Why do Canadians have problems with money? Why do we have too much debt, and no savings? Obviously the prolonged recession has not helped, but I believe one of the reasons we get into financial trouble is that we simply don’t fully understand money, credit and debt. In Canada, financial education is not a priority in our schools, or for adults once they are out of school.
That’s why I think that Credit Education Week in Canada is a great idea. It’s one week in the year when we can take the time to focus on money, and educating ourselves about credit.
Credit Education Week Canada 2010 starts today, November 15, and runs for the week, until November 19, 2010. This year’s edition is Canada’s fourth annual Credit Education Week, and the focus this year is on newcomers, and the theme is The Language of Money.
That’s an interesting concept: The Language of Money. As a bankruptcy trustee in Canada, I am very aware of how we use language to describe money, and our financial situation.
Some words are complicated; people get confused with words like “creditor” and “debtor”, and there’s little doubt that that confusion makes it difficult for people to talk about money. We don’t want to admit that we don’t know what the big words mean, so we just don’t talk about it.
(For the record, a “creditor” is someone you owe money to, like a bank or credit card company. A “debtor” is you, the person who owes the money).
Some words are easy, but they have hidden meanings. For example, what is a credit card? That’s easy, you say. A credit card is something that we use to buy things; it gives us access to credit. We all know that credit is a good thing. We all know that you should “give credit where credit is due”. When someone does something good, we should give them credit for a job well done. Credit is good.
Of course a credit card is neither good nor bad. It’s an inanimate object; it’s just a hunk of plastic. It’s how you use it that makes it good or bad.
But that’s the hidden meaning: we use the word credit card to convince ourselves that credit is good.
What would happen if we called it a debt card. Calling it a debt card makes sense; when you buy something with plastic you are incurring debt. You now have a debt that you have to pay at the end of the month, and if you don’t you will pay interest.
See the difference words can make? Calling something a debt card educates us on what it really is, and what it really does.
So, this week, as you read about Credit Education Week in Canada, pay attention to the language you use to describe money. It may give you a new perspective on how money works, and it may make it easier for you to spend less, save more, and deal with your debt.
If you can’t attend any Credit Education Week events, then educate yourself on the various methods for dealing with debt, including:
Pay off your debts on your own. Make a budget, cut your expenses, and pay off your debts yourself. This works well if you owe a manageable amount.
If you can afford to pay off your debts in full, but just need a break on the interest, credit counselling is an option.
If you can’t afford to pay off your debts in full, but you can afford to pay back something, a consumer proposal is a logical option. Most credit card companies will accept a reasonable consumer proposal.
Use our free debt options calculator to educate yourself on the various options for dealing with debt.
You have the power to educate yourself, so use Credit Education Week as your opportunity to educate yourself about credit and debt. It will be time well spent.
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.
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.
posted by Doug Hoyes @ 