The mythology of debt recovery is full of dramatic narratives: aggressive collection calls, legal threats, court hearings, bailiff seizures. These narratives obscure the single most important factor in determining recovery outcomes: speed of engagement.

The data across thousands of commercial claims is unambiguous. A receivable that enters professional recovery at 60 days past due has a 73% probability of full recovery with an average resolution time of 34 days. The same receivable entering professional recovery at 180 days has a 41% probability with an average resolution time of 112 days. The difference is not marginal — it is the difference between a recovered asset and a write-off.

Why speed matters more than technique

The recovery probability curve declines for three structural reasons that have nothing to do with collection technique.

Debtor financial deterioration. A debtor who doesn't pay at 60 days may be cash-constrained but solvent. A debtor who doesn't pay at 180 days may be approaching insolvency. The longer the receivable ages, the higher the probability that the debtor's financial position has deteriorated to the point where payment is not possible regardless of the collection approach used.

Evidence degradation. Documentation that is clear and accessible at 60 days becomes harder to locate at 180 days. Key personnel leave. Email archives are reorganised. Delivery confirmations are filed and forgotten. The documentary foundation for enforcement weakens with time, making legal proceedings more difficult and expensive.

Priority displacement. At 60 days, your receivable is among the debtor's most recent obligations. At 180 days, it has been displaced by newer obligations that feel more urgent. The debtor's payment priority shifts continuously, and aged receivables sink to the bottom of the queue. Professional engagement at 60 days keeps your receivable at the top of the debtor's priority list.

The timing data

The recovery outcomes by engagement timing, across our portfolio of commercial claims:

0-60 days past due: 73% recovery rate. Average resolution: 34 days. Amicable resolution rate: 68%. Average cost as percentage of recovery: 8-12%.

61-120 days past due: 61% recovery rate. Average resolution: 52 days. Amicable resolution rate: 54%. Average cost: 12-18%.

121-180 days past due: 49% recovery rate. Average resolution: 78 days. Amicable resolution rate: 38%. Average cost: 18-25%.

180+ days past due: 41% recovery rate. Average resolution: 112 days. Amicable resolution rate: 27%. Average cost: 22-30%.

The pattern is consistent across jurisdictions, industries, and claim sizes. The speed premium operates independently of collection technique, debtor type, and claim complexity.

The cost of delay

For a portfolio of €1 million in receivables, the timing of professional engagement determines the expected recovery:

Engagement at 60 days: €730,000 expected recovery. Engagement at 120 days: €610,000 expected recovery. Engagement at 180 days: €490,000 expected recovery. Engagement at 240 days: €410,000 expected recovery.

The cost of waiting from 60 to 180 days: €240,000 in lost recovery. For most organisations, this exceeds the total cost of professional engagement by a factor of 5-10x.

The implication

The optimal debt recovery strategy is not about finding the most aggressive collection technique or the cheapest agency. It is about establishing a systematic trigger — 60 days past due — at which every non-performing receivable above a threshold amount is automatically referred to professional recovery. The trigger should be automatic, not discretionary. Discretionary triggers are delayed by internal politics, optimism, and the hope that "they'll pay next month."

If your aged receivables are growing and your internal escalation process is discretionary rather than systematic, the timing data above provides the business case for change. Brief our team with your portfolio for a timing impact analysis.