69.6% Gross Recovery on 807 Selected Aged Commercial Placements

A four-year analysis of commercial placements from one fire sprinkler contractor, placed 200 to 364 days after recorded service. Results are gross of contingency fees and are not an industry benchmark.

The result

Important scope note. This analysis covers placements chosen by one commercial fire sprinkler contractor, not all of its overdue receivables and not all commercial accounts handled by JSD. Results are gross of contingency fees, include collections through August 19, 2026, and do not predict recovery for another creditor or portfolio.

In a review of 807 selected commercial collection placements from one fire sprinkler contractor, JSD collected 69.6 percent of placed dollars on a gross basis as of August 19, 2026. The accounts were placed 200 to 364 days after recorded service and had no other account for the same debtor open at the agency.

A debtor-level bootstrap 95 percent confidence interval for the observed portfolio recovery was 63.5 to 75.1 percent. It describes resampling variability within this portfolio rather than uncertainty across commercial creditors generally.

What was included

The creditor is a fire sprinkler contractor billing commercial service and project receivables. The study population narrows from the full source file as follows, with the complete reconciliation in the methodology.

Mean balance running roughly double the median indicates a right-skewed distribution, which is why the sensitivity analysis below examines the effect of the largest accounts.

The 122 eligible placements outside the band are 102 that arrived before 200 days and 20 that arrived after one year. The 2026 cohort of 219 accounts is reported separately below.

Reading the number

Creditor net remittance is not available in the source data. The 69.6 percent figure is gross recovery before contingency fees and should not be interpreted as the percentage of placed dollars ultimately remitted to the creditor.

Outcomes were close to binary.

Of the $587,183.48 collected, $552,731.62 came from accounts that paid the placed balance in full. Four accounts in the core group closed as settlements, so the full-payment figure is not absorbing settled-for-less resolutions. These categories reflect status as of August 19, 2026. Five of the 807 core accounts remained active at that date, two of them with nothing collected, so a small number of the zero-recovery accounts may still resolve.

Three ways of measuring the same result

The average account-level recovery sits close to the 54.2 percent full-payment rate because outcomes were overwhelmingly full recovery or no recovery, with only 20 accounts recovering partially.

Findings

Resolution was fast among accounts that paid

Among accounts that ultimately paid in full, half closed within 43 days of placement and 79.2 percent within 90.

Sensitivity to the largest accounts

The ten largest accounts hold 15.4 percent of placed dollars in the core group.

The sensitivity analysis indicates the result is not primarily driven by the largest accounts.

Recovery under broader definitions

The core figure describes placements made without another account for the same debtor already open at the agency. Adding back the excluded groups lowers it.

These additions are matched to the core group on age band and cohort years. They cover the 45 of 68 add-ons and 21 of 38 withdrawals that fall in the 200-to-364-day range across 2022 through 2025, rather than every such account in the source file.

Add-on placements recovered far less

Sixty-eight accounts in the analytical dataset were placed against a debtor who already had an open account with the agency. Measured within the same age range, cohort years, and gross-dollar basis as the core group, the 45 add-ons falling in the 200-to-364-day band recovered 21.6 percent against 69.6 percent.

The gap is not readily explained by add-ons carrying smaller balances, since their median balance was higher than the median of the core study group. That does not eliminate other differences between the populations. The add-on interval is 7.0 to 51.6 percent, resting on 45 accounts across 27 debtors.

The comparison carries a built-in selection effect. An add-on is defined by the prior account still being open, which usually means that debtor was already declining to pay. Repeat placements against debtors whose prior account had closed recovered 62.4 percent, much nearer the core group, though that comparison is also selected, since a debtor who resolved a previous account is more likely to be collectible.

In this portfolio, balances added while another account for the same debtor remained open recovered less than non-add-on placements. The result is operationally useful for segmentation and should not be read as the independent effect of a second placement.

Cohort and aging context

The results below are descriptive. They do not establish causal relationships.

Age within the study band

The age-group confidence intervals overlap, though overlap alone does not test whether recovery differed between groups. Given the small 300-to-364-day group, differing balance distributions, debtor mix, placement year, and possible selection effects, this analysis does not support a reliable estimate of the relationship between placement age and recovery. The 200-to-364-day range was chosen because it is where this creditor's placements fall rather than on any principle about collectability.

No monotonic age gradient was observed within this selected 200-to-364-day placement band. It says nothing about placements made earlier than 200 days, and it should not be read as evidence against placing accounts promptly. Given the limited range, the small oldest group of 65 accounts with an interval running from 44.2 to 85.7 percent, and differences in account mix, this analysis was not designed to detect or quantify an age-recovery relationship within the band.

How this relates to general collectability guidance

The Commercial Law League of America publishes a collectability chart that associates increasing account age with lower estimated collectability. That guidance is useful for general credit-management planning, though it is not directly comparable to this study's result.

This study measures realized gross dollar recovery after one creditor selected and placed a defined set of commercial accounts through a particular workflow. The CLLA chart is a general aging reference, while this analysis uses a narrower, selected placement population and a different recovery measure. The populations, denominators, timing conventions, and methods differ.

Accordingly, this study does not revise, validate, or contradict general age-based collectability guidance. It shows only what this defined placement process produced in this portfolio. General industry guidance continues to associate aging with reduced collectability.

Results by cohort

The cohort confidence intervals overlap, though that comparison alone does not test whether recovery differed between cohorts. The observed rates should also be read cautiously because cohorts have unequal working time and may differ in account mix. 2025 posted the highest observed rate at 74.4 percent, and its three largest accounts represented 11 percent of that year's placed dollars; removing those three moves it to 72.6 percent.

Cohorts are best compared at matched points after placement rather than at their current totals. The table below counts collections received within each window, including only placements that have completed that window, using the same age band, cohort exclusions, and gross-dollar basis.

2026 placements in progress

The 2026 cohort is excluded from the rates above because roughly a third of it remains active.

On the 90-day measure the 2026 subset shows a higher observed rate than prior cohorts. It rests on 97 accounts, differences in portfolio composition may contribute, and the figure will move as remaining accounts resolve.

Accounts placed after one year

Twenty eligible placements arrived at 365 days or older, against 807 inside the core group. These came in as individual decisions rather than through the creditor's routine placement process.

The sample is too small and too concentrated to support a reliable recovery estimate for accounts older than one year. Two large balances, placed at 672 days and 596 days, together hold 61 percent of the group's dollars and both closed without recovery. Eight of the twenty paid in full, including one balance placed at 440 days that closed 23 days later.

Methodology

Recovery is gross collected dollars divided by placed dollars for each group, before agency contingency fees. It is not the creditor's net remittance.

Paid in full. For purposes of this analysis, an account was classified as paid in full when collections were within $10 of the placed balance. The placed balance is the amount submitted by the creditor together with any interest and fees carried on the account at placement. Four accounts in the core group closed as settlements and are counted at the amount collected rather than as paid in full.

Age at placement is the placement date minus the service date recorded on the account. The creditor bills on net 30 terms, so days past due is age at placement less 30. Both measures are reported where the distinction matters. Service date reflects when work was performed rather than when an invoice was issued, so days past due is an approximation where billing lagged service.

Account status. An account is closed when the agency has stopped work on it. Closure outcomes for the core group:

Closure categories are administrative statuses and do not map one for one to the recovery categories above. Five accounts collected the full placed balance while carrying a different closure status: three closed as payment of an undisputed amount, one remained active at the analysis date, and one closed as debtor nonresponsive on a balance small enough to fall inside the $10 tolerance. That accounts for the difference between 437 accounts meeting the full-payment test and 432 recorded under the paid-in-full closure code.

The partial category differs for the same reason. Twenty-one accounts carry a partial or settlement closure code, three of which collected within $10 of the placed balance and are counted as full payments, while two accounts coded under other statuses recovered partially. That gives the 20 partial recoveries reported above.

Debtor nonresponsive and efforts exhausted reflect JSD's administrative account classifications, distinct from the recovery categories above. Active accounts remain in the 2026 denominator and are counted at collections received to date.

Full population reconciliation.

The age analysis covers 2022 through 2025 placements.

2026 placements are counted separately. The cohort runs 247 raw records, less 4 direct payments and 9 withdrawals to reach 234 analytical records, then less 15 add-on placements to reach the 219-account cohort reported above. Add-ons are removed when forming cohorts rather than when forming the analytical dataset.

The exclusion counts in the second table are the 2022 through 2025 portions of the file-wide totals of 26 direct payments, 38 creditor withdrawals, and 68 add-ons.

Exclusions. The source file holds 1,285 placement records. Twenty-six accounts across the full file, 22 of them in 2022 through 2025, were cancelled because the creditor reported direct payment. These are excluded, since no workable balance remained for the agency. Thirty-eight accounts withdrawn at creditor request are excluded; that group recovered nothing, and the effect of adding it back is shown above. Sixty-eight add-on placements are excluded from the core rate and reported separately. Add-on status was reconstructed from debtor-level placement and closure histories.

Restored service dates. Service dates missing from the export on 146 accounts placed in late 2025 were restored from the creditor's original placement submission files, matched on customer name and principal amount. Excluding those accounts, the core group recovery is 69.0 percent against 69.6 percent for the full core group.

Confidence intervals are bootstrap percentile intervals from 4,000 resamples, drawn at the debtor level so that all accounts belonging to a sampled debtor move together. The core group holds 807 accounts across 741 debtors, and account-level resampling produced a nearly identical interval of 63.7 to 75.2 percent. The interval describes uncertainty generated by resampling within this selected portfolio. It does not account for non-random placement decisions, changes in collection practices, data-entry error, or uncertainty about performance on other creditors' portfolios.

Data quality. Records with clearly implausible service dates were excluded from age-based analyses under a documented data-quality rule. This affected one account and no headline result.

Cohort treatment. The core findings cover 2022 through 2025 cohorts. The 2026 cohort is reported separately. Cohorts carry unequal working time, from more than four years for the earliest 2022 placements down to roughly seven months for the latest 2025 placements.

Data reflects account status as of August 19, 2026.

Limitations

The study covers one creditor in one industry under one collection workflow. The rates describe what this placement process produced on this portfolio rather than an industry benchmark.

The portfolio includes recurring inspection billing alongside larger project work, which may carry different documentation, dispute, and recovery characteristics. The study does not estimate them separately.

Results may reflect creditor screening before agency placement. The study cannot determine what share of aged receivables were placed rather than retained, written off, or resolved internally, nor whether placed accounts differed systematically in documentation, dispute status, or debtor viability from those retained.

No regression or correlation analysis was performed. The comparisons by age group and placement type are group contrasts, and the study does not establish predictive relationships or causation.

The 2022 cohort begins in April and includes only 90 closed accounts in the placement-pattern analysis, with balances weighted toward the smaller end of the portfolio. Its full-payment rate should be interpreted with more caution than the larger later cohorts.

Net recovery is not reported. The dataset used for this analysis did not contain sufficient fee information to calculate creditor net remittance.

The study measures agency performance on accounts the creditor chose to place. It does not show what share of total delinquent receivables were resolved internally, retained, or written off, so it cannot describe the creditor's overall receivable outcomes.

Appendix. Placement pattern over the study period

Reported for context. This section covers closed accounts at all ages and describes creditor behavior rather than a recovery result.

Median age fell from 262 days in 2022 to roughly 215 to 218 days from 2024 onward, while the middle 50 percent of placements narrowed from a 111-day range to about three weeks. Full-payment rates rose over the same period, though the data cannot establish that tighter placement timing caused the increase.