The
Differences
To
begin, debt negotiation should be viewed and considered as a last-resort
measure. It is only a half step before bankruptcy. A lender has little
motivation to arbitrate for a pay off less than the full amount unless
the debtor is already 2-3 months behind on bills. This is exactly what
negotiation is and which obviously means complete destruction of a credit
history. Additionally, the debtor is dealing with debt owed to a lender
who loaned money or property in good faith. The lender has the right to
full payment if at all possible. Morally it is the correct thing to do.
But
sometimes circumstances do occur that negotiation may be the only course
of action remaining... or at least the most logical solution. As an example,
perhaps an old forgotten debt exists as the only blemish on a report.
Debt negotiation may be the proper course. But under normal circumstances
of just too much debt, credit counseling should be the standard first
attempt to reduce payments. Contacting creditors on your own, negotiating
payment arrangements or asking for a lower interest rate are also potential
options. Perhaps even skipping a payment can turn the tide but it all
must be coordinated with the lender.
Another
option is to Consolidate Debt which basically means establishing a new
loan with lower payments since it is usually over a longer period of time
and perhaps at lower interest. But be aware that debt consolidation often
times is nothing more than a delaying tactic and does little to correct
the potential symptom-- an attitude which allowed the creation of too
much debt in the first place. Consolidation should be used when debts
are mostly current. Settlement or arbitration is for use when debt is
VERY delinquent. Similarly, consolidation should never be considered if
the objective is simply to reduce monthly payments in order to afford
more credit.
Beware
Debt
negotiation attorneys, Johnson and Johnson, offer an interesting Q&A on
there web site... interesting but far from uncommon.
Q.
"[When opting for debt settlement through Johnson and Johnson,] why do
you need 60% of the balance up front? Why can't I send you the funds once
you have successfully negotiated my account?"
A.
"At one time we allowed such a practice but, unfortunately, we discovered
that many of our clients did not have funds available once the time came
to disperse to their creditors. Thus, to avoid wasting time negotiating
for clients who do not have sufficient funds, we do not begin negotiations
with your creditors until you have deposited 60% of the balance in trust."
My
question is, "If you had 60% in cash, why would you need the service?"
But also, what happens if you don't just happen to have the 60% just laying
around. Well, I suppose you could take out a loan and make payments...
what's wrong with this picture? Hey, maybe the debt arbitrators can loan
the money... such a deal! And therein is one of the problems. The arbitrator's
main objective is to loan money and not negotiate a debt.
What
They Don't Bother To Mention
Sometimes
a debt negotiator does not mention a couple of issues ahead of time. You
need to be aware of them in advance.