discussed how debt buyers could obtain document 

copies from the credit issuer, and contracts differed in the ease and cost with which debt buyers 

could do so. 

A few contracts gave debt buyers free and relatively unrestricted electronic access to 

account documents for a brief period following the portfolio sale.19 We observed one contract

 

16

 These documents may include credit applications, account statements, payment records, etc.

17

 Many contracts indicated that sellers either would not orally provide information from these documents to buyers, 

or indicated hourly charges that buyers had to pay if they requested that such information be provided to them. For 

example, “Sellers will not be obligated to furnish Buyer with any oral information. If Buyer requests oral 

information and Sellers have information that Sellers elect to provide, Buyer will pay the hourly rate of $50 for the 

time and effort in collecting and communicating to Buyer the information requested.” (spot sale of credit card 

accounts) However, one of the debt buyer firms surveyed for this study indicated in its narrative response that its 

“Account Level Questions” were routinely answered by debt sellers at no charge to the debt buyer. 

18

 A few contracts (generally spot sales of telecom debt) indicated that some documents conveyed with the accounts 

sold. 

19

 The quantity of electronic account documents the debt buyer could access was generally limited only by the 
C-10

with different purchase price percentage rates for accounts depending upon whether digitized 

account documents were, or were not, available for the accounts. The price per dollar of debt 

face value for accounts that came with digitized media was $0.061, and $0.059 for accounts 

without digitized media. Based on the average face value of accounts within the portfolio, this 

means that accounts with digitized media sold for about $10.50 more than accounts without 

digitized media. Additionally, we observed a few forward flow contracts for credit card debts 

which indicated that the seller would “deliver or cause to be delivered to Purchaser for the 

Accounts to be sold an electronic file, that will contain the Account Documents reasonably

available to Seller, within thirty (30) days after each Closing Date, at a cost to Purchaser of five 

hundred dollars ($500) per monthly purchase file.”20 All of the contracts providing for electronic 

access to account documents were ones in which the seller was also the credit issuer, and the 

electronic access was limited to the original debt buyer. 

Contracts typically stated that credit issuers would provide a specified number of free 

document copies to the initial debt buyer, at the debt buyer’s request, for a specified period of 

time. Subsequent purchasers of the consumer debt accounts were generally prohibited from 

directly contacting the credit issuer for document copies. They were required instead to make 

such requests through the initial debt buyer, who would then contact the credit issuer and request 

document copies. Typically, the number of free documents was set equal to a given percentage 

of the number of consumer debt accounts sold, provided those copies were requested during the 

 

number of such documents the credit issuer had available in electronic form. Access was, of course, passwordprotected and limited to documents related to the accounts purchased by the debt buyer. 

20

 A few other contracts stated that some document copies would be delivered electronically, but these contracts 

generally provided electronic copies on similar payment terms as other contracts which discussed the provision of 

hard copies of documents.
C-11

specified time period.21 Most often, contracts indicated that copies equal in number to 10% to 

25% of the number of consumer debt accounts sold would be provided, for free, during the 

specified “free period,” which was typically anywhere between six months and three years.22 

Credit issuers usually indicated that documents would be provided within 30 to 60 days of their 

receipt of a written request for documents. 

Fees charged after the free time period expired, or when the free quantity limit had been 

surpassed during the free time period, were typically $5 - $10 per document, but a few contracts 

set much higher per document fees.23 Some contracts had tiered document fees which escalated

with the passage of time or the aggregate volume of documents requested. Any fees for postage 

or courier delivery were always the responsibility of the debt buyer.

Many contracts imposed restrictions on how frequently documents could be requested, 

regardless of whether the documents were being provided for free or for a fee. These restrictions 

often took the form of limiting how many documents could be requested in any given time 

period, and/or gave the credit issuer extra time to provide documents when large numbers of 

documents were requested.24 

 

21

 Some contracts, however, specified that copies of documents, apparently unrestricted in number, would be 

provided for a specified percentage of all accounts sold.

22

 Some contracts, however, stated that copies of available account documents would be provided for a given 

percentage of accounts, without regard to how many documents were requested per account. If debt buyers 

requested only one document per account, there is no difference between free provision of documents for, say, 10% 

of accounts and for a number of documents equal to 10% of accounts. The two styles of contractual clauses could 

have different implications, however, when debt buyers wished to obtain more than one document per account. For 

example, assume that a contract sets the number of freely provided copies of account documents at 10% of the 

number of accounts sold. If debt buyers requested copies of two documents per account (say, the application and the 

last billing statement), then the ceiling on receipt of free document copies would be reached once debt buyers had 

requested copies for 5% of accounts (two copies per account multiplied by 5% of accounts yields a number of copies 

equal to 10% of accounts).

 

23

 Fees of up to $50 per document copy were observed. Some contracts for auto loan, telecommunications, and 

health club debt, however, did not charge for the post-sale provision of account documents, perhaps suggesting that 

relatively few documents were available and/or that documents were available electronically. 

24

 For example, some contracts stated that: no more than 50 documents could be requested per day; document 
C-12

Many contracts specified a date beyond which the credit issuer was no longer obligated to 

provide any account documents to the debt buyer. This date was often set at two to three years 

following the date of sale.25

Notwithstanding the detailed terms and conditions governing access to account level 

documents, most contracts disclosed that account documents may be unavailable, and that sellers 

were not required to go to great lengths to produce documents.26 Some typical clauses included: 

“Buyer understands that some Account Documents may not be available with respect to 

the Accounts and has taken such lack of available documents into account in determining 

whether, and at what price, to purchase the Accounts.” (forward flow sale of credit card 

accounts) 

“To the extent Account Documents are available, Seller agrees to use reasonable efforts 

to deliver Buyer copies of Account Documents ....” (forward flow sale of credit card 

accounts) 

“For two (2) years after the Closing Date, with respect to Accounts sold on such Closing 

Date, Seller agrees to provide Buyer with copies (but only to the extent such material 

may exist, which extent is not guaranteed, warranted or represented) of ... (certain 

account documents) ... Buyer has been advised by Seller that (a) it is Seller’s policy not 

to retain Account Documents and (b) some of the Accounts do not have an original 

application or a copy thereof (whether by microfilm, microfiche or other media). To 

what extent applications are or are not available, is not known by Seller nor represented 

to Buyer.” (spot sale of charged-off credit card accounts)

 

requests, per month, could be no more than 2.5% of the number of accounts sold; requests could not be made more 

than once per 30 day period; documents for no more than 8% of the total number of accounts purchased could be 

requested within any 30 day period; or that requests could not be made more than once per 90 day period. 

25

 A few contracts, however, indicated that documents might still be provided at later dates if the documents were 

required for non-collection-related litigation or for collection-related litigation where the document request was 

made while the accounts were within the statute of limitations. 

26

 ACA International has stated that “collectors can have a difficult time providing documentation responsive to the 

consumer’s dispute because creditors may not maintain the appropriate documentation to verify the debt during the 

collection process” (The Path Forward: ACA International’s Blueprint for Modernizing America’s Consumer Debt 

Collection System, April 2011, p. 7). Publicly traded debt buyers have stated in their 10-K reports that certain 

documents may be unavailable from debt sellers, and that the lack of availability may adversely affect their ability to 

recover on debts. See, for example, Portfolio Recovery Associates’ 10-K for the year ended 12/31/09, at p. 18 (“We 

may be unable to obtain account documents for some of the accounts that we purchase. Our inability to provide 

account documents may negatively impact the liquidation rate on such accounts that are subject to judicial 

collections, or located in states in which, by law, no collection activity may proceed without account documents.”). 
C-13

“Documents are to be provided as soon as practicable after requested by Buyer, but all 

such documentation is provided on an “as available” basis and shall be delivered to Buyer 

no more frequently than one time per month.” (spot sale of loan accounts) 

“Nothing ... shall create an obligation on the part of Seller to maintain any current 

servicing relationships or system of record, and ... Buyer understands that at any time 

following three years after each Closing Date Seller may cease having the ability to 

obtain any Account Document using commercially reasonable efforts.” (forward flow 

sale of credit card accounts) 

“Seller makes no guarantees as to the availability of applications, statements, records or 

copies of previous payment checks on any account.” (spot resale of “debt receivables”) 

“Sellers will use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain from prior owners and/or the 

credit originator directly any Account Documents that Buyer requests and which Sellers 

are entitled to obtain, at Buyer’s sole expense which will be equal to the actual out of 

pocket costs incurred by Sellers in obtaining the Account Documents.” (spot sale of 

“bank accounts and receivables”) 

“There is no assurance that any Account Documents will be available. To the extent that 

Account Documents are reasonably available to Seller, Seller will provide, at Buyer’s 

request, Account Documents for Accounts which total up to 12% of the number of 

Accounts sold hereunder, at a charge to Buyer equal to Seller’s costs payable to the 

Original Seller for such Account Documents plus 10%.” (spot resale of credit card 

accounts dismissed from Chapter 13 bankruptcies) 

“‘Account Documents’ means, to the extent available or accessible on a commercially 

reasonable basis to Seller, any credit application, agreement, billing statement, UCC 

financing statement, notice, correspondence or other document in Seller’s possession or 

accessible on a commercially reasonable basis to Seller which relates to an Account.” 

(spot sale of “unsecured consumer or small business charge or credit card accounts”)

“Nothing ... shall create an obligation on the part of Seller to maintain any current 

servicing relationships or system of record, and without limiting any other provisions ... 

Buyer understands that at any time following three years after each Closing Date Seller 

may cease having the ability to obtain any Account Document using commercially 

reasonable efforts.” (forward flow sale of credit card accounts)

Contracts also indicated that account documents, when available, may be inaccurate and 

that the provision of account documents could not be relied upon to establish the outstanding 

balance of an account or that the account represented a valid and collectible debt. Some 
C-14

contracts further stated that missing account documents could be material to the buyer. For 

example:

“The Purchaser acknowledges that Seller does not represent, warrant or insure the 

accuracy or completeness of any information or its sources of information contained in 

the information provided or in any of the Account Files.” (forward flow sale of credit 

card accounts; spot resale of bank card accounts; forward flow resale of “debt 

receivables”)

“The existence of Account Documents shall not be deemed to imply that the debt 

evidenced by the Account Documents is enforceable.” (spot resale of credit card 

accounts) 

“Buyer acknowledges and agrees ... Bank has not and does not represent, warrant or 

covenant the nature, accuracy, completeness, enforceability or validity of any of the 

Accounts and supporting documentation provided by Bank to Buyer, and, subject to the 

terms of this Agreement, all documentation, information, analysis and/or correspondence, 

if any, which is or may be sold, transferred, assigned and conveyed to Buyer with respect 

to any and all Accounts is sold, transferred, assigned, and conveyed to Buyer on an AS 

IS, WHERE IS basis, WITH ALL FAULTS.” (original emphasis) (numerous spot sales 

of bank receivables; numerous spot resales of various consumer debts, including private 

label credit card accounts) 

“FINALLY, BUYER SHALL BE DEEMED TO UNDERSTAND THAT ANY 

DOCUMENTS EXCLUDED FROM THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO BUYER 

COULD CONTAIN INFORMATION WHICH, IF KNOWN TO BUYER, COULD 

HAVE A MATERIAL IMPACT ON ITS DETERMINATION OF VALUE OF THE 

LOANS.” (original emphasis) (spot sale of credit card accounts)

Contracts further disclosed that the lack of account documents, or inaccuracies in those 

documents, would not be considered a breach of the contract, and that the debt buyer had no 

right of action against the debt seller for unavailable or inaccurate documents. Contracts 

routinely indicated that sellers would provide affidavits when account documents were 

unavailable, and indicated that those affidavits would generally attest to the existence of a 

consumer debt account, its chain of ownership, and the balance on those accounts in the seller’s 

records on the date of sale.

Most contracts provided for affidavits on the same cost and delivery terms as account 
C-15

documents, but often indicated that the maximum number of affidavits that would be provided 

was below the maximum number of document copies that would be provided.27 A few contracts 

charged more for affidavits than for account documents, but pledged to provide affidavits more 

rapidly. 

(b) Post-Sale Remedies for the Purchase of Ineligible Accounts

Contracts defined limited circumstances under which debt buyers could return to debt 

sellers some of the accounts acquired in a portfolio purchase.28 When these defined 

circumstances were met, the accounts were typically called “Ineligible Accounts,” “Nonconforming Accounts,” “Unenforceable Accounts,” or “Impaired Receivables,” because they did 

not conform to certain representations made by the seller. 

Contracts typically defined ineligible accounts to include ones where consumers or 

accounts had a status (e.g., deceased,29 in bankruptcy,30 judgment or arbitration award) other than 

 

27

 For example, one contracted stated “The Bank will provide a total number of affidavits equal to three percent 

(3%) of the total Accounts purchased. The Buyer shall be limited to one request for affidavits per week with a 

maximum of 100 Accounts per request. Bank shall have three (3) weeks to complete the affidavits requested. 

Requests shall contain sufficient information about the relevant accounts to allow Bank representatives to locate the 

Account information to complete the affidavits. The Buyer shall pay Bank $10.00 per affidavit requested and

provided.” (spot sale of credit card accounts) The same contract provided for copies of account documents, when 

such documents were available, for free, for up to ten percent of all accounts purchased, provided that requests were 

made within 180 days following the sale. After the number of documents requested exceeded ten percent of the 

number of accounts sold, or were requested more than 180 days post-sale, the bank charged $10 per document copy 

requested, and the contract did not indicate an upper bound on the number of document copies that would be 

provided at that price. 

28

 Contracts also specified certain conditions under which the sellers had the right to require the buyer to return 

certain purchased accounts. These “recall” (or “call back”) rights typically centered around the resolution of certain 

circumstances, such as a pending or threatened suit, action, arbitration or other legal proceeding or investigation 

relating to the seller, often in connection with specific consumer debt accounts, that are best handled if the seller 

owns the account(s) in question. The few real estate related contracts observed in the submission contained sellers’ 

call back rights, but did not provide any put-back rights for the buyer.

29

 Contracts differed in whether the death of just the primary account holder was sufficient grounds for a put-back, 

or whether all account holders had to be deceased, but all required that the triggering death occurred prior to the sale 

of the account.

30

 Contracts generally permitted put-backs when the primary accountholder had voluntarily filed for bankruptcy, 

was involuntarily subjected to bankruptcy proceedings, or was in bankruptcy proceedings that had not yet resulted in 

dismissal or discharge of debts, and these events predated the sale of the account. 
C-16

the consumer/account status specified in the contract, or where the account resulted from fraud.31 

Contracts typically indicated that sellers did not intend to sell, and buyers did not intend to 

purchase, such accounts.32 Because these accounts were unintentionally included in the portfolio 

of debt accounts, buyers were permitted to “put back” these ineligible accounts to sellers and 

receive either a refund or a substantially similar, but eligible, account.33

Contracts generally required buyers to determine which accounts were ineligible accounts

within specified time periods, often 180 days post-sale, in order to exercise their contractual “put 

back” rights.

The evidentiary standard debt buyers were required to meet to prove that accounts were 

ineligible accounts varied across contracts, and some contracts imposed standards which 

appeared to be time-consuming or costly to meet. 

For put-backs related to ineligibility defined by the consumer’s death or bankruptcy filing 

prior to the date of sale, the evidentiary standard often appeared to be relatively easy for debt 

 

31

 Many contracts used only the term “fraud” and did not specifically mention “identity theft.” Contracts also 

differed in the documentary evidence required to put back accounts due to fraud, and whether the documentary 

evidence must indicate that the fraud was detected by the consumer prior to the sale of the account. 

32

 At other times, however, debt sellers may wish to sell (and debt buyers may wish to purchase) portfolios 

comprised exclusively of accounts that have been discharged in Chapter 13 bankruptcies (i.e., where the court has 

imposed a specific repayment plan upon the consumer that the consumer’s creditors must accept) or ones that have 

been dismissed from bankruptcy proceedings (i.e., where the court affords no bankruptcy protection to those debts; 

most of these accounts would, however, have been shielded from collection activity between the time that 

consumers sought bankruptcy protection and the time the court dismissed the debts). Contracts for such portfolios 

were found in the submissions we received, and, in these contracts, an account was ineligible if it was an “ordinary” 

delinquent account, and not one that had either been discharged or dismissed from bankruptcy. Apart from the 

definitions used for ineligible accounts, bankruptcy contracts (and contracts with other types of “special status”) 

were very similar to contracts for “ordinary” charge-off consumer debt accounts and we may, without loss of 

generality, discuss contracts as if they pertained only to charge-off portfolios. 

33

 Other circumstances that some (but not all) contracts used to define ineligibility included: the accounts had 

already been paid in full; the accounts were duplicates of other accounts previously sold; the pre-charge-off 

principal balance was less than or equal to $25 or the account had a current total balance less than or equal to $300; 

the accounts had previously been placed with a post-charge-off recoveries agency; the accounts were flagged as “do 

not work;” and when accounts had previously been included in certain test programs of Seller.
C-17

buyers to meet. Some contracts required only “reasonable documentation” or “commercially 

reasonable written documentation” to support a debt buyer’s claim that accounts were ineligible 

due to consumer death or bankruptcy. Other contracts had more specific put-back 

documentation standards for death or bankruptcy, such as Lexis/Nexis, Banko, Inc., or consumer 

credit reports indicating that a consumer was deceased or in bankruptcy.34 Still other contracts, 

however, provided specific forms that the debt buyer had to use to document a death/bankruptcy 

put-back request, and these forms often required copies of death certificates or certified copies of 

bankruptcy petitions, case numbers, filing dates, and the name and contact information of the 

debtor’s bankruptcy counsel.35 

Documentation standards for put-backs due to account fraud appeared to be more 

difficult for debt buyers to satisfy. For example, many contracts, particularly those for chargedoff credit card accounts, required documentation that debt buyers could only have obtained from 

consumers. Some contracts required a copy of a police report and the consumer’s Affidavit of 

Forgery to document a fraud-related put-back request. Other contracts accepted notarized 

consumer affidavits attesting to fraud, but these affidavits had to be accompanied by copies of 

 

34

 The relative ease with which debt buyers may obtain documentation that a consumer is in bankruptcy likely 

explains why some contracts provide a separate, shorter time period for bankruptcy put backs.

35

 The submission contains numerous contracts between a particular large national bank and several of the surveyed 

debt buyers for the sale of credit card accounts. These contracts provide very specific and detailed documentary 

requirements for the reimbursement of ineligible accounts, as follows: “Bankruptcy – Chapter and Date filed and

Docket No. and Joint or Individual Filing and Attorney Name and Telephone Number and Court District Name –

Bankruptcy filing date must be on or prior to the File Creation Date. If the bankruptcy is an individual filing and the 

Account is a joint Account, the Account will not be repurchased unless both Cardholders have filed; Deceased –

Copy of death certificate or Letter from attorney indicating date of death or Verification from Department of Social 

Security indicating date of death or Copy of credit bureau indicating date of death or Copy of Obituary – Date of 

death must be on or prior to the File Creation Date or the Account will not be repurchased. If a joint Account, both 

Cardholders must have died on or prior to the File Creation Date; Fraud or Dispute Claims – Letter from debtor or 

debtor’s attorney alleging fraud received by (Seller) on or prior to the File Creation Date, which allegation has not 

been resolved to the Seller’s satisfaction by the File Creation Date, Letter from debtor or debtor’s attorney alleging a 

dispute received by (Seller) on or prior to the File Creation Date, which allegation has not been resolved to the 

Seller’s satisfaction by the File Creation Date. Previously Settled – Letter from either the Seller or Collection 

Agency stating the Account was settled.” (original emphasis) 
C-18

consumers’ drivers’ licenses or social security cards and police reports of the frauds. A few 

contracts had less stringent documentation requirements but offered only a 90 day put-back 

window. 

Some contracts further limited fraud-related put-backs only to instances where consumers 

asserted the fraudulent creation of the debt in a manner which left a specific paper trail before the 

debt was sold, leaving debt buyers without a repurchase remedy for fraudulently created 

accounts which were not detected (or acted upon) by consumers until after the debt’s sale.36 

Another commonly permissible reason for putting back accounts was that the account had 

been previously settled by the seller or credit issuer. Here, too, proving to the seller’s 

satisfaction that the seller (or credit issuer) had already settled the debt appeared to be 

burdensome to the debt buyer. For example, some contracts required copies of a bank or bankagent letter verifying the settlement, as well as a copy of the canceled check (front and back) by 

which the settlement payment was made. 

Some contracts placed limits on the percentage of accounts that would be accepted as 

put-backs, stating, for example: 

“Ineligible Accounts submitted for reassignment or refund ... may exceed twenty percent 

(20%) of the total remaining balance purchased; however refund will only apply up to 

20% of the total remaining balance purchased. Buyer will retain ownership of any 

rejected returns and/or those over 20%.” (emphasis added) (spot resale of credit card 

accounts) 

“Seller shall not be responsible for replacing or repurchasing the first five (5%) percent of 

accounts submitted by Buyer for repurchase or replacement.” (spot sale of “credit card 

and credit line receivables”) 

Contracts generally stated that reimbursement for put-back accounts may take 60 days to 

 

36

 A few contracts, however, accept the debtor’s assertion “in writing that such Account or any transaction on such 

Account was fraudulently originated or used, which allegation was not resolved to Seller’s reasonable satisfaction” 

as long as the debtor’s claim is made no more than 90 days from the closing date. 
C-19

reach the debt buyer.

All contracts limited the refund debt buyers received for put-back accounts to no more 

than the account’s contribution to the portfolio purchase price. Most contracts permitted debt 

buyers to keep payments they had received from consumers on accounts that were subsequently 

put-back to the debt seller, and made adjustments to the repurchase price accordingly. Some 

contracts required debt buyers to forward consumer payments received on put-back accounts to 

the debt seller. No contracts discussed returning to consumers the payments they had made on 

ineligible accounts.

(c) Interactions with Consumers

Contracts typically included some conditions affecting each party’s post-sale interactions 

with consumers. These conditions chiefly affected how consumers were notified about the sale 

of their accounts, how each party communicated with consumers about the other party, and how 

payments and consumer correspondence received by the debt seller after the sale would be 

forwarded to the debt buyer. 

i. Notifying Consumers That Their Accounts Have Been Sold

No contracts imposed obligations upon sellers to notify consumers that their accounts 

have been sold. Some contracts indicated that sellers could, at their option, inform consumers 

that their accounts had been sold.37 A few contracts required the seller to refer consumer 

inquiries to the debt buyer for a specified period of time following the sale.38

 

37

 For example, some contracts stated “Seller may, but is not obligated to, give any Borrower written or oral notice 

of the transfer of the Borrower’s Account to Buyer” (forward flow sale of credit card accounts) or “Seller shall have 

the right, but not the obligation, to mail its own notice addressed to any Obligor at the address shown in its records, 

notifying such Obligor of the transfer of any Asset or the servicing of the Asset from Seller to Buyer.” (spot sale of 

credit card accounts) These clauses likely protect the seller from violating confidentiality clauses in the contract that 

would otherwise prevent the seller from discussing the sale with third parties. 

38

 For example, a few contracts state “Seller agrees that for a period of two years following the Closing Date, Seller 

will refer inquiring Customers to the telephone number and address provided by Buyer” or “If Seller is contacted 
C-20

Most contracts prohibited debt buyers from providing consumers with contact 

information for the debt seller or credit issuer, even in response to in-bound calls or letters from 

consumers. An example of fairly typical language used in this regard is the following:

“Purchaser agrees not to refer any inquiries from a Debtor whose Account was purchased 

by Purchaser pursuant to this Agreement to Seller, but to handle any such inquiries 

directly with Seller.” (spot resale of credit card debt, also spot sale of installment 

accounts for consumer goods) 

“The Buyer agrees not to provide the Seller’s mailing address, phone number or email 

address to any Obligor.” (spot sale of credit card debt) 

Many contracts required debt buyers to notify consumers that their accounts had been 

sold within a specified period of time, typically 30 to 60 days post-sale. Some contracts required 

sellers’ pre-approval of notices sent by debt buyers to consumers. A few contracts for the sale of 

freshly charged-off consumer credit card accounts indicated that, for a fee, the selling bank 

would provide a form letter that the debt buyer could use: 

“At Buyer’s reasonable request, the Bank will provide a form letter on an individual 

basis, at a cost of $10.00 per request, that Buyer may send to a Cardholder to confirm that 

the Bank sold the Cardholder’s Account to Buyer.” (both forward flow and spot sales of 

credit card debts)

Exhibits to these contracts made it clear that the form letter would go out on the debt 

buyer’s letter head, not that of the credit issuer.

Some contracts expressly prohibited debt buyers from using the credit issuer’s name in 

the subject line of notification letters and subsequent collection letters, and limited usage of the 

seller’s name to the body of such letters. Some contracts also required debt buyers to perform a 

bankruptcy scrub on purchased accounts before contacting consumers, but did not expressly state 

 

after the Transfer Date by an Obligor or any person acting on behalf of an Obligor, Seller will direct any such person 

to contact Buyer by calling ... or writing to ....” (spot resale of automotive debt) 
C-21

that debt buyers could not contact consumers identified as being in bankruptcy.39 

A few contracts relating to portfolios of co-branded credit card debts prohibited debt 

buyers from referring to the co-branded entities in any written communications to consumers and 

limited the mention of the co-branded entity to telephonic communications with consumers.

ii. Forwarding Payments and Correspondence After Consumer Accounts 

Have Been Sold 

Consumer payments received by previous debt owners following the sale of consumers’ 

debts need to be forwarded to the new owners of those debts. Likewise, correspondence sent by 

consumers to credit issuers and/or the former owner of their debts, after those debts have been 

sold, also need to be forwarded to the new owners of those debts.40

Contracts differed with respect to how quickly such payments and correspondence were 

to be forwarded from debt sellers to debt buyers and whether they were forwarded in their 

entirety. None of the contracts required debt sellers to notify consumers that their payments had 

been forwarded to debt buyers.

41

 

39

 Debt buyers may, of their own accord, wish to perform bankruptcy scrubs soon after purchasing accounts, either 

to assert their put back rights in a timely manner or to avoid contacting consumers who are in bankruptcy. It is not 

clear why some contracts required debt buyers to do something that may be in their self-interest. A few contracts 

explicitly stated “Buyer shall immediately cease any collection efforts upon receiving notice (whether from a 

Cardholder, the Bank, or a third party on behalf of a Cardholder) that a Cardholder has discharged the debt in 

bankruptcy, and shall not re-commence collection activity until Buyer has conducted a reasonable investigation into 

the Cardholder’s claim and determined, based upon reasonable evidence, that the Cardholder’s claim is unfounded.”

(sale of private label credit card accounts) Bankruptcy scrubs, however, would not fit within the scope of this clause 

because, while performed by third parties, they are not performed by third parties acting on behalf of debtors. A few 

other contracts, however, give buyers the option of paying sellers to perform scrubs immediately prior to the sale, so 

that accounts with deceased or bankrupt consumers can be removed from the portfolio prior to sale: “Prior to 

Closing, Purchaser Representative will have the right to have each and every Receivable proposed for sale hereunder 

“scrubbed” for deceased and/or bankruptcy status. Any such procedures will be undertaken at Purchaser 

Representative’s sole expense. Any Receivables qualifying as either a deceased or bankrupt status will be 

withdrawn by Sellers from the pool of Conveyed Assets rather than treated as an Ineligible Receivable.” (spot sale 

of medical debts)

40

 Consumer correspondence received before a debt was sold would be considered an account document. 

41

 Similarly, none of the contracts required debt sellers to forward consumer payments to downstream debt buyers 

in the event that debts had been resold. Many contracts permitted the resale of debts only upon the prior notice 

and/or approval of the initial seller. Consequently, many debt sellers would know when debts have been resold, and 
C-22

Most of the contracts where the debt seller was a depository bank permitted a substantial 

amount of time, often as much as 60 days, to elapse between the seller’s receipt of consumers’ 

payments and the forwarding of those payments to the debt buyer.

42

 Most of these contracts also 

permitted a portion of consumers’ payments to be withheld by debt sellers as a service fee after 

some initial period in which no service fees were charged.43 These service fees were expressed 

as either a percentage of the consumer’s payment (ranging from 5% to 20%), or as a flat fee 

(e.g., $5 per payment forwarded). These contracts were generally silent as to when, and in what 

amount, the debt buyer was required to credit the consumer’s account upon receiving delayed, 

and possibly reduced, consumer payments forwarded from the debt seller.44 Some of these 

contracts permitted the debt seller to return the payment to the consumer, rather than forward it 

to the debt buyer, when payments were received after a contractually specified time; these 

contracts were silent as to what, if any, explanation the debt seller was required to give the 

consumer when payments were returned.

Most contracts do not provide a lot of detail about data that accompany consumer account 

 

may, therefore, knowingly forward consumer payments to a debt buyer who no longer owns the debt and who then 

must send the consumer’s payment down the ownership chain. 

42

 Of course, contracts did not reveal how much time credit issuers, or other debt sellers, actually took to forward 

consumer payments on to debt buyers, but only the maximum amount of time they could take before violating this 

term of the contract. 

43

 Many of these contracts stated that the seller would charge a service fee for forwarding the consumer’s payment, 

and that the seller could withhold the fee from the forwarded payment. An example of such a clause is: “If 

payments are received by the Bank from a Cardholder on or after Closing Date, the Bank shall forward such 

payments (without interest thereon) to Buyer within sixty (60) days from date of receipt. Bank shall charge Buyer a 

fee of fifteen percent (15%) to process any Account payment received by Bank more than one (1) year after the 

Closing Date. Bank may, at its discretion, deduct such processing fee when remitting the payments to Buyer.” (spot 

sale of credit card debt)

44

 Unless the full amount of the consumer’s payment is credited to the consumer’s account, it is the consumer, and 

not the debt buyer, who is paying the service fee for forwarding the payment. Only a few contracts which imposed 

service fees for forwarding consumer payments to debt buyers expressly stated that the full amount of the 

consumer’s payment must be credited to the consumer’s account. Likewise, only a few contracts expressly stated

that the debt buyer must credit the consumer’s account as if the debt buyer had received the payment on the same 

date that the debt seller received the payment (which could be as much as 60 days before the debt buyer received it).

 
C-23

payments forwarded from debt sellers to the debt buyers. A few contracts, however, have 

clauses such as the following: 

“Each month after the Closing Date, Bank will forward to Buyer an Account level report 

detailing all payments Bank has received after the applicable Cut-off Date on the 

Accounts. Simultaneously, Bank shall wire payment to Buyer or enclose a check for 

such payments.” (spot sale of credit card debt)

“For a period of four years after the Closing Date, if a Seller receives and collects, after 

the Cut-Off Date, good funds in payment of any of the Overdraft Balances sold to 

Purchaser hereunder, Seller will deliver such funds to Purchaser (net of any processing 

fees due to Seller) ... together with information reasonably sufficient to enable Purchaser 

to credit the same to the appropriate Overdraft Balance.” (spot resale of overdraft 

accounts)

We do not know how account information is transferred when contracts do not include 

the atypical specificity used above. 

Contracts where the debt seller was a non-depository institution issuing credit cards, or an 

issuer of telecommunications, automotive, utility, or medical credit, generally reflected faster 

transmission of consumer payments from debt sellers to debt buyers.45 Service fees for 

forwarding payments to debt buyers were also relatively uncommon in contracts for debts other 

than credit card accounts. Resale contracts generally passed along the transmittal lags and 

service fees inherited from the initial sale contract without substantially adding to either, 

regardless of the type of consumer debt being sold.46 

Many contracts were silent as to the debt seller’s responsibility to forward consumer 

correspondence to debt buyers. Those contracts that did discuss this, however, generally 

 

45

 Many of these contracts stated that payments would be forwarded within 30 days of the sellers’ receipt of same, 

while some said that payments would be forwarded “as promptly as possible,” and a few stated that payments would 

be forwarded within seven to ten days of receipt.

46

 Some of these contracts specified a small turnaround time, others merely stated “as quickly as practical.”
C-24

indicated that such correspondence would be forwarded relatively quickly, and did not apply any 

service fee for forwarding correspondence. 

(d) The Resale of Consumer Debt Accounts

We observed variation across contracts with respect to restrictions on the resale of 

debts.47 Only a few contracts placed no restrictions on the resale of consumer debts, and only a 

few contracts completely prohibited the resale of consumer debts or prohibited resale during a 

specified time period.48 Most contracts required debt buyers to at least notify the seller when 

debts were resold, and many required the debt buyer to obtain the sellers’ consent before 

reselling debt, although a few contracts required this only for a specified time following the 

initial debt sale.49 Some contracts required the debt buyer to receive the seller’s consent to both 

the sale itself and their selection of the party to whom the debts were to be resold, sometimes 

specifying in detail how debt buyers were to evaluate potential purchasers.50 Other contracts 

went beyond this and specifically prohibited the resale of accounts to particular debt buyers 

 

47

 One of our surveyed debt buyers, as a matter of its own business model, did not resell debt during the surveyed 

period, and so likely would have been indifferent to the debt seller’s preferences for contractual terms regarding 

resales. Another debt buyer indicated that it had decided to stop reselling debt at approximately the end point of our 

survey period, and its reselling practices could have been winding-down prior to the final cessation. Debt sellers 

might nonetheless have wanted contracts to reflect their preferences regarding resales as a precaution in case these 

debt buyers changed their business models in the future and resumed reselling debts.

48

 These contracts generally did, however, permit certain accounts to be resold within the first year following the 

initial sale if those accounts changed status, e.g., if accounts purchased pursuant to non-bankruptcy portfolios 

changed status because consumers filed for bankruptcy. 

49

 Debt buyers were usually exempted from resale requirements if they were reselling debts to a wholly-owned 

subsidiary, although some contracts required notice to the seller whenever the buyer sold, pledged, or transferred 

debts to a wholly-owned subsidiary.

50

 Some other contracts sought to ensure the reputation and reliability of future buyers of resold debts by 

specifically requiring that “Buyer and all subsequent buyers shall run a Dun & Bradstreet check of all prospective 

purchasers (“Prospective Purchasers”) from Buyer or subsequent buyers of all or part of the Receivables to ensure 

that no material negative information is reported with respect to such Prospective Purchasers. ... Buyer and all 

subsequent buyers shall check with the Better Business Bureau to ensure that there is no substantial number of 

complaints or any material complaints regarding the Prospective Purchaser.” (forward flow sale of freshly chargedoff credit card debts) 
C-25

and/or prohibited the resale of debts to particular debt buyers during the first year following the 

sale. 

Contracts generally did not release either party from their obligations to the other party 

when the original debt buyer resold the accounts.51 Contracts between debt resellers and 

downstream debt buyers were required by the original sales contract to repeat many terms and 

conditions from those original contracts and typically prohibited contact between the 

downstream debt buyer and the credit issuer.

52 As a result of this, downstream debt buyers who 

wished to acquire copies of account documents that remained the property of the original creditor 

were required to make their requests through upstream debt buyers.53 These same contract 

features also required that consumer payments and correspondence received by upstream owners 

(including, but not limited to, the credit issuer) be forwarded downstream, debt buyer by debt 

buyer, until they reached the owner of the debt. 

(e) Possible Consumer Protections Written into Contracts

Some contracts contained unusual features which appeared to protect consumers’ 

interests in how their debts were sold and collected upon. 

 

51

 Some examples of language frequently used in contracts between credit issuers and debt buyers in this regard 

include: “No assignment or transfer of the Agreement or any Loan shall relieve Buyer of any of its liabilities or 

obligations under this Agreement. Each transferee of this Agreement shall be bound by all of the terms and 

provisions of this Agreement, and Buyer shall remain liable for all obligations of Buyer to Seller hereunder, 

notwithstanding such assignment,” and “Purchaser agrees that notwithstanding any sale by Purchaser of the 

Charged-off Accounts purchased pursuant to this Agreement, Purchaser shall continue to be subject to all terms and 

conditions set forth herein as to charged-off Accounts.” 

52

 For example, “Any approved third party to whom Purchaser transfers accounts shall not have the right to contact 

Sellers directly. Purchaser shall remain each Seller’s counterpart and any communications between any such 

approved third-party transferees and each Seller shall go through Purchaser as the intermediary. Sellers shall have 

the right, but not the obligation, to contact any third-party transferee directly if they receive collection complaints 

from any Obligor. In such case, Sellers will notify Purchaser of their direct communication with such third-party 

transferee.” (spot sale where three separate bank entities jointly sold of credit card accounts)

53

 A few contracts expressly prohibited a debt buyer from reselling any documents previously acquired from a 

creditor when reselling debts. Some debt resellers added fees to cover their administrative costs when passing 

documents up and down the ownership chain.
C-26

For example, a few contracts expressly prohibited debt buyers from using any consumer 

information acquired through the debt sale for the purposes of marketing to consumers and 

further prohibited debt buyers from selling consumer information to others.54 Such conditions 

may follow from the sellers’ privacy policies, or could reflect the sellers’ desire to retain any 

value to be derived from marketing to these consumers.55 Regardless of the sellers’ intentions 

here, contract clauses which prohibit the use or sale of consumer information for any purposes 

unrelated to the debt buyers’ collection efforts may help to protect consumers’ privacy.

Some contracts expressly stated that debt buyers would follow all applicable laws and 

would not add any unauthorized or illegal fees to purchased account balances, and/or provided 

other clauses to protect consumers from unethical or unlawful collection practices.56 A few 

contracts had clauses which indicated that debt buyers must not, in general, attempt to collect 

upon accounts primarily through litigation, stating, for example, that

“Purchaser represents and warrants to Seller that Purchaser’s primary purpose in 

purchasing Charged-off Accounts is to attempt legal collection of the Unpaid Balances 

owed on such Charged-off Accounts and is not to commence an action or proceeding 

against Cardholders obligated under such Charged-off Accounts.” (spot resale of credit 

card accounts) 

A few other contracts had substantially the same clause with “immediately” modifying 

 

54

 These clauses are generally of the form “Buyer shall not market to Account Debtors, except for the purposes of 

collecting a Receivable, or market the names and/or address of Account Debtors.” Another variant is “Buyer agrees 

that any and all demographic data provided by Seller to Buyer pursuant to this Agreement shall only be used by 

Buyer for purposes of collecting the Debts in the Portfolio. Buyer may not use, sell, transfer or utilize the data for 

any other purpose without the express written consent of Seller.” (spot sales of utility debts, also found in spot sales 

of medical debts) 

55

 For example, some contracts stated “... Sellers shall retain all of the data regarding the Accounts and the Obligors 

in their or their affiliates’ database(s) and shall retain the right to use or license such data for any purposes it may, in 

its sole discretion, determine.” (spot sale of credit card accounts) 

56

 For the vast majority of debt buyers, these clauses may be superfluous, as the debt buyers are obligated to adhere 

to all laws even in the absence of these contractual clauses. Accordingly, the real purpose of these clauses may be to

insulate debt sellers from liability or protect them from reputational harm if debt buyers violate the law. 

Nonetheless, it is possible that these clauses may provide some incremental protection to consumers from unlawful 

conduct of debt buyers.
C-27

“commence.” These clauses reflect an effort on the part of the seller to restrain the buyer’s use of 

litigation as a collection method.57 We lack any evidence on why debt sellers impose these

restrictions upon debt buyers. We also lack any evidence on how the debt seller monitors the 

frequency and/or timing of the debt buyer’s collection law suits, or whether debt sellers have 

ever taken action against debt buyers for breaching these terms.58

Nonetheless, if any accounts sold pursuant to these contracts involved wrong 

consumer/wrong amount claims, consumers may have had more opportunities to resolve these 

issues if they were shielded from collection law suits filed immediately after the sale of their 

debts and if the debt buyers to whom their debts were sold did not use collection lawsuits as their 

primary means of recovering debts. 

A few contracts also included clauses that appeared to be designed to prevent debt buyers 

from attempting to collect from consumers who have previously reported to the seller that the 

account resulted from identity theft. An example of this type of clause is the following:

“Prior to initiating any contact, whether verbal, written or electronic, with the Cardholder, 

Buyer shall ... review the portfolio ... to discover whether any Accounts included ... 

have indicators, notes or flags that demonstrated that the Cardholder claims to be a victim 

of identity theft. The Buyer shall immediately notify Bank of any Accounts that have 

flags or indicators of identity theft and Buyer shall sell the Accounts back to Bank prior 

to Buyer contacting Cardholders.” (spot sale of credit card debts) 

A few contracts went further, and required debt buyers to temporarily cease collection 

attempts and permit the selling bank to investigate if, after the portfolio sale, consumers claimed 

 

57

 These contracts were silent, however, as to how a debt buyer’s primary purpose was assessed or how 

“immediately” was defined. 

58

 Credit issuers may be concerned that their reputations could be harmed by debt buyers suing substantial numbers 

of their former customers, or suing former customers very soon after ownership of the debts transferred from the 

credit-issuer to the debt buyer. Alternatively, credit issuers may be concerned that debt buyers’ law suits may 

“crowd out” legal actions that the credit issuer has taken or anticipates taking by reaching the attachable assets of 

consumers before the credit issuer can reach them in instances where the same consumer owes debts that the credit 

issuer retains as well as debts that are sold to the debt buyer. 
C-28

that debts resulted from unauthorized use or identity theft:

“Buyer shall immediately cease any collection efforts upon receiving written notice ... 

that the Cardholder alleges the balance on the Account was the result of unauthorized use 

or identity theft. Buyer shall not re-commence collection activity on an Account Balance 

alleged to be the result of unauthorized use or identity theft until (i) Buyer has notified 

Bank, as soon as commercially practical that the Debtor has alleged that the Account 

Balance is the result of unauthorized use or identity theft; and (ii) Bank has had an 

opportunity to investigate the Debtor’s allegations. Bank shall, at completion of its 

investigation, notify Buyer of Bank’s review and conclusion. If Bank concludes that 

Buyer’s allegations are supported by the evidence available, Buyer shall not recommence 

collection action against the Cardholder, and Buyer shall have whatever rights against 

Bank that Buyer has under ... (the repurchase rights portion of the contract).” (spot sale 

of credit card debts)

Most other contracts permitted debt buyers to put-back accounts that resulted from fraud, 

but imposed what may be substantial burdens upon debt buyers in doing so.59 The two contracts 

excerpted above are unusual in that they require debt buyers to sell accounts back to the selling 

bank when there are indicators of identity theft. The second contract clause excerpted above is 

particularly unusual in that the seller takes on the cost of investigating whether identity theft 

occurred, even when consumers first claimed to be victims of identity theft only after the 

accounts had been sold to the debt buyer. A few other contracts were even more specific as to 

what the debt buyer needed to do when the consumer stated that the debt being collected on was 

due to identity theft:

“When notified by a consumer that their identity has been stolen and they therefore do 

not owe charges on the account, Purchaser shall in addition to complying with all 

applicable laws regarding identify theft: (1) Immediately cease any collection activities. 

(2) Send the consumer the Federal Trade Commission’s Theft of Identity Affidavit or 

similar type affidavit on the same day or next business day that the consumer reports the 

theft of identity. Upon return of the Theft of Identity Affidavit or similar affidavit, notify 

in writing within five business days each and every credit bureau to which the collection 

 

59

 As discussed above, debt buyers were generally required to obtain copies of documents that were only available 

from the consumer in order to put back an account due to fraud. Moreover, some contracts further required that the 

documents must be dated prior to the date of sale, so that the debt buyer was unable to put back an account due to 

fraud if the consumer did not learn of the fraud in time to leave a paper trail disputing the fraudulent account and/or 

fraudulent charges dated before the sale occurred. 
C-29

agency reported negative credit information ... The Purchaser shall notify Seller and the 

consumer in writing within five business days of sending the above letter(s) to the credit 

bureau(s) ... (3) Purchaser agrees to notify Seller and return any Seller account to Seller

within five business days if the Purchaser is notified by any credit bureau that the 

consumer has sent the credit bureau an alert that their identity has been stolen ... If the 

Purchaser has previously reported negative information regarding the Seller account to 

the credit bureau(s), the Purchaser will request that the credit bureau(s) remove any 

negative credit information ... and promptly notify Seller and the consumer that it has 

done so ...” (spot sale of telecommunications debt)

A few contracts gave sellers rights to monitor debt buyers’ collection practices, stating, 

for example:

“Seller, ... shall have the right ... to examine and audit records, to include, but not be 

limited to ... records of any disputes and litigation regarding the Receivables, and copies 

of all letters used in collection of Receivables. In addition, such examination and audit 

may also include a review of Buyer’s collection efforts, cash controls, methods and 

procedures for recording and remitting payments, and compliance with this Agreement.” 

(spot sale of telecommunications debt) 

“From and after the Closing Date, Purchaser agrees ... to allow Seller, at Seller’s sole 

cost, to conduct periodic on-site reviews and observations of the Purchaser’s collection 

practices related to the Accounts. Seller shall not be permitted to exercise such 

inspection right more than two (2) times in any eighteen (18) month period in the absence 

of any demonstrated misconduct by Purchaser.” (spot sale of credit card accounts) 

Although these contracts did not state debt sellers’ intended use of information gleaned 

through these inspections, it is possible that their inspection and monitoring of debt buyers’ 

collection practices might protect consumers from collection practices that are unlawful.60

Some contracts placed limitations on how debt buyers attempted to collect on out-ofstatute debts.

61

 Examples of such clauses included 

 

60

 A few other contracts contained similar provisions, but also included collection revenue sharing arrangements 

that were triggered once the debt buyer’s collections on the accounts exceeded a certain level. In such contracts, the 

seller had a self-interest in monitoring the debt buyer’s collection practices. The clause cited in the text was not 

from a contract with a revenue sharing arrangement. 

61

 The majority of contracts, however, were either silent as to applicable statutes of limitations or explicitly stated 

that the buyer had no recourse against the seller if out-of-statute debts were included in the portfolio. A few 

contracts expressly stated that out-of-statue accounts may be plentiful within the portfolios sold, e.g., “The Sellers

believe, but have not verified, that the statute of limitations may have run on some, if not all, of the Accounts.” (spot 

sale of credit card accounts)
C-30

“Buyer will not allege with respect to a Receivable any legal rights that do not exist 

(including representing that a lawsuit will be filed with regard to a Receivable for which 

the applicable statute of limitations has run).” (spot sale of “certain consumer loan 

accounts”) 

and

“If Buyer, or Buyer’s assigns or transferees collects or attempts to collect on an Account, 

Buyer and/or its agent and assigns and transferees will at all times ... for any Account 

where the statute of limitations has run, not falsely represent that a lawsuit will be filed if 

the Obligor does not pay ...” (spot sale of “auto deficiency and/or credit loss accounts”)

These clauses may help to prevent default judgments against consumers who did not 

know that they could assert a statute-of-limitations defense. It also could prevent consumers 

from unknowingly reviving the statute of limitations by making payments on out-of-statue debts 

because they feared threatened legal action, though such threats for out-of-statute debts also 

would violate the FDCPA. Such clauses were typically found in contracts that also included 

clauses stating that documents would not be provided beyond a specified time following the sale 

unless the debts were in-statute or the request pertained to litigation unrelated to collection 

activity.62 Less commonly, contracts indicated that sellers included out-of-statute debts in their 

definitions of ineligible accounts. Including out-of-statute debts in the definition of ineligibility 

permits (but does not require) debt buyers to put-back these accounts upon the seller. When debt 

buyers put-back out-of-statute debts to debt sellers instead of attempting to collect on those 

debts, consumers receive the protections offered by the statute of limitations, regardless of 

whether they know to assert the statute of limitations as a defense against a collections lawsuit, 

since such suits would not occur, and would not unknowingly revive the statute of limitations by 

 

62

 An example of this type of clause is “Except in instances of litigation unrelated to collection activity or accounts 

that are within the statute of limitations at the time requested, the Bank will have no obligation to provide Buyer 

with Account Documents after three years from the Closing Date.” (spot sale of credit card debt) Note, however, 

that under such a clause documents requested within three years following the sale would be provided even if the 

debts were out-of-statute. 
C-31

making a partial payment. 

A few contracts prohibited debt buyers from adding any amount to the account balances 

purchased from sellers, stating, simply “Purchaser agrees not to add any further interest or fees to 

the Account Balances.” (spot sale of “certain unpaid patient receivables due from patients”) 
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D: 

DESCRIBING PORTFOLIO DATA
D-1

Technical Appendix D: Describing Portfolio Data

The nine firms surveyed for this study submitted data on 5,053 portfolios.1These 

portfolios contained nearly 90 million consumer accounts, reflecting nearly $143 billion in 

consumer debt (face value). The nine firms spent nearly $6.5 billion to acquire these debts. 

Our 6(b) orders, at specification II.A.3.d, asked debt buyers about the types of accounts 

in each portfolio they had purchased during the relevant time period (“For each portfolio ... 

provide ... the types of accounts included (e.g., credit card, medical, auto, etc.)”), and did not ask 

whether accounts had a special collection status, such as “bankruptcy” or “deceased consumer,” 

or whether debts resulted from judgment or arbitration awards.2 

Seven debt buyers nonetheless revealed that some or all of the portfolios they had 

purchased were comprised of debts of consumers who had filed for bankruptcy.3 Some of these 

firms provided us with both bankruptcy status information and type of debt account information, 

and some provided bankruptcy status information in lieu of submitting type of debt account 

 

1

 This does not include one submitted portfolio comprised entirely of accounts originated by a Brazilian bank to 

Brazilian consumers. 

2

 The status of a debt account may affect the recovery methods used by debt collectors, and thereby affect the 

amount, cost, and timing of recoveries. For example, bankruptcy law prohibits debt collectors from “dunning” 

consumers who have filed for bankruptcy protection. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6) (2006) (staying “any act to collect, 

assess, or recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case” in federal bankruptcy 

court). Instead, creditors, or debt collectors acting on their behalf, file claims with the bankruptcy court and await 

the determinations of the court, which may include, in the case of Chapter 13 filings, a repayment plan that can 

extend over a number of years. See id. § 501 (proof of claim); § 1322 (contents of a Chapter 13 plan). When 

creditors, or debt collectors acting on their behalf, prevail in litigation against consumers, state laws may permit 

additional methods of recovery, such as garnishing consumers’ wages and bank accounts. See FED. TRADE 

COMM’N, REPAIRING A BROKEN SYSTEM: PROTECTING CONSUMERS IN DEBT COLLECTION LITIGATION AND 

ARBITRATION 5-6 (2010), available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/07/debtcollectionreport.pdf. The status of a 

consumer debt can also affect the statute of limitations governing collections on the debt. Many states stay the 

statute of limitations on debts in bankruptcy until and unless debts are dismissed from bankruptcy. See, e.g., 

Zinchiak v. CIT Small Bus. Lending Corp., 406 F.3d 214 (3d Cir. 2005) (interpreting 42 PA. CONS. STAT. § 5535 to 

toll the Pennsylvania statute of limitations for collection actions while a bankruptcy stay is in place); Schumacher v. 

Worcester, 64 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1 (Ct. App. 1997) (interpreting CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 356 to toll the California statute 

of limitations in such circumstances). In addition, many states have a longer statute of limitations for collections on 

judgment and arbitration awards than they do for consumer debts for which no judgments have been obtained. 

Compare, e.g., CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 337 (Deering 2012) (four years for written contractual debts in California) 

with id. § 337.5 (ten years for debts supported by judgment); NY C.P.L.R. 213 (Consol. 2012) (six years for 

contractual debts in New York) with NY C.P.L.R. 211 (twenty years for debts supported by judgment).

3

 A few firms additionally revealed that some portfolios contained accounts of deceased consumers or accounts 

associated with judgment or arbitration awards.
D-2

information. Because the 6(b) orders did not ask the debt buyers to identify bankruptcy 

portfolios, we cannot be certain whether all of the portfolios not identified as bankruptcy 

portfolios were indeed not bankruptcy portfolios, both for firms that identified some bankruptcy 

portfolios and the two firms that did not.4 

The two tables below show various portfolio attributes broken out according to the firms’ 

self-report of whether or not portfolios were bankruptcy portfolios, and our simplifying 

assumption that portfolios not self-reported as bankruptcy portfolios were “charge-off” portfolios 

(that is, portfolios of delinquent debt that had been charged-off as uncollectible by the original 

creditor and which did not have any special status, such as bankruptcy, deceased debtor, or 

arbitration or judgment award).5

 

4

 The two firms that did not indicate whether any of the portfolios they purchased were of bankruptcy accounts 

indicated that they had sold portfolios of bankruptcy debt. This may suggest that they did not maintain the systems 

required to make recoveries on debts in bankruptcy. Additionally, neither of these firms included any information 

that would be relevant to the purchase of bankruptcy portfolios (e.g., the bankruptcy case number, the applicable 

Bankruptcy Code chapter, the bankruptcy petition date, etc.) in their responses to order specification II.B.3, which 

addressed the information and documents that debt buyers obtained or obtained access to when deciding whether to 

purchase a portfolio of consumer accounts.

 

5

 In addition to the possibility that some of the portfolios not identified as bankruptcy portfolios may consist of 

bankruptcy or other special status accounts (e.g., deceased debtor, arbitration or judgment awards), some portfolios 

may consist of performing debt. One debt buyer, for example, specifically noted that account charge-off dates were 

“not applicable” for approximately three dozen of the portfolios it submitted, none of which were among the ones it 

identified as bankruptcy portfolios. Some contracts submitted for this study, as well as some 10-K reports of 

publicly-traded debt buyers, indicate that debt buyers occasionally purchase portfolios of performing debt (i.e., debt 

that was not charged-off as uncollectible by the credit issuer). 
D-3

Table D1: Basic Characteristics of Submitted Portfolios

Account 

status at time 

of purchase

Portfolios Accounts Face Values (a) Acquisition Expenditures (b)

# % # % $ %

Avg. FV 

of 

accounts

$ %

per $ of 

Face 

Value

Charge-off 3,087 61% 77,675,862 87% $104,733,044,243 73% $1,348 $5,014,641,267 78% $0.04788

Bankruptcy 1,966 39% 11,357,757 13% $38,194,615,739 27% $3,363 $1,426,349,243 22% $0.03734

Total 5,053 100% 89,033,619 100% $142,927,659,982 100% $1,605 $6,440,990,510 100% $0.04506

Table Notes:

(a) Aggregate face values were computed by multiplying the average face value of accounts in each portfolio (as requested at 

specification II.A.3.g) by the number of accounts in each portfolio (as requested at specification II.A.3.c), and then summing across 

all relevant portfolios. Average face value figures were calculated by dividing the relevant aggregate face value by the relevant 

aggregate number of accounts. 

(b) Specification II.A.3.e requested the amount paid for each portfolio. Acquisition expenditures per dollar of face value figures were 

calculated by summing the amount paid for each portfolio across all relevant portfolios and then dividing by the relevant total face 

value as described in (a), above. 

The following table looks at portfolio characteristics within the sub-categories of chargeoff and self-reported bankruptcy portfolios. 
D-4

Table D2: Characteristics of Portfolios Submitted by Nine Debt Buyers

Type of Debt Accounts Within 

Charge-off Portfolios (a)

Portfolios Accounts Face Values (m) Acquisition Expenditures (n)

#

% of All 

Chargeoff

Portfolios

#

% of All 

Chargeoff 

Accounts

% of All 

Chargeoff 

Portfolios

Avg. Face 

Value of 

Accounts

% of Chargeoff 

Portfolios

Per $ of Face 

Value

Credit Card (b) 1918 62% 35,220,694 45% 65% $1,943 71% $0.05224

Medical (c) 530 17% 21,500,329 28% 7% $345 3% $0.01909

Consumer Loans (d) 161 5% 1,014,011 1% 4% $3,785 2% $0.03219

Utilities 73 2% 1,483,133 2% 1% $480 0% $0.01718

Telecomm 68 2% 11,299,647 15% 5% $438 3% $0.02983

Mixed (e) 66 2% 2,067,028 3% 6% $3,026 3% $0.02595

Auto Loans (f) 59 2% 1,084,058 1% 7% $6,489 2% $0.01560

Other(g) 57 2% 2,832,530 4% 2% $898 2% $0.03229

“Credit cards & Lines of 

Credit”(h) 54 2% 276,779 0% 2% $7,229 3% $0.06598

Student Loans 52 2% 416,974 1% 0% $735 0% $0.03484

Mortgages(i) 35 1% 20,683 0% 1% $48,669 10% $0.50442

Overdrafts 8 0% 439,651 1% 0% $447 0% $0.05017

Not Stated 4 0% 155 0% 0% n/a 0% $0.00094

Bad Checks 2 0% 20,190 0% 0% $156 0% $0.01944

Sub-total (j) 3087 100% 77,675,862 100% 100% $1,348 100% $0.04788

Type of Bankruptcy Filing 

Within Bankruptcy Portfolios

# % of All 

BK

Portfolios

# % of All 

BK 

Accounts

% of All 

BK 

Portfolios

Avg. Face 

Value of 

Accounts

% of BK 

Portfolios

Per $ of Face 

Value

Bankruptcy Portfolios:(k)

Chp. 13 Bankruptcy (l) 1690 86% 7,977,364 70% 61% $2,931 99% $0.06067

Chp. 7 Bankruptcy 276 14% 3,380,393 30% 39% $4,382 1% $0.00052

Sub-total 1966 100% 11,357,757 100% 100% $3,363 100% $0.03734

Total of All Portfolios 5053 89,033,619 $1,605 $0.04506

Table Notes:

(a) Firms freely designated account descriptors.

(b) “Credit Card” includes general purpose credit cards (often specifically designated as “Visa,” “MasterCard,” etc.) as well as accounts 

designated “private label credit card,” “subprime credit card,” “consumer credit card,” and “business credit card.” Although we 

collectively treat these as “credit cards,” the distinctions among sub-types may be important to firms. See, for example, Portfolio 

Recovery Associates’ 10-K report for the year ended December 31, 2009, at p. 7, where “major credit cards” are distinguished from 

“private label credit cards” when listing “Life to Date Purchased Face Value of Defaulted Consumer Receivables.” 

(c) “Medical” includes accounts designated by some firms as “healthcare.” A small percentage of these portfolios were comprised of 

accounts with very high average face values (e.g., five and even six figure amounts) that suggest large hospital bills. The vast majority of 

the portfolios, however, were comprised of accounts that had low and mid three figure balances, as reflected by the average face value 

of accounts calculated for all submitted medical portfolios.

(d) “Consumer Loans” also includes accounts designated as “installment loans,” “personal loans,” and “unsecured consumer loans.”

(e) “Mixed” includes firms’ own use of the descriptor “mixed” as well as instances where firms used multiple account descriptors within 

portfolios (e.g., “credit card, consumer loans, auto,” or “credit card, auto, consumer loan, installment loan, telecom,” etc.) and we 

assigned the term “mixed.” “Credit cards” were expressly mentioned in “mixed” portfolios more often than any other descriptors (58 

portfolios) and “auto” was the second most frequently used descriptor (25 portfolios). Accordingly, the true percentages of all 

submitted accounts that fell into the categories “credit card” and “auto” exceed the percentages attributed to these categories in the 

table.

 

(Table continued on next page.)
D-5

Table D2: Characteristics of Portfolios Submitted by Nine Debt Buyers (continued)

Table Notes (continued):

(f) “Auto Loans” may include loans that are secured by vehicles as well as unsecured loans (i.e., auto loan deficiencies) which result 

when the value of repossessed autos fall short of the outstanding loan amounts. 

(g) This includes instances where firms self-reported “other” or “misc.” as the type of debt, as well as some express but infrequently

used debt account descriptors, such as “debt consolidation service.” 

(h) Several firms used the express descriptor “credit cards and lines of credit,” even though they also report “credit cards.” No firms 

reported portfolios comprised solely of “lines of credit.” Because of this, we have opted to break-out “credit cards & lines of credit” 

as a separate category. While these portfolios could have been placed into the “mixed” category, that would have obscured the fact 

that “credit cards & lines of credit” portfolios had average face values ($7,229) that were more than twice the average face values of 

other “mixed” portfolios ($3,026). 

(i) The average expenditure per dollar of face value for mortgage accounts is sensitive to the presence of a small number of mortgage 

portfolios for which the average acquisition expenditures per dollar of face value was in excess of 75 cents on the dollar; some of 

these portfolios were expressly linked to contracts for the purchase of performing mortgage loans. In contrast, a significant number 

of mortgage portfolios had average acquisition expenditures per dollar of face value that were below one cent on the dollar; some 

of these portfolios were expressly linked to contracts which indicated that the portfolios pertained to properties that had already 

been foreclosed on and/or for which the consumer had declared bankruptcy. The median acquisition expenditure per dollar of face 

value for all mortgage portfolios was $0.10000, or ten cents on the dollar. 

(j) Cumulative rounding errors may prevent percentage figures from summing to 100%.

(k) Five of the seven firms who reported purchases of bankruptcy portfolios also revealed the type of debt within the portfolios; 84% of 

their bankruptcy portfolios were comprised of credit card debt. These five firms purchased 72% of the 1,966 self-reported 

bankruptcy portfolios. Accordingly, we estimate that at least 60% of all bankruptcy portfolios are comprised of credit card debt 

(84% of 72% is 60%).

(l) Three firms expressly indicated the Bankruptcy Chapter pertaining to their self-reported bankruptcy portfolios. Three other firms 

indicated in their narrative reports that virtually all of their purchases of bankruptcy portfolios pertained to Chapter 13 filings. One 

firm used “Paying Bankruptcy” as a descriptor, and we have assumed that to indicate a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

(m) To conserve space horizontally, the aggregate face values for each type of debt account have been omitted. Aggregate face values 

were computed by multiplying the average face value of accounts in each portfolio (as requested at specification II.A.3.g) by the 

number of accounts in each portfolio (as requested at specification II.A.3.c), and then summing across all portfolios of the same 

type. Average face value figures were calculated by dividing the relevant aggregate face value by the relevant aggregate number of 

accounts. 

(n) To conserve space horizontally, the aggregate acquisition expenses for each type of debt account have been omitted. Specification 

II.A.3.e requested the amount paid for each portfolio. Acquisition expenditures per dollar of face value figures were calculated by 

summing the amount paid for each portfolio across all portfolios of the same type and then dividing by the relevant total face value 

as described in (m), above. 

Charge-off Portfolios

Portfolios which were not self-reported as bankruptcy portfolios comprised 61% of all 

portfolios submitted for study, and 78% of expenditures on debt acquisition.6 By all measures, 

 

6

 Accounts can change status after a debt buyer purchases them. Some of the consumers whose accounts were 

purchased in bankruptcy portfolios may have subsequently had their bankruptcy cases dismissed; following 

dismissal, their accounts again became collectable in the same manner as any other charge-off accounts. Similarly, 

consumers whose accounts were purchased in charge-off portfolios may have sought bankruptcy protection 

following the debt buyers’ purchase of their accounts, precluding their accounts from being collectable through 

regular collection channels. Our data do not specifically track changes in consumers’ bankruptcy status during the 

period covered by our study. We assume, however, that submitted data on collection activities relating to accounts 

acquired via the purchase of portfolios that firms identified as being bankruptcy portfolios indicate that consumers 

associated with those accounts have had their bankruptcy petitions dismissed, making their debts collectable.
D-6

credit card debt was the leading asset type within portfolios that were not identified by debt 

buyers as bankruptcy portfolios. 

Credit card portfolios accounted for 62% of all submitted portfolios not identified by debt 

buyers as bankruptcy portfolios; the next highest asset class was medical debt, which comprised 

17%. Each other debt category accounted for no more than 5%.

Credit card accounts comprised 45% of all submitted accounts associated with portfolios 

that were not identified as bankruptcy portfolios. Medical debt accounts and 

telecommunications debt accounts were the next largest individual debt categories by percentage 

of accounts purchased, at 28% and 15%, respectively. 

The aggregate face value of consumer debts in all submitted portfolios not identified by 

debt buyers as bankruptcy portfolios exceeded $104 billion. Credit card debts accounted for 

65% of this amount. Medical and auto debt each accounted for 7%, “mixed debt” accounted for 

6%, and each of the other debt categories accounted for no more than 5%.

Credit card portfolios accounted for an even larger share, 71%, of all expenditures on 

portfolios that were not self-reported as bankruptcy portfolios. The second largest debt category 

was mortgage debt, at 10%.7 Each of the remaining debt categories accounted for, at most, 3% 

of acquisition expenditures.

Expenditures amounted to an average of 4.8 cents per dollar of face value for portfolios 

regarded as charge-off portfolios.8 Expenditures per dollar of face value were highest for 

mortgage debt, at 50 cents per dollar of face value, and between approximately 1.5 and 6.6 cents 

 

7

 As discussed in note (i) of Table D2, some of these portfolios were expressly linked to contracts for the purchase 

of performing mortgage debt and had very high expenditures per dollar of face value. Other portfolios, for which no 

contracts were submitted, had similarly high acquisition expenditures per dollar of debt. If both of these categories 

are excluded from the analysis, the mortgage debt share of total acquisition cost would fall to less than one-half of 

one percent. 

8

 Overall, for all types of debt (both charge-off and bankruptcy), acquisition expenditures amounted to an average 

of 4.5 cents per dollar of debt face value. 
D-7

on the dollar for all other types of debt.9

Bankruptcy Portfolios

Two of the seven firms that volunteered that they had purchased portfolios of bankruptcy 

debt indicated that bankruptcy debt was the only type of consumer debt they purchased. These 

two firms jointly accounted for 62% of all portfolios in the submission that were self-reported as 

bankruptcy portfolios. These two firms further revealed the underlying type of account (e.g., 

credit card, medical, auto) in each portfolio of bankruptcy debt they purchased.10 

Five other firms reported purchasing bankruptcy portfolios. Two of these five firms 

reported purchasing substantial numbers of bankruptcy debt portfolios, although these portfolios 

did not form the majority of their purchased debt portfolios.11 One of these firms further 

revealed the type of debt accounts in each of its bankruptcy debt portfolios and the other firm did 

not.12 Three other firms reported purchasing small numbers of bankruptcy portfolios which 

comprised very small proportions of their aggregate portfolio purchases.13 Of these three firms, 

two expressly revealed the chapter of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code under which consumers had 

 

9

 Although the average expenditure per dollar of face value may not be a good indicator of typical expenditure for 

mortgage portfolios (see note (i) to the table), mortgage debt would still be the most valuable debt, in terms of 

expenditure per dollar of face value, even if the median value (ten cents of expenditure per dollar of face value) were 

used in the comparison. 

10

 These two firms revealed in their narrative reports that their business models were specialized to the recovery of 

bankruptcy debts, and the spreadsheet data they submitted on their purchased portfolios provided the “type of 

account” information requested in specification II.A.3.d of the 6(b) orders. These firms provided information in 

their narrative reports about the proportions of their purchased portfolios that pertained to particular chapters of the 

U.S. Bankruptcy Code. 

11

 In each instance, however, bankruptcy portfolios accounted for more than 40% of the total number of portfolios 

purchased by these two firms. 

 

12

 The firm that revealed the type of debt account associated with each of its bankruptcy portfolios did so in 

responding to specification II.A.3.d of our order, and revealed the chapter of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code under which 

consumers had sought bankruptcy protection in a narrative response. The other firm responded to specification 

II.A.3.d by revealing the chapter of the U.S. bankruptcy code under which consumers had sought bankruptcy 

protection and did not provide any information (even narratively) about the type of debt accounts included in its 

bankruptcy portfolios. 

13

 Combined, these three firms reported less than 10 bankruptcy portfolios.
D-8

sought bankruptcy protection.14 Two of these three firms further revealed the type of accounts 

(e.g., credit card, medical, auto) in the bankruptcy portfolios in responding to specification 

II.A.3.d, and the third firm answered II.A.3.d for its bankruptcy portfolios by giving just the

chapter of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code under which consumers had sought bankruptcy 

protection.15 

Self-reported bankruptcy portfolios comprised 39% of all 5,053 submitted portfolios, but 

just 22% of all expenditures for portfolio acquisition. The data submitted do not permit us to 

observe how many self-reported bankruptcy portfolios, or accounts within such portfolios, 

pertained to secured or unsecured assets. We estimate, however, that at least 60% of all accounts 

in self-reported bankruptcy portfolios related to credit cards debts (see note (k) in the table 

above), and therefore assume that the majority of self-reported bankruptcy accounts submitted 

related to unsecured assets. Eighty-six percent of the portfolios self-identified as bankruptcy 

portfolios, and 99% of the accounts in portfolios self-identified as bankruptcy portfolios, 

pertained to Chapter 13 bankruptcy petitions. We were unable to determine, however, the extent 

to which these portfolios reflected Chapter 13 filings which already had a court-ordered 

repayment plan in place or were awaiting a determination of whether or not a repayment plan 

would be instituted.

16

Expenditures amounted to an average of 3.7 cents per dollar of face value for portfolios 

regarded as bankruptcy portfolios. The expenditures per dollar of face value differed according 

to the identified bankruptcy chapter; the figure was much higher for Chapter 13 portfolios than 

 

14

 The third firm implied that consumers had sought protection under Chapter 13 and had obtained court-ordered 

repayment plans by referring to “paying bankruptcies.”

15

 In each instance, these three firms supplied this information in their responses to II.A.3.d.

16

 Some creditors may sell the debt accounts very soon after receiving notification that consumers have filed a 

Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition and before the Court has either authorized a repayment plan or dismissed the 

consumer’s case.
D-9

Chapter 7 portfolios, 6.1 cents on the dollar versus 0.05 cents on the dollar, respectively. 

Judgment Portfolios

A small number of the seven firms that voluntarily revealed which of their portfolios 

were of accounts in bankruptcy also voluntarily revealed having purchased a small number of 

portfolios of judgment accounts.17 We cannot be certain whether or not the remaining firms also 

purchased judgment delinquencies. There are several indicators, however, which suggest that 

the purchase of judgment accounts could be more prevalent than what was expressly and 

voluntarily revealed in the firms’ submissions.18 

Deceased Debtor Portfolios

None of the nine debt buyers indicated that any of their portfolios were comprised 

exclusively of the accounts of deceased consumers.19 

 

17

 Judgment accounts result from unpaid legal judgments against consumers. The contracts submitted by debt 

buyers that referenced judgment accounts indicated that these judgments pertained to delinquent debts, although 

other types of unpaid legal judgments are, of course, possible. When consumers are successfully sued over 

delinquent credit card debts, for example, the amount awarded by the court to the creditor replaces the debt that was 

the subject of the litigation, and creates a new debt obligation that, typically, commences a new statute of limitations 

period and may also permit additional collection methods (e.g., garnishment of wages or bank accounts or liens 

against real property) that may not have been available prior to the judgment. See FED. TRADE COMM’N, REPAIRING 

A BROKEN SYSTEM: PROTECTING CONSUMERS IN DEBT COLLECTION LITIGATION AND ARBITRATION 5-6 (2010), 

available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/07/debtcollectionreport.pdf; 46 AM. JUR. 2D Judgments § 458 (“[W]hen a 

valid final judgment is rendered, the original debt or cause of action, or underlying obligation upon which an 

adjudication is predicated, merges into the judgment. The original claim is extinguished and a new cause of action 

on a judgment is substituted for it.”); compare, e.g., CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 337 (Deering 2012) (four year statute 

of limitations period for written contractual debts in California) with id. § 337.5 (ten years for debts supported by 

judgment); NY C.P.L.R. 213 (Consol. 2012) (six years for contractual debts in New York) with NY C.P.L.R. 211 

(twenty years for debts supported by judgment). Our data do not permit us to determine whether any of the

judgment accounts submitted to our study resulted from default judgments.

18

 For example, in responding to specification II.D.1 (“Describe the information and documents about a portfolio 

that the Company obtains or obtains access to from the seller at the time the Company purchases a portfolio.”) one 

firm responded, in part, by describing the types of information obtained on legal judgment accounts (e.g., “For legal 

judgment accounts, the additional fields might include ...”), but did not submit any portfolios that it expressly 

identified as being comprised of judgment accounts. A few contracts pertain to judgment and arbitration awards, 

although the firms which submitted these contracts did not voluntarily identify any portfolios as pertaining to 

judgment or arbitration awards. 

19

 A small number of contracts, however, indicated that deceased consumer accounts were included in portfolios 

that combined accounts with different types of collection status. For example, one contract indicated that a portfolio 

contained a mixture of bankruptcy, deceased consumer, judgment, out-of-statute, and pre-litigation accounts, but the 

debt buyer’s response to Specification II.A.3.d (type of debt) for the portfolio in question was “credit card,” because, 

presumably, all of the accounts with these various statuses were credit card accounts. No firms that specialize in 

collecting on deceased accounts were included in the study. 
Federal Trade Commission

ftc.gov