How A New Hampshire Teen Launched A Lending Company And Climbed Into The Inc. 500
March 17, 2018Josh Feinberg was not a complete newbie when he started in the lending business in 2009, but he also had a long way to go to find success. His dad had been in the business for 15 years and shortly after graduating high school, Josh started to work in equipment financing and leasing at Direct Capital in New Hampshire, his home state. He then had a brief stint working remotely for Balboa Capital, but he wasn’t sure that finance was for him.
He was 19, with a three year old daughter, and he took a low paying job working at a New Hampshire pawn shop owned by his brother and a guy named Will Murphy.
“I was making $267 a week at the pawn shop and I was having to ask friends to help me pay my rent for a room,” Feinberg said. “So at that point, I realized that something needed to change.”
One day, while working at the pawn shop, Feinberg saw a Facebook post from a restaurant owner in search of financing for equipment. With a background in financing, he said to himself: “I wonder if I could take an application and bring it to one of the sources I know and they could pay me a commission?’”
That question prompted Feinberg to present to his brother and Murphy the idea to start a finance company. Feinberg said he drew up a business plan in a day and a half and his brother and Murphy agreed to give him $3,000 to start the company. That was November of 2012.
“They gave me a spot down in the basement of their shop, which was anywhere from 47 to 52 degrees,” Feinberg said. “I had my jacket, my computer and I was making 400 calls a day.”
After three months of not funding any deals, Feinberg said he almost gave up. He was also focused mainly on the equipment finance market because that’s all he really knew.
“Then come to find out that I talked to somebody that had a need for working capital and I realized that I could find sources [for] capital,” Feinberg said.
So he worked with a few different sources to find capital for this client. The deal went through in 24 hours and it paid about $7,000 in commission.
“I didn’t have any money and I was like, ‘this is awesome,’” Feinberg said. “So I [kept] making 400 calls a day, knowing that this could potentially change my life.”
And it did. After a year, Feinberg’s company, Everlasting Capital, made $110,000 in commissions and $3.5 million in volume. Within that first year, he also hired three people and moved from the basement of the pawn shop in Rochester, NH to a 600 square foot office in the same town. (The current office is also in Rochester, but in a larger space.)
This lightning fast trajectory is by no means common. That’s why Everlasting Capital made it onto 2017’s Inc. 500 list, the iconic list of America’s fastest growing private companies. By year two, Everlasting Capital earned $640,000 in commissions, generating $14 million in volume, and by year three it earned $1.6 million in commissions with $18 million in volume. Ultimately, over a three year period ending in 2016, Everlasting Capital experienced 1,361 percent growth, placing them at No. 323 on the Inc. 500 list.
How did they do it? Feinberg said that creating a company and an office environment that employees enjoy is really critical, as is recognizing employees for their hard work.
“As long as we hit our goals which we have every year,” Feinberg said, “we take our company on a trip at the end of each year.” (Trips have included Las Vegas and Puerto Rico.)
More specifically, Feinberg said that the company’s success had a lot to do with building relationships with senior level people at top funding companies like Pearl Capital and BFS Capital. These relationships gave them higher [approved] volume, better buy rates and the ability to pay out good commissions to ISOs.
“This opened up a whole new aspect of our company,” Feinberg said. “Now, in addition to working with direct clients, we had an ISO division as well.”
But Feinberg said he wanted to create a reputable company to ensure that ISOs could feel comfortable working with them, knowing that Everlasting Capital was not backdooring their deals. So they created a portal for ISOs, called EverHub, which allows them to track their deals at every step along the way.
“We had to think outside the box to come up with a platform that was completely transparent and made it viable to work with another broker to get deals done,” Feinberg said.
There have definitely been hurdles along the way – most notably, employee retention.
“We hired and fired about 20 people in the second year,” Feinberg said. “We wanted to see if quantity would increase sales. Come to find out, it’s more quality than quantity.”
Partnership has been another challenge. The leadership team at Everlasting Capital is now Feinberg and Murphy. Feinberg’s brother, who was Murphy’s initial partner at the pawn shop (which has since been sold), is no longer involved in it.
Feinberg said that what makes for a good partnership is communication, early and often. And being able to hold partners accountable for different responsibilities.
“Partnerships are tough in business – they tend to get a little hairy, a little crazy at times,” Murphy said.
“Like myself and Josh, we have some different views on a lot of different things, but we take our different views and we meld them together to provide the best outcome for our employees and all the people we work with. Some may see that as a downside, but it’s actually a real strength.”
Lendio Opens Franchise in Charlotte, NC
March 15, 2018
Today, Lendio announced the opening of its latest franchise in Charlotte, NC. Through the Lendio franchise program, Chris Cronk will help local businesses in the community apply for loans, review their options and secure funding.
The company has a network of over 75 lenders and its funding options include SBA loans, startup loans, equipment loans, commercial real estate loans and more. In the last fiscal year alone, Lendio facilitated more than $300 million in funding, according to the company.
“I’ve worked with numerous companies and witnessed their struggles to find capital,” said Cronk, who was a former investment banker for Bank of America Merrill Lynch where he advised and facilitated financing for companies of all sizes. “Charlotte is a fast-growing market and community. I’m excited to be a part of that growth by helping businesses in every industry find funding.”
Mad Over Madden
March 15, 2018
In a dispute that reflects the nation’s rigid political polarization, a piece of legislation pending before Congress either corrects a judicial error or condones “predatory lending.” It depends upon whom one asks. Either way, the proposed law could affect the alternative small-business funding industry indirectly in the short run and directly in the long term by addressing the interest rates non-banks charge when they take over bank loans.
The easiest way to understand the controversy may be to trace it back to a ruling in 2015 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York. The case of Madden v. Midland Funding LLC started as claim by a consumer who was challenging the collection of a debt by a debt buyer, says Catherine Brennan, a partner in the law firm Hudson Cook LLP.
“Debt buyers like Midland are sued on a regular basis,” Brennan notes. “That’s a common occurrence.” What’s uncommon is that the appellate court affirmed the idea that the loan debt that Midland sought to collect from Madden became usurious when Midland bought it. The court ruled that because Midland wasn’t a bank it was not entitled to charge the interest the bank was allowed to charge, she maintains.
Under the ruling, non-banks that buy loans can’t necessarily continue to collect the interest rates banks charged because non-banks are generally subject to the limits of the borrower’s state, according to the Republican Policy Committee, an advisory group established by members of the House of Representatives in 1949. Banks can charge the highest rate allowed in the state where they are chartered, which could be much higher than allowed in the borrower’s state.
“So it undermines the concept that you determine the validity of a loan at the time the loan is made,” Brennan says of the decision in the Madden case. The “valid-when-made” doctrine – a long-established principle of usury law – states that if a loan is not usurious when made it does not become usurious when taken over by a third party, published reports say. In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the Madden case, which in effect upheld the appellate court ruling.
In response, both houses of Congress are considering bills that would ensure that the interest rate on a loan originated by a bank remains valid if the loan is sold, assigned or transferred to a non-bank third party, the Republican Policy Committee says.
On Feb. 14, 2018, the House passed its version of the proposal, H.R. 3299, the Protecting Consumers’ Access to Credit Act of 2017, or the “Madden fix,” as it’s known colloquially. The vote was 245 to 171, mostly along party lines with 16 Democrats joining 229 Republicans to vote in favor. The Senate version, S. 1642, had not reached a vote by press time.
“It’s not a revolutionary concept,” Brennan says of the proposed law. “It had been understood prior to Madden that you determine usury at the time the loan is originated, and that should be restored.”
As the alternative small-business funding industry continues to mature it could benefit from the legislation, Brennan predicts. In the future, alt funders may begin to buy or sell more debt, which would make it subject to the state caps if the legislation fails to pass, she says.
The proposed law would also benefit partnerships in which banks refer prospective borrowers to alternative funders because it would eliminate uncertainty and would thus improve the stability of the asset, Brennan continues. “I would think anyone in the commercial lending space would want to see the Madden bill pass,” she contends.
Stephen Denis, executive director of the Small Business Finance Association, a trade group for alt funders, agrees. While most of the SBFA’s members don’t work with bank partners, the trade group has supported the lobbying efforts of other associations and coalitions representing financial services companies directly affected, he says. “We are concerned on behalf of the broader industry because we all work closely together and everyone has the same goal of making sure that we’re providing capital to small businesses,” he maintains.
That goal of keeping funds available to entrepreneurs also motivates the sponsor of H.R. 3299, Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., who’s chief deputy whip of the House and vice chair of the House Financial Services Committee. His interest in crowdfunding, capital formation and disruptive finance is fueled by events he experienced in his childhood, when his father attempted to operate a small business but struggled to find financing, according to the Congressman’s website.
Although H.R. 3299 passed in the House with mostly Republican votes, it attracted bipartisan co-sponsors in that chamber. They are Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y.; Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., and Rep. Trey Hollingsworth, R-Ind. The Senate version of the legislation is sponsored by Sen. Mark R. Warner, D- Va.
But opponents of the proposed law aren’t feeling particularly bipartisan and argue vehemently against it, Brennan contends. “There’s been a lot of misinformation put out there by consumer advocates saying this would somehow embolden payday lending in all 50 states,” she says. “It’s simply not true.”
Payday lenders aren’t banks, so the proposed legislation would not apply to them and thus would not enable them to avoid interest caps imposed by borrowers’ states, Brennan notes, adding that some states don’t even allow payday consumer lending.
Consumer advocates are spreading propaganda because they oppose interest rates they consider high, Brennan continues. Advocates are incorrectly conflating payday lending with marketplace lending, she maintains.
The latter is defined as partnerships where non-banks sometimes work with banks to operate nationwide platforms, mostly online and sometimes peer-to-peer, she says, noting that examples include LendingClub and Prosper.
There’s no evidence marketplace lenders would astronomically increase their interest rates if the president signs into law a bill that resembles those now before Congress, Brennan says. It wasn’t happening before Madden, she notes, and banks involved in those partnerships operate under strict guidance of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) or the Office of the Comptroller of the currency, depending upon their charters.
But consumer advocates haven taken to the warpath, Brennan reports. Opponents of the legislation call partnerships between banks and non-bank lenders by the derogatory term “rent-a-bank schemes.” But it’s lawful to create such relationships because the FDIC oversees them, she asserts.
Just the same, the House is considering H.R. 4439, a bill to ensure that in a bank partnership with a non-bank, the bank remains the “true lender” and can set the interest rate, Brennan notes. If the bill becomes law, it would clear up the conflict that has arisen in inconsistent case law, some of which has defined the non-bank as the true lender, she says.
Meanwhile, opponents of H.R. 3299 and S. 1642 have written a letter to members of Congress, urging them to vote against the bills. The letter, drafted by the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL) and the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC), was signed by 152 local, state, regional and national organizations. Most of the signers belong to a coalition called Stop the Debt Trap, says Cheye-Ann Corona, CRL senior policy associate.
The bills create a loophole that enables predatory lenders to sidestep state interest rate caps, Corona maintains. That’s because non-banks are actually originating the loans when they work in tandem with banks, she says. The non-banks are using banks as a shield against state laws because banks are regulated by the federal government. If the legislation passes, non-banks would not have to observe state caps and could charge triple-digit interest rates, she contends.
“This bill is trying to address the issue of fintech companies, but there is nothing innovative about usury,” Corona says. “They are just repackaging products that we’ve seen before. A loan is a loan. These lenders don’t need this bill if they are obeying state interest-rate caps.”
The lenders disagree. In fact, a trade group formed by OnDeck, Kabbage and Breakout Capital calls itself the Innovative Lending Platform Association, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times. The article cites the need for small-business capital but questions whether the loans are marketed fairly.
Innovative or not, lenders offering credit with higher interest rates could condemn consumers to a nightmare of debt, according to the letter from the CRL and NCLC to Capitol Hill. “Unaffordable loans have devastating consequences for borrowers – trapping them in a cycle of unaffordable payments and leading to harms such as greater delinquency on other bills,” the letter says.
However, alt funders say their savvy small-business customers understand finance and thus don’t need much government protection from high interest rates. But the CRL doesn’t adhere to that philosophy, Corona counters. “Small businesses are at risk with predatory lending practices,” she says, maintaining that some alt funders charge interest rates of 99 percent.
Small-business owners plunged themselves into hot water by borrowing too much in anecdotal examples provided by Matthew Kravitz, CRL communications manager. In one example, an entrepreneur found himself automatically paying back $331 every day. He overestimated his future income and now says he feels like hiding under the covers every morning.
Corona also dismisses the idea that high risk calls for high interest rates to compensate for high default rates. When interest rates rise to a level that borrowers can’t handle, no one wins, she maintains.
The right to charge higher interest rates could also encourage lenders to loosen their underwriting criteria, Corona warns. That could result in shortcuts reminiscent to the practices that gave rise to the foreclosure crisis and the Great Recession, she says, adding that, “we don’t want to see that happen again.”
Thinking Capital Acquired by Canadian Finance Firm Purpose Financial
March 12, 2018
Thinking Capital, a leader in the fintech lending industry in Canada, was acquired last week by Canadian finance company, Purpose Financial, based in Toronto.
“Under the Purpose Financial umbrella, our time to market on product innovation and funding capacity will be greatly amplified,” said Jeff Mitelman, CEO and co-founder of Thinking Capital.
Mitelman, who co-founded Thinking Capital in 2006, has long been an advocate for improving the way small business credit is evaluated and communicated in Canada.
“The challenge in Canada is that our lending institutions historically either don’t lend to small business or don’t lend to enough of our small businesses,” Mitelman told AltFinanceDaily. “And that’s driven by the fact that so many of the measures of small business credit worthiness simply don’t exist. Our credit bureaus don’t report on it, there aren’t metrics or scores unique to small business, and most significantly, small business credit has never been attached to retail or institutional conduits for funding.”
This is where Purpose Financial comes in. Mitelman believes that Purpose Financial’s investment arm and its relationship with Omers, a large Canadian pension fund, will provide small businesses with “access to conduits that historically small businesses have never been able to access.”
Thinking Capital provides an MCA product, which it calls Flexible, as well as a term product, which it calls Fixed. It also helps power loans provided by large companies like Staples.
Purpose Financial has three verticals: Investment Management (retail and institutional), Digital Technology, and Capital / Funding.
“Thinking Capital is a clear leader in the small to medium-sized business lending space…” said Som Seif, CEO of Purpose Financial. “[And] this acquisition brings together leading origination, asset management, and technology platforms as a unified entity, and enables us to bolster our product capabilities and optimize the technology, distribution, and funding model of our combined business.”
Quicksilver Capital Secures $15 Million Credit Facility
March 4, 2018
Quicksilver Capital LLC, a leading FinTech provider of financing to small and mid-sized businesses, has announced the closing of a $15 million facility provided by a New York based private investment firm.
“We are pleased to announce this $15 million credit investment, which increases our funding capabilities and is indicative of Quicksilver’s excellent operational and financial execution,” stated Michael Puderbeutel, CEO of Quicksilver Capital. “The new facility, from a leading institutional investment firm, is a validation of the strength of our team, our track record of success and the market reputation that Quicksilver Capital has built.”
Since its founding, Quicksilver Capital has provided more than 18,000 businesses with over $350 million in working capital solutions to grow and succeed. Proceeds from the transaction will be used by the Company to execute its strategic growth plan and accelerate their ability to provide more small and medium sized businesses with access to attractive non-bank financing.
Visit: http://quicksilvercap.com/
A Dialogue with Peter Renton: Cryptocurrency and Beyond
March 2, 2018
AltFinanceDaily Magazine recently caught up with Peter Renton, founder of Lend Academy, a leading educational resource for the marketplace industry. Through his writing, podcasts and video courses, he’s been helping multitudes of people better understand the industry since 2010. Renton is also the co-founder of LendIt, one of the world’s largest fintech conventions, which recently branched out beyond its marketplace lending focus to include other types of fintech. The flagship U.S. conference will take place April 9 through April 11 in San Francisco. The following is an edited transcript of our discussions.
deBanked: Why did you decide to rebrand LendIt as LendItFintech?
Renton: The main reason is that we have moved beyond the online lending space. While it’s still the core of what we do, it’s not all of what we do anymore. Many of the large online lenders have also moved beyond online lending. Lending is part of financial services, but our attendees want to know what else is important. Our attendees also want to look at other opportunities for expansion. They want to know how other areas of fintech are going to affect their business—topics such as blockchain and digital banking. LendItFintech tells people that lending is what we focus on, but it also makes clear that we’re about more than lending.
deBanked: In addition to your marketplace lending investments, you entered into the cryptocurrency space back in early 2015. Tell us what you’re doing now with respect to cryptocurrency?
Renton: This was not something that I spent much time thinking about back then. At the time, I expected bitcoin to never amount to anything. But I’m interested in financial innovation and I decided to give it a go. I never thought in my wildest dreams that it would get to $10,000. (Editor’s note: In 2017, bitcoin climbed to nearly $20,000; in early February it fell below $8,000 for the first time since Nov. 2017)
I opened up a Coinbase account with $2,000, which got me 10 bitcoins. I have since sold a portion of it gradually as the price of bitcoin went up, and I diversified into a handful of other coins as well. I have recently moved a significant portion of my investment into a privately managed cryptocurrency fund, and I still maintain my Coinbase account too.
deBanked: How are things different now than when you first entered the digital currency market?
Renton: In January 2015, I created my bitcoin account and I don’t think I ever logged in over the next 18 months, or if I did, it was maybe just once or twice. No one was talking about bitcoin back then. It was still on the fringe of fintech. Sure, there were some people focused on it, but it wasn’t part of mainstream media coverage. Then, all of a sudden, it became hot because people love get-rich-quick schemes and hearing about people who hit the big time from nothing. These stories really fuel people’s imagination. Then suddenly bitcoin became one of the biggest phenomena of 2017; no one would have predicted a few years ago that would happen.
deBanked: What are the biggest risks you see with cryptocurrency today and how can investors best overcome these challenges?
Renton: Many people are buying purely on speculation with no thought that bitcoin could go down in price. You hear of people buying bitcoin on their credit card and paying 20 percent interest on that purchase. It’s insane. I feel that cryptocurrencies are here to stay, but I don’t like that they have these massive 20 percent to 30 percent swings in a day. The speculators have helped drive the price up, but they’ve also driven the volatility up and that’s been a bad thing.
deBanked: Do you think cryptocurrency will ever dethrone cash? If so, what will it take to get to that point?
Renton: I feel that some kind of digital currency is inevitable—but whether it’s a Federal Reserve-backed currency or something else remains to be seen. I have an 11-year-old and a 9-year-old and I am confident that at some point in their lifetime there will be no such thing as cash. In China, for example, there are some places where you can’t even use cash. You can go to a street vendor and buy a piece of fruit with your phone. Certainly in the U.S. we’re not there yet, but I think China shows where we are going to be.
Cryptocurrency is only one type of digital cash, and it’s hard to say how it will ultimately fit into the larger picture. To dethrone cash as we know it today, cryptocurrency needs to be a quick and efficient way of transacting, and right now it’s not quick and it’s not cheap.
That said, I believe there will be some kind of digital currency in the future. It will take a long time for the Federal Reserve to say cash is no longer legal tender, but I expect we’ll see some kind of digital currency in the next 10 years for sure.
deBanked: How do you think regulation will change the cryptocurrency landscape? Is it inevitable and, more importantly, do you think regulation of cryptocurrency is necessary to take it beyond the level it is today?
Renton: Right now bitcoin is not systemically important. At a market cap of around $156 billion in early February, if something happens and it completely crashes, it won’t make a dent on the U.S. or world economy. But if bitcoin continues to rise and reaches a market cap of say $16 trillion, and then it falls to zero, that would reverberate around the world. The largest economies that have the most bitcoin would be the most impacted.
At some point governments will step in with regulation. It’s already happening in places like China and South Korea and there are rumors of other governments taking action. I don’t think the largest governments will allow their economy to be at the whim of speculators.
deBanked:AltFinanceDaily: How do you feel about the SEC stepping into regulate ICOs? Is this necessary to protect investors?
Renton: There are certainly some ICOs that are complete scams while others are obviously violating securities laws. But many ICOs have strong legal teams supporting them and are doing it right now. The SEC should absolutely clamp down on those doing the wrong thing, but my hope is that they don’t overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
deBanked: What about online lending? The industry has gone through a lot of changes in its relatively short history. How do you expect to see the competitive landscape change in the next year or so? What about farther out?
Renton: The online lending space has gone through a lot of changes in its short history. I feel like the biggest trend we’re seeing right now is banks launching their own platforms. Take Goldman Sachs with the Marcus online lending platform, for example. More than anything else that has happened in the history of online lending that is among the most telling for the future, I think. Goldman has gone all in with this effort, and that move woke up all the large banks. Top banks like PNC and Barclays are also launching their own initiatives instead of partnering with others, which was surprising to me. I would have thought there would be more partnerships. There are still some, but several banks have decided to do it themselves rather than partnering. Smaller banks, however, that want to get into the space, will likely partner because they can’t afford to do it themselves. While we have seen a few partnerships develop, I expect we will see many more over the next couple of years.
deBanked: What do you see as the biggest risks for online lenders today? How can they best overcome these challenges?
Renton: As an industry, we have to focus on profitability. Profitability comes down primarily to two things. First, you have to get your cost of acquisition down. Some of the companies that failed recently were never able to get their costs of acquisition down to a manageable level. Underwriting is the second piece. Particularly if you’re a balance sheet lender and you’re not underwriting well, you can’t make money. The pullback in the industry in 2016 occurred because many of the major platforms got a little too aggressive in their underwriting. Investors are still paying for some of those mistakes.
Successful companies are ones that have figured out how to profitably acquire customers and how to underwrite effectively. Most of them have learned their lesson, but in business companies sometimes have short memories. We need to keep a close eye on it.
deBanked: What advice do you have for alternative lenders and funders?
Renton: In addition to paying careful attention to profitability and underwriting, another important piece is having diversified funding sources. You want to make sure that you don’t have one big bank or some other source providing 90 percent of your funding. You should really have different kinds of lending sources. Some loans you can fund through a marketplace, some loans you can fund through your balance sheet. It’s good when you’re not reliant on one particular way of funding your loans.
deBanked: How is regulation likely to impact the online lending industry?
Renton: Having support in Congress for the online lending space is important. Congress hasn’t devoted a lot of attention to it in the past few years, but it’s starting to. The Madden decision—which has the potential to lead to significant nationwide changes in consumer and commercial lending by non-bank entities—has created uncertainty in the industry. In states affected by the decision (Connecticut, New York and Vermont) already there has been less access to credit. I’m hopeful that Congress moves ahead with legislation to override the Madden decision that’s having such an impact in the Second Circuit states. People are worried that it could expand nationwide and Congress needs to act so there’s clarification. There’s too much uncertainty right now.
deBanked: Several platforms have closed their doors in the past year or so. Do you expect to see this trend continue?
Renton: There are companies out there still trying to raise money and struggling to do so. That’s a healthy thing for an industry. You want the strong players to survive and thrive and for the weaker ones to go away.
deBanked: How big do you think an online lender has to be to thrive?
Renton: There’s no doubt that scale is important. If you’re a small player, you have to have some kind of niche in order to acquire customers. If you have that, you have the ability to compete. Even with that sometimes, it’s going to be difficult. It’s a pretty complex business. You need to have a lot of staff for compliance and operations and that can be expensive. When you have high fixed costs, you have to have scale to be able to make a profit. That said, I think there’s room for more than just the ultra-large players in the online lending space. I think there will be plenty of opportunity for strong, well-positioned medium-sized players to compete.
deBanked: What about M&A in the industry?
Renton: Valuations at many of the large platforms are way down from where they were several years ago. As long as valuations stay depressed, I think we could see a big acquisition of a major platform this year. Some of these platforms have millions of customers. Having the ability to pick up such a large number of customers instantly through an acquisition could be compelling for the right buyer, such as a large bank.
deBanked: Is this a good time or a bad time to be an online lender in your opinion?
Renton: It is still a good time to be an online lender. We are expanding access to credit and making the world a better place. I have never been more excited about the industry than I am today.
I Got Funded, Again
March 1, 2018
One year after I received a 12-month loan from Square on fixed monthly ACH, I logged onto my dashboard to renew. I was pre-approved to do it all over again, the screen indicated, but the monthly ACH payment option had disappeared. In its place, Square offered to withhold a fixed percentage of my credit card sales going forward until the balance was paid in full.
Known as a “split,” diverting a percentage of the card payment proceeds to a financial company is straight out of the merchant cash advance playbook. Square, however, structures their transactions as loans. That means that regardless of how my sales ebb and flow, I must pay off my balance in full in 18 months.
I was okay with that. I had to be. It was that time of year when working capital is very important, the holidays. Not to mention, AltFinanceDaily was in the process of moving, again. If you recall in December of 2016, we moved to a slightly larger office in the same building on Wall Street. In December of 2017, however, we moved from Manhattan to Brooklyn, a process that was a little more involved.
But this loan had no monthly payment, just a 15.75% split. Others may refer to this as the holdback, withhold, or specified percentage. Square’s application process this time around was slightly more rigorous than a year ago, a few more buttons, a couple more disclosures, and even a notice that a review could take between 1-3 days. I was still approved the same day, however, and had funds the next. There were no hidden fees or closing costs.
Six days after being funded, I ran a charge, Square took their split, and I netted the different minus the interchange fees. I noticed, but in a way I didn’t. I didn’t have to worry about how much the monthly payment would be and when. The loan was being repaid all by itself. That was how I processed it psychologically anyway, as I imagine many other small business owners have as well.
And the feeling of relief from impending monthly payments is not entirely mental. Seven weeks later, I was already 17% paid off. That’s real progress, especially with a 65-week window remaining to pay off in full.
Had the same transaction been structured as a merchant cash advance, the timeframe would’ve been unlimited. But hey, I guess sometimes you can’t have it all. It was a 1.10 factor rate, decent by industry standards, certainly not the most expensive, but not the least expensive either. It was fast, it was helpful, and best of all, it was free from the burden of fixed monthly payments.
I got funded again and loved it. What are you still waiting for?
Editors Note: AltFinanceDaily did not collaborate with Square in the writing of this editorial. Square did not even contact us after I published my first experience with their product one year ago. It is unclear if they are even aware that I wrote anything at all. Square is not an advertiser nor have they sponsored any of our events. I did not attempt to interview them for this write-up or tip them off that I would be writing anything. To my knowledge, we did not receive any special benefit or pricing. AltFinanceDaily chose Square for funding in part to avoid the conflict of writing a review about a paying advertiser or sponsor.
Greenbox Capital Renegotiates Its Credit Facility
February 27, 2018
Miami, FL – Greenbox Capital is happy to announce that they have recently renegotiated their credit facility, lowering their interest rate and doubling their funding capacity in the US, Puerto Rico, and Canada.
The journey to this success has not been a straight shot. Just over one year ago, Greenbox Capital suffered internal theft. Some individuals on their staff were back-dooring deals, looking to make a quick buck, and leaving Greenbox to suffer the consequences.
In March of 2017, AltFinanceDaily reported this internal theft that had dated back to October of 2016. Greenbox launched an investigation, hiring a private investigator and bringing these offenders to justice.
In the midst of this unfortunate circumstance, Greenbox resolved to take a stand for deal security, striving to become the safest funding company to do business with. They’ve executed a strategic network security assessment and have transitioned their controls to that of a banking institution. This assessment was completed in conjunction with the release of their proprietary software, “The Box,” which reduces human interaction with deals, increasing security of merchant sensitive information and security of broker deals.
With the release of The Box in February of 2017, Greenbox has been funding deals faster (and more safely) than ever before, with funding in as little as 24 hours. With some strategic restructuring of the company, i.e., being particularly selective in their hiring process, terminating brokers who create disadvantages for others by manipulating the system, and the release of The Box, Greenbox’s performance has improved exponentially and their credit facility has increased their limits to allow for them to reach their potential in the industry.
Greenbox CEO, Jordan Fein, asserts, “When you reach your potential, you naturally become more attractive and we’re becoming more attractive every day!” With so many positive changes made at every level of the business, 2018 looks bright for Greenbox Capital.
