@Antman4 - I didn't answer your question re amortization rate...

@Antman4 - I didn't answer your question re amortization rate and what is better. This sort of depends.... In CCPs case their amortization rate is pretty high. For example, this might suggest that they don't have as much expected cash flow in the future to amortise the debt against and may not be a good thing, or it could mean they collected the same amount or more money really quickly, which would be a good thing (as you'd rather have the cash sooner rather than later). CLH has a slower amortization rate than CCP and thus the converse could be said to be true..... Thus the amortization rate needs to be put into context as without context it doesn't tell you much on its own.

Also the rate is highly dependent on future unknown estimates (as you could infer from my post above) and thus is open to estimation uncertainty, bias and manipulation should one so desire.... This is why when I like to assess these sorts of company I like to try and also look through the longer term cycle and actually work out how much cash they return over 5-7 yrs on the initial amount paid for debt and whether they are getting more or less efficient. Using information from investor presentations estimates can be made to determine these numbers/sort of information. However, without the raw data these numbers are always going to be estimates, but perhaps useful nonetheless.

I actually think it would be very useful if the companies in this space disclosed in their presentations by type of debt acquired historical vintage information regarding ultimate liquidation multiple and timeframe to achieve them. Unfortunately, I suspect they will never disclose such information citing they don't want to give it to competitors. Personally these sorts of arguments I think are flawed, as the information doesn't actually tell you how to achieve the outcome, rather just what it was.....a theoretical discussion for another day perhaps....