What Happened to Bizfi?
July 1, 2017
Update 9/22: Select assets of Bizfi including the brand and marketplace were acquired by rival World Business Lenders
Update 8/30: Credibly was selected to service Bizfi’s $250 million portfolio
This past week, Bizfi gave their remaining employees a 90-day warning notice, according to sources familiar with the matter. It was the latest wave of layoffs to hit the company over the last few months. At its peak, Bizfi, which provided capital to small businesses, employed more than 200 people. Some of those riding out their potentially last 90 days are anxiously awaiting the outcome of nonpublic negotiations to salvage parts of the company’s legacy, if it can be done at all.
It’s a bittersweet moment, according to newly former employees I spoke with, some of whom are so young they vaguely recall Bizfi’s past as both Merchant Cash and Capital (MCC) and Next Level Funding (NLF). They characterized their experience as having worked in fintech.
MCC was founded in 2005 as a buyer of future credit card sales, way before the rise of modern fintech. They later spawned affiliate company NLF, which was eventually consolidated into the newly minted Bizfi brand in 2015. In 2016, they were one of the top three largest originators of merchant cash advances. Today, they are no longer funding new business.
Overall, the company grew too fast and missed the window of opportunity to sell, observers maintain. In a CNBC interview in 2015, a Bizfi representative said that they believed securing a major equity investment would allow them to go public by 2017. Such an investment never came. And with the market cooling last year, institutional interest in the space waned and several of the industry’s better-known players were forced into a precarious position.
Bizfi held on, until recently.
I myself was the third employee of MCC, or fourth depending on who actually walked through the door first on my first day that I shared with another new hire back in 2006 (who by the way was Jared Feldman, the eventual co-founder and CEO of Fora Financial, which sold for millions to Palladium Equity Partners LLC). I was at MCC until 2008 and then worked at NLF until 2010. That means I had been gone for five years before the companies ever merged to become Bizfi and seven years before the current dilemma. Therefore I’m not able to personally comment on what exactly went wrong because the company was nowhere near the same as when I left it.
I will report new developments as they become public.
Yellowstone Capital Funded $47 Million in June
June 30, 2017Yellowstone Capital funded $47 million to small businesses in June, according to an announcement the company made on social media. $40 million of that was funded in-house, the post said.
Yellowstone Capital was ranked by AltFinanceDaily as one of the largest small business funders of 2016. The company could see their position rise this year since two companies ranked above them are no longer funding.
Pave Stops Lending
June 29, 2017Pave, an online lender that came on the scene several years ago by marketing fair funding to millennials, is no longer lending, according to their website.

American Banker reported that the company stopped making new loans earlier this month and was exploring strategic options.
Like many several online lenders of their time, Pave touted innovative underwriting beyond just FICO scores. “We start by reviewing the individual’s credit score and history, then incorporate additional factors like use of funds, work history, current employment, education and future earning potential,” Their website says. “This gives us plenty of opportunities to recognize how financially responsible a person can be, and it’s how we can give the lowest possible rate.”
To be eligible, applicants had to either have an income, a job offer, or plans to attend a school course.
In 2015, Pave announced that a consortium of lenders led by New York-based Seer Capital had agreed to invest up to $300 million in their loans.
Amazon vs. Banks
June 23, 2017Amazon made headlines most recently for its blockbuster acquisition of Whole Foods, but the online behemoth already disrupted another sector – fintech — including banks and online lenders when in 2011 it started lending to small businesses. So far Amazon Lending has extended $3 billion-plus in capital to the small business community, a cool billion of which was lent in the past year alone.
Amazon has dealt a one-two punch to the lending market, filling a gap that was left by banks following the financial crisis and leveraging the massive data that the online retailer has access to through its Amazon Marketplace platform.

Matt O’Malley, co-founder and president of Looking Glass Investments, a fixed-income alternative investment firm focused on marketplace lending, said small business lending was a very natural evolution of Amazon’s business.
“Large levels of data give you the ability to increase your predictive power. Amazon has a great deal of information on how a company is doing and an ability to assess credit risk that is very likely unmatched as it relates to businesses selling on their platform,” O’Malley said.
This is not to suggest that Amazon’s future market share in the small business lending segment is a lock.
“In the long run, this entire fintech revolution is about the movement of capital and having to do it faster. So even Amazon is going to have competition. And the reason is there are fewer barriers to entry than before. From Milwaukee to Wisconsin, there is competition for building bank products. I’d put our math up against anybody in New York City thanks to technology,” said O’Malley of Looking Glass Investments’ own lending platform.
Nonetheless a lack of transparency surrounding interest rates for Amazon loans could interfere with repeat business. “Amazon should be careful about being respectful to business owners. Assuming the business does succeed, imagine that the borrower is either going to have a positive reaction or a negative reaction to the initial loan with Amazon. It won’t be good for long-term business if they have a negative reaction. If I were Amazon, I would be cautious on rates,” O’Malley said.

Something else that could throw a wrench into Amazon’s plans as a small business lender is banks, if and when they open the spigots to loan to this segment. While small businesses businesses have already proven a willingness and even a preference for turning to alternative lenders, the tables could turn at some point.
“That’s an unsettled question we think about every day. When do banks make the decision to get in the game? And we would like that to happen sooner rather than later because it would be good for our company LendSight, Inc. But at the same time, we don’t see that tipping point in the near term,” said O’Malley.
AltFinanceDaily spoke with a pair of business owners that sell on the Amazon Marketplace platform, both of which Amazon has lent to.
LonoLife Living the Life
San Diego-based food and beverage maker LonoLife, the Hawaiian translation for which is peace and prosperity, was offered a line of credit with Amazon without having to ask for it. Jesse Koltes, one of LonoLife’s co-founders, spent some time with AltFinanceDaily to talk about the offer, which came over the phone.
“It was super quick, super easy, as opposed to what you get with a banking relationship even if you get a better rate,” said Koltes. “Bank loans take more time and paper work, and with Amazon there was none of that.”
LonoLife never approached a bank for a loan. And given an exclusive agreement with Amazon for its top selling bone broth, they didn’t have to. “I 100 percent agree that access to capital for businesses without a lot of revenue is problematic. We’re not a capital intensive business so there are not a lot of assets to put behind as collateral for a loan with a bank,” Koltes said.
And while he declined to disclose the size of the credit line, Koltes characterized the amount as “meaningful” adding that Amazon adjusts it higher and lower, mostly to the upside.
“They have 100 percent transparency to one of the biggest parts of our business. That is something other lenders don’t have,” he said, referring to the sale of the bone broth product. “One reason they are able to move first and with more confidence is they have confidence you can pay something off. They are literally seeing how much money you make every month.”
LonoLife’s Koltes compared the rate at which Amazon lent to them as comparable to other non-bank lenders but probably not best in class and not equivalent to an asset-backed small business loan. “But it’s not as high as you get from venture debt,” he quipped.
LonoLife has been selling on Amazon since 2016 and was offered the line of credit about a year later. “It’s a virtuous cycle. We’re growing on Amazon and they’re funding the growth,” Koltes said.
Mini Bezos
Stephan Aarstol, founder of direct-to-consumer brand Tower, is best known for pitching his Stand Up Paddle Boards, in response to which he received a $150,000 backing from billionaire investor Mark Cuban. Little did Aarstol know that this would be the excuse banks would use not to lend.
“After Shark Tank banks no longer looked at us as a startup. They told us we don’t technically qualify for an SBA loan because they’re not in the business of giving billionaire loans,” said Aarstol referring to the company’s silent partner Cuban. Before the show banks pointed to the company’s lack of a two-year financial history. Meanwhile Tower’s revenue has climbed higher every single year since the company was founded, reaching $7.5 million last year.
Amazon, which offered its first loan to Aarstol in the amount of about $35,000 at about the same time PayPal offered him a $25,000 loan for working capital. He took them both. “We needed the capital for inventory,” he said of the Paddle Boards, which can take up to three months to produce. A couple of months later in 2013 Amazon followed up with another offer for a $145,000 loan. Tower accepted that loan too.
The first time Tower got a loan of any kind from a traditional bank was September 2014, more than four years from inception for a company that was profitable from day one. That fall the banks started lining up after Tower was named the fastest growing company in San Diego by the San Diego Business Journal.
Since then Aarstol has been straddling the fence of alternative lenders and traditional banks, having borrowed more than $1 million from Amazon alone. He feels loyalty to Amazon because they were one of the first lenders to offer him a loan. That plus the ease and speed at which he can access capital.
Meanwhile Aarstol has since widened the beach lifestyle brand, almost like a mini-Bezos would, to include sunglasses, surf boards, snorkeling, bikes, skateboards and even a magazine through which Tower can do its own advertising.
“We’ve expanded the brand and every new product class we open up requires additional inventory and additional capital,” he noted.

The Future Amazon
Perhaps the greatest sign for just how massive Amazon can become as a small business lender is in their ability to capture repeat business. If it’s any indication, both Koltes and Aarstol would return.
“We’ve been really pleasantly surprised with access to capital Amazon has given us,” said Koltes. “It has helped us grow our business. We’re growing at a fast rate. Without Amazon we would have had to pick and choose what we did.”
For Aarstol, it’s a combination of both allegiance and fear that fuels his relationship with Amazon as a borrower.
“What if banks all of a sudden are no longer willing to lend to small businesses again? What’s my fallback? This is a hedge for me to keep establishing credit. I’ll keep borrowing from and paying back Amazon loans,” he said, despite the interest rates of 11 percent to 13 percent.
Pearl Capital Secures $15M in Financing From Chatham Capital Management
June 21, 2017
Pearl Capital Business Funding, LLC has closed on $15 million in financing from Atlanta-based Chatham Capital Management, according to the company. Pearl is a NY-based small business funder that was acquired in 2015 by Capital Z Partners, a private equity firm.
“We understand that despite personal credit issues, many small business owners have triumphed in building successful businesses,” said Pearl CEO Solomon Lax. “Locked out of the traditional bank financing channels, those small business owners turn to Pearl Capital Business Funding to enable their dreams. By partnering with Chatham, we are able to make those dreams a reality.”
Chatham has invested in other companies such as iPayment, Vitamin Shoppe, DirectTV, QVC, Neiman Marcus, and 5-hour energy, according to their website.
Pearl also secured $20 Million from Arena Investors, LP in July of last year.
Alternative Lenders Spread Their Wings Internationally
June 20, 2017
As alternative lending gains global traction, a growing number of U.S-based alternative lenders are exploring international growth, with large companies like OnDeck, Kabbage and SoFi leading the way.
Some alternative lenders have begun their expedition closer to home by extending their reach into Canada. Others are traveling farther beyond to parts of Europe and Australia, for example, while others are eying eventual growth in Asia.
Propelling the opportunity is the fact that a number of international banks are still unprepared to offer online lending on their own and thus are more amenable to partnerships with U.S.-based alternative lenders, according to Rashmi Singh, senior manager in the wealth management practice at EY.
It also helps that the options for local partners are somewhat limited. “There are not a lot of digital lenders [outside the U.S.] at the same level as some of the folks here,” Singh says.
To be sure, international expansion requires extensive time, money and regulatory know-how, and some U.S. alternative lenders may never reach the critical scale to be able to compete effectively. Nonetheless, as globalization proliferates, industry observers expect that additional forward-thinking companies will push beyond the limits of their current geographical borders.
“The question is not if, but when (and where) U.S. fintech companies will expand internationally,” contends Ryan Metcalf, chief of staff and director of international markets at Affirm, a San Francisco-based fintech that has partnered with Cross River Bank of Fort Lee, New Jersey, to allow shoppers pay for purchases over time with simple-interest loans.
Affirm—which works with more than 900 retailers and recently announced that it had processed its 1 millionth consumer installment loan—has focused on domestic growth so far, but the company is now considering a number of options for international expansion, Metcalf says.
SIZING UP THE MARKET
Certainly, there are numerous opportunities for homegrown lenders to expand internationally given the healthy growth alternative lending is experiencing in other parts of the world. Each market, of course, has its nuances and individual growth patterns.
Europe, for instance, has seen substantial growth over the past few years, with the U.K. leading the way in alternative finance. It has four times higher volumes in aggregate than the rest of Continental Europe, according to a 2016 report from KPMG and TWINO, one of the largest marketplace lending platforms in Europe. (P2P consumer lending is the largest component of alternative online lending in Europe, capturing 72 percent of the total in the first through third quarters of 2016, according to the report.)
After the U.K., France, Germany and the Netherlands are the top three countries for online alternative finance by market volume in Europe, according to a September 2016 report by the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance.
Asian markets, meanwhile, show significant promise for alternative finance players to make their mark due to the sizeable population of digitally savvy consumers who are still largely underbanked. China is by far the largest market for alternative lending in Asia. It’s also the world’s largest online alternative finance market by transaction volume, registering $101.7 billion in 2015, according to the March 2016 Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance report. This constitutes almost 99 percent of the total volume in the Asia-Pacific region, the research shows. To date, most of the growth in China specifically has been from local firms, but that could change as the market there continues to develop.
Although there are many possible international markets to explore, U.S. lenders have to tread carefully before planting roots elsewhere, observers say. Some smaller U.S. lenders may find domestic expansion easier and more cost-effective because of the time, regulatory and financial commitment that goes along with exploring international markets. It’s a lot easier, for instance, to expand from New York to California, than it is to build out internationally.
“Why take on all the added costs and regulatory pressures, when you haven’t fully explored your home market, unless the business that you’re in deems it necessary,” says Mark Abrams, partner with Trade Finance Global, a London-based international corporate finance house, specializing in crossborder trade.
“It doesn’t make sense to start as a U.S. lender, do a few loans and then jump over to the U.K,” he contends.
What’s more, foreign banks looking for alternative lending partners typically prefer to work with larger, more established players. Even though new players’ technology may be ahead of the curve, the banks still want a longer track record. “It’s reputational for these banks,” says Singh of EY.
MANY CHALLENGES TO INTERNATIONAL EXPANSION
Several alternative lenders say they see significant growth opportunities by expanding internationally. At the same time, however, they are mindful of the substantial headwinds they face.
Regulation is among the biggest, if not the biggest, challenge. A lot of firms in the U.S. have invested a lot of time and money to get up to speed on U.S. regulations. When they look to Europe or to Canada or Mexico or elsewhere, there are different regulations. “If you’re speaking to folks in three continents, now you are looking at regulations times three,” says Singh of EY.
Certainly there’s a time commitment involved; it can take six to eight months for a U.S. lender to get their U.S.–based platforms compliant with regulations in another country, she says.
What’s more, regulatory barriers can vary greatly country to country, notes Metcalf of Affirm. Take Canada for example where very low barriers to entry exist with some provincial exceptions. In the U.K., on the other hand, it can take eight months or more to receive a lending license, he says.
That’s why it’s so important for online lenders to make strategic decisions about where they want to invest their time and resources—even if they have sound technology that’s easily adaptable outside the U.S. “The minute you throw in cross-border regulations, it gets very complicated,” Singh says.
Understanding the local culture of the market you’re trying to tap is also crucial, according to Rob Young, senior vice president of international at OnDeck, where he oversees all aspects of the company’s non-U.S. expansion efforts.

Within the past several years, OnDeck has begun offering small business loans to customers in Canada and Australia. Frequently Canada is a first step for U.S. companies that want to expand internationally because of the shared language and similarities between the economies, Young explains.
After the Canadian operation was successfully underway, the opportunity arose for the online lender to expand to Australia—which shares several similarities with the Canadian market. OnDeck doesn’t break out how much of its overall loan portfolio comes from these two markets, but it has announced publicly that it’s delivered more than CAD$50 million in financing to Canadian small businesses since 2014.
“So far we’re very satisfied with the performance,” Young says, referring to its expansion into both Canada and Australia.
Young notes that while a U.S.-based alternative lender can leverage certain things like technology from a central location within its home country, having dedicated teams on the ground in local markets is also critical. Marketing and pricing all have to be competitive with the needs of the local market, he says.
In Canada and Australia, for example, OnDeck has found that the “personal element” is really important. Young says customers there expect to interact with sales representatives who have ties to the community, understand the local market and can relate to the issues small businesses there are facing.
“I don’t think you can establish that rapport if you are trying to serve them with a sales team overseas,” he says.
U.S.-based alternative lenders also need to be careful to create products that fit the culture and needs of a particular market. For instance, alternative players that focus on luxury asset-based lending would want to look at countries with high concentrations of wealth. “It doesn’t make sense to grow to a country where there’s very little wealth because you’re not going to have much success,” says Abrams, of Trade Finance Global.
Even knowing the market well doesn’t guarantee results, which Lending Technologies, a white label technology provider for the MCA space, has discovered first hand.
Markus Schneider, the company’s chief executive, is originally from Switzerland and he knows the market there well, so he set out to fill a void he saw for an MCA-like product. However, Lending Technologies, which has offices in New York and Zurich, has hit some roadblocks along the way.
“It’s a very different mind-set there. People are more risk-adverse,” Schneider says.
The company already has a Swiss distribution partner in place, but has had trouble finding a lender willing to underwrite the funds. Schneider would also be willing to work with a U.S. lender that wants to partner with Lending Technologies to provide MCA services to merchants in his home country.
“We’re going to do this. It’s just a matter of time,” he says. “There’s a tremendously underserved segment of the market there.”
FINDING THE RIGHT FIT
To be successful internationally, U.S. companies also have to be willing to shift gears as needed when things aren’t working out as expected.
Take Kabbage, for example. The small business lender expanded into the U.K. in 2013, two years after its U.S. debut. But the company found that having its own small business lending business in the U.K. was too challenging for regulatory and capital reasons. It no longer offers new loans from this platform.
Instead, the funding company decided that a better global strategy was to license its technology to financial institutions in international markets a less capital-intensive, yet economically sound way of doing business.
Kabbage—which recently announced the establishment of its European headquarters in Ireland—has licensing arrangements with Santander in the U.K., Kikka Capital in Australia, Scotiabank in Canada and Mexico and ING in Spain. The company plans to launch operations in several additional countries this year where banks use Kabbage’s technology to offer online loans to their clients, says Pete Steger, head of business development at Kabbage.
“We are partnering with local experts. That’s our strategy,” Steger says.
Funding Circle has also made changes to its international strategy. Earlier this year, the company—which got its start in the U.K.—announced that it would stop issuing new loans in Spain. The Spanish version of the company’s website says that it continues to monitor ongoing loans so investors receive monthly payments for the projects they have invested in.
A spokeswoman for Funding Circle said the company continues “to look at new geographies, but we have no immediate plans for expansion and are focused on building a successful business here in the U.S., U.K., Germany and the Netherlands.” She declined to comment further.
Without divulging too many details, a handful of U.S.-based alternative financiers say they continue to look at additional markets outside their home turf.
For its part, SoFi has announced plans to expand to Australia and Canada this year. The company’s chief executive has also talked about European and Asian expansion in the future.
On the international front, Affirm is currently evaluating markets that make the most sense for its business model, Metcalf says. Affirm is also looking at possible acquisitions in developed markets such as the U.K. and Sweden as well as considering “serious investment” in new distribution models in southeast Asia, Mexico and Brazil, he says.
LendingClub, meanwhile, last November announced a significant partnership with National Bank of Canada and its U.S. subsidiary Credigy. The agreement provides for Credigy to invest up to $1.3 billion over the subsequent twelve months. A spokeswoman for LendingClub said the company has nothing to share about plans for international expansion.
As for OnDeck, Young says the company is exploring a number of options; it’s a matter of finding markets where gaps exist in small business lending and where potential customers have a willingness to borrow online.
“We want to be the preferred choice for small businesses. It’s not necessarily defined geographically,” Young says. “We review markets all the time. There are a number of markets that are interesting to us.”
Catching Up With Marketplace Lending – A Timeline
June 13, 20174/11 Regions Bank recruited Kabbage’s chief technology officer, Amala Duggirala, to become its chief information officer
4/12 Federal Reserve Published their 2016 Small Business Credit Survey
4/13
- Marathon Partners, a minority shareholder of OnDeck, publicly called on the company to make changes
- Fifth Third Bank partnered with Accion to support lending to underserved small businesses
4/17 Affirm surpassed the mark of making more than 1 million loans since inception
4/20 YieldStreet surpassed $100M in loans funded since inception
4/21 Glenn Goldman stepped down as Credibly’s CEO
4/25
- SmartBiz Loans announced partnership with Sacramento-based Five Star Bank
- CommonBond begins offering loans to undergrads directly
4/26 State regulators sued OCC over fintech charter proposal
4/28
- IOU Financial announced that they loaned $107.6M to small businesses in Q1
- China Rapid Finance announced their IPO
5/2
- Funding Circle closed their online forum
- Elevate’s Debt facility with Victory Park Capital increased from $150M to $250M
5/3
- Prosper Marketplace disclosed that it miscalculated returns shown to retail investors
- Square announced that they loaned $251M to small businesses in Q1
- Nav raised $13M from investors that include Goldman Sachs and Steve Cohen’s Point72 Ventures
5/4
- Vermont governor signed into law new licensing requirements for anyone soliciting loans to Vermont borrowers.
- Lending Club announced that they loaned $1.96B in Q1
5/5 Thomas Curry steps down as OCC head, replaced by Acting Head Keith Noreika
5/8
- OnDeck announced it was substantially reducing its workforce as part of its plan to achieve profitability. The stock price proceeded to hit record lows.
- Dv01 announced reporting partnership with SoFi
- With no IPO on the horizon, SoFi revealed that they began letting their employees sell some of their stock
5/9
- In the United States District Court, The Southern District of New York ruled that a purchase of future receivables was not a loan largely because it was not absolutely payable. Colonial Funding Network, Inc. as servicing provider for TVT Capital, LLC v. Epazz, Inc. CynergyCorporation, and Shaun Passley a/k/a Shaun A. Passley
- The value of 1 Bitcoin surpassed $1,700.
5/10
- CFPB announces that it will begin work on small business loan data collection pursuant to Section 1071 of Dodd-Frank.
- CFPB publishes a white paper on small business lending
- SoFi revealed that they will apply for an industrial bank charter
5/12 NY’s banking regulator sued the OCC over its proposed fintech charters
5/15
Prosper announced that they lent $585M in Q1 and had a net loss of $23.9M
5/16
- Media outlets reported that SoFi is expanding into wealth management
- Lending Club named PayPal’s former head of Global Credit Steve Allocca as President
- OnDeck’s share price hit a new all-time low
See previous timelines:
2/17/17 – 4/5/17
12/16/16 – 2/16/17
9/27/16 – 12/16/16
Sound Bites From Underwriting – The Risk of Imperfect Merchants
June 12, 2017
When you’re funding a business, does the risk begin and end with the business? Or does the character of the owners play a role? Can you judge the business on weak financials if your product is geared towards weak financials to begin with? And can you trust unaudited internally prepared financial statements?
At the Factoring Conference during a portfolio warning signs panel, Michael Bagley, VP at Action Capital Corporation, spoke about the risk of internally prepared financials:
“The issue is from a financial standpoint, are they breaking even? That gives you some ability they can function, but one thing that jumps out at you is the payables. It really seems pretty simple. But if you’re in an industry where there’s a critical vendor, or you’ve got a critical supplier, or you’ve got subcontractors and the payables are stretched beyond what is logical past terms, well, that’s a huge warning sign in the underwriting, but it didn’t always show up in underwriting, right, because these were internal financials and 90% of the time and they’re garbage, right?
They’re created by the user so that you at some level have to create or mitigate that by creating procedures that allow you to chase down what are your critical expenses associated with customers. So, for example, in the government space, it would be a subcontractor not getting paid. In manufacturing, it could be a critical vendor that you see on the aging. But if you see that their insurance company had not been paid a couple months, it may not be as big a deal.”
Emma Hart, the COO of Sallyport Commercial Finance, on where the risk lies:
“[…] More than anything I would say even beyond the collateral, it’s the integrity of the client that you’re dealing with. Because in my experience, it’s people that pay you back, not businesses.”
Hart again, on judging a customer’s financial situation:
“[…] quite often, that’s the reason they’re factoring, is because their AP is a mess and you can see the AP is a mess and you raise it in the underwriting, you know. Is anybody suing you? What are you gonna do about it? And they’re like ‘Oh, I’m gonna use the money that you provide to me to sort out my AP.’ ‘Okay then.'”
Melissa Baines, Risk Manager of Republic Business Credit, LLC, on a deal going too smoothly:
“We had a situation where I believe they were doing the parking lot striping, the painting on a parking lot. And it was one invoice. It was a dealership. A car dealership was the account debtor. The account executive who was helping out with the take-on sent out the verification letter. The no-offset verification letter came right back. No issues. And our CEO at that time— Again, going back to the gut feeling, just it was too easy— There weren’t even any questions asked. “What is this?” It was just “Sure. Send it over. I’ll sign it.” And he did and we got it back. And so, our CEO called and talked to him. And he said, “Yeah, yeah, yeah, it’s fine. It’s fine.” It still didn’t feel right. So, we called the dealership main line, got the receptionist. She answered the phone. She said, “Who signed it? Okay. Hold on.” Ended up somebody from the accounting department got on the phone and said, “That’s not real. You’re not the first person to call, you know, and then we’ll call you back.” And then ultimately, the owner of the dealership called back and said, “We will take care of this. It will not happen again, but it is not a real invoice. And please do not fund that to that client.” So, you know, don’t ever give up on that gut instinct. There was nothing that said it wasn’t real to begin with, but thank goodness for [employee’s name]. She just had that gut feeling. It wasn’t right. It was too easy. And here you go.”
This is one of several excerpts from this panel that we plan to post under the Sound Bites From Underwriting tagline.





























