I have interviewed Mr. Silverthorn (see the video in the upper right hand corner of this page), and he interviewed me for the chapters on Consumer Proposals and Personal Bankruptcy, so I am familiar with Mr. Silverthorn’s work. In our conversations he did make one comment that surprised me: He said that borrowers in Canada are often victimized three times.
First, borrowers often get caught in predatory lending practices, paying excessive rates of interest, or signing contracts they don’t understand. Interest rates in Canada are at historic lows, but interest rates on credit cards and finance company loans are as high as ever.
Second, if a borrower can’t pay, they are often victimized by abusive collection agency practices, such as the Draft Statement of Claim issue we discussed last week. In addition, collectors call at all hours of the day and night, and often make threats, and if you don’t know the rules, they can intimidate you, which is often unsettling.
Finally, borrowers are often victimized by “consultants”; people who earn their living by “helping” people, even though they really aren’t helping them at all. You have probably seen their advertisements: “We will reduce your debts by 70% without bankruptcy; call us today!” Unfortunately most of these ads are nothing more than Debt Management Scams. These unlicensed “helpers” take your money, but they have no legal ability to actually reduce your debt. They might be able to convince your creditors to accept a deal, but more often than not the only person who profits is the helper.
Mr. Silverthorn believes that an informed consumer has the knowledge to understand all options, and that’s the point of his book: education. He covers many topics, including:
how to stop, avoid, or discourage collection calls
why you might not even have to pay your debt
options to deal with your debts that might save you thousands of dollars
your legal rights and how to handle collection agency misconduct
the truth about credit counselling and debt settlement firms
As a bankruptcy trustee in Canada I am familiar with the various methods for dealing with debts, and I have heard every collection agency story imaginable. However, even I was able to learn many things from this book, and that’s why I recommend it for anyone looking to more fully understand how collection agents operate.
Some final advice from Mr. Silverthorn : if you meet with a debt management professional, ask them to explain all of your options, not just the option they are selling. I agree fully with that approach.
What’s the fastest way to accumulate so much debt that you have no option but to file bankruptcy in Canada? As a bankruptcy trustee I have handled thousands of personal bankruptcy filings over the last two decades, and the answer to that question, based on my experience, is easy:
Douglas Hoyes, Bankruptcy Trustee
Credit cards.
If you want to get into serious financial trouble, excessive credit card debt is a sure fire way to invite financial disaster.
Two years ago my firm did a study of “Joe Debtor”, the average person who declares bankruptcy in Canada. Our study showed that 93% of Canadians that file personal bankruptcy or a consumer proposal have credit card debt, and the average they owed on their credit cards at the time of filing was just under $20,000. (With other debts, like taxes and lines of credit, the total unsecured debt was just over $50,000).
The facts are clear: it’s unlikely that someone with no credit card debt will have a need to file bankruptcy. The more credit card debt you have, the more likely it is that bankruptcy may be in your future. Why is that?
First, in the past, credit cards were easy to get. We all remember the “boom times” up to 2008, when many of us received numerous credit card offers in the mail each week. We were all “pre-approved” for a $10,000 gold, or platinum, credit card with a “low introductory” rate. Remember? You said “great, I can transfer my balance from my high interest rate card to the low rate card, and save money!” And you did.
But then your car broke down and you needed money for repairs, or you were off sick from work, or some other problem occurred and you needed money. You had unused credit on the credit card you just paid off, so you used it. But now, of course, you have a problem: instead of just owing money on one credit card, you are now carrying a balance on two cards. That puts you in a cash flow squeeze every month.
Then you realized that the “low introductory rate” was only temporary, and after six months your interest rate went way up, so now you are paying even more each month.
High interest rates are a problem, but for most people who declare bankruptcy their financial problems became critical when something happened in their lives: job loss, a marriage break up, or perhaps a health issue that caused them to miss work and led to reduced income.
It’s now 2010, and ever since the “credit crisis” of 2008 the flow of credit card offers in our mailboxes has slowed to a trickle, or disappeared entirely. The days of easy access to credit are over, at least for now.
Even more challenging for Canadians with credit card debts is the reality that credit card issuers are tightening up their credit requirements. Based on the stories I have heard over the last few weeks from the dozens of people in debt I meet with each week, it appears that the credit card issuers are in the process of “culling” their credit card portfolios. They are identifying higher risk clients, and raising their interest rates to encourage them to go elsewhere. Here’s a typical story from a lady I met with this week, with her name changed to protect her privacy:
Jane is single, and has carried a large balance on her ABC Credit Card for many years. Over the years ABC has gradually increased her credit limit, and for many years they offered her what she believed was an attractive interest rate of 9.9%. Her minimum payment was about $430 per month, which was manageable based on her income. Last week she got her monthly statement, and the minimum required payment was increased to $750 per month.
She assumed that it was a mistake, so she called ABC Credit Card Company, and they advised her that no, it was not a mistake. Due to changes by the “regulatory board” her interest rate was now much higher, resulting in a higher minimum monthly payment.
When I met with her I explained that I had never heard of the “regulatory board” (although I am familiar with the new credit card regulations), but it’s easy to see what the credit card company is doing. The balance owing on her credit card was over $20,000; it is by far her largest debt. On her current income it is unlikely that she will ever be able to repay the debt. The credit card company realizes this, so they are attempting to get rid of her as a client before she defaults on the amount owing. Their hope is that her credit is still good enough to allow her to borrow from someone else, and repay them.
Unfortunately for Jane, she has no assets to pledge as collateral for a loan, and she has no family members that are able to co-sign for a loan. Based on a review of her situation, she decided that her best option is to file a consumer proposal, where she will offer her creditors approximately a third of the full amount owing, to be paid over the next four years (the amount offered varies based on your income and financial situation). With a consumer proposal Jane will no longer have any credit cards, and her credit score is damaged, but she will have a manageable monthly payment, and in four years (or less) she will be out of debt. For Jane, it’s the correct solution.
Is it the correct solution for the credit card company? It could be argued that they would be better off had they not raised her interest rate; she would have continued to muddle along, and they make have collected more money over the next few years. However, they decided that they wanted to reduce their risk, so Jane responded by filing a consumer proposal.
If you want to be proactive and deal with your credit card debt before your credit card company raises your rates, check out our free, interactive debt options calculator that tells you what it will cost to deal with your debts. The sooner you take action, the sooner you will be free of high credit card interest rates.
On this Trustees Talk site we attempt to comment on items in the news, and items of interest to Canadians. As we have discussed previously, in June 2010, the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy (OSB) initiated a Review of the Trustee Licensing Regulatory Framework . One of the items up for discussion was whether or not credit counsellors should be permitted to act as consumer proposal administrators.
On June 28 we published the thoughts of a trustee from Edmonton, Barton Goth, who asked the question: Consumer Proposals: A need for more administrators or a slippery slope? He concluded that the expertise of a licensed trustee is very valuable to anyone in financial trouble. While credit counsellors offer debt management plans, a consumer proposal is a legally binding, court approved procedure, so a higher standard of care is required.
We have reported on Debt Management Plans, and we encourage everyone to “run the numbers” to determine if you are using the proper solution to deal with your debt problems.
CACCS mistakenly refers to the trustee community operating as a monopoly; with 1,017 practicing trustees in Canada competing for work, nothing could be further from the truth. In essence the position of CACCS is analogous to a position that dentists have a monopoly over fixing teeth and surgeons have a monopoly over performing surgery, again these are not monopolies, but regulated (or self-regulated) professions, with a goal to have the most qualified professional provide the service to achieve the most desirable and predictable result. The dentist, surgeon and trustee all fit into this category;
CACCS mistakenly believes there is an access constraint within the consumer debtor market that fundamentally must be addressed by adding capacity. The issue, however, is not capacity, but quality; currently only trustees embody the depth of knowledge, breadth of experience and professional standards to meet the needs of consumer debtors within a Court-supervised restructuring process. As for capacity, we are dumbfounded by this CACCS assertion given that the economy has just experienced the worst economic downturn since the Depression and yet no consumer debtor went without access to a trustee to meet their needs through the provision of quality services;
CACCS asserts that its members are uniquely qualified to service the consumer debtor market. The very principle of a profession is that the individuals within it maintain a distinct expertise that allows them to perform a service to benefit an individual or entity—a service that is superior to that offered by all other providers. In the case of consumer debtors, it is trustees who have proven their ability based on depth of knowledge, breadth of experience, adherence to strict standards and oversight and ability to deliver a complete suite of services that differentiates them as the market leader in servicing the needs of financially distressed Canadians;
CACCS asserts that Debt Management Plans (DMP) and consumer proposals have many of the same characteristics. The truth is that DMP and consumer proposals are more dissimilar than similar. DMP are not Court-supervised restructuring proceedings; they do not require an administrator to balance the competing interests of the stakeholders; they do not require the administrator to opine on the reasonability of the Plan; they do not require an assessment of realization under alternative proceedings; they do not require consideration of all aspects of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, provincial legislation, jurisprudence and, most importantly, professional judgment; and they are not subject to regulatory oversight by the OSB and supervision of the Court; nor are the administrators subject to the strict standards of professional practice, code of conduct and by-laws of CAIRP. Are they the same – not really!
CACCS believes that the consumer debtor is a client for the purpose of a consumer proposal, in which CACCS articulates a role for negotiation with creditors based on a client’s ability to repay their debt, according to their situation and the best of their ability. Unfortunately, CACCS fundamentally misunderstands the role of an Officer of the Court, a trustee, and the conceptual requirements of the BIA, that while preserving the principles of rehabilitation and a fresh start for the consumer debtor, must also respect the responsibility of the consumer debtor to his or her creditors. The role of the trustee is complex, as it requires a balancing of the competing interests to achieve equity through the facilitation of an arrangement between a consumer debtor and his or her creditors, having regard to the personal circumstances of the consumer debtor. Is the fundamental mindshift easy? No. Is it a requirement? Absolutely.
CACCS asserts that, by granting credit counsellors status as administrators of consumer proposals, the current referral system between credit counsellors and trustees will be unnecessary in the future. CACCS asserts that such a referral stream is “problematic and very inefficient while presenting a major disservice to the Client. Specifically, once the Client’s trust has been gained and the clinical relationship has formed”. CAIRP asserts that the referral system remains a necessary and important aspect of the insolvency process, irrespective of the status of creditor counsellors to provide consumer proposal services. The assertion lacks situational recognition that consumer proposals are not the answer for all financially distressed individuals; it fails to recognize that the seeds of success are not embedded within every consumer proposal filed; it fails to recognize that client referrals from trustees to credit counsellors should be equally common based on an assessment of an individual’s personal circumstances; it fails to recognize that specialized counselling may be required to meet a consumer debtor’s needs, counselling beyond the ability of a trustee or a credit counsellor. CAIRP is concerned, based on the assertion of CACCS, that its members will see the consumer proposal legislation as the sole alternative to a DMP. Is the real risk referrals? No, it is practitioner perception; and
CACCS presents survey results that are at best self-serving, at worst libelous. The survey makes bold statements pertaining to trustees failing to meet their statutory duties in performing adequate assessments (in accordance with Directive 6R3). The survey presents a tainted picture, but lacks transparency and substantive and objective correlation between the methodology and results; it lacks any source reference or verifiable basis on which to conclude whether any comments are substantively supportable. It is the position of CAIRP that the entirety of the survey results is inappropriate for a public consultation by the OSB as to the Licensing framework. CAIRP will in the coming weeks hold CACCS to account.
Wow. Sounds like a war of words between CAIRP (the trustees) and CACCS (the credit counsellors).
I have already provided my thoughts on this issue, so I will not belabor the point further here, other than to say this: if you are experiencing financial trouble, who do you want to assist you? If you want a credit counsellor working for a not for profit credit counselling agency, then see a credit counsellor. If you want a consumer proposal administrator or a bankruptcy trustee, go see them. You have the choice.
I work with many excellent credit counsellors, and I regularly refer people to credit counsellors when I believe they are best able to provide a solution. In many cases a credit counsellor can provide a solution; in other cases a bankruptcy trustee’s services are required. I pride myself on always looking out for the best interests of the people who seek my help. If all advisors (trustees, credit counsellors, lawyers, accountants) focus on providing advice that is in the best interests of the person in debt, everyone will get the professional assistance they deserve.
Personal bankruptcy filings in Canada increased in June, 2010, according to personal bankruptcy statistics released by the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy. In the month of June 11,900 Canadians filed a bankruptcy or a proposal, up 7% from the 11,123 filings in May, 2010. Over the twelve months ending in June, 145,233 residents of Canada filed a proposal or bankruptcy, up 6.2% from the 136,749 who filed over the twelve months ending in June, 2009.
For the twelve months ended June 2010 the rate of filings increased everywhere but in Manitoba and Nunavut. Here’s a summary of the rate of increase in personal insolvencies (which includes bankruptcies and proposals) filed by consumers in Canada for the twelve months ended June, 2010:
What does the increase in insolvency filings in Canada mean for the average Canadian?
A quick review of the number shows that in virtually every province the number of insolvencies filed increased, but a more detailed look at the number reveals a very important trend: personal bankruptcy filings in Canada are actually decreasing, while the number of consumer proposals filed is increasing dramatically.
As noted above, over the last twelve months in Canada the total number of residents of Canada declaring insolvency increased by 6.2%, to 145,233. However, the number of personal bankruptcies actually decreased by 1.5%, from 106,933 to 105,360. So why are total filings up 6.2%? Because the number of proposals filed by consumers increased by an astounding 33.7%, from 29,816 to 39,873 filings in the last twelve months.
These numbers prove that the average Canadian is increasingly choosing to file a consumer proposal as an alternative to personal bankruptcy.
Why are consumer proposal filings increasing in Canada?
Bankruptcy numbers are falling, and consumer proposals are increasing for two reasons:
First, the economy in Canada is still showing weakness, which is why overall numbers are still increasing.
Second, and most importantly, in September 2009 the federal government implemented new bankruptcy rules that make filing bankruptcy a longer and more expensive process for many Canadians. The most significant new rule involves the calculation of surplus income. In simple terms, under the new surplus income and bankruptcy in Canada rules, if your family income is higher than the allowable limit set by the government, your bankruptcy will last for an extra year, and you will be required to make extra payments for that extra year. That means that a first time bankrupt, instead of being discharged in nine months, may not be discharged for 21 months.
Clearly, many Canadians with debt problems have analyzed their options, and have decided that a consumer proposal is a better option than bankruptcy for dealing with their debts, and that’s why consumer proposal numbers continue to increase.
With a consumer proposal you make one fixed monthly payment, and that payment doesn’t increase even if your income increases. You know exactly what you are required to pay to discharge your debts, and that’s a great feeling.
The consumer proposal is probably the least known of the processes to deal with overwhelming debt, but it is the mechanism that has the greatest capacity for good given our current economic environment. Let’s face it, right now the number one biggest risk to the Canadian economy isn’t the high dollar, it isn’t our level of productivity, it isn’t the strength of our largest trading partner – it is the state of our personal finances.
Barton Goth, Bankruptcy Trustee
After that bold statement I must insert my disclosure. My name is Barton Goth, I am a licensed Trustee in Bankruptcy and Consumer Proposal Administrator here in Edmonton. So I definitely have a bias. However, this statement is not made based solely on observations made in my daily practice, but based on the current state of our overall economy. Let us review:
• During the 2000s, the average Canadian’s asset growth was less than half the pace of the 1990’s and the growth in debt was twice as rapid (Roger Suave, The Current State of Family Finances 2009)
• In recent years household debt has surged three time faster than income and now stands at a record high of more than $1-trillion (Canada’s Brewing Debt Storm, The Globe and Mail Apr. 16, 2010, by Paul Waldie and Steve Ladurantaye)
• The average Canadian owes about $1.47 for every dollar of disposable income (Certified General Accountants Association of Canada, CIBC Economics, National Bank economics and Statistics Canada)
• For many years, debt was rising about 2.5 percentage points faster per year than income, this gap had widened to 4 to 5 percentage points by 2005 and rising by approximately 9 per cent in 2008. (Defusing Canada’s debt bomb, Globe and Mail Apr. 17, 2010, by Don Drummond, Chief economist, TD Bank Financial Group)
As a result of these alarming trends I think the traditional focus of our finances is going to have to move away from the saving and investment side of things, and toward dealing with the debt that more and more people are becoming burdened by. This is why a consumer proposal currently is one of the most important financial tools available to Canadian families. It is a tool that gives Canadians the ability to regain control of their finances before they are forced to consider a bankruptcy. As a result, I predict that we will continue to see a major increase in the number of proposals filed as people begin to realize the gravity of their financial position and begin to investigate what can been done to resolve these difficulties.
For those of you unfamiliar with consumer proposals, you are not alone. The idea of a consumer proposal is relatively new (first introduced into the Canadian insolvency legislation in 1992), but has provided a way for many Canadians over the years with a middle of the road option that contains many of the advantages associated with a bankruptcy, while avoiding some of the more significant disadvantages. A consumer proposal is especially advantageous for those people who cannot afford to pay their debts in full but have enough money coming in each month that realistically they should not be forced into the filing of a bankruptcy, a reality that an increasing number of Canadians are faced with each day.
The consumer proposal is one of the options available through the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act that provides a court sanctioned way to negotiate a settlement with your unsecured creditors (i.e. credit cards, personal loans, taxes etc.). There are many advantages to filing a consumer proposal. For instance, in a proposal you do not automatically lose any of your assets as you would in a bankruptcy. You are able to have a reduced impact on your credit over the long term than filing bankruptcy, and most importantly, you are able to bring the payments on your existing debt to a manageable level that will fit in your budget. At the same time, because the consumer proposal is a court sanctioned settlement, you only need a majority of your creditors to cooperate with the proposal and you benefit from court protection which mandates that all your unsecured creditors must participate in the proposal and can no longer collect on or charge any interest on these debts.
At a time when the average family is faced with waning savings, growing debt, aggressive lending practices and an uncertain economy, the consumer proposal may prove to be one of the most needed of all financial tools, and one that will assist many families in an effort to regain control of their finances and truly put their house in order.
If your one of the many Canadians who are currently struggling with your finances I have one word of advice, act now and schedule a time to review your finances with a consumer proposal administrator . If you are proactive, rather than reactive, you will be able to catch things early. The earlier you recognize the difficulties you face and the earlier you act, the more likely you will be able to qualify to file a consumer proposals and the quicker you will be able to regain control of your finances.
The Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy (“OSB”) is currently conducting a policy review. One topic they are considering is whether or not they should implement specialized licenses for bankruptcy trustees. Currently all bankruptcy trustees in Canada must go through a very rigorous educational program. Most trustees have a university degree, many have an accounting background, and all are required to pass five levels of courses (with each level taking approximately one year to complete), culminating with a final one and a half hour oral exam. All trustees must have a breadth of knowledge, and must understand both personal and commercial insolvency issues. The OSB is now considering graduated licenses: consumer insolvency only, commercial only, and proposal administrators. Frankly, I’m concerned that these potential changes are being actively considered.
We operate a consumer bankruptcy practice in central and southwestern Ontario. You might think that we would be pleased to see consumer licenses and proposal administrator licenses issued as these would cover 90% of our practice. We’re not – our concern focuses on the fact that there are very few sections of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“Act”) that persons operating our type of practice do not need to “know”.
I will concede that there are not many personal bankruptcy estates that have to deal with complicated commercial issues like commercial leases, or 30 day goods, or the Wage Earner Protection Program. Having made that concession, these issues do arise and the trustee on the file needs to be knowledgeable and experienced enough to deal with the “unexpected”. If the OSB intends to issue limited scope licenses then a policy needs to be developed to deal with estates that develop into types that the specialized trustee has not been licensed to handle. It is not difficult to imagine an estate that starts out quite simple and straightforward that somehow transforms itself into a highly technical, highly complicated file. A self employed person, or someone involved in a legal dispute prior to filing are two possible candidates for this type of transition.
Further, the assessment requirements currently set out in the Act require the trustee performing the assessment to present a debtor with all of their alternatives. If a person with a specialized license doesn’t’t have a good working knowledge of all aspects of the Act they will not be able to comply with this requirement. If they cannot comply with the assessment requirement debtors may be counseled into the “wrong” solution for them.
My concerns thus far seem to deal with personal insolvencies – what about issuing limited commercial licenses? In my experience the level of general knowledge about the Act is higher for those trustees working in the personal insolvency area. This is based on my experience hiring and training trustees and students with commercial and consumer backgrounds. The consumer practice requires a much broader understanding of the Act. The law is the same for both types of files – the difference seems to be on the volume of estates. A consumer practice is often a volume business – it is therefore more likely you will encounter more unusual situations. A commercial file is almost always larger and more complicated, but in the most complicated commercial files a trustee is not working alone – they have other professionals, including other trustees and lawyers, that they can call on for assistance.
I would not object to specializations once a trustee license has been granted. In other words, if after someone has demonstrated the knowledge and skills to be licensed as a trustee and they decide to limit their practice to certain types of insolvencies, they may do so. Of course they may already do so simply be restricting the types of files they accept.
If the purpose of these specialized licenses is to make it easier to obtain a trustee license then I have to question the wisdom of such a course. At a time when the world is becoming more complicated, why would you simplify the requirements to deal with complicated financial situations? If the OSB is anticipating a shortage of trustees then the correct solution is not to make it easier to become a trustee, the correct solution is to make it more attractive to obtain a license. The market will then correct for any shortfall.
In short, I don’t support the idea of specialized licenses, in particular if the goal is simply to create more trustees. There are better ways to achieve that goal, if that is the true objective of this policy.
If simplified, specialized licenses were to be created, my top ten predictions for what will happen if specialized consumer proposal licenses are issued by the OSB are as follows:
1) The number of persons applying for these specialized licenses will exceed the number of persons pursuing a full trustee in bankruptcy licence (why pursue a full licence when you can obtain a licence to provide the most lucrative services that trustees provide).
2) Over time the number of fully licensed trustees will diminish to the point that there will be serious access to service issues for anyone requiring the services of a full trustee.
3) Dollars spent on advertising “debt relief without filing bankruptcy” will increase dramatically. The total number of insolvency filings will increase. Initially the number of consumer proposal filings will increase, but within a few years bankruptcy filings (assuming people can find a full trustee) will also increase as proposals fail.
4) Credit losses will increase – persons that might not previously have considered a proposal will be enticed by the less emotionally charged services of a proposal administrator as opposed to a trustee (there are in fact trustees now advertising themselves as proposal administrators for this very reason).
5) Abuses currently in evidence from non-regulated “debt consultants” will now become muddied with these non-trustee proposal providers.
6) Many debt consultants may attempt to obtain these specialized licenses not fully a appreciating (or intending to provide) the level of service and control that holding funds in trust requires.
7) Failures of these new limited service providers will erode the publics’ trust in the system – currently the insolvency industry is not well known or understood; in the future these failures will display the industry in a less than favorable light.
The not for profits currently providing debt management solutions will either fold or become proposal administrators, effectively removing one form of debt relief from the market.
9) Unless specifically prohibited, law firms may move into this service area just as they have moved into collection activities, further confusing the public.
10) OSB resources will not be sufficient to properly monitor and control the persons and firms providing these proposal only services.
In summary, I strongly believe that debtors experiencing debt problems should have access to advice from well educated and highly experienced professionals. Would you rather see a doctor that went to medical school for one year, or a doctor with five years of additional training and many more years of practical experience? Personally, I would prefer to deal with the most knowledgeable professional possible, and so I believe that granting fully qualified licenses to trustees is the best interests of the public.
The Office of Superintendent of Bankruptcy is a special operating agency associated with Industry Canada, part of the federal government. The “OSB” regulates bankruptcy trustees (the people who administer bankruptcies and proposals, and ensure they comply with all aspects of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act). As the regulator, the OSB will often seek the input of various stakeholders to determine if changes to their regulations of trustees are required, and they have just announced a “Trustee Licensing Consultation” to review various aspects of insolvency regulation in Canada.
One of the items being considered is whether or not to allow non-trustees to serve as administrators of consumer proposals. As our regular readers will be aware, a consumer proposal is a legally binding settlement negotiated between a debtor and their creditors, with the assistance of a consumer proposal administrator. With the exception of the province of Nova Scotia, where provincial representatives may administer consumer proposals, all consumer proposal administrators in Canada are licensed bankruptcy trustees.
The issue being considered is this: should the OSB allow non-trustees to serve as administrators of consumer proposals?
Ms. Ross presented the argument that accredited credit counsellors (in addition to licensed trustees) should also be permitted to administer consumer proposals. She gave three main reasons:
To eliminate the “monopolistic approach that limits access to the consumer proposal”, since only licensed trustees can act as administrators;
To “provide Canadians with equality of access”; and
To increase OACCS member agencies revenue to allow them to provide their other services.
What’s my opinion?
First, let me start by stating my bias: I am a licensed bankruptcy trustee, and my firm files many thousands of bankruptcies and consumer proposals each year, so obviously I have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo; it’s what I do for a living.
Second, let me also say that I have personally met Ms. Ross on a number of occasions, and I have a great deal of respect and admiration for her, and for her organization. On a daily basis I interact with many credit counsellors who work at OACCS member agencies. I refer debtors to credit counsellors when I believe a credit counsellor can best solve their problems, and I refer debtors to OACCS member agencies for the counselling required when they file a bankruptcy or a consumer proposal.
In my twenty plus years in the insolvency business, I can honestly state that the accredited, not for profit credit counsellors I have worked with have all worked very hard in the best interests of their clients, and I would never question their competence or integrity.
I agree that these are difficult times to be a not for profit credit counsellor. As Ms. Ross correctly points out, many years ago the government provided funding directly to not for profit credit counselling agencies. When that funding stopped, as Ms. Ross eloquently stated:
Some agencies were forced to close, others narrowed their service operation and the larger agencies continued to operate by finding alternative revenue streams. Revenue came from voluntary fair-share contributions from creditors, educational seminars for employee groups, the sale of educational material and the bankruptcy counselling that we do.
Over the years not for profit credit counsellors began to offer Debt Management Plans, or DMPs, where creditors (like the banks and credit card companies) would agree to make a “fair share” contribution to the work of the counselling agency to fund their efforts. In a DMP the creditors are paid in full, without interest, so a successful DMP is good for the banks, because they get back all of their money, and it’s good for the debtor, since they don’t have to pay interest, and they are given time to pay.
Unfortunately a DMP is generally not as good a solution for most people as is a consumer proposal. Again, to quote Ms. Ross:
The debt management plans, DMPs, available through credit counselling provide consumers with a workable option to repay debt. Most people who undertake DMPs are technically insolvent, or close to it, but are determined to honour their credit obligations and repay their debt. DMPs are negotiated with creditors to provide full debt repayment over an extended time frame. Upon acceptance by the creditors, member agencies manage and administer these DMPs and are authorized to operate trust accounts to facilitate payments to creditors.
Voluntary DMPs do not provide court protection for consumers, nor mandate creditors to stop charging interest on the debt, nor mandate a specified time frame for creditors to respond to debt repayment proposals. They do not mandate that creditors accept a pro-rated share of the debtor’s ability to repay, nor do they address complex entitlement issues that may require a more formal plan.
On the other hand, consumer proposals are a court-supervised option to repay debt. A consumer proposal is an offer made by a debtor to their creditors to modify their payments in an effort to settle the debt. Under a proposal, a debtor may offer to pay a lower amount each month over a longer period of time or to pay a percentage of what they owe. A significant benefit to consumers of a consumer proposal is protection by the courts from unsecured creditors. This is important because it prevents creditors from taking legal steps, such as seizing property or garnishing wages, to recover debts.
I agree with Ms. Ross. A DMP is not binding on the creditors. If you have five creditors, and only three of them accept the DMP, the other two can still attempt to sue you and garnishee your wages. In a consumer proposal, if the majority of the dollar value of creditors agree, all creditors must accept the proposal. It is legally binding.
It is easy to see the problem faced by not for profit credit counsellors. The government withdrew their financial support many years ago, forcing the closure of many agencies. Debtors who need the services of not for profit credit counsellors generally don’t have the money to pay for those services, so it is difficult for agencies to cover their operating costs. DMPs were a great way for not for profit credit counselling agencies to generate revenue to cover their costs (through the “fair share” contributions made by creditors), but as debtors realize that a consumer proposal is often a superior alternative, the percentage of debtors filing a DMP has fallen, resulting in reduced revenue for credit counselling agencies.
Realizing that consumer proposals are the superior alternative, many not for profit credit counselling agencies began working with trustees to offer consumer proposals to their clients. They would meet the debtor, asses their situation, gather the necessary financial information, determine their debt load, and then prepare the files for the trustee. The trustee then only had to “show up” at the credit counsellors office to witness the debtor signing the paperwork. The trustee would pay the credit counsellor for their work, and it was a “win-win” for everyone. The credit counselling agency earned some revenue, and the trustee had access to a steady stream of clients without having to do very much work.
Unfortunately, the OSB has rules against this approach. Federal law requires a licensed trustee to personally assess the debtor before they file a bankruptcy or proposal. Directive No. 6R3 Assessment of an Individual Debtor, requires the trustee to personally meet with the debtor and review their assets, liabilities and income, and to review all of the options available for dealing with their debt problems.
Section 49 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Rules states that:
49. Trustees shall not, directly or indirectly, pay to a third party a commission, compensation or other benefit in order to obtain a professional engagement or accept, directly or indirectly from a third party, a commission, compensation or other benefit for referring work relating to a professional engagement.
Trustees therefore cannot pay a referral fee to a credit counsellor for assessing a debtor, or helping to prepare the file, as described in more detail in the OSB position paper on Referral Agreements between Trustees and a Third Party.
Unfortunately once the OSB realized what was happening, they had no choice but to enforce the rules and stop these practices, as noted by Ms. Ross:
For some time, the larger of the credit counselling services had prepared files for consumer proposals on behalf of certain trustees. This included statutory counselling, interviewing and assessing the debtor, and confirming the debt load. The Superintendent of Bankruptcy has recently determined that it is incompatible with the trustee’s responsibility to outsource this work. This decision has affected our agency’s revenue to the detriment of its ability to provide broader services as well as BIA proposals.
I both sympathize and empathize with the plight of accredited not for profit credit counselling agencies. They are trying to help people deal with their debts. Who else is there to fight for the little guy (which is the reason Ted Michalos and me, Doug Hoyes, went to Ottawa to testify in the first place, as I noted in my opening remarks):
Mr. Michalos and I and our bankruptcy trustees spend each day meeting with people in financial distress. These are real people who, in many cases, have lost their jobs, gone through a marriage breakup or suffered through an illness; and after these personal tragedies, they are faced with insurmountable debt.
These are not bad people. We believe it is important that when parliamentarians draft bankruptcy legislation, they remember that real people are affected.
About 100,000 Canadians file bankruptcy or a proposal each year.
Unfortunately, that group is not organized and so probably will not have anyone to speak on their behalf before this committee. We hope that our testimony will highlight some of the concerns of the average bankrupt.
Banks want you to borrow money on their high interest rate credit cards. Finance companies want you to get a high interest rate loan. Payday loan companies want you to get a very high interest payday loan. They all spend millions of dollars in advertising each year to encourage you to borrow and consume.
Not for profit credit counsellors fight against this onslaught of debt. They spend many hours each day helping people work out a budget. They provide education programs to help the average Canadian understand the world of debt, and how to avoid it. They are the only voice in the wilderness telling you to spend less, not more.
But they can’t pay the rent in their offices, and pay their staff salaries, and pay for the supplies to help you make a budget if they have no revenue.
And that’s one of the reasons why, as Ms. Ross freely admitted, that not for profit credit counsellors want to be given permission to administer consumer proposals. It would give them a source of revenue so that they can continue their good work. Who could argue with that?
I certainly don’t argue with doing good work. I agree that someone has to tell Canadians to spend within their means, and to stop borrowing to consume.
Unfortunately I can’t agree with the notion that credit counsellors should be permitted to act as consumer proposal administrators as a way to increase their revenue.
My main objection to allowing non-licensed trustees to administer consumer proposals is that it is a government requirement that the trustee, as stated in Directive No. 6R3 Assessment of an Individual Debtor, must advise the debtor of all of their options, and the implications of all of their options. That means that as a trustee I must explain to all debtors the ramifications of doing nothing, do a debt settlement, getting a debt consolidation loan, doing a debt management plan through a not for profit or for profit credit counsellor, and doing a consumer proposal or personal bankruptcy. I can explain the implications of a bankruptcy, because I am a licensed bankruptcy trustee. I fully understand the process, so I can explain it. How can a non-trustee have the same level of knowledge as a trustee?
The Directive requires me to explain: “transfers, preferences and settlements of real or personal property of the debtor.” Is that something all credit counsellors understand? Do all credit counsellors understand the new surplus income rules, and how they are calculated in practice? Do credit counsellors understand the discharge process, and the court process, in a consumer proposal or a bankruptcy?
Credit counsellors would argue that they can learn all of those things, and I agree. The best way to become knowledgeable about the entire process is to become a trustee. Currently the average trustee has a university degree, many years of practical experience, and they have passed a series of very complicated courses that take on average five or more years to complete. It takes a long time to become a trustee. But, if a credit counsellor wants to become a trustee, they can find a sponsor, enroll in the program, and become a trustee, and then they can administer consumer proposals.
I believe this discussion is missing the real issue. As Ms. Ross correctly stated, not for profit credit counselling agencies are suffering from declining revenue, which is why they want to administer consumer proposals. The solution is not to make credit counsellors into consumer proposal administrators; the solution is to find a way to increase their revenue, doing what they do best.
What credit counsellors do best is credit counselling. They are highly skilled in providing advice on budgeting and money management. They are excellent educators. They should concentrate on what they do best. But how do they generate the revenue to cover their costs to provide this un-biased money management education?
The most obvious answer is through the revenue they receive from the credit counselling that they provide to individuals that have filed a bankruptcy or consumer proposal in Canada. Every individual that files bankruptcy or a consumer proposal is required to attend two credit counselling sessions, as described in Directive No. 1R2, Counselling in Insolvency Matters. Many trustees in Canada, including my firm, Hoyes, Michalos & Associates, outsource the majority of our credit counselling sessions to external counsellors. We do this because we want our debtors to get the best possible counselling so that they learn proper money management skills, so that they don’t have any future money problems.
Rule 131 of the Bankruptcy & Insolvency Act Rules prescribes the rate that is to be paid for the two required counselling sessions: $85 for each individual session, or $25 per person if the counselling is provided in a group session. In other words, a trustee may “outsource” the counselling requirement to a licensed credit counsellor, and the trustee may pay the credit counsellor, from the funds in the estate, $85 for each individual credit counselling session.
While $85 may sound like a lot of money, it isn’t. Many counselling sessions can take an hour or more, and that $85 must cover the counsellor’s wages, and all other overheads (like rent, administrative costs to book the appointment, training costs, etc.). Even worse, that $85 amount has remained unchanged for many years. $85 in 1994 is the equivalent of more than $115 in equivalent dollars today.
So the first, and most obvious solution, is to increase the amount that is paid for credit counselling sessions. Increasing the rate to $115 per session would bring the tariff back to where it was in 1994. I would go one step further: I would increase the rate to $125, or even $150 per session. Those increased resources would provide greater revenue to not for profit credit counselling agencies, since trustees would have more resources to pay them.
In addition to increasing the rate, I would increase the number of credit counselling sessions required.
Currently the first session must be done in the first 60 days of the bankruptcy or proposal, with the second session completed before the 210th day. That timing makes sense for a bankruptcy that lasts for nine months, but it may not be sufficient for a bankruptcy that lasts for 21, 24, or 36 months, as they often now do under the new bankruptcy rules. It’s also not sufficient for a consumer proposal that can last for up to five years.
So, my second suggestion is that for all bankruptcies that are automatically extended past nine months, a third counselling session should be added, to occur at some point in the second year. In addition, for all consumer proposals that last for greater than twelve months, a third counselling session should be added.
This new third session could focus on a review of the techniques learned in the first two sessions, and could include a review of the budget the debtor should be keeping during their insolvency process. This extra counselling session could be used to review different methods of saving (like the new Tax Free Savings Account), and could cover more advanced budgeting techniques. Perhaps this new counselling session could include an interactive web based component, allowing debtors to track their budget information on line. There are many tools that already do this, such as Calendar Budget, so it would not be that difficult to develop the content for the new third credit counselling session. Credit Canada, a not for profit credit counselling agency, has created a Financial Coaching Series that costs $120 per session for six sessions, so the expertise and content already exists for this extra counselling session. In fact, I would seek the input of the not for profit credit counsellors, including the OACCS, to help design this third session.
By raising the counselling rate from $85 to $125, and by adding a third session, the revenue generated by each personal bankruptcy or consumer proposal would increase from $170 to up to $375. That increase in revenue would go a long way towards helping not for profit credit counsellors help the people they want to help.
Is this the perfect solution? Probably not. I’m sure with further consultation even better strategies can be developed. But with this approach the real problem of reduced revenue for not for profit credit counsellors can be solved, without creating a new problem of having non trustees administering consumer proposals.
First, and most obviously, a creditor would accept a proposal if they expect to generate more money in a proposal than they would generate in a bankruptcy. Obviously if they were going to get less money in a proposal, they would not accept it. Here’s a simple example:
Joe has $50,000 in debt. He supports his wife and three children, and after paying his normal living expenses like rent, utilities, food, transportation and other costs Joe only has $500 per month available to repay his debts. The minimum payments on his credit cards and other debts are $1,300 per month, so he is falling behind.
Joe met with a trustee, and the trustee calculated that based on Joe’s income and family size he would be required to pay $600 per month in surplus income payments, and his bankruptcy would last for 21 months, so Joe would pay approximately $12,600 during his bankruptcy. He’s worried that he won’t be able to afford the $600 per month in payments.
Joe’s trustee suggest an alternative: instead of going bankrupt, Joe could offer a consumer proposal of $300 per month for five years, or $18,000 in total.
Obviously Joe is paying $18,000 in a proposal, instead of $12,600 in a bankruptcy, but Joe is happy with that plan. He wants to avoid bankruptcy, and he wants to repay as much as he can to his creditors, and for him, $300 per month in a consumer proposal is much more manageable than $600 per month in a bankruptcy. Joe decides to file a proposal.
In this example the creditors are likely to accept the proposal because they are getting more in the proposal than they would get under any other alternative.
Whether or not the creditors actually accept the proposal will depend on a number of factors, including Joe’s prior history with the creditor, and the individual criteria that each creditor uses to decide on how they will vote on a proposal. A consumer proposal administrator can explain the likely chances of success for you at your no charge initial consultation.
Second, most creditors want to be seen as “helping the little guy.” Big banks and credit card companies in Canada don’t want to get a reputation for refusing all reasonable settlement arrangements, so if a consumer proposal is reasonable, most of them will accept it.
Finally, creditors want certainty. In a bankruptcy the amount of money they will realize will increase or decrease depending on the bankrupt’s income during the process. In a consumer proposal, once the proposal is approved, the payment amounts are fixed. There is certainty. Each creditor knows what they will get. That’s another example of how a proposal is a “win-win” solution. You have certainty because you know what you are required to pay each month, and your creditor knows what they will be receiving. There are no surprises.
Is a consumer proposal the right solution for you? The answer depends on the size of your debts, who you owe the money to, what you own, and what you can afford to pay each month. Try our free debt options calculator to review your options, and then contact a trustee to arrange for a free, no obligation initial consultation.
This is a website devoted to discussing all aspects of bankruptcy in Canada, but today we will discuss the opposite of bankruptcy. Today I present my Top Three Ways to Avoid Bankruptcy in Canada.
Why would I, a bankruptcy trustee, want you to avoid bankruptcy? Because I strongly believe that bankruptcy should be a last resort, a strategy to be used only after all all other options have been evaluated and eliminated. I take every opportunity to encourage all Canadians to explore all financial options before making a decision. This week I was interviewed by the Globe and Mail for a story on How to Avoid Filing for Bankruptcy, and again I made the comment that bankruptcy is a last resort.
So what are my Top Three Strategies for Avoiding Bankruptcy in Canada?
3 Get help from family or friends. This is perhaps the most over-looked strategy. I have had hundreds of people over the years tell me that they are so embarrassed about their financial situation that they are afraid to discuss it with their family or friends. I’m not suggesting you should tell everyone you know that you are having financial trouble, but reaching out to your family or closest friends is often a good solution. Many times I have encouraged people, particularly younger people, to talk to their parents. While their parents may be disappointed that they are in financial trouble, they will often also try to work with them to solve their problems.
I’m not suggesting that you should borrow money from family or friends. Borrowing money is a good way to lose friends, and an even better way to make Christmas dinner very uncomfortable. What I am suggesting is that you should ask for advice from your family and close friends.
If you don’t ask, you don’t know how people can help. Perhaps a relative can help you find a better job, and with more income you may be able to repay your debts on your own. Perhaps a friend has an extra room at their house; you could rent a room and reduce your living expenses, which will free up cash to help you deal with your debts. Moving back in with your parents may not be fun, but as a temporary measure while you get back on your feet it may not be a bad solution.
Even if they can’t help you directly, getting some advice and empathy from a trusted family member may help you decide on your next steps.
2 My second best strategy for avoiding bankruptcy is to fix it yourself. In fact, this is the strategy used by the vast majority of Canadians who experience money problems. If friends and family can’t help, and if you don’t want to file bankruptcy, you need to take matters into your own hands, and attempt to fix the problems on your own. Here’s how:
Start by making a personal budget. Your budget should list all of your expenses each month. Some will be easy, like your rent and car insurance, because they are the same each month. To ensure that you don’t forget any, review your bank statements and credit card bills for the last few months to see where you spend your money. That should give you an accurate picture of your monthly spending. There are lots of on-line budget tools that can help, like Calendar Budget, an on-line tool where you enter your purchases each day, on a calendar. There are lots of budgeting tips on line as well.
Once you have a list of your expenses, review it. What can you cut? Can you reduce or eliminate your cable bill? Car pool to work? Make your own coffee? Once you see your expenses on a list, you can take steps to cut your expenses. That will tell you how much money you can free up to repay your debts faster.
Your debts are the final piece of the puzzle: Make a list of all of your debts, and arrange them from highest interest rate to lowest, so that the top of the list has your most expensive debts. Those are the debts you want to repay first.
Now, fix it yourself by making a plan to take whatever cash you can free up each month and apply that to your highest interest rate debts first. As one debt gets paid off, use that extra money to attack the principal on the next highest debt, and so on until all of your debts are repaid. If you can keep your expenses as low as possible, you may be able to repay all of your debts on your own.
1 But what if, even with drastically reducing your expenses, you still have more debts than you can repay on your own? You need outside help, and that brings me to my top strategy for avoiding bankruptcy in Canada: filing a consumer proposal. A consumer proposal is a legally binding deal that a consumer proposal administrator negotiates with your creditors. If it’s accepted, you make one monthly payment, your debts are dealt with, and you avoid bankruptcy.
A proposal will work best if you have a job, or a stable source of income, so that you can commit to monthly payments. The good news is that, in most cases, a consumer proposal can be negotiated for less that the full amount owing on your debts, and you avoid bankruptcy.
Which option is best for you? Or do you have no choice but to file bankruptcy? Start with some research: Read our articles on consumer proposals, or read questions posted on our anonymous question and answer blog about consumer proposals. You can even join our on-line support group that allows you to discuss consumer proposals and other options. These posts are real, and people just like you post both the pros and cons about proposals, so you can hear both sides of the story to help you make a decision.
My advice: talk to your family and friends, but also talk to an expert. A consumer proposal administrator and bankruptcy trustee will give you a free, no obligation initial consultation to help you make an informed decision, so do your research, contact a trustee today, and make an informed decision.
On March 27, 2010 the world observed Earth Hour. At 8:30 pm local time everyone was encouraged to turn off their lights as a statement against climate change. So what does Earth Hour have to do with bankruptcy in Canada? The answer depends on how you perceive the value of Earth Hour.
Many people will tell you that it’s a great event. It forces us to think about the environment, and actually do something. Many people organize parties with their friends, so they can observe together.
Personally, I’m not convinced. Getting in my car and driving to a party, and burning candles made from petroleum products, and eating food that was shipped in from around the world probably doesn’t really do much to save the environment. Why? Because what I do for one hour per year is irrelevant compared to what I do the other 8,759 hours per year. Change can’t be for one hour; real change is permanent.
If you really believe that humans are causing climate change, and you really want to do something about, do something more than turning off your lights for one hour. Sell your car, and move to a place where you can walk to work, or ride your bicycle. Only eat locally grown foods. Get rid of electronics in your home that draw power when they are in standby mode, like your television (or at least put them on a power bar and shut the power when they are not in use).
Real change is very difficult, which is why we resist real change. It’s easy to shut my lights off for one hour. It’s more of a challenge to give up my car.
It’s easy to write a letter to government and tell them to pass laws to make everyone else conserve energy. It’s much more difficult to actual take responsibility for my own actions and make changes in my life.
And that’s the point: change is hard.
As a bankruptcy trustee in Canada I meet with and talk to dozens of Canadians every week who are in financial trouble. Many of them lost their jobs, or went through a costly divorce, or perhaps had a medical problem that caused them to lose time at work. When your income is reduced, to stay financially afloat you have to cut your expenses.
But cutting expenses is hard.
It’s hard to move to a smaller house when you can no longer afford a bigger house.
It’s hard to give up your second car, or to go from a newer leased car to a less expensive used car.
But if you want real change in your life, you must make the tough decisions.
There is no “Money Hour”. You can’t just stay home and not spend money for one hour and assume that all of your money problems will be solved. You must make real, lasting change, over a long period of time. It will be difficult. It will be a challenge. But it will be worth it, because you will transform your life from the problem of spending more than you make, to actually having money in your savings account.
Imagine how great it would be to not have any debt payments, and to not get any telephone calls from collection agents. It is possible, but only if you take real action now. So here’s my advice:
Start by making a personal budget. Write down everything you will spend money on in the next six months. Then, start cutting. Start making your own coffee. Cancel your expensive telephone and cable service, or at least cut back to the basic essentials.
If you have too much debt, make a plan today to eliminate that debt. If you can cut expenses, than you can repay your debts on your own. If not, you may need to file a consumer proposal, or even consider personal bankruptcy.
posted by Doug Hoyes @ 
The not for profits currently providing debt management solutions will either fold or become proposal administrators, effectively removing one form of debt relief from the market.
