No, you haven't really shown me how it's predatory, although I do know that does happen (as it does in all large lending markets). I'm not sure what your point

No, you haven't really shown me how it's predatory, although I do know that does happen (as it does in all large lending markets). I'm not sure what your point is about the largest debt collector having contracts with the DOE. Of course they do, that's almost a definitional thing. Pretty much the largest of anything has some kind of government contract. Defaults are on the rise from a low base, and the securitized portfolios of these loans haven't really taken much of a hit, so it doesn't "sound familiar" because I don't see the same balance sheet risk as 2008 subprime, even though there are undoubtedly subprime elements to this. (For the sake of clarity, I'm referring to the subprime credit ratings and category, not the 2008 era). I guess what I'm asking is, from what base is all this happening? Predatory lending is on the rise... from .5% of loans to 1%? 1% to 5%? 5% to 10%? Same with the others. I guess what I'm trying to get out of this thread, is: 1. What novel insight is being presented here that invalidates huge amounts of sophisticated due diligence by incentivized, professional firms? 2. If none, what channel or mechanism is perpetuating something that everybody knows is a bad deal? 3. If everybody knows it's a bad deal, but there is something simply keeping it prodding along, this would not pass even the first level of risk management at these institutions, which really stresses the idea of #2.