For ISOs Only — How To Develop Your Factoring Brokerage Business (Part 1)
November 17, 2019
Let me ask you a question; If you were walking down the street and saw a $100 bill on the sidewalk, would you stop and pick it up? Of course you would, unless you didn’t see it. Or would you say, “I’m in a hurry and it’s ONLY $100. I’ll make a lot more money on that big MCA deal I’m heading into the office to work on, so I’ll just leave it on the sidewalk.” Really?!
Well, Here’s a rude awakening. For any of you who haven’t added Factoring to your financing product mix, that’s EXACTLY what you’re doing RIGHT NOW! And get this, you’re doing it with some of the SAME merchants you’re doing deals with RIGHT NOW! Here’s why; A percentage of your merchants sell Business-To Business (B2B), and get paid in 30 to 45 days, and in some cases, even longer.
Many of these are the SAME merchants who come to YOU for an advance to help cash-flow due to delayed invoice payments, so you provide an MCA, right? Right! That’s what we do. But here’s the problem: Next month they come back again, and then again, and then sometimes they get wise, secure another position somewhere else, and before long, well, we all know the story. After all that, while the last advance may have solved their immediate problem, they will ALWAYS have a continuing and on-going need for cash because they’re ALWAYS waiting to get paid. And the FASTER they grow, the BIGGER the problem! Sound familiar?
So, what does that tell us? In most cases, while an MCA may help stop the bleeding, it’s not designed to heal the wound. More specifically, the “wound” that needs to be healed is the un-predictable timing of customer payments on outstanding invoices. So while an MCA provides immediate relief, factoring solves the timing problem. Here’s how it works: The factoring funder provides an advance against approved invoices, typically 70% to 90%. Once the invoice is paid, the funder deducts the advance, along with their fee, and wires the balance to the merchant. So the advance essentially pays itself off, working much like a revolving Line of Credit (LOC). In other words, no payments! The term I use to describe this is called Self-Liquidating.
Here’s how I see it: when structured properly, factoring and MCAs can often complement each other and work well together. Factoring provides predictable cash flow because advances are based on predictable billings to their customers, whether it be monthly, weekly, or even daily. The predictable cash-flow from factoring advances is what the merchant can rely on to cover their continuing and on-going business expenses, i.e. payroll, materials, etc. MCAs can also be used to provide a lump sum injection to cover interim cash needs on a short-term basis, while factoring is being put in place.
Here’s an actual example of a real client situation we recently funded using this approach. Client is a large importer of Spanish wines selling to one of the largest spirits distributors in the country. They typically get paid in 45 to 60 days, so we established a factoring facility, which would take about a week. However, they had a container from Spain that needed to be paid for and shipped IMMEDIATELY to help fill holiday orders. We secured an MCA to pay for the container and negotiated an aggressive early pay-off discount. Once the factoring LOC was in place, the MCA was satisfied using a portion of the proceeds from the first factoring advance. We are now putting a purchase order funding facility in place to cover the upfront costs on all future container shipments from overseas.
This combined approach, enables YOU to provide FUNDING SOLUTIONS for your merchants, much like Ed McKinley described in the September/October, 2019 issue of AltFinanceDaily Magazine where he talks about Consultative Selling. A true professional focuses on solving financing problems and building a relationship with their merchants, versus simply funding a transaction. You then have the opportunity of becoming a “trusted financing resource” versus a broker simply interested in what I call “hit and run” selling. In addition, this approach can have a multiplier effect on your income, enabling you to get paid on a continuing and on-going basis.
Speaking of getting paid, you may ask, “So how much money can I make with factoring?”
I’m so glad you asked that question. Maybe now is a good time to introduce myself. For over the past 25 years, I have specialized in arranging factoring/PO and contract financing for hundreds of growing business owners all over the country, providing millions of dollars in financing. Over the years I have earned in excess of a seven-figure income, primarily as a broker. I’m sharing this information with you to make a point; there’s a LOT of money which YOU can make too with factoring, IN ADDITION TO what you’re already making with MCAs.
So, then you say, “Well that’s great for you Watson, but how much money can I make?” Good question. Let’s take a look at how it’s structured. With factoring, you’re paid by the funder, just like an MCA. Two major differences. The first is that broker commissions for factoring typically range between 10% to 15% of the fee income earned by the funder per month. Fee income is earned once the outstanding funded invoices have been paid by the merchant’s customers. Broker commissions are then paid by the funder the following month. As an example, if the fee income earned by the funder was, say, $10,000 per merchant, per month, you would be paid $1,000 to $1,500 per merchant, per month. Ten merchants would pay you $10,000 to $15,000 per month and so on. Broker commissions will continue to be paid for the life of the factoring relationship and provide you with residual income, or what many refer to as, mail-box money, because it’s actually like getting a renewal every month from the same merchants, and you don’t even have to get out of bed!
A second source of income which is OPTIONAL, is to establish a fee agreement with the client to pay a success fee or origination fee based on the size of the facility. It is a one-time fee paid at closing and funding, either from the first factoring advance or over several advances based on what you work out with your merchant. Success fees are much like points in a closing on a real estate loan and typically range from 1% to 5% of the facility size. The fee is paid to you directly by your merchant once they have been funded. It is designed to provide you with IMMEDIATE INCOME. As an example, a $250,000 facility at 2% will pay you $5,000 or $10,000 at 4%. And that’s just for one merchant. How many could you do per month? For large contracts, we’ve established factoring facilities up to $5 million. I’ll let you do the math to see the potential.
Combining these two income streams can potentially provide a significant increase to your existing MCA income base, and in some cases from your EXISTING book of merchants. These are what we refer to as the low hanging fruit. They include your construction contractors, service and supply companies, transportation, manufacturing, medical and professional services firms, or anyone else who invoices B2B. Some retail merchants also sell B2B, while others, like restaurants, may have catering contracts. Take a look through your files. For many of these merchants you are already asking for A/R Aging Schedules as a stip, right? Now that aging schedule takes on a whole new meaning! And if they’re not factoring now, my friends, THAT’s the $100 bill you “didn’t see” laying on the street, and potentially THOUSANDS more you are leaving on the table! To be sure, close the MCA they need right now, make the money, and set them up with Phase II by establishing a factoring facility on their behalf. Then continue to provide MCAs as needed to cover unexpected problems or take advantage of opportunities. Make sense?
The next article will be what I call Factoring 101 and will focus on 4 major areas: (1) What is Factoring? (2) How does it work? (3) What are the costs? and (4) How do you qualify? We will also talk about identifying and selecting potential factoring funders, HOW TO deal with UCC filing issues, Subordination Agreements, and Fee Agreements with your merchants. We will also touch on Purchase Order Funding as well.
The last article will be designed to bring it all together and talk about HOW TO establish a game plan and options for getting started with your factoring brokerage business and a few key tips on maximizing success in the business.
Knight Capital Has Been Acquired
November 1, 2019
Publicly-traded Ready Capital Corporation has acquired 100% of Knight Capital LLC. The total sales price was undisclosed but it consisted of cash and 658,771 common shares of Ready Capital stock. A share currently trades at $15.83, valuing the stock portion in excess of $10 million.
More details may emerge when Ready Capital publishes quarterly earnings next week.
“The acquisition of Knight Capital expands Ready Capital’s product offering to small businesses and does so on a platform that has achieved scale,” said Tom Capasse, Ready Capital’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, in a public statement. “Furthermore, the addition of Knight Capital will allow us to leverage its proprietary technology to further increase the efficiency of Ready Capital’s lending platform, enhance our borrowers’ experience and expand existing customer acquisition channels.”
Ready Capital, a multi-strategy real estate finance company, is better known by its management company, Waterfall Asset Management, LLC. Waterfall has previously provided credit facilities to companies like OnDeck, Fundation, and UK-based Lendable.
Ready Capital is headquartered in New York City and employs 400 lending professionals nationwide.
Direct Lending Investments’ Ability to Collect From Largest Debtor Looks Uncertain
October 30, 2019
When Direct Lending Investments (DLI), one of the largest online lending hedge funds, went bust, many were surprised to learn that the fund had discreetly gambled heavily in the international telecom market.
At present, a company called VOIP Guardian Partners I owes DLI $203 million. There’s a problem with recovery in that VOIP declared Chapter 7 bankruptcy this past March with little hope to repay because it itself re-loaned out DLI’s funds to telecom companies around the world and were supposedly never paid back.
VOIP is wholly owned by an individual named Rodney Omanoff, a former Hollywood talent agent. There is currently a criminal investigation into Omanoff for money laundering and “other criminal claims,” DLI’s receiver stated in a recent October report. Tens of millions of dollars potentially recoverable by DLI from VOIP are currently in the custody of The Netherlands while the investigation is being conducted.
Meanwhile, AltFinanceDaily previously determined that VOIP had made bad loans of $158 million to companies purportedly in Hong Kong and United Arab Emirates, funds that came from DLI. The websites for both companies, Telacme Ltd. and Najd Technologies, Ltd, have gone offline.
The bizarre telecom investments in what was perceived to be a hedge fund focused almost entirely on the US online lending market, are not alone. DLI recently revealed that it also loaned millions to a company that put up the mineral rights for 6 oil and gas wells as collateral. It also loaned more than $25 million against a distressed commercial real estate property and a note backed by a VC investment in a cloud-based billing service company.
DLI’s receiver is not confident that it will collect the par amount of receivables on its books.
“Without providing individualized loan/portfolio assessments, the Receiver’s general assessment as of the date of this Report is that recoveries on the remaining loan/investment portfolio are likely to be far less than the $672.5 million in par value stated on the receivership books and records as of September 30, 2019. In fact, in connection with the filing of the 2018 tax returns the Receiver recorded a write down for tax purposes in the approximate amount of 40% of the par value of assets at December 31, 2018.”
Separately, the receiver wrote that most of DLI’s outstanding loan and investment portfolios are in “some form of financial distress or subject to disputes that may affect the timing and extent of recoveries on those portfolios.” It has attempted to keep the identity of those investments confidential so as not to cause any outside interference in those companies’ ability to repay.
Is The Definition Of Accredited Investor Ripe For Change?
October 26, 2019
The definition of accredited investor, which the SEC is tackling this year, is causing a fair amount of debate.
At issue is the fact that under federal securities laws only persons who are accredited investors may participate in certain types of securities offerings.
As it now stands, to be deemed an accredited investor, a person needs to earn income of more than $200,000 ($300,000 with a spouse) in each of the prior two years and reasonably expect to earn the same for the current year. Alternatively, the person needs to have a net worth of $1 million or more (alone or with a spouse), excluding the value of a primary residence.
The goal of these rules, of course, is investor protection. In theory, the rules are supposed to ensure investors are sophisticated enough to invest in riskier investments and, on top of that, have adequate cushioning against the risk of financial loss.
The trouble, critics say, is that the rules aren’t doing a very good job of achieving these objectives. There’s widespread agreement that the current definition is flawed. Where it gets trickier is in deciding how it should be fixed.
There are some who say the current bar is too high, others who say it’s too low. Some contend that the wealth-based test should be scrapped altogether in favor of a sophistication test. Others promote a sliding scale approach to investing in riskier offerings. This would allow all investors to participate, but in increments that are proportional to their wealth—similar to what happens in the crowdfunding arena today. Some industry players support a combination of measures, a sophistication test in connection with a sliding scale, to maximize investor protection and still open the playing field for others who can’t participate today based on their income or net worth.
The varying opinions are likely to be debated by the SEC as it reviews the accredited investor definition, which it’s required to do every four years by a provision in the Dodd-Frank Act. The SEC is taking the opportunity to do a broad-based review of the regulatory framework for investing in alternative assets; the accredited investor definition is just one of the areas on its docket to examine. The comment period for this review ended on August 30th.
At this point, what the SEC actually decides to do about the accredited investor definition is anybody’s guess. The thrust of these conversations is likely to focus on what constitutes an appropriate degree of protection, which is where many of the disagreements—and alternative suggestions on how to best accomplish this— come into play.
VETTING THE VARIOUS OPINIONS
On one hand, consumer advocates want to maintain the highest degree of investor protection possible. The concern is that consumers generally don’t have enough prowess or information to safely invest in unregistered offerings, which can carry more risk than registered investments.
“We don’t want the definition to be any weaker than it is now because that would do the vast majority of consumers a disservice,” says Brian Young, public policy manager at the National Consumers League. “With these exempt products, there are a lot of unknown variables and there’s a lot more vulnerability,” he says.
One suggestion that’s being proposed is to raise the wealth and income levels to adjust for inflation. It’s a step in the right direction because it would further limit who is eligible to be considered an accredited investor, says Barbara Roper, director of investor protection for the Consumer Federation of America. “The levels haven’t kept pace with inflation since they were set,” she says.
This alone, however, wouldn’t be sufficient to protect investors, consumer advocates say, since there are plenty of wealthy people who have little to no investment prowess.
“Just changing it to correct for inflation doesn’t change it to correct for sophistication and still places investors at risk,” says Ed Mierzwinski, who oversees U.S. PIRG’s federal consumer program, helping to lead national efforts to improve consumer credit reporting laws, identity theft protections, product safety regulations and more.
On this point consumer advocates and industry professionals seem to agree: that limits based on income or net worth aren’t all that useful.
Roper of the Consumer Federation of America gives the example of a 64-year-old who has $200k in income or $1 million of assets in his or her retirement accounts. This doesn’t mean he or she is financially literate, let alone sophisticated enough to take part in certain types of riskier alternative investments, she says. “That would be an inappropriate investment recommendation if it were made by your broker or investment advisor,” she says.
Some industry professionals also find fault with the wealth test, but, unlike consumer advocates, they’d like to see more investors allowed to participate, not fewer. It’s not right, they contend, that a wide range of highly educated people are prevented from investing in certain offerings because of arbitrary limits on net worth and income.
Many promising investment opportunities are not even being offered to a huge majority of American investors, based on the standards that exist today, according to Nat Hoopes, executive director of the Marketplace Lending Association, an industry trade organization.
“By harmonizing and simplifying complex rules and adjusting the current accredited investor standards, my hope is that the SEC will find that they can permit many more Americans to gain access to a wider range of well regulated investment opportunities, without leaving those citizens exposed to fraud or abuse. Done right, changes from the SEC in this area will help to promote more equality of opportunity in our economy, without adding new red tape,” he says.
Brew Johnson, co-founder and chief executive of PeerStreet, an online platform for investing in real estate debt, says it’s “crazy” that people who are highly educated—such as MBAs, accountants, attorneys and other businesspersons can’t invest in certain offerings simply because they don’t have the income or wealth levels. He takes issue with the fact that he didn’t qualify to invest on his own platform when it was first getting off the ground. Some of his employees today also don’t qualify to invest in the platform they are helping to build, which is troubling, he says.
“You don’t want people to make terrible decisions. But the idea that the average person is too dumb to make decisions with their money…is offensive,” Johnson says. Today, there’s much more readily available information and transparency—a significant change from when the rules were first put in place—when only the largest investors had access to the types of information necessary to make critical investment decisions, he says.
Johnson doesn’t take issue with the goal of protecting investors from getting into things they don’t understand. Rather, he says, “I don’t believe wealth is a determiner of sophistication.”
ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS TO A WEALTH-BASED TEST
That’s where another idea being floated by members of the Marketplace Lending Association and others may come in. The thought is to create a new way to measure an investor’s level of sophistication and ability to withstand loss. An example of this could be some kind of test to identify investors who are deemed to have sufficient investment prowess, despite falling below the SEC’s threshold based on wealth or net worth, to participate in certain types of offerings.
It’s an option that, if adopted, could open up the playing field to additional investors—while still trying to accomplish the SEC’s goal of investor protection, industry participants say.
Ryan Metcalf, head of U.S. Regulatory Affairs at Funding Circle, says the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. (FINRA) could develop a test to be administered online when an investor who doesn’t meet the wealth or income bar wants to invest. This would allow quick-decisions to be made. People who want to invest a few thousand dollars shouldn’t have to do it in person; this would be too onerous, he says.
There could even be different tests based on what investors are seeking to invest in, says Mark Atalla, owner and managing director at private lending firm Carlyle Capital.
For a private placement in a mortgage fund, there could be questions related to the risks involved there, whereas for a private placement in a start-up technology company, there could be other types of questions pertaining to risk. The goal would be to ensure the investor has a sufficient level of understanding about the particular products they are considering.
Otherwise, Atalla says, there’s too much room for people to lose on a large scale. “These are people’s livelihoods you’re responsible for at the end of the day,” he says. “I think it’s important for investors to understand what they are really doing.”
Some industry professionals say there may be too many practical limitations for this type of an assessment to work. Certainly details would have to be worked out including what the scope of the test or tests should be. Decisions would also have to be made about who would be in charge of creating and administering a test or tests and how and where they would be administrated, among other things.
In theory, if someone can pass a test to show he or she is knowledgeable about investing, the person should be able to invest, says PeerStreet’s Johnson, adding that there’s something to be said about people accepting personal responsibility for their decisions, provided they have been given adequate information from which to make informed, knowledgeable decisions. “The devil is in the details of what [this type of test] would look like,” he says.
Another idea being floated—that could stand on its own or be implemented together with a sophistication test—is to allow all investors to invest on a scale that’s similar to the crowdfunding exemption. Under rules adopted by the SEC in 2015, the general public now has the opportunity to participate in the early capital raising activities of start-up and early-stage companies and businesses by way of crowdfunding. Because of the risks involved with this type of investing, however, investors are limited in how they can invest during any 12-month period in these transactions. The limitation depends on the person’s net worth and annual income.
Some industry watchers say the sliding scale idea is a viable one because it would allow more investors a chance to participate in more risky offerings, while providing a safety net for loss.
This type of model has the potential to offer investors a reasonable amount of protection, says Vincent Petrescu, chief executive of truCrowd, Inc., an equity crowdfunding portal that connects startups and emerging businesses with non-accredited and accredited investors. “If you have less money, you are allowed to invest less, but you still can play your hand,” he says.
Johnson of PeerStreet also supports this approach because it allows investors who otherwise wouldn’t have access a chance to broaden their exposure to areas that could potentially allow them to increase their wealth.
Certainly, questions about this approach persist as well. What should the investment limits be? Would it depend on the type of investment? Would investors need to self-certify as they do in crowdfunding, or would their information need to be verified by a third party? These questions and more are also likely to be probed more deeply during an SEC review.
The Marketplace Lending Association would also like employees of private funds to qualify as accredited investors for investments in their employers funds. The trade group contends that a private fund’s employees likely have sufficient access to the information necessary to make informed decisions about investments in their employer’s funds.
The suggestion would be for the SEC to consider adding a new category of the definition to include “knowledgeable employees” of “covered companies” as those terms are defined in Rule 3c-5 of the Investment Company Act.
Industry watchers are hopeful to have some clarity on these issues within the coming months, so stay tuned.
“The SEC’s mandate is to protect investors, which sometimes is needed,” says Petrescu of truCrowd, the equity crowdfunding portal. “There needs to be checks and balances,” he says.
Gold Rush: Merchant Cash Advances Are Still Hot
August 18, 2019
Last year, when Kevin Frederick struck out on his own to form his own catering company in Annapolis, the veteran caterer knew that he’d need a food trailer for his business to succeed.
He reckoned that he had a good case for a $50,000 small-business loan. The Annapolis-based entrepreneur boasted stellar personal credit, $30,000 in the bank, and a track record that included 35 years of experience in his chosen profession. More impressively, his newly minted company—Chesapeake Celebrations Catering—was on a trajectory to haul in $350,000 in revenues over just eight months of operations in 2018. And, after paying himself a salary, he cleared $60,000 in pre-tax profit.
But Frederick’s business-credit profile was so thin that no bank or business funder would talk to him. So woeful was his lack of business credit, Frederick reports, that his only financing option was paying a broker a $2,000 finder’s fee for a high-interest loan.
Luckily, he says, everything changed when he discovered Nav, an online, credit-data aggregator and financial matchmaker.
Based in Utah, Nav had him spiff up his business credit with Dun & Bradstreet, a top rating agency and a Nav business partner. This was accomplished with a bankcard issued to Frederick’s business by megabank J.P. Morgan Chase. Soon afterward, he says, Nav steered him to Kapitus (formerly Strategic Funding Source), a New York-based lender and merchant cash advance firm that provided some $23,000 in funding.
“They led me in the right direction,” Frederick says of Nav. “A lady there (at Nav) helped me with my credit, warning me that the credit card I’d been using had an effect on my personal credit. Then she led me to Kapitus, all probably within a week.”
Now, Frederick has his food trailer. He reports that its total cost—$14,000 for the trailer, which came “with a concession window, mill-finished walls, and flooring” plus $43,000 in renovations—amounted to $57,000. Equipped with a full kitchen—including refrigeration, sinks, ovens, and a stove—the food trailer can be towed to weddings, reunions, and the myriad parties he caters in the Delmarva Peninsula. In addition, Frederick can also park the trailer at fairgrounds and serve seafood, barbeque, and other viands to the lucrative festival market.
Meanwhile, the caterer’s funders are happy to have him as their new customer. The people at Kapitus, to whom he is making daily payments (not counting weekends and holidays), are especially grateful. “Nav provides a valuable service,” says Seth Broman, vice-president of business development at Kapitus. “They know how to turn coal into diamonds,”
Nav does not charge small businesses for its services. As it gathers data from credit reporting services with which it has partnerships—Experian, TransUnion, Dun and Bradstreet, Equifax—and employs additional metrics, such as cashflow gleaned from an entrepreneur’s bank accounts, Nav earns fees from credit card issuers, lenders and MCA firms.
The company has close ties to financial technology companies that include Kabbage and OnDeck, and also collaborates with MCA funders such as National Funding, Rapid Finance, FundBox, and Kapitus. “We give lenders and funders better-qualified merchants at a lower cost of client acquisition,” says Caton Hanson, Nav’s general counsel and co-founder, adding: “They don’t have to spend as much money on leads.”
As banks have increasingly shunned small-business lending in the decade since the financial crisis, and as the economy has snapped back with a prolonged recovery, alternative funders—particularly unlicensed companies offering lightly regulated, high-cost merchant cash advances (MCAs)—have been piling into the business.
And service companies like Nav—which is funded by nearly $100 million in venture capital and which reports aiding more than 500,000 small businesses since it was founded in 2012—are thriving alongside the booming alternative-funding industry.
Over the past five years, the MCA industry’s financings have been growing by 20% annually, according to 2016 projections by Bryant Park Capital, a Manhattan-based, boutique investment bank. BPC’s specialty finance division handles mergers and acquisitions as well as debt-and-equity capital raising across multiple industries and is one of the few Wall Street firms with an MCA-industry practice. By BPC’s estimates, the MCA industry will have more than doubled its small business funding to $19.2 billion by year- end 2019, up from $8.6 billion in 2014.
Bankrolled by a broad assortment of hedge funds, private equity firms, family offices, and assorted multimillionaire and billionaire investors on the qui vive for outsized returns on their liquid assets, the MCA industry promises a 20%-80% profit rate, reports David Roitblat, president of Better Accounting Solutions, a New York accountancy specializing in the MCA industry. Based on doing the books for some 30 MCA firms, Roitblat reports that the range in profit margins depends on the terms of contracts and a funder’s underwriting skills.
The numerical size and growth of the MCA industry is hard to ascertain, reports Sean Murray, editor of AltFinanceDaily (this publication), which tracks trends in the industry and sponsors several major conferences. “So much is anecdotal,” Murray says.
Even so, the evidence that MCA companies are proliferating—and prospering—is undeniable. Over the past two years, AltFinanceDaily’s events, which experience substantial attendance from the MCA industry, have consistently sold out, requiring the events to be moved to larger venues. In Miami, attendance in January this year topped 400-plus attendees, Murray reports, roughly double the crowd that packed the Gale Hotel in 2018.
Similarly, the May, 2019, Broker Fair in New York at the Roosevelt Hotel drew more than 700 participants compared with the sellout crowd of roughly 400 last year in Brooklyn. (Despite ample notice that this year’s Broker Fair at the Roosevelt was sold out and advance tickets were required, as many as 40-50 latecomers sought entry and, unfortunately, had to be turned away.)
The upsurge of capital and the swelling number of entrants into the MCA business has all the earmarks of a gold rush. “Everybody and his brother is trying to get a piece of the action,” asserts Roitblat, the New York accountant.
And there are two ways to hit paydirt in a gold rush. One way is to prospect for gold. But another way is to sell picks and shovels, tents, food, and supplies to the prospectors. “If you can find a way to service the gold rush, you can make a lot of money,” says Kathryn Rudie Harrigan, a management professor and business-strategy expert at the Columbia University Graduate School of Business. “It’s like profiteering in wartime.”
As Professor Harrigan suggests, cashing in on the gold rush by servicing it has parallels across multiple industries. Consider the case of Charles River Laboratories, which has capitalized on the rapid development of the biotechnology industry over the past few decades.
As scientists searched for biologics to battle diseases like cancer and AIDS, the Boston-area company began producing experimental animals known as “transgenic mice.” Informally known as “smart mice,” Charles River’s test animals are specially designed to carry human genes, aiding investigators in their understanding of gene function and genetic responses to diseases and therapeutic interventions. (The smart mouse’s antibodies can also be harvested. “Seven out of the eleven monoclonal antibody drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 2006 and 2011,” according to biotechnology.com, “were derived from transgenic mice.”)
In the MCA version of the gold rush, a bevy of law and accounting firms, debt-collection agencies and credit-approval firms, among other service providers, have either sprung to life to undergird the new breed of alternative funder or added expertise to suit the industry’s wants and needs. (This cohort has been joined, moreover, by a superstructure of Washington, D.C.-based trade associations and lobbyists that have been growing like expansion teams in a professional sports league. But their story will have to wait for another day.)
Rather than being exploitative, supporting companies serve as a vital mainstay in an industry’s ecosystem, notes Alfred Watkins, a former World Bank economist and Washington, D.C.-based consultant: “A gold miner can’t mine,” he says, “unless he has a tent and a pickaxe.”
And in the high-risk, high-reward MCA industry, which can have significant default rates depending on the risk model, many funders can’t fund if they don’t have reliable debt collection. Many of the bigger companies, says Paul Boxer, who works on the funding side of the industry, have the capability of collecting on their own. But for many others—particularly the smaller players in the industry—it’s necessary to hire an outside firm.
One of the more widely known collectors for the MCA industry is Kearns, Brinen & Monaghan where Mark LeFevre is president and chief executive. The Dover (Del.)- based firm, LeFevre says, first added MCA funders to its client roster in 2012; but it has only been since 2014 that “business really took off.”
LeFevre won’t say just how many MCA firms have contracted with him, but he estimates that his firm has scaled up its staff 35%-40% over the past five years to meet the additional MCA workload. The industry, LeFevre adds, “is one of the top-growth industries I’ve seen in the 36 years that I’ve been in business.”
He also says, “People in the MCA industry know a lot about where to put money, but collections are not one of their strong points. They need to get a professional. It gives them the free time to make more money while we go in behind them and collect.”
If repeated dunning fails to elicit a satisfactory response, KBM has several collection strategies that strengthen its hand. The big three, LeFevre says, are “negotiation, identifying assets, and litigation.” He adds: “We have a huge database of attorneys who do nothing but file suit on commercial debt internationally. Then we can enforce a judgment. You don’t want someone who just makes a few phone calls.”
Because business has become so competitive, LeFevre says, he won’t discuss his fee schedule. As to KBM’s success rate, he says no tidy figure is available either, but asserts: “Our checks sent to our clients are more than most agencies because of our proprietary collection process.”
Jordan Fein, chief executive at Greenbox Capital in Miami and a KBM client told AltFinanceDaily: “We work with them. They’re organized and communicate well and they know to collect. They’re on the expensive side, though. I’ve got other agencies that I use that are cheaper.”
Debt-collection firm Merel Corp, a spinoff from the Tamir Law Group in New York, might be a lower-cost alternative. Formed in just the past 18 months to service the growing MCA industry, Merel typically takes 15%-25% of whatever “obligation” it can collect, says Levi Ainsworth, co-chief operating officer.
A successful collection, Ainsworth asserts, really begins with the underwriting process and attention to detail by the funders. “Instead of coming in at the end,” he says, “we try to prevent problems at the start of the process.”
For an MCA firm dealing with an excessive number of defaults, Merel sometimes places one of its employees with the funder to handle “pre-defaults,” for which it charges a lower fee. The collections firm has also built a reputation for not relying on a “confession of judgment.” Now that COJs have been outlawed for out-of-state collections in New York State, Merel’s skills could be more in demand.
Better Accounting Solutions, which has its offices on Wall Street, is another service-provider promising to lighten the workload of MCA firms by providing back-office support. The company is headed by Roitblat, a 36-year- old former rabbinical student turned tax-and-accounting entrepreneur. Since he founded the company with two part-time employees in 2011, it’s ballooned to some 70 employees.
Roitblat does not have all of his firm’s eggs in one MCA basket. His firm handles tax, accounting and bookkeeping work for law firms, the fashion industry, restaurants and architectural firms. Even so, he says, thirty MCA clients— or more than half his clientele—rely on the firm’s expertise, three of whom were just added in June. His best month was January, 2018, when six funders contracted for his services. “Growth in the MCA industry has been explosive,” he says.
MCA accounting work has its own vagaries and oddities. For example, because of the industry’s high default rate, Roitblat notes, a 10%-slice of every merchant’s payment is funneled into a “default reserve account.” And when an actual default occurs, credits are moved from the receivables account to the default reserve account.
Roitblat takes pride that his firm’s MCA work has passed audits from respected accounting firms like Friedman, Cohen, Taubman and Marcum LLP. Moreover, he has helped clients uncover internal fraud and, in one instance, spotted costly flaws in a business model. An early MCA client, Roitblat says, had no idea that “he was losing close to $100,000 a month by spending on Google ads.”
Better Accounting also keeps its rates low. The firm typically assigns a junior accountant to handle clients’ accounts while a senior manager oversees his or her work. “He (Roitblat) does a fantastic job,” says David Lax, managing partner of Orange Advance, a Lakewood (N.J.)-based MCA firm. “They understand the MCA business. And even if your business is small, they can set up the infrastructure and do the work more economically and efficiently than you can. You’d have to create the position of comptroller or senior-level accountant,” Lax adds, “to equal their work.”
Top-notch competence and low rates, Lax says, are not the only reasons he often refers Roitblat’s firm to fellow MCA companies. “The only thing better than their work,” he says, “is the people themselves.”
Whether it’s oil and gas, banking and real estate, construction, health care or high-technology—you name it—lawyers have an important role across nearly every industry. So too with the MCA industry where, as has been shown, there is an especially high demand for attorneys skilled at winning debt-collection cases.
To hear Greenbox’s Fein tell it, a skilled lawyer handling debt collection can write his or her own ticket. A talented attorney, he says, not only retrieves lost money and prevents losses, but enables the funder to “offer the product cheaper than the competition.
“We use a ton of attorneys in 35 states in the U.S. and in Canada,” Fein adds, “and you have no idea how many attorneys we go through until we find a good one.”
Until recently, much of the MCA industry’s success has resulted from a hands-off, laissez faire legal and regulatory environment—particularly the legal interpretation that a merchant cash advance is not a loan. The industry has also benefited from the fact that most credit regulation focused on consumer credit and not on business and commercial financings.
But now, as the MCA industry is maturing and showing up on the radar screens of state legislatures, Congress, regulatory agencies, and the courts, there is heightening demand for legal counsel. In just the past 12 months, California passed a truth-in-lending statute requiring MCA firms not only to clearly state their terms, but to translate the short-term funding costs of MCAs into an annual percentage rate. The state of New York, as has been noted, passed legislation restricting the use of COJs.
Moreover, notes Mark Dabertin, special counsel at Pepper Hamilton, a top national law firm based in Philadelphia, the state of New Jersey is contemplating licensing MCA practitioners. The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently determined in Anderson v. Koch that, because of a “call provision” in a funding contract, a merchant cash advance was actually a loan.
And, Dabertin warns, the Federal Trade Commission, which has the authority to treat a merchant cash advance as a consumer transaction—replete with the full panoply of consumer disclosures and protections—is training its gunsights on the industry. “On May 23,” Dabertin reports in a memo to clients, “the FTC launched an investigation into potentially unfair or deceptive practices in the small business financing industry, including by merchant cash advance providers.”
These pressures from government and the courts will only make doing business more costly and drive up the industry’s barriers to entry. Failing to stay legal, moreover, could not only result in punitive court judgments, but render an MCA firm vulnerable to legal action by their investors.
“It’s inevitable that the industry will evolve,” Dabertin says, and firms in the industry will have to self-police. “They will need to hire counsel and a compliance staff,” he adds. “You can’t just do it by the seat of your pants.”
1 Global Capital’s Carl Ruderman Consents To Judgment With The SEC
August 10, 2019Update 10/4/19: According to the docket, Ruderman has satisfied the judgment in full, with only the sale of his condo remaining.
The SEC’s lawsuit against Carl Ruderman, the former CEO of Hallandale Beach-based 1 Global Capital, has come to an end. He has consented to judgment in a settlement and the penalties are devastating, papers filed on friday with the Court show.
Specifically, Ruderman is liable for disgorgement of $32,587,166 representing profits gained as a result of the conduct alleged together with prejudgment interest on disgorgement of $1,517,273 and a civil penalty of $15,000,000. He must also sell his Condominium and disgorge 50% of the equity. Online real estate websites estimate his property to have 5 bedrooms, 8 bathrooms, and be worth in the range of $5,000,000 – $6,000,000.
1 Global Capital filed for bankruptcy last year after its business was hampered by investigations being conducted by the SEC and US Attorney’s Office. The SEC brought its case against Ruderman and his company a month later and alleged that it “fraudulently raised more than $287 million from more than 3,400 investors to fund its business offering short-term financing to small and medium-size businesses.” The investments were alleged to be unregistered securities and that millions of the funds raised from investors were misappropriated by Ruderman. The settlement stipulates that he does not admit or deny the allegations.
No criminal charges have been brought to date.
The SEC settlement was technically entered into in June but had to be reviewed and approved by the five SEC commissioners.
The unopposed motion for judgment was filed last week. It was signed by the judge on Monday, August 12th.
Chinese Funder MYBank Using Advanced Tech to Provide Capital
August 1, 2019
MYBank, the largest non-bank funder in China, is using new technological systems to approve loan applicants. The company, which is backed by Alibaba founder, second richest person in China, and former English teacher Jack Ma, is now in its fourth year of operations and has thus far provided 2 trillion yuan ($290 billion) in funding to 16 million customers.
Having partnered with Ant Financial Services, a payment processing company which Ma is also involved in, MYBank has received access to a host of data. In order to apply for a loan, SMB owners give access to their real-time payment records, and from the analysis of these, as well as the non-bank’s own risk-management appraisal system which runs through over 3,000 variables, a judgment is made as to whether or not to fund the applicant.
Ant also provides MYBank with other tech, such as facial recognition software to detect fraud, and aids them with their implementation of cloud-computing and big data. But as well as these methods is another system unique to China: social credit. Currently in its pilot stages, this national reputation system is set to rival traditional credit score systems. It works by increasing or decreasing a citizen’s rating based off whether they perform a good or bad action. Yell at someone unnecessarily on your commute? Your social credit scores lowers. Help an old woman cross the street? It’ll go up.
When discussing how the system could be implemented, MYBank President Jin Xiaolong gave the example of a small business owner who, upon forgetting to return a borrowed umbrella, finds it harder to get a loan. As well as this, Bloomberg reported in 2018 that a very poor social credit score could lead citizens to being barred from staying at luxury hotels, buying high-end real estate, and enrolling their children in elite schools. The flip side of this is that those with impeccable ratings will receive discounts when commuting, relaxed scrutiny when seeking financial aid, and priority when applying to schools.
Made possible by data-tracking tech, social credit scores appear to be almost revolutionary for the alternative finance industry. Partnered with the other technological tools available to MYBank, the company could experience previously unseen heights of successful loans. Or rather it does already, with default rates at approximately 1%.
Accessible via a few taps on a smartphone, MYBank’s application process takes 3 minutes and due to automation, customers are often instantly approved with funds being made available straight away. One customer described this shift in supply as “unimaginable” and praised how easy it now was to find capital as soon as he needed it.
MYbank also revealed Tuesday that it intended to raise $871 million at a valuation of approximately $3.5 billion.
Maria Vullo Joins Emigrant Bank
July 31, 2019
Maria Vullo, who served as the Superintendent of New York’s Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) from 2016 to February 2019, has been elected to Emigrant Bank’s Board of Directors. As well as this, Vullo will be joining Emigrant’s holding company, New York Private Bank & Trust (NYPB&T).
The move comes five months after the end of Vullo’s tenure at NYDFS, a role which she was nominated for by Governor Andrew Cuomo. In the period proceeding this, Vullo took up the role of Regulator in Residence at Fintech Innovation Lab’s Partnership Fund for New York City. Here she offered mentorship to enterprise technology companies.
Having been a partner at the international law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP prior to her time with NYDFS, Vullo is versed in civil, regulatory, and criminal issues, as well as securities, banking, insurance, real estate and other financial subjects.
Her tenure as NYDFS Superintendent was noted for its regulations on cybersecurity, transaction monitoring and life insurance. However it was not without hiccups and conflict, as one hearing on online lending saw her display both a distaste for alternative finance and a seeming misunderstanding of how interest rates within the industry are calculated. And upon the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s (OCC) proposal to establish a fintech charter that would grant bank-like powers to non-banks, Vullo opposed the rule in a letter, instead favoring state regulation over federal, claiming that such a charter could risk a financial crisis as well as endanger New York state’s sovereignty.
“Her depth of experience in financial services regulation and operations will greatly enhance our ability to provide innovative services to a range of customers in the markets we serve,” said Howard P. Milstein, Chairman, President, and CEO of NYPB&T, “She will be a great addition to our Board.”





























