Empathy may just be the plan of action that can turn the industry around. A large number of people who owe money are being called by various collections agencies, and if they do obtain money, they are not going to want to give it to the aggressive threatening collector, they will give it to the person they can work with.

As agencies are enhancing training courses to include techniques on how to be gentler with consumers, a focus is being put on coaching, mentoring and counseling debtors, rather than aggressively threatening them. Trainees are encouraged to reflect on their personal experiences with collectors or someone that they know has dealt with them.

One recent trend has been to suggest that debtors speak with their parents or grandparents about taking out a loan against their life insurance policies or reverse mortgage against their house. The collectors who practice this technique claim that our grandparents remember the Great Depression. They may not want this generation to feel that kind of pain and may be more apt to take a loan against the life retirement account or the life insurance policy.

Collectors who adhere to this philosophy think that it is in actuality a positive thing. They claim that it doesn’t hurt anyone. If a person borrows against life insurance it might be preferable to borrowing against a 401(k) or a retirement plan. That is because the person will be counting on that money to live on.

Wrong or right, it would do the collections industry some good to evaluate its situation, and look for new innovative ways to collect in a suffering economy.

Mallory McGuinness is employed by a debt collection company. Also she composes articles on business, finance, consumer spending and collection agencies.

Broad in scope, the Red Flag rules definition of financial institutions is any organization engaged in insurance, banking, or similar activities, and a good amount of the definitions come with leeway to expand compliance demands. Any consumer account involving multiple payments or transactions that is offered to organizations can be subject to the rules.

The rules in a nutshell state that any financial institution or creditor that may be subject to a reasonable and foreseeable risk of identity theft must develop an identity theft prevention program in order to remain in compliance. These programs should include identification of any activity that may be considered identity theft. They should pursue red flags that have already been identified, and should take action to prevent and mitigate theft. Finally, period review and updating of red flags are necessary to comply with the Red Flag provisions.

Additionally, the Red Flag provisions say that an institution’s identity theft prevention program should be managed and written by senior company management. Training and overseeing this service are required.

Identity theft is an expensive and disparaging issue; business and consumer losses came to about $56.6 billion in 2005 alone. But when one considers how harmful identity theft can be to a business, not complying with these regulations can be even more expensive and harmful. Potential losses, costly investigations, regulatory fines and potential lawsuits are all negative consequences of non-compliance. It seems as though their best bet is to follow the rules.

Mallory Megan is employed by a debt collection agency. She also writes articles on business, finance, the credit industry and debt collection.