A Necessary Distinction: Financial Oversight vs. Financial Control

A Rebuttal to “When Oversight Becomes Overreach: Why Demanding Subcontractor Financials Is Wrong”

REBUTTAL

The concerns raised in “When Oversight Becomes Overreach” deserve thoughtful consideration. Subcontractors in the repossession industry are, without question, independent businesses. They assume their own operational risk, carry their own compliance burden, and are not internal departments of the lenders or prime contractors they serve. That distinction matters and should be preserved.

A Nuanced Issue

At the same time, the article frames financial oversight as inherently intrusive, when in practice the issue is more nuanced. For large lenders and portfolio holders—particularly those subject to extensive regulatory oversight—vendor financial viability is not a theoretical concern. It is a material risk factor.

Repossession is a uniquely high-exposure activity. It involves self-help seizure of consumer property, elevated personal-property obligations, breach-of-peace risk, and long-tail litigation exposure that can surface years after a recovery. When a vendor becomes insolvent, it is not merely the vendor that disappears—it is indemnity, insurance defense, and consumer remediation capacity that vanish with it. Regulators and courts do not accept “independent contractor” as a shield when consumer harm occurs.

From that perspective, a lender’s interest in vendor solvency is not about controlling margins or extracting leverage. It is about ensuring that the entity acting on its behalf can withstand foreseeable claims and remain accountable when issues arise. That obligation exists regardless of whether the vendor is currently meeting performance benchmarks.

Drawing a Line

Where the article is correct is in drawing a line between assurance and surveillance. Demands for full profit-and-loss statements, granular cost structures, payroll models, or pricing strategy can expose sensitive competitive information and create asymmetric risk if data governance is unclear. Financial data, once disclosed, cannot be recalled—and subcontractors are right to question how that information is stored, who can access it, and how it might be used.

However, rejecting all financial vetting as “overreach” risks conflating legitimate due diligence with misuse. There is a middle ground that protects both sides. Solvency attestations, third-party verification letters, bonding capacity, insurance confirmation, and CPA-level assurances can provide lenders with reasonable confidence without turning subcontractors into open books. These mechanisms are common in other regulated industries precisely because they balance independence with accountability.

It is also worth acknowledging the structural tension that exists in many vendor relationships. Slow pay terms paired with increased compliance demands can exacerbate financial strain and fuel distrust. That dynamic deserves scrutiny. But it does not negate the underlying reality that lenders retain ultimate responsibility for the conduct of their agents—and must manage that risk accordingly.

Healthy Boundaries

Healthy markets depend on clear boundaries. Subcontractors should not be treated as internal cost centers, nor should lenders be expected to operate blind to financial collapse risk in high-liability activities. The path forward is not to reject oversight outright, but to define it narrowly, responsibly, and with safeguards that respect both autonomy and accountability.

The real question, then, is not whether financial oversight is appropriate—but how much is necessary, and how it is implemented. That conversation is worth having, and it benefits both sides when it is grounded in realism rather than absolutes.

Respectfully submitted,

Shane Freitas
President & Owner
Accurate Adjustments, Inc.

Concerned Repossession Agency Owner
Active in the repossession industry since 1988
Agency owner since 1997