[2026 data] Collections teams publishing partner scorecards see 20.4% higher liquidation rates

Summary

• Clients with an active, published partner scorecard saw 20.4% higher liquidation rates than similar clients without one.
• For M3 liquidation, clients publishing competitive scorecards recorded a 39% year-on-year improvement.
• The data indicates that making partner performance visible and comparable is associated with faster optimisation and stronger outcomes.

Many collections teams already have performance scorecards in place. But few go a step further: to be transparent and proactive in sharing the results with their panel.

We’ve previously covered why collections scorecards are important to have, and how they help teams evaluate their DCAs more effectively. This analysis looks at what happens when those scorecards are actively shared and used across agency panels.

Specifically, we’ll look at how outcomes compare when partner performance is made visible, comparable and reviewed on a regular cadence, rather than tracked in isolation.

What the data shows about sharing partner scorecards with panel members

1. Published partner scorecards are associated with higher liquidation rates

Based on our analysis, clients with an active, published results panel saw 20.4% higher liquidation rates than similar clients without a panel.

This comparison looks at clients operating in comparable industries (such as fintech and BNPL), rather than a simple before-and-after view.

What this may indicate for collections teams

Where partner performance is visible and reviewed consistently, outcomes tend to be stronger.

2. Early-stage performance improves faster when results are published

For M3 liquidation, clients publishing competitive scorecards recorded a 39% year-on-year improvement.

Early-stage delinquency is often where performance differences emerge first, and where small changes compound quickly.

What this may indicate for collections teams

Publishing results may help teams identify underperformance earlier and respond sooner.

*Disclaimer: These findings are correlational. The analysis does not prove that publishing scorecards alone causes higher performance.

Why sharing partner scorecards can influence performance

The data highlights three mechanisms that consistently appear alongside stronger outcomes.

1. Clear visibility of performance

When results are published, teams can see exactly where each partner is performing well or falling behind, rather than relying on aggregate outcomes.

2. Faster optimisation

Clear comparisons make it easier to identify gaps early, particularly at key delinquency stages.

3. Stronger partner buy-in

When expectations and results are explicit, improvement conversations become more concrete and easier to act on.

This is less about pressure, and more about shared clarity.

How to start publishing partner scorecards in 30 days

To be clear, this isn’t a shortcut to designing an effective scorecard. But getting started and being consistent often matters more than complexity.

Here are practical ways teams often begin publishing results while refining their approach over time. You don’t need a full transformation to test it.

Week 1: agree on an initial KPI set and owners

Many teams start with a small subset of the metrics outlined in a full scorecard. Agree on a small, fixed set of metrics. Assign a clear internal owner for the scorecard.

Week 2: baseline and definitions

Align on metric definitions so partners are compared like-for-like, then establish a baseline.

Week 3: publish internally

Share results with relevant stakeholders. Focus on visibility and comparison, not judgement.

Week 4: share with partners and agree actions

Review results with each partner and agree on one or two specific improvement actions.

Methods, data sources and limitations

This analysis draws on performance data from InDebted’s global partnerships, including portfolios across the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Portfolios: BNPL and fintech portfolios

DPD ranges: 30–240+ days past due

Channels: Multichannel engagement, including digital and voice

Timeframe: Multiple years of historical partnership data

The analysis compares clients with active, published partner scorecards to similar clients without a published panel. Results are observational and correlational. Portfolio mix, economic conditions and internal operating models may also influence outcomes.

For a detailed breakdown of metric selection, weighting and review cadence, see our essential collections scorecard framework.

Use our collections scorecard template for creditors

If you want to apply this in practice, we’ve created a collections scorecard template you can download and adapt for your own team.

It’s free to use and designed to help you publish partner performance consistently, without adding unnecessary complexity.