2020 and Beyond – A Look Ahead
March 3, 2020
With the doors to 2019 firmly closed, alternative financing industry executives are excited about the new decade and the prospects that lie ahead. There are new products to showcase, new competitors to contend with and new customers to pursue as alternative financing continues to gain traction.
Executives reading the tea leaves are overwhelming bullish on the alternative financing industry—and for good reasons. In 2019, merchant cash advances and daily payment small business loan products alone exceeded more than $20 billion a year in originations, AltFinanceDaily’s reporting shows.
Confidence in the industry is only slightly curtailed by certain regulatory, political competitive and economic unknowns lurking in the background—adding an element of intrigue to what could be an exciting new year.
Here, then, are a few things to look out for in 2020 and beyond.
Regulatory developments
There are a number of different items that could be on the regulatory agenda this year, both on the state and federal level. Major areas to watch include:
- Broker licensing. There’s a movement afoot to crack down on rogue brokers by instituting licensing requirements. New York, for example, has proposed legislation that would cover small business lenders, merchant cash advance companies, factors, and leasing companies for transactions under $500,000. California has a licensing law in place, but it only pertains to loans, says Steve Denis, executive director of the Small Business Finance Association. Many funders are generally in favor of broader licensing requirements, citing perceived benefits to brokers, funders, customers and the industry overall. The devil, of course, will be in the details.
- Interest rate caps. Congress is weighing legislation that would set a national interest rate cap of 36%, including fees, for most personal loans, in an effort to stamp out predatory lending practices. A fair number of states already have enacted interest rate caps for consumer loans, with California recently joining the pack, but thus far there has been no national standard. While it is too early to tell the bill’s fate, proponents say it will provide needed protections against gouging, while critics, such as Lend Academy’s Peter Renton, contend it will have the “opposite impact on the consumers it seeks to protect.”
- Loan information and rate disclosures. There continues to be ample debate around exactly what firms should be required to disclose to customers and what metrics are most appropriate for consumers and businesses to use when comparing offerings. This year could be the one in which multiple states move ahead with efforts to clamp down on disclosures so borrowers can more easily compare offerings, industry watchers say. Notably, a recent Federal Reserve study on non-bank small business finance providers indicates that the likelihood of approval and speed are more important than cost in motivating borrowers, though this may not defer policymakers from moving ahead with disclosure requirements.
“THIS WILL DRIVE COMMISSION DOWN FOR THE INDUSTRY”
If these types of requirements go forward, Jared Weitz, chief executive of United Capital generally expects to see commissions take a hit. “This will drive commission down for the industry, but some companies may not be as impacted, depending on their product mix, cost per lead and cost per acquisition and overall company structure,” he says.
- Madden aftermath. The FDIC and OCC recently proposed rules to counteract the negative effects of the 2015 Madden v. Midland Funding LLC case, which wreaked havoc in the consumer and business loan markets in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. “These proposals would clarify that the loan continues to be ‘valid’ even after it is sold to a nonbank, meaning that the nonbank can collect the rates and fees as initially contracted by the bank,” says Catherine Brennan, partner in the Hanover, Maryland office of law firm Hudson Cook. With the comments due at the end of January, “2020 is going to be a very important year for bank and nonbank partnerships,” she says.
- Possible changes to the accredited investor definition. In December 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission voted to propose amendments to the accredited investor definition. Some industry players see expanding the definition as a positive step, but are hesitant to crack open the champagne just yet since nothing’s been finalized. “I would like to see it broadened even further than they are proposed right now,” says Brett Crosby, co-founder and chief operating officer at PeerStreet, a platform for investing in real estate-backed loans. The proposals “are a step in the right direction, but I’m not sure they go far enough,” he says.
Precisely how various regulatory initiatives will play out in 2020 remains to be seen. Some states, for example, may decide to be more aggressive with respect to policy-making, while others might take more of a wait-and-see approach.
“I think states are still piecing together exactly what they want to accomplish. There are too many missing pieces to the puzzle,” says Chad Otar, founder and chief executive at Lending Valley Inc.
As different initiatives work their way through the legislative process, funders are hoping for consistency rather than a patchwork of metrics applied unevenly by different states. The latter could have significant repercussions for firms that do business in multiple states and could eventually cause some of them to pare back operations, industry watchers say.
“While we commend the state-level activity, we hope that there will be uniformity across the country when it comes to legislation to avoid confusion and create consistency” for borrowers, says Darren Schulman, president of 6th Avenue Capital.
Election uncertainty
The outcome of this year’s presidential election could have a profound effect on the regulatory climate for alternative lenders. Alternative financing and fintech charters could move higher on the docket if there’s a shift in the top brass (which, of course, could bring a new Treasury Secretary and/or CFPB head) or if the Senate flips to Democratic control.
If a White House changing of the guard does occur, the impact could be even more profound depending on which Democratic candidate secures the top spot. It’s all speculation now, but alternative financers will likely be sticking to the election polls like glue in an attempt to gain more clarity.
Election-year uncertainty also needs to be factored into underwriting risk. Some industries and companies may be more susceptible to this risk, and funders have to plan accordingly in their projections. It’s not a reason to make wholesale underwriting changes, but it’s something to be mindful of, says Heather Francis, chief executive of Elevate Funding in Gainesville, Florida.
“Any election year is going to be a little bit volatile in terms of how you operate your business,” she says.
Competition
The competitive landscape continues to shift for alternative lenders and funders, with technology giants such as PayPal, Amazon and Square now counted among the largest small business funders in the marketplace. This is a notable shift from several years ago when their footprint had not yet made a dent.
This growth is expected to continue driving competition in 2020. Larger companies with strong technology have a competitive advantage in making loans and cash advances because they already have the customer and information about the customer, says industry attorney Paul Rianda, who heads a law firm in Irvine, Calif.
It’s also harder for merchants to default because these companies are providing them payment processing services and paying them on a daily or monthly basis. This is in contrast to an MCA provider that’s using ACH to take payments out of the merchant’s bank account, which can be blocked by the merchant at any time. “Because of that lower risk factor, they’re able to give a better deal to merchants,” Rianda says.
Increased competition has been driving rates down, especially for merchants with strong credit, which means high-quality merchants are getting especially good deals—at much less expensive rates than a business credit card could offer, says Nathan Abadi, president of Excel Capital Management. “The prime market is expanding tremendously,” he says.
Certain funders are willing to go out two years now on first positions, he says, which was never done before.
Even for non-prime clients, funders are getting more creative in how they structure deals. For instance, funders are offering longer terms—12 to 15 months—on a second position or nine to 12 months on a third position, he says. “People would think you were out of your mind to do that a year ago,” he says.
Because there’s so much money funneling into the industry, competition is more fierce, but firms still have to be smart about how they do business, Abadi says.
Meanwhile, heightened competition means it’s a brokers market, says Weitz of United Capital. A lot of lenders and funders have similar rates and terms, so it comes down to which firms have the best relationship with brokers. “Brokers are going to send the deals to whoever is treating their files the best and giving them the best pricing,” he says.
Profitability, access to capital and business-related shifts
Executives are confident that despite increased competition from deep-pocket players, there’s enough business to go around. But for firms that want to excel in 2020, there’s work to be done.
Funders in 2020 should focus on profitability and access to capital—the most important factors for firms that want to grow, says David Goldin, principal at Lender Capital Partners and president and chief executive of Capify. This year could also be one in which funders more seriously consider consolidation. There hasn’t been a lot in the industry as of yet, but Goldin predicts it’s only a matter of time.
“A lot of MCA providers could benefit from economies of scale. I think the day is coming,” he says.
He also says 2020 should be a year when firms try new things to distinguish themselves. He contends there are too many copycats in the industry. Most firms acquire leads the same way and aren’t doing enough to differentiate. To stand out, funders should start specializing and become known for certain industries, “instead of trying to be all things to all businesses,” he says.
Some alternative financing companies might consider expanding their business models to become more of a one-stop shop—following in the footsteps of Intuit, Square and others that have shown the concept to be sound.
Sam Taussig, global head of policy at Kabbage, predicts that alternative funding platforms will increasingly shift toward providing more unified services so the customer doesn’t have to leave the environment to do banking and other types of financial transactions. It’s a direction Kabbage is going by expanding into payment processing as part of its new suite of cash-flow management solutions for small businesses.
“Customers have seen and experienced how seamless and simple and easy it is to work with some of the nontraditional funders,” he says. “Small businesses want holistic solutions—they prefer to work with one provider as opposed to multiple ones,” he says.
Open banking
This year could be a “pivotal” year for open banking in the U.S., says Taussig of Kabbage. “This issue will come to the forefront, and I think we will have more clarity about how customers can permission their data, to whom and when,” he says.
Open banking refers to the use of open APIs (application program interfaces) that enable third-party developers to build applications and services around a financial institution. The U.K. was a forerunner in implementing open banking, and the movement has been making inroads in other countries as well, which is helping U.S. regulators warm up to the idea. “Open banking is going to be a lively debate in Washington in 2020. It’ll be about finding the balance between policymakers and customers and banks,” Taussig says.
The funding environment
While there has been some chatter about a looming recession and there are various regulatory and competitive headwinds facing the industry, funding and lending executives are mostly optimistic for the year ahead.
“If December 2019 is an early indicator of 2020, we’re off to a good start. I think it’s going to be a great year for our industry,” says Abadi of Excel Capital.
The End Of An Era – AltFinanceDaily Through The Decade
December 30, 2019
AltFinanceDaily estimated that approximately $524 million worth of merchant cash advances had been funded in 2010.
In 2019, merchant cash advances and daily payment small business loan products exceed more than $20 billion a year in originations.
First Funds
Merchant Cash and Capital
Business Financial Services
AmeriMerchant
Greystone Business Resources
Strategic Funding Source
Fast Capital
Sterling Funding
iFunds
Kabbage
OnDeck
Square Capital
Amazon Lending
Funding Circle USA
Yellowstone Capital
Entrust Cash Advance
Merchants Capital Access
Merchant Resources International
American Finance Solutions
Nations Advance
Bankcard Funding
Rapid Capital Funding
Paramount Merchant Funding
Online Small Business Borrowing Decisions Not Driven By Costs or Disclosures, Fed Study Finds
December 23, 2019
A new study on transparency conducted by the Federal Reserve on non-bank small business finance providers indicates that borrowers are not driven by costs or disclosures. The #1 reason for a business to apply with an online lender was the speed of the process, the study showed. #2 was the likelihood of being funded. Cost ranked near the bottom of the list.
While a focus group pointed out many areas that are ripe for improvement, the Fed was left to conclude that “clearer information—in the form of standardized disclosures—will not necessarily alter the decisions of some small business borrowers about whether and where to obtain financing.”
The Fed further commented that some loan applicants revealed that they had already “committed the expected loan proceeds” before a lender could even present rates and terms. Others borrowers wished they could know their approved rate and terms before even providing a lender with any data. These findings seem to undermine the potential value of enhanced uniformity in disclosures.
The report, which attempts to paint a bleak picture of online lending in spite of the data, seems to validate what online lenders have been saying all along, that speed is supreme. Even where transparency is lacking, it cannot be overstated that big banks scored lower on transparency than online lenders did.
Uncertain Terms: What Small Business Borrowers Find When Browsing Online Lender Websites evaluated BFS Capital, CAN Capital, Credibly, Fundation, Funding Circle, Kabbage, Lending Club, National Funding, OnDeck, Rapid Finance, PayPal Working Capital, and Square Capital.
The Current State of SME Lending in Canada
December 1, 2019
According to the latest statistics, there were 1.18 million employer businesses in Canada, with the majority of them located in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
- 1.15 million (97.9%) represented small businesses
- 21.926 (1.9%) referred to medium-sized ventures
- Only 2.939 (0.2%) accounted for large corporations
Small and medium companies are blooming in Canada: they represent 99.8% of all businesses, and they are the heart of the local economy. However, these businesses are facing extreme challenges when it comes to raising capital – a crucial element of SME growth.
The Canadian banking sphere, dominated by five large banks, often overlooks these businesses. Banks in Canada typically require 32 articles of information when applying for a loan and still 78% of applications from SMEs are rejected. It is especially stressful for startups: you can’t get a loan unless you have customers, but you can’t start your business and get customers without a loan. Cash flow, on the whole, is a complex concept that may be confusing for small business owners, and this kind of financial exclusion only makes it worse. The problem is global, but this Catch-22 has given the green light to alternative lenders worldwide.
THE ALTERNATIVE
One of the alternative funding options for SMEs to bypass the banks and find the right level of capital that they need is called a merchant cash advance (MCA). MCAs aren’t loans. Instead, they represent the sale of a business’s future revenues in exchange for quick cash — the majority of applications are approved within 2 days. This way, a funder provides a lump sum payment with a predetermined percentage (the factor rate) of a merchant’s future credit or debit card sales — cash and check sales typically don’t qualify to be counted. The process goes on until the contractual terms are satisfied. The MCA industry is growing on Canadian soil, but since it is a relatively new domain, the sector remains heavily influenced by American providers, especially when it comes to business models and pricing. But domestic providers don’t see it as a threat. Bruce Marshall, VP of British Columbia-based Company Capital told AltFinanceDaily in 2016 that “We are happy that some of the bigger US players are coming up here and they are spending millions of dollars on advertising. These companies raise awareness of the industry to a higher level and with us being a smaller company, we can ride on their coattails.”
The question of raising awareness of new technology is vital. In comparison to American SME owners, their Canadian colleagues are slower to adopt technology — for instance, only 27% say they currently use technology to analyze customer data. Another study by BDC claims that only 19% of Canadian businesses are digitally advanced.
On the other side, those established companies find the Canadian alternative lending market to be “a very manageable extension of the US market.” However, it’s a smaller market, and Canada’s geographical position (the majority of businesses are located in four main provinces out of thirteen) and regional differences play their part as well. For instance, because of the restrictions that require businesses to advertise and produce marketing materials in French, the majority of alternative lenders from the US don’t operate in Quebec.
RATES, COSTS, AND FIGURES
All in all, MCAs are slowly becoming a financing option for Canadian SMEs looking for quick cash. That “slowness” comes from a lack of understanding about how exactly merchant cash advances work. Some alternative funders take advantage of their non-bank status to neglect regulations that require clarity resulting in somewhat unethical lending practices. Because of this, a certain number of business owners still hesitate to take a chance on a merchant cash advance program.
MCAs in Canada are generally available to businesses that have a steady volume of credit card sales, such as retail stores or restaurants. The amount of personal and business information required when applying for an MCA is much lower in comparison to a regular bank loan application: the documentation generally includes proof of identity, bank statements, and business tax returns. Merchant cash advance rates and costs differ from provider to provider. As MCAs aren’t loans, there are no fixed amounts for repayment installments and no fixed terms either. Typically, the percentage of credit card sales taken to enable the transaction ranges from 5 to 10%. Some companies in Canada charge premiums on their cash advances (which can be as high as 30% or even more.)
THE CHALLENGE
The main challenge for Canadian MCA providers is the absence of reliable data necessary for making underwriting decisions. As previously mentioned, only a small group of large financial institutions dominate the market, so the data is available solely to a handful of businesses. The information obtained from credit bureaus doesn’t help either: in most cases, it isn’t complete for making a wise credit decision. “The availability and access to government and financial data are scarce in Canada compared to other markets,” said Jeff Mitelman, the former CEO of Thinking Capital in an interview with AltFinanceDaily in a past interview. “Most of the data relationships that fintech companies rely on, need to be developed on a one-to-one basis and is often proprietary information.”
When it comes to the process of underwriting, the availability of data presented in the proper format is a crucial factor. It provides the full picture and saves an enormous amount of time for risk officers. “We pay a lot of attention to our underwriting and decision-making process because if we make a mistake, we can lose a lot of money,” Andrew D’Souza, the CEO of Clearbanc, told TechCrunch.
At the moment, the financial data available to Canadian alternative lenders is meager and needs improvement. Another issue is the legislation that varies with each province. Many alternative lenders find the Canadian rules and regulations that govern the industry rather unclear. However, those challenges are associated with a growing market and emerging ecosystem. One way or another, the business loan landscape has changed for good, and alternative financing methods have captured much attention, with giants like PayPal stepping in the game.
THE NEXT STEP
As the industry is new, and has lots of challenges, the banking sphere and fintechs are turning to partnerships accelerating online lending to small business members. It makes perfect sense to MCA providers to license their automated platforms, banks, and credit unions. Traditional players are familiar with regulations and have data for fine-tuned underwriting, while fintech providers bring innovative technology and customer experience. “We saw that Canada is ripe for technology but the differences in regulation among other things made us go the partner route,” said Peter Steger, the head of business development at Kabbage, to AltFinanceDaily – a perfect illustration of the growing partnership trend. These mutual interests create a lot of business opportunities, and that’s a good sign for all parties involved.
When small business owners need financing, timing is essential. Small and medium businesses are vital to the Canadian economy, so for them, the proper financial support means fast and convenient access to credit. In the new fintech-driven reality, applications should be completed within thirty minutes, decisions made within hours, and funds deposited in the applicant’s bank account within days. Canadian small businesses contribute around 30% of the total GDP, so the need for simple finance is acute. The technology has already made small business lending more accessible, and over time, financing alternatives such as MCA will become mainstream.
Lenders, Leaders, and Las Vegas: Money20/20 Review
November 3, 2019
Two things arrived in Las Vegas last month: the first being an unusual dip in local weather, with temperatures dropping to the low forties at times and woolen hats making an appearance; the second being Money20/20.
Now in its seventh year, the conference runs smoothly to the point of being habitual, a trait several attendees mentioned to me when asked how they felt about the 2019 edition.
Running from Sunday the 27thto Wednesday the 30th, each day offered a different focus. The first of these being alternative finance, blockchains, and cryptos. Here, leaders from LendingClub, Kabbage, and OnDeck, among others, took to the stages to discuss issues ranging from strategies in the face of a recession to AI in lending. Running throughout were conversations about where cannabis banking regulation was headed and what can be done to prepare. Of note was Jontae James of NatureTrak, who spoke from the Leadership Lodge Stage, pitching his company as a solution to compliance issues facing lenders who want to work with cannabis companies.
The following days contained a mix of subjects, with Monday featuring many events relating to payments and entrepreneurship; Tuesday being the day for cybersecurity, regulation, and banking; and Wednesday closing the show with various talks on emerging technologies. Among the highlights of these were a talk from David Marcus of Calibra on the currency’s efforts to alter the financial landscape, a discussion on growth in emerging markets from Ant Financial’s Douglas Feagin, and words from BlueVine’s Eyal Lifshitz on the needs of small businesses.
Outside of the stages where these were held was the main expo hall. Dotted with booths and stands, the narrow pathways that were carved out by these were lined with a mix of businesses.
In overwhelming numbers though were companies offering identity verification services. A growing industry in today’s increasingly online world, their presence dominated the hall, with it being hard to turn around without being offered a pamphlet on the importance of knowing who your customers are and how much it will cost to confirm their existence and authenticity.
And while walking through the hall and stopping at stalls to talk offered pleasant and informative conversation, there was an underlying tenseness to some of the chatting. Perhaps it was the unrelenting air conditioning that caused this? Or the endless stream of coffee available had rattled some nerve endings? Or maybe it was the frequency with which an oncoming recession was referenced in the titles of talks?
Who knows, what is likely though is that if it is the last of these possibilities, in the case of a “looming crisis,” as one event labelled it, what was talked about in Vegas may not stay in Vegas.
The FTC Wants To Police Small Business Finance
October 22, 2019
On May 23, the Federal Trade Commission launched an investigation into unfair or deceptive practices in the small business financing industry, including by merchant cash advance providers.
The agency is looking into, among other things, whether both financial technology companies and merchant cash advance firms are making misrepresentations in their marketing and advertising to small businesses, whether they employ brokers and lead-generators who make false and misleading claims, and whether they engage in legal chicanery and misconduct in structuring contracts and debt-servicing.
Evan Zullow, senior attorney at the FTC’s consumer protection division, told AltFinanceDaily that the FTC is, moreover, investigating whether fintechs and MCAs employ “problematic,” “egregious” and “abusive” tactics in collecting debts. He cited such bullying actions as “making false threats of the consequences of not paying a debt,” as well as pressuring debtors with warnings that they could face jail time, that authorities would be notified of their “criminal” behavior, contacting third-parties like employers, colleagues, or family members, and even issuing physical threats.
“Broadly,” Zullow said in a telephone interview, “our work and authority reaches the full life cycle of the financing arrangement.” He added: “We’re looking closely at the conduct (of firms) in this industry and, if there’s unlawful conduct, we’ll take law enforcement action.”
Zullow declined to identify any targets of the FTC inquiry. “I can’t comment on nonpublic investigative work,” he said.
The FTC investigation is one of several regulatory, legislative and law enforcement actions facing the merchant cash advance industry, which was triggered by a Bloomberg exposé last winter alleging sharp practices by some MCA firms.
The Bloomberg series told of high-cost financings, of MCA firms’ draining debtors’ bank accounts, and of controversial collections practices in which debtors signed contracts that included “confessions of judgment.”
The FTC long ago outlawed the use of COJs in consumer loan contracts and several states have banned their use in commercial transactions. In September, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed legislation prohibiting the use of COJs in New York State courts for out-of-state residents. And there is a bipartisan bill pending in the U.S. Senate authored by Florida Republican Marco Rubio and Ohio Democrat Sherrod Brown to outlaw COJs nationwide.
Mark Dabertin, a senior attorney at Pepper Hamilton, described the FTC’s investigation of small business financing as a “significant development.” But he also said that the agency’s “expansive reading of the FTC Act arguably presents the bigger news.” Writing in a legal memorandum to clients, Dabertin added: “It opens the door to introducing federal consumer protection laws into all manner of business-to-business conduct.”
FTC attorney Zullow told AltFinanceDaily, “We don’t think it’s new or that we’re in uncharted waters.”
The FTC inquiry into alternative small business financing is not the only investigation into the MCA industry. Citing unnamed sources, The Washington Post reported in June that the Manhattan district attorney is pursuing a criminal investigation of “a group of cash advance executives” and that the New York State attorney general’s office is conducting a separate civil probe.
The FTC’s investigation follows hard on the heels of a May 8 forum on small business financing. Labeled “Strictly Business,” the proceedings commenced with a brief address by FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra, who paid homage to the vital role that small business plays in the U.S. economy. “Hard work and the creativity of entrepreneurs and new small businesses helped us grow,” he said.
But he expressed concern that entrepreneurship and small business formation in the U.S. was in decline. According to census data analyzed by the Kaufmann Foundation and the Brookings Institution, the commissioner noted, the number of new companies as a share of U.S. businesses has declined by 44 percent from 1978 to 2012.
“It’s getting harder and harder for entrepreneurs to launch new businesses,” Chopra declared. “Since the 1980s, new business formation began its long steady decline. A decade ago births of new firms started to be eclipsed by deaths of firms.”
Chopra singled out one-sided, unjust contracts as a particularly concerning phenomenon. “One of the most powerful weapons wielded by firms over new businesses is the take-it-or-leave-it contract,” he said, adding: “Contracts are ways that we put promises on paper. When it comes to commerce, arm’s length dealing codified through contracts is a prerequisite for prosperity. “But when a market structure requires small businesses to be dependent on a small set of dominant firms — or firms that don’t engage in scrupulous business practices — these incumbents can impose contract terms that cement dominance, extract rents, and make it harder for new businesses to emerge and thrive.”
As the panel discussions unfolded, representatives of the financial technology industry (Kabbage, Square Capital and the Electronic Transactions Association) as well as executives in the merchant cash advance industry (Kapitus, Everest Business Financing, and United Capital Source) sought to emphasize the beneficial role that alternative commercial financiers were playing in fostering the growth of small businesses by filling a void left by banks.
The fintechs went first. In general, they stressed the speed and convenience of their loans and lines of credit, and the pioneering innovations in technology that allowed them to do deeper dives into companies seeking credit, and to tailor their products to the borrower’s needs. Panelists cited the “SMART Box” devised by Kabbage and OnDeck as examples of transparency. (Accompanying those companies’ loan offers, the SMART Box is modeled on the uniform terms contained in credit card offerings, which are mandated by the Truth in Lending Act. TILA does not pertain to commercial debt transactions.)
Sam Taussig, head of global policy at Kabbage, explained that his company typically provides loans to borrowers with five to seven employees — “truly Main Street American small businesses” — that are seeking out “project-based financing” or “working capital.”
“The average small business according to our research only has about 27 days of cash flow on hand,” Taussig told the fintech panel, FTC moderators and audience members. “So if you as a small business owner need to seize an opportunity to expand your revenue or (have) a one-off event — such as the freezer in your ice cream store breaks — it’s very difficult to access that capital quickly to get back to business or grow your business.”
Taussig contrasted the purpose of a commercial loan with consumer loans taken out to consolidate existing debt or purchase a consumer product that’s “a depreciating asset.” Fintechs, which typically supply lightning-quick loans to entrepreneurs to purchase equipment, meet payrolls, or build inventory, should be judged by a different standard.
A florist needs to purchase roses and carnations for Mother’s Day, an ice-cream store must replenish inventory over the summer, an Irish pub has to stock up on beer and add bartenders at St. Patrick’s Day.
The session was a snapshot of not just the fintech industry but of the state of small business. Lewis Goodwin, the head of banking services at Square Capital, noted that small businesses account for 48% of the U.S. workforce. Yet, he said, Square’s surveys show that 70% of them “are not able to get what they want” when they seek financing.
Square, he said, has made 700,000 loans for $4.5 billion in just the past few years, the platform’s average loan is between $6,000 and $7,000, and it never charges borrowers more than 15% of a business’s daily receipts. The No. 1 alternative for small businesses in need of capital is “friends and family,” Goodwin said, “and that’s a tough bank to go back to.”
Panelist Gwendy Brown, vice-president of research and policy at the Opportunity Fund, a non-profit microfinance organization, provided the fintechs with their most rocky moment when she declared that small businesses turning up at her fund were typically paying an annual percentage rate of 94 percent for fintech loans. And while most small business owners were knowledgeable about their businesses — the florists “know flowers in and out,” for example — they are often bewildered by the “landscape” of financial product offerings.
“Sophistication as a business owner,” Brown said, “does not necessarily equate into sophistication in being able to assess finance options.”
Panelist Claire Kramer Mills, vice-president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, reported that the country’s banks have made a dramatic exit from small business lending over the past ten years. A graphic would show that bank loans of more than $1 million have risen dramatically over the past decade but, she said, “When you look at the small loans, they’ve remained relatively flat and are not back to pre-crisis levels.”
Mills also said that 50% of small businesses in the Federal Reserve’s surveys “tell us that they have a funding shortfall of some sort or another. It’s more stark when you look at women-owned business, black or African-American owned businesses, and Latino-owned businesses.”
On the merchant cash advance panel there was less opportunity to dazzle the regulators and audience members with accounts of state-of-the-art technology and the ability to aggregate mountains of data to make online loans in as few as seven minutes, as Kabbage’s Taussig noted the fintech is wont to do.
Instead, industry panelists endeavored to explain to an audience — which included skeptical regulators, journalists, lawyers and critics — the precarious, high-risk nature of an MCA or factoring product, how it differs from a loan, and the upside to a merchant opting for a cash advance. (To their credit, one attendee told AltFinanceDaily, the audience also included members of the MCA industry interested in compliance with federal law.)
A merchant cash advance is “a purchase of future receipts,” Kate Fisher, an attorney at Hudson Cook in Baltimore, explained. “The business promises to deliver a percentage of its revenue only to the extent as that revenue is created. If sales go down,” she explained, “then the business has a contractual right to pay less. If sales go up, the business may have to pay more.”
As for the major difference between a loan and a merchant cash advance: the borrower promises to repay the lender for the loan, Fisher noted, but for a cash advance “there’s no absolute obligation to repay.”
Scott Crockett, chief executive at Everest Business Funding, related two anecdotes, both involving cash advances to seasonal businesses. In the first instance, a summer resort in Georgia relied on Everest’s cash advances to tide it over during the off-season.
When the resort owner didn’t call back after two seasonal advances, Crockett said, Everest wanted to know the reason. The answer? The resort had been sold to Marriott Corporation. Thanking Everest, Crockett said, the former resort-owners reported that without the MCA, he would likely have sold off a share of his business to a private equity fund or an investor.
By providing a cash advance Everest acted “more like a temporary equity partner,” Crockett remarked.
In the second instance, a restaurant in the Florida Keys that relied on a cash advance from Everest to get through the slow summer season was destroyed by Hurricane Irma. “Thank God no one was hurt,” Crockett said, “but the business owner didn’t owe us anything. We had purchased future revenues that never materialized.”
The outsized risk borne by the MCA industry is not confined entirely to the firm making the advance, asserted Jared Weitz, chief executive at United Capital Service, a consultancy and broker based in Great Neck, N.Y. It also extends to the broker. Weitz reported that a big difference between the MCA industry and other funding sources, such as a bank loan backed by the Small Business Administration, is that ”you are responsible to give that commission back if that merchant does not perform or goes into an actual default up to 90 days in.
“I think that’s important,” Weitz added, “because on (both) the broker side and on the funding side, we really are taking a ride with the merchant to make sure that the business succeeds.”
FTC’s panel moderators prodded the MCA firms to describe a typical factor rate. Jesse Carlson, senior vice-president and general counsel at Kapitus, asserted that the factor rate can vary, but did not provide a rate.
“Our average financing is approximately $50,000, it’s approximately 11-12 months,” he said. “On a $50,000 funding we would be purchasing $65,000 of future revenue of that business.”
The FTC moderator asked how that financing arrangement compared with a “typical” annual percentage rate for a small business financing loan and whether businesses “understand the difference.”
Carlson replied: “There is no interest rate and there is no APR. There is no set repayment period, so there is no term.” He added: “We provide (the) total cost in a very clear disclosure on the first page of all of our contracts.”
Ami Kassar, founder and chief executive of Multifunding, a loan broker that does 70% of its work with the Small Business Administration, emerged as the panelist most critical of the MCA industry. If a small business owner takes an advance of $50,000, Kassar said, the advance is “often quoted as a factor rate of 20%. The merchant thinks about that as a 20% rate. But on a six-month payback, it’s closer to 60-65%.”
He asserted that small businesses would do better to borrow the same amount of money using an SBA loan, pay 8 1/4 percent and take 10 years to pay back. It would take more effort and the wait might be longer, but “the impact on their cash flow is dramatic” — $600 per month versus $600 a day, he said — “compared to some of these other solutions.”
Kassar warned about “enticing” offers from MCA firms on the Internet, particularly for a business owner in a bind. “If you jump on that train and take a short-term amortization, oftentimes the cash flow pressure that creates forces you into a cycle of short-term renewals. As your situation gets tougher and tougher, you get into situations of stacking and stacking.”
On a final panel on, among other matters, whether there is uniformity in the commercial funding business, panelists described a massive muddle of financial products.
Barbara Lipman: project manager in the division of community affairs with the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, said that the central bank rounded up small businesses to do some mystery shopping. The cohort — small businesses that employ fewer than 20 employees and had less than $2 million in revenues — pretended to shop for credit online.
As they sought out information about costs and terms and what the application process was like, she said, “They’re telling us that it’s very difficult to find even some basic information. Some of the lenders are very explicit about costs and fees. Others however require a visitor to go to the website to enter business and personal information before finding even the basics about the products.” That experience, Lipman said, was “problematic.”
She also said that, once they were identified as prospective borrowers on the Internet, the Fed’s shoppers were barraged with a ceaseless spate of online credit offers.
John Arensmeyer, chief executive at Small Business Majority, an advocacy organization, called for greater consistency and transparency in the marketplace. “We hear all the time, ‘Gee, why do we need to worry about this? These are business people,’” he said. “The reality is that unless a business is large enough to have a controller or head of accounting, they are no more sophisticated than the average consumer.
“Even about the question of whether a merchant cash advance is a loan or not,” Arensmeyer added. “To the average small business owner everything is a loan. These legal distinctions are meaningless. It’s pretty much the Wild West.”
In the aftermath of the forum, the question now is: What is the FTC likely to do?
Zullow, the FTC attorney, referred AltFinanceDaily to several recent cases — including actions against Avant and SoFi — in which the agency sanctioned online lenders that engaged in unfair or deceptive practices, or misrepresented their products to consumers.
These included a $3.85 million settlement in April, 2019, with Avant, an online lending company. The FTC had charged that the fintech had made “unauthorized charges on consumers’ accounts” and “unlawfully required consumers to consent to automatic payments from their bank accounts,” the agency said in a statement.
In the settlement with SoFi, the FTC alleged that the online lender, “made prominent false statements about loan refinancing savings in television, print, and internet advertisements.” Under the final order, “SoFi is prohibited from misrepresenting to consumers how much money consumers will save,” according to an FTC press release.
But these are traditional actions against consumer lenders. A more relevant FTC action, says Pepper Hamilton attorney Dabertin, was the FTC’s “Operation Main Street,” a major enforcement action taken in July, 2018 when the agency joined forces with a dozen law enforcement partners to bring civil and criminal charges against 24 alleged scam artists charged with bilking U.S. small businesses for more than $290 million.
In the multi-pronged campaign, which Zullow also cited, the FTC collaborated with two U.S. attorneys’ offices, the attorneys general of eight states, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and the Better Business Bureau. According to the FTC, the strike force took action against six types of fraudulent schemes, including:
- Unordered merchandise scams in which the defendants charged consumers for toner, light bulbs, cleaner and other office supplies that they never ordered;
- Imposter scams in which the defendants use deceptive tactics, such as claiming an affiliation with a government or private entity, to trick consumers into paying for corporate materials, filings, registrations, or fees;
- Scams involving unsolicited faxes or robocalls offering business loans and vacation packages.
If there remains any question about whether the FTC believes itself constrained from acting on behalf of small businesses as well as consumers, consider the closing remarks at the May forum made by Andrew Smith, director of the agency’s bureau of consumer protection.
“(O)ur organic statute, the FTC Act, allows us to address unfair and deceptive practices even with respect to businesses,” Smith declared, “And I want to make clear that we believe strongly in the importance of small businesses to the economy, the importance of loans and financing to the economy.
Smith asserted that the agency could be casting a wide net. “The FTC Act gives us broad authority to stop deceptive and unfair practices by nonbank lenders, marketers, brokers, ISOs, servicers, lead generators and collectors.”
As fintechs and MCAs, in particular, await forthcoming actions by the commission, their membership should take pains to comport themselves ethically and responsibly, counsels Hudson Cook attorney Fisher. “I don’t think businesses should be nervous,” she says, “but they should be motivated to improve compliance with the law.”
She recommends that companies make certain that they have a robust vendor-management policy in place, and that they review contracts with ISOs. Companies should also ensure that they have the ability to audit ISOs and monitor any complaints. “Take them seriously and respond,” Fisher says.
Companies would also do well to review advertising on their websites to ascertain that claims are not deceptive, and see to it that customer service and collections are “done in a way that is fair and not deceptive,” she says, adding of the FTC investigation: “This is a wake-up call.”
Online Lender Wins Massive Arbitration Award After Retailer Challenged The “True Lender” Of The Loans
September 13, 2019
An arbitrator was unconvinced by a retailer’s arguments that business loans it obtained from Celtic Bank via Kabbage were responsible for the business’s eventual failure.
In 2017, NRO Boston, LLC and Alice Indelicato filed a lawsuit against Kabbage Inc. and Celtic Bank Corporation for allegedly violating Massachussetts’ usury law when the parties engaged in financing transactions years earlier. The complaint alleged that Kabbage’s relationship with Utah-based Celtic Bank was a “rent-a-bank” scheme that enabled Kabbage, as part of a sham, to piggyback off of Celtic Bank’s exemption from state usury laws. State chartered banks are typically not subject to state usury laws even in other states. The usurious loans it obtained from the parties, NRO argued, caused severe mental anguish, emotional distress, and financial strain which forced them to obtain even more loans from other lenders.
At the time, the National Law Review said this case exemplified the litigation risk inherent in using bank partnerships and that it was the latest example in the burgeoning area of “true lender” litigation.
Kabbage responded to the suit by enforcing its arbitration provision and the underlying litigation was stayed. The arbitration process proved to be extensive and expensive and tallied up more than 800 exhibits and 12 witnesses. On July 24, 2019, the arbitrator announced his decision, and it didn’t bode well for NRO Boston.
The difficulties the retailer encountered, the arbitrator wrote in his written decision, were caused by the owners’ inexperience, mismanagement of the business, the rapid expansion of the business, the assumption of millions of dollars of debt, and excessive owner compensation. NRO’s F rating with the BBB and the fact that the owners had paid themselves a whopping $1.3 million from 2010 – 2013, well in excess of industry averages, were reasons the business failed, the arbitrator wrote. Furthermore, Kabbage and Celtic Bank only accounted for 2.3% of NRO’s debt.
“The obvious conclusion, and I so find, is that Celtic and Kabbage and their business arrangement had nothing to do with the demise of NRO.”
More to the point, the arbitrator concluded that there was no merit to the allegation that Kabbage’s relationship with Celtic Bank was a “rent-a-bank” scheme.
As a result, Celtic Bank was awarded a grand total of nearly $3.3 million in legal fees, costs & expenses, and the outstanding balance owed on the loans.
On September 9, NRO filed a petition in federal court to vacate the arbitration award, in part because they believe the arbitrator engaged in a manifest disregard of the law. The matter is currently pending.
Snapshot On Australia: Growth In The Making
August 30, 2019
The Australian alternative lending market continues to gain momentum, bolstered in part by increased awareness, heightened competition and growing dissatisfaction with the status quo.
Indeed, there’s been significant growth in the few years since AltFinanceDaily first wrote about the nascent alternative lending business down under. Notably, Australia’s alternative funding volume surpassed $1.14 billion in 2017, up 88 percent from $609.59 million in 2016, according to the latest data available from KPMG research. It’s the largest country in terms of total alternative finance market volume in the Asia Pacific region, excluding China, according to KPMG.
To be sure, the Australian market is still relatively small—at least compared with the U.S. Digging deeper, the largest share of market volume in 2017—the latest data available—came from balance sheet business lending, accounting for more than $574 million, according to KPMG. P2P marketplace consumer lending had the second largest market volume at $256 million. Invoice trading was the next largest segment of the Australian alternative finance market, accounting for $142.65 million, according to the KPMG report.
Its small size notwithstanding, what makes the Australian market particularly interesting is the potential promise it holds for the companies already established there and the opportunities it may offer to new entrants that find ways to successfully compete in the market.
Certainly alternative lending opportunities in Australia are growing, as awareness increases and the desire by consumers and businesses for favorable rates and faster service intensifies. The Australian alternative lending market is similar to Canada in that a small number of large banks dominate the market both in terms of consumer lending and small business lending. But, like in Canada, alternative lenders are gaining ground amid a changing customer mindset that values speed, favorable rates and a digital experience.
Equifax estimates that alternative finance volume in Australia is now growing at about 10 percent to 15 percent per year; that compares to a decline of approximately 20 percent for some major traditional lenders in terms of credit growth, says Moses Samaha, executive general manager for Equifax in Sydney. This presents an opportunity for alternative lenders to serve parts of the market the banks don’t want and those that are more attuned to a digital experience.
Even so, challenges persist. For instance, digital disruptors are still working on gaining brand awareness, and the market is only so big to be able to accommodate a certain number of alternative players. Time will time whether there will be consolidation among alternative lenders and more bank partnerships, which haven’t been so successful to date. “It doesn’t feel like they are as active as they were announced to be,” Samaha says.
At present, the Australian market consists of a few dozen alternative lenders pitted against four major banks. RateSetter, SocietyOne and Wisr are among the largest alternative players in the consumer lending space. On the small business side, Capify, GetCapital, Moula, OnDeck, Prospa and Spotcap are some of the leading companies. PayPal Working Capital also has a growing presence in the Australian small business lending market.
New lenders continue to eye the Australian market for entry, but it’s not an easy market to crack, according to industry participants. The market consists of mostly home-grown players and that’s not expected to change drastically. (Capify, OnDeck and Berlin-based Spotcap are notable exceptions. Another U.S. major player, Kabbage, previously provided its technology to Australia’s Kikka Capital, but that agreement is no longer in force.)
There can be a steep learning curve when it comes to outsiders doing business in Australia. What’s more, there’s no longer the first-to-market advantage that existed a decade or so ago. It’s also a relatively limited market in terms of size, which can be off-putting. Australia has a population of around 25 million, making it less populated than the state of California, with an estimated 39.9 million residents.
Still, for alternative players that are able to successfully navigate the challenges the Australian market presents, there’s ample opportunity to grab market share away from traditional players—similar to the pattern that’s emerged elsewhere around the globe.
Take consumer lending, for example. The unsecured consumer lending market in Australia sits at about $70 billion, with the large banks occupying maybe a 90 percent share of that, says Mathew Lu, chief operating officer of Wisr (previously known as DirectMoney Limited). Compared with other markets such as U.K. and the U.S., who went through a similar journey around a decade ago, “Australia is probably three or four years into that same journey of growth. It’s shifting and changing,” he says.
Alternative lenders have made strides in undercutting the large banks by offering generally lower rates and typically faster loan times. Unfavorable press related to bank lending practices has also benefited alternative lenders. Lu refers to these conditions as “a perfect storm” for growth.
Wisr, for instance, saw loan origination volume spike 409 percent in fiscal year 2018. The company secured $75 million in loan funding agreements last year and boasts more than 80,000 customers, according to a company presentation.
Marketplace lender, SocietyOne, which in March reached $600 million in loan originations, is another example of an alternative lender that has benefited from the momentum. The company— celebrating its 7th anniversary this summer—is hoping to reach $1 billion in loans by 2020, according to its website.
RateSetter—another major player in this space—has also experienced significant growth since launching in Australia in 2014, and is now funding over $20 million in loans each month, according to its website. In April, the company soared past $500 million in loans funded and in May it saw a record number of new investors register. The company has more than 15,000 registered investors by its own account.
One question for the future is whether the consumer alternative lending space in Australia will ultimately be too crowded amid a spate of new entrants. Wisr’s Lu says “there’s a big question mark” regarding how many alternative lenders the market can sustain. “Will there be a level of consolidation or amalgamation? These are questions ahead of us,” he says.
For its part, alternative lending to small businesses is also a growing force within Australia. As a testament to the development of this market, in June 2018, a group of Australia’s leading online small business lenders released a Code of Lending Practice, a voluntary code designed to promote fair terms and customer protections. Currently, the Code only covers unsecured loans to small businesses. Signatories include Capify, GetCapital, Moula, OnDeck, Prospa and Spotcap.
Capify—an early entrant to Australia—has been pursuing businesses there since 2008. The company, which integrated its U.S. business in 2017 to Strategic Funding Source (now called Kapitus) is now operating only in Australia and the U.K. In Australia, it has executed more than 7,500 business financing transactions for Australian businesses and has more than 50 staff members in its Australian offices.
The company recently closed a deal with Goldman Sachs for a $95 million line of credit for growth in Australia and the U.K., which includes building out its broker program to increase distribution and technology investment.
David Goldin, the company’s chief executive, says Capify is hoping to grow its Australian business between 25 percent and 30 percent in 2019. The company is looking at M&A activity as well as organic growth.
Since Capify has been in the market, he has seen a number of new entrants—some more successful than others. One concern Goldin has is the lack of experience by some of these competitors. Many aren’t pricing the risk properly and not underwriting prudently to be able to weather a downturn, he says. They are so new, he questions whether they have the expertise to be able to survive a downturn given what he characterizes as pricing and underwriting missteps.
“You can’t go out 24 months on a 1.25 factor rate – that’s crazy,” he says, referring to some contracts he’s seen. “I’ve seen this movie in the U.S. before and it doesn’t end well.”
Meanwhile, competition has driven down prices and made moving quickly on potential leads more of a necessity. When leads come in today, if you’re not on the phone in 30 minutes, you could lose it to a competitor, he says.
While the small business market is an enticing one for alternative lenders, raising awareness of their offerings continues to be a challenge.
“The small business market is fragmented and raising awareness is expensive,” says Beau Bertoli, co-founder and co-chief executive of Prospa, another prominent small business lender in Australia. “There hasn’t been much innovation in small business banking, but many Australians still don’t think of switching from banks and traditional lenders,” he says.
That said, more small businesses are turning to alternative lenders and these companies say they expect growth to increase over time. Recent research commissioned by OnDeck found that 22 percent of small and medium-sized businesses would consider an online lender, up from 11 percent in the past. This could be buoyed further by the introduction of Open Banking in Australia, which was set to be introduced in Australia in 2019, but this was pushed back to early 2020.
“We look forward to the introduction of Open Banking in Australia as it should allow lenders to use incremental data points to improve risk modeling, and increase competition in the SME lending space, ultimately providing SMEs with improved access to cashflow solutions to grow and run their businesses,” says Cameron Poolman, chief executive of OnDeck in Australia.
Bertoli of Prospa, which recently listed on the Australian Stock Exchange, says the Australian alternative lending market will also benefit from strong support from industry and government to increase competition and improve consumer and small business outcomes. The government recently established a $2 billion Australian Business Securitisation Fund, which is a huge win for small business, he says, that will ultimately make the finance available to small business owners more affordable by lowering the wholesale cost of funds for alternative lenders. “We expect this will boost credibility and consideration of alternative lenders among small business owners,” he says.
Declining property values is another factor helping alternative lending. “In November 2018 we saw the largest annual fall in property prices in Australia since the global financial crisis in 2009,” says Simon Keast, managing director of Spotcap Australia and New Zealand.
“As property prices decline, business owners find it more difficult to use their home as loan security and as such, turn to alternative lenders such as Spotcap that can provide them with unsecured loans for their business,” he says. What’s more, the SME Growth Index in March showed for the first time that business owners are almost as likely to turn to an alternative lender as they are to their main bank to fund growth, says.
Overall, the market opportunity for alternative lending to small businesses is compelling, says Bertoli of Prospa. “We estimate the potential market for small business lending in Australia is more than $20 billion per annum and we’ve penetrated only about 2 percent of the market so far. There are 2.3 million small businesses in Australia, and they’re crying out for capital,” he says.
Keast of Spotcap says he expects to see more banks and non-financial enterprises looking to leverage the technology fintech lenders have built to provide swift and digital lending products to small businesses. He offers the example of a partnership Spotcap, a German-based company, has with an Austrian Bank to provide same-day finance to SMEs in Austria as an example of the types of partnerships the company could also seek in Australia. “We have already partnered with an Austrian Bank that is leveraging our lending platform to provide same-day finance to SMEs in Austria, and there is plenty of interest for similar partnerships on the ground here,” he says.
OnDeck, meanwhile, expects to see a shake-out within the alternative finance sector, which will result in a smaller number of bigger players, with the ability to scale and serve multiple customers with a variety of products, according to Poolman, the company’s chief executive.
For his part, Goldin of Capify is bullish on the Australian small business market, but he cautions others that it’s not a gold rush type of place where everyone who comes in can make money.
“The state of California has more opportunity than the entire continent of Australia,” he says.
