Charles Phelan

On September 25, 2008, the Federal Trade Commission held a workshop on the debt settlement industry. Representatives of the credit card industry, consumer protection groups, the credit counseling industry, the debt settlement industry, and the FTC were present at the day-long event.

Over the past few years, concern has mounted within various state and Federal regulatory agencies that the debt settlement industry is harmful to consumers. And the purpose of the workshop was to provide a forum for discussion of different viewpoints on the industry. A transcript of the workshop is available directly from the FTC website.

I’m not going to blog about the whole content of the conference, a lot of which pertained to such matters as fee structures, regulatory compliance, deceptive advertising practices, and so on. What I want to focus on, however, is a statement made by Ms. Virginia O’Neill, from the American Bankers Association. I’ve been arguing for years that, to put it as bluntly as possible, the debt settlement industry is unnecessary because consumers can obtain the exact same (or better) settlements by negotiating on their own. Yet time after time, consumers quote the typical settlement company sales pitch. “They told me they bundle their settlements, and I’ll get a better deal by going through them, since they’re settling all the time with these banks.” I already debunked this sales claim in a previous post. And today, in further support of my position, I will quote Ms. O’Neill at length:

“When the FTC asked us to look into it [i.e., the debt settlement industry], what we did to get sort of an industry view was to reach out to members of several working groups, our payment systems and our credit card council and raise discussions with them about the things that FTC wanted to hear. I also had very detailed one-on-one conversations with seven large credit card banks. My point is to let you know what I am saying I do believe is representative of the industry view on this. Obviously all the banks aren’t in lock step but my remarks today represent a majority opinion. Their message was very simple and it is that they do not see debt settlement industry as a necessary player. They see it as very harmful. Both to the consumer and I know you’ll be less concerned with this, but to the bank. They don’t see it as providing any value. They want above all to come out of this with y’all understanding that the banks when they agree to a settlement that has been presented by a debt settlement company it is no different than an agreement that they might have reached had that customer come to them directly. The banks do not — when they consider a person who is in hardship, they take a very careful look at that person’s individual hardship, their finances and their accounts and that’s what they make their decision based on applying their own parameters and policies. It doesn’t matter that a debt settlement company is in there. The analysis never changes. So this notion that a consumer needs to go to debt settlement that they can’t possibly get the same kind of a deal is just simply false.”

There’s a lot more, but I’m sure you see my point. I’ve been saying the same thing all along. But I would add to the above. It DOES matter that a settlement company is involved, but it matters in the WRONG way. Also as part of Ms. O’Neill’s presentation, she discussed what banks do when they receive third-party notification from a debt settlement company. What they do is suspend normal collection procedures, which are designed around CONVERSATIONS DIRECTLY WITH THE CONSUMER TO EXPLORE OPTIONS, and they handle the account the way they would if the consumer had hired an attorney-at-law. Unfortunately, this normally means that the bank also escalates to a third-party representative, and this can often include placement of the account with a local collection attorney. Why should the bank do otherwise? If their customer gets a third party involved, why shouldn’t they do the same thing? They do, and I see this difference on a daily basis. People who I hear from AFTER they have hired a settlement company (that sent in their power-of-attorney document) quickly begin to hear from collection agencies or attorneys, or see arbitration claims filed against them. But the folks who talk directly to their creditors have a much more straightforward path to settlement of their accounts.

Based on some of the feedback gathered in this FTC Workshop, I believe the debt settlement industry will eventually be regulated (either by Federal or State laws) the way “credit repair” has been regulated. About 10 years ago, a Federal law was passed called the “Credit Repair Organizations Act,” and it essentially nailed the coffin shut on legitimate credit repair. The law accomplished this by forbidding credit repair companies from charging in advance of performing their advertised service. It’s pretty tough to run a business on that type of financial model. And for settlement companies, it would literally be impossible to do so. My expectation is that fees will be capped to the point where very few companies would be able to survive as currently structured. Meanwhile, until this unregulated and risky industry is scrubbed clean, consumers are strongly advised to avoid third-party debt settlement companies. Settle your own debts! You can learn how to successfully negotiate and settle by obtaining one of my training and coaching packages at a tiny fraction of what a settlement company would charge you.

When you discuss debt settlement with most any debt settlement company, they will talk in terms of a typical 36-month program. Some companies, in an attempt to cast their fishing net even wider, will expand program duration to 48 months, or even 60 months. When I worked out the numbers given me by one caller, the settlement company had quoted her an 89-month settlement program! (This may be one good reason why the company that quoted this absurd program has racked up more than 1,500 BBB complaints!)

The purpose of this post is to explain exactly why the “36-month debt settlement program” is a myth that bears no relationship to the reality of how debt settlement works.

Way back in the year 2000, when I was helping build one of the nation’s first large-scale debt settlement companies, we had to figure out a way to enroll the maximum number of clients into the program. The easiest way to do that was to focus on the size of the monthly payment to fund the settlement process. Let’s say a client had $30,000 of credit card debt. Typical monthly payments in those days would have been about $600, or about 2.0% of the total. Obviously, the client could not sustain the $600/mo, which is why they were looking at other options. Backing off a half-percent to 1.5% made all the difference in the world. So we talked in terms of the 1.5% as the monthly funding pace, where a $30,000 debt client needed to fund the program at a pace of $450/mo, or 1.5% of the total balance. This relief of $150 per month was frequently enough for the client to breathe a little easier, and get away from “robbing Peter to pay Paul” every month.

Translating that $450/month to a settlement program, we assumed average settlement percentages at 40%. In those days, we charged 25% of the savings, so 25% of the 60% of savings yielded a fee of approximately 15% of the total debt. (See my post on the history of debt settlement fees for further insight – this is where the current standard 15% fee came from.) Add 40% to 15% and you get a total payout of 55%. Take 55% of $30,000, divide by $450, and voila – you get roughly 36 months, or three years. For someone who’s been in debt for many years, struggling to pay those endless minimum payments on the “forever plan,” getting out of debt in only three years sounds pretty good.

So far so good. However, the above calculation has two major problems. First, it ignores the fact that the debt balances climb when you’re not paying to hold the figures in line. So that $30,000 of debt would probably climb to more like $36,000 before everything got settled. Second, the assumption of 40% average settlements is too low, since the true average is more like 50%. In the “good old days,” a 40% average was do-able, but with the increase in legal pressure coming from the banks and the debt purchasers, the settlement percentages have climbed to around 50% over the years.

But in those days, it was totally possible to weather the storm for 3 years and expect to come out the other side with all your debts settled. So a 36-month program made a lot of sense for many clients seeking to avoid bankruptcy. However, there was never anything special about 36 months. It was just an artificial result based on how we calculated the payment level. In other words, we “backed into” the calculation to arrive at the 36-month outcome. Yet company after company copied our model without understanding the rationale behind it. You can just hear some of the greed-oriented conversations that must have taken place at those startups: “Hey, if 36 months is good, I bet we can sign up a lot more people every month if we lower the payment commitment and stretch the program to 48 months!” Presto. Now you have companies quoting 4-year programs. Wait? What about 60 months? Why not? Heck, why not take 6 or 7 years?

Debt settlement has changed. What worked a decade ago doesn’t work the same way anymore. Nowadays, a 36-month debt settlement program is absurd. Creditors sue much earlier in the process than they used to. (In fact, if you hire a settlement company that notifies the creditors of their involvement, you might see litigation within a few months, never mind 3 years!) And the debt purchasing industry has also become very aggressive, suing people left and right, using the courts to do their collection work for them. It’s simply unrealistic for most people to expect to survive 36 months without seeing lawsuits filed against them by one or more creditors long before they reach that goal. But you would never know any of the above by talking with a sales rep for the average debt settlement company. All that gets left out of the conversation, and the prospective customer is sold the illusion of a bank-recognized program (such as credit counseling), where it’s no problem to take 3 years to settle everything. The truth is that the banks don’t even recognize debt settlement as a legitimate industry. So there is no “program” there that protects the client from escalated creditor collection activity.

Another problem with the above approach to calculating program duration is the “cookie-cutter” effect. Let’s say you have $40,000 of debt spread fairly evenly across 8 cards, each with a balance around $5,000. Well, under those conditions, you can reasonably expect to settle some of the accounts before charge-off at 6 months (if you do it yourself, that is!), and a few more in the second 6-month period, and so on. If one of the accounts gets away from you and you’re forced to set up a full-balance payment arrangement, it’s still a better outcome than Chapter 13 bankruptcy over 5 years. But what if you have one $30,000 account and two $5,000 accounts? What then? Obviously, the above cookie-cutter approach to backing into the numbers is totally inappropriate. Sure, you’ll get the smaller ones settled ok, but it will take so long to save up to settle the whopper account that a lawsuit is all but certain before you reach the 36-month goal post.

Here’s the reality: It’s necessary to ANALYZE the list of creditors and take into account large balance accounts and their impact on the program. You cannot just take ANY list of debts into debt settlement and expect to be successful based on the cookie-cutter method of calculating the necessary funding pace and duration.

So what is a safe time frame? There is no such thing as a zero-risk debt settlement program, but it’s very unusual to see creditors litigate during the first six months, and lawsuits during the first 12 months are the exception rather than the rule. As you push well into the second year of the process though, the risk begins to climb. So my current advice to clients is that you should be in a position to raise enough money to settle your debts in a 12-18 month timeframe or less. This automatically means that most of the people enrolling in debt settlement programs are simply not good candidates for this strategy in the first place. It’s no wonder these companies rack up so many BBB complaints.

Folks, I’ve personally seen debt settlement change the lives of thousands of people for the better. But it has to be a good fit for your situation before you go down this road. In my training course, the first part of the material is designed to walk consumers through a financial self-analysis that leads to a firm decision one way or the other on whether this is the correct solution for their situation. This is one major reason why I offer my material with a money-back guarantee. I don’t want people to pursue debt settlement if it’s not a suitable strategy, and unless they have good odds at a successful outcome. If the math makes sense, debt settlement can work miracles! If the math doesn’t work, it can be a nightmare.

In my June 30 blog post, I announced the publication of the new 2008 version of my training course, The Debt Settlement Success Seminar. As noted, the course content is revised, expanded, and improved. The new course contains nearly 8 hours of audio training material versus the original 5 hours, and the new content reflects the experience I’ve gained working one-on-one with around 1,000 consumers since I published the first version of the course in 2004.

My goal has always been to keep this program AFFORDABLE for consumers who are struggling financially. But it takes a lot of work and a heavy time commitment to personally coach people via email and telephone support, and it has become necessary to adjust my pricing. However, in order to keep my program affordable, rather than raise prices I’ve decided to keep the pricing structure the same and simply adjust the service period instead.

Here are the current packages:

1. PREMIUM PROGRAM ($777) includes the audio seminar, telephone strategy consultation, unlimited email and telephone coaching for 12 months, and document review service for 12 months. Clients who wish to extend their Premium service after the first 12-month period may do so at a cost of only $350 per 6-month extension. (NOTE: I recommend this package level for clients with $50,000 or more of debt. Why pay a debt settlement company $7,500 or more when you can pay less than 10% of that amount and get the job done properly?)

2. ENHANCED PROGRAM ($397) includes the audio seminar, telephone strategy consultation, unlimited email coaching for 6 months, and document review service for 6 months. Clients who wish to extend their Enhanced service after the first 6-month period may do so at a cost of only $300 per 6-month extension.

3. BASIC PROGRAM ($197) includes the audio seminar and the telephone strategy consultation, but does not include follow-up coaching or document review.

IMPORTANT NOTE:

I believe that a deal’s a deal! So if you downloaded my free 32-page consumer report during the period from June 1st, 2008 through today, or if you submitted a request for the free 20-minute consultation, I will honor the previous pricing/service structure on orders placed through September 30, 2008. Simply place your order through the shopping cart, and then let me know what email address you used to subscribe to the report or request the consultation. I’ll reply with confirmation regarding your service period based on the program level you choose.

Remember, regardless of which program level you select, my program will PAY FOR ITSELF many times over by improving your negotiation results. Just read a few of my recent client testimonials, and I’m sure you’ll agree that my modest fees are simply a no-brainer compared to any other solution. And as always, I stand behind my ironclad 365-day money-back guarantee.

In my post of February 29, I discussed a “new” variation on the debt elimination scam I’ve frequently written about in various blog posts and articles. I put “new” in quotes because it’s not new at all.

The basic idea is that the debt “expert” takes over the debt from you and becomes responsible for it after that point, leaving you free of worry since the debt is no longer yours. One company has been aggressively promoting this bogus tactic through a network marketing organization.

Now, another con artist has started to employ the same technique. This particular individual has been involved in a long-running credit repair scam in the guise of a consumer advocacy program. He claimed to have an inside contact at the Federal Trade Commission, and that he was working closely with the government to have thousands of consumer debts declared “invalid.” I guess his customers got tired of waiting for non-existent results, so now he has changed the game and is using the assignment tactic.

Here’s a direct quote from this scammer’s documentation:

“Be it duly noted that pursuant to Title 42 United States Code, Section 1981(b), et al., You (Original Creditor) are hereby notified that I have assigned/transferred all of the rights, benefits and liabilities of our agreement along with the administration and servicing of the aforementioned debt, if any, from the original creditor to the following third party:”

(I’ll ignore the fact that this is badly worded even in the context of what it’s trying to accomplish, since this paragraph does not even clearly state that the intent is to transfer the responsibilities of the *debtor* to a new third party debtor.)

He also states: “For case law please review, Hale v. Henkel, 201 US 43 (1906).”

Let’s have a look first at Title 42 of the US Code, Section 1981. You can look up the exact language online, but the gist is simple enough. The original purpose of this code section was to ensure that everyone has the right to make and enforce contracts without regard to their skin color. It was an anti-discrimination measure. So all Americans have the right to make and enforce contracts. So far, so good. But the credit card agreement you signed represents an EXISTING contractual obligation that you already entered into. You already exercised your right under Section 1981 when you accepted the terms of the credit card agreement by actually using the card for purchases. Section 1981(b) of the US Code does nothing to overturn or negate existing contractual obligations. So this is just a bit of “smoke and mirrors” on the part of the scammer, who is citing US Code to make his document look more official.

Now, what about Hale v. Henkel, 201 US 43 (1906)? More smoke and mirrors. The case overview indicates the following as the substance of the case matter:

“Under the practice in this country, the examination of witnesses by a Federal grand jury need not be preceded by a presentment or formal indictment, but the grand jury may proceed, either upon their own knowledge or upon examination of witnesses, to inquire whether a crime cognizable by the court has been committed, and, if so, they may indict upon such evidence.”

OK, so what? What does this have to do with assignment of debt? Exactly NOTHING. In other words, the assignment document this scammer is using is roughly equivalent in legal value to a piece of toilet tissue.

Next, let’s have a look at typical language included in a credit card agreement, as it pertains to assignment. Here is an actual excerpt from one major bank’s agreement:

“We may at any time, and without notice to you, sell, assign or transfer any sums due on the Account, this Agreement, or our rights or obligations under the Account or this Agreement to any person or entity. You may not assign to anyone the Account or any of your rights or obligations under this Agreement unless we expressly consent to and permit such assignment. If we do, you and any successor or assignee will comply with our requirements and procedures for doing do.”

Almost sounds like the bank is guarding against bogus assignments, doesn’t it? You bet they are. They have seen this trick attempted countless times before. The language is clear enough. The bank has the right to assign or transfer the account. You, on the other hand, do NOT. That’s just the way it is, folks, and wishing otherwise will not make it so.
If you are currently looking into debt relief options, and someone tells you they can “take over” your debt obligations for you (in exchange for a hefty upfront fee, of course), then you know you’re dealing with a scammer. It doesn’t work, period. Don’t make a bad situation worse by paying huge fees to a rip-off artist!

Sometimes I feel like the “Lone Ranger” here at ZipDebt, shouting from the rooftops about why consumers should not pay 15% of their debt to third-party settlement companies. Regular ZipDebt readers already know my position on the front-loaded fee structure currently used by about 99% of debt settlement companies. My post from April 3, 2006 discussed some of the problems associated with the “15% upfront” model.

Now, attorney and longtime consumer advocate David Giacalone has written an excellent piece on the subject of debt negotiation fees. Although I’m sure his post will not win him many fans in the settlement industry, I for one greatly appreciate his effort. David is focusing on one example of a company that uses the “attorney model” for debt settlement. And while his article pertains to the questionable ethics of attorneys who charge a flat percentage of enrolled debt, it’s certainly a problem throughout the entire debt reduction industry, whether or not the firm in question is attorney-based. So I felt it would be worthwhile to discuss some of the history of the fee models used in the industry.

Consumer debt settlement evolved in the 1990s from a pre-existing model that went by various names, but was usually called “business debt arbitration.” Companies would often choose names that made them sound like a law firm, even though most were not law firms. So, “Howard, Fine, and Howard” (with apologies to the Three Stooges) would set up shop as business debt “arbitrators.” The fee model in vogue at that time was to charge a 1% retainer as a deposit, based on the amount of debt to be negotiated, with the primary fee handled on a contingency basis, and set at 25% of the savings achieved in the negotiation.

When I first started negotiating consumer debt in 1997, this is the model that I employed, and I even credited the 1% deposit against future fees earned. So the concept was based on 100% contingency. Most of the people I worked with were happy with this fee structure, since it provided some assurance that they would see results before having to pay any significant amount in fees.

Flash forward to 2000, as I became part of a company that was attempting to roll out debt settlement services on a nationwide basis. We entered the large scale market with essentially the same fee model, except that we charged 2% instead of 1%, and the 2% figure was now treated as an “administrative fee” rather than a simple retainer to be credited against future fees earned. However, the core of the approach was still intact, with the primary fee being based on 25% of the savings achieved in the negotiations.

The reason for the change from 1% retainer to 2% administrative fee was simple enough. It’s one thing to run a small individual practice, quite another matter to grow a large company with payroll, overhead, and marketing expenses. Within a matter of months, the 2% was adjusted upward to 3%, but at that time there were still no monthly fees charged to the consumer. Again, the reason for the jump was not greed, but rather marketing exigencies.

Speaking of marketing, therein lies the problem! In 2000-2001, it was possible to purchase a database of consumers who had “opted in” to receive email on the subject of financial assistance. In those days, we could send 5,000 email messages to well-targeted recipients for a cost of about $1,000, and expect a steady flow of “leads” to the sales floor. A single blast of 5,000 email messages normally returned between 60-80 responses from interested, motivated consumers. And it was usually possible to enroll about 15% of those respondents. So we could expect to bring aboard 10 or 12 new clients for every 5,000 emails sent. That translates to an “acquisition cost” of $80 to $100 per new client based on the $1,000 cost to do the mailing. This does not take into account sales commissions or other payroll expenses, but represents a very healthy acquisition cost in terms of advertising dollars expended.

To make reasonable financial forecasts, we operated on the assumption that our overall settlement percentage would average 40% (which it did for several years, until it slowly crept up to the current industry average of approximately 50%). So we expected to save the client 60% before fees were applied. Taking 25% of the expected savings of 60% yielded an assumed fee equivalent to 15% of the starting balances. (Starting to sound familiar yet?) With the average enrolled client at a level of $30,000 of debt, that meant a forecast of $4,500 in negotiation fees, plus another $900 in administrative fees (based on the 3% admin fee), for a total of $5,400 in fees to be collected over the life of the program. That’s a very healthy potential income off a $100 marketing acquisition cost.

Another way to look at the above figures is that we could generate a “lead” (in the form of an interested consumer) for approximately $12 to $16 each. However, this happy state of affairs only lasted for a matter of months, and since 2001 lead costs have been climbing ever upward. Today, an “exclusive live transfer” lead can cost up to $90 each! And leads of lesser quality (generated through a few million website “lead form” traps set up by dozens of lead brokers) can still cost $30-$50 apiece. Closing ratios on these lesser quality leads are typically around 5-7%, further eroding the ROI on marketing expenditures and inflating the acquisition cost of a new client.

One of the key reasons for the upward spiral in lead costs is based on the law of supply and demand. In 2000-2001, there were at most a small handful of such debt companies in existence, so there were only a few of us “fishing” in a very large pond. However, the debt settlement industry was (and still is) a mostly unregulated industry. So there were (and still are) very few barriers to entry. With no clear standards, no licensing requirements, and no minimum financial standard (performance bonds, etc.), anyone could set up shop and call themselves an “expert debt negotiator.” Many did. Within 1-2 years, there were dozens of copycat companies, all basically cloning the existing business model. With more and more people fishing in the same pond (although still a very large pond), the mounting competition for “fresh hot leads” drove the cost higher and higher.

When you are attempting to enroll 400-500 new clients per month, the original fee model means that you must have very deep pockets in order to get to the “back end” stream of income generated from negotiation fees. Enter the monthly “service fee,” which started out around $29/month and climbed from there. So now there were three separate fees in place, the 3% administrative fee (which other companies quickly bumped to 4%, 5%, even 8%, etc.), PLUS the monthly service fee (now typically $40-$50/month, or more), PLUS the negotiation fee of 25% of the savings.

I was present at one of the first trade conferences held by the debt settlement industry. At the conference, the CEO of one of the newer large-scale settlement companies gave a presentation in which he discussed the fee model his firm was implementing. Gone was the negotiation fee based on 25% of savings. It was replaced with 15% of the total enrolled debt as a FLAT FEE, to be paid by the client over the first 14 months of the program. I was stunned. In my estimation, this front-loading of the program fee removed the single most valuable aspect of the program from the consumer’s perspective – namely, that the fees were based results achieved. No results, no fee. Instead, the fees were now charged in advance of having accomplished anything at all for the client. This, of course, was wonderful for the debt settlement company, but a horrendously bad deal for the customer. In effect, the settlement company had now become just another creditor, elbowing out of the way the client’s legitimate creditors, and grabbing up front most of the money that should properly have gone toward settlements.

Within a matter of months, this new fee structure spread throughout the industry like an extremely contagious virus. Today, I estimate that about 99% of settlement companies charge fees based on the front-loaded model.

So that is how the magic 15% flat fee came to be the industry standard. It has no bearing whatsoever on the amount of actual work involved in negotiating debts. As David Giacalone points out in his piece, there is very little actual legal work involved, so it makes no more sense for a law firm to charge a flat 15% of the enrolled debt than it does for a non-attorney settlement firm. And a fee of 15% of the enrolled debt certainly makes no sense at all from the consumer’s perspective. It is merely an artifact of the manner in which the industry itself has evolved. If you think about it, it’s not even remotely logical. If a person has $30,000 of debt spread over 5 credit card accounts, the fee is $4,500. If the debt load is $100,000, also over 5 accounts, now the fee jumps to $15,000. Is it any more work for settlement firm to negotiate 5 larger accounts versus 5 smaller ones? No. But it makes even less sense for the consumer to be forced to pay this fee IN ADVANCE of any meaningful service being performed.

For the past two months, I’ve been working nights and weekends to write and record the 2008 version of my debt training course. It’s hard to believe, but it’s been 4 years since I published the original version of the course in 2004. I had been bridging the gap with a written update, but even the update was in need of an update!

The reason is because the business of debt settlement is continually evolving, and it’s necessary to change tactics from time to time. Also, when I first launched this program back in 2004, I had just made the shift from 3rd-party debt settlement to teaching the do-it-yourself approach. Over the past 4 years, I’ve coached HUNDREDS of clients to successfully negotiate and settle their own debts, and quite frankly, I’ve learned a lot during that time about how to teach this process to people.

So the brand new 2008 version of the course reflects all that hard-earned knowledge and insight. The course has been expanded from 5 hours of audio material on 5 CDs to just under 8 hours of content on 7 audio CDs. The Workbook has also been expanded, and I’ve included some additional new material on the CD-ROM. The bottom line is that the original course has been getting rave reviews for 4 years, but the new course is even better yet!

If you’ve been thinking about ordering this program, but held off because you weren’t sure the material was up-to-date, now’s the time! I plan to increase my offering price in July, probably by July 15th (maybe sooner), but the old pricing is still in effect until I announce the changes via the main website pages. So order now before the price goes up!

Here’s a list of the revised Table of Contents for the audio material:

CD1—New Perspectives on Debt
Track 1—Introduction
Track 2—The Great American Debt Explosion
Track 3—The Hidden Cost of Debt
Track 4—The 10-20-70 Plan

CD2—Choosing the Right Debt Program
Track 5—Know Your Options (Part I)
Track 6—Know Your Options (Part II)
Track 7—The Debt Settlement Strategy
Track 8—How to Choose the Right Debt Solution

CD3—Debt Settlement Basics
Track 9—Understanding the Collection Process
Track 10—Why DIY Debt Settlement Makes Sense Today
Track 11—Why You’ve Been Brainwashed About Credit
Track 12—Let’s Get Real about Debt Settlement

CD4—Before You Get Started
Track 13—Different Types of Creditors
Track 14—Important Strategic Considerations
Track 15—Four Things You Must Do
Track 16—Common Tactical Questions

CD5—How to Settle Your Debts (with Original Creditors)
Track 17—What to Do for the First 90 Days
Track 18—Original Creditor Phone Calls
Track 19—Your First Settlements
Track 20—Documentation & Transactions

CD6—How to Settle Your Debts (with Third Parties)
Track 21—Handling Collection Agency Calls
Track 22—Understanding Third-Party Tactics
Track 23—Dealing with Collection Attorneys
Track 24—Settling with Debt Purchasers

CD7—Completing the Process
Track 25—Negotiation Tips & Tactics
Track 26—What to Do After the Settlement
Track 27—Debt Settlement & Income Taxes
Track 28—Recovering Good Credit