Merchant Cash Advance Misinformation Abounds – What’s A Broker To Think?
October 10, 2016
Last week, at least two panelists at the major commercial loan broker conference critiqued merchant cash advances, even going so far as to assign an arbitrary cost to them. Craig McGrain, President of factoring company Durham Funding, said they cost about 75%. Bob Coleman, owner of The Coleman Report, an SBA loan journal, said that merchant cash advance contracts should stipulate that prices are basically equivalent to 100% APR. Neither accurately describes a merchant cash advance if for no other reason than because a merchant cash advance is merely a methodology or a mechanism, not a price. The term itself is derived from the process of making a merchant an advance on their future projected sales. With hundreds of companies employing that concept, some are able to do it at a low cost and others at a high cost.
And it’s obviously the high cost ones to which their disdain was directed. But even then, when MCAs are properly structured as a purchase of future sales, there is no calculable APR because there is no assigned time frame, predetermined payments, or interest rate. This doesn’t mean an MCA product can’t be expensive, because surely they can be, but assigning randomly high percentages to scare people only compounds the misinformation that has persisted for years.
On a panel I participated in with Bob Coleman, Coleman said that these purchases were really just loans. The New York Supreme Court, however, repeatedly disagrees with him. In Platinum Rapid Funding Group Ltd v. VIP Limousine Services, Inc. and Charles Cotton, the court affirmed a purchase of future receivables for an upfront payment, adding that the request for the Court to convert the Agreement to a loan and assign an interest rate to it would require unwarranted speculation, and would contradict the explicit terms of the sale of future receivables in accordance with the Merchant Agreement.
In Merchant Cash & Capital, LLC v G&E Asian Am. Enter., Inc., the court reached the same conclusion.
With regard to McGrain of Durham Funding, he said that 70%-80% of companies that apply for his company’s factoring services have already used an MCA. This kind of competitive pressure is probably a leading reason why a factor would mischaracterize MCAs. In fact, the factoring industry has felt so threatened by MCAs, that two years ago the International Factoring Association voted to ban all MCA companies from their organization.
This isn’t to suggest that factoring is an inferior product and that MCA is the newer better thing. On the contrary, factoring is an excellent loan alternative and to McGrain’s credit he said that he believed the free market would work everything out. To facilitate that, more MCA brokers need to be educated on factoring and SBA lending. And in return commercial finance brokers need to understand the true nuts and bolts of MCA. That process gets sullied when misinformation abounds. Merchants will get the best help when the brokers fully understand all of the market’s options.
My panel with SBA lending expert Bob Coleman and equipment leasing veteran Kit Menkin at the NACLB conference last week highlighted some differences of opinions across these closely related industries but also demonstrated areas in which we all agree. Small businesses have different needs and it’s up to the brokers to prescribe the most appropriate solution. Whether it’s short-term or long-term, cheap or expensive, proactive or reactive, there’s capital out there. Hopefully the kind of cooperative engagement the NACLB conference provided this year will continue to be fostered for years to come.
Dear Funders: Don’t Dial ‘M’ for Marketing
October 7, 2016
Imagine you own a small donut shop in Arizona and receive an email saying, “Hello, I have heard your chocolate donuts are amazing and the most popular item. I work for XX, and we provide small business loans, do reach out to us if you’re looking to take it a step further.”
Versus
Getting yet another envelope in a deluge of mails with a bank-check-like promotional ad for a preposterous amount that startles you for a hot second before it ends up in the paper shredder.
One of these methods is free, personalized and subtle. And no points for guessing which one.
Gone should be the days where funders indiscriminately send out email blasts or cold call merchants offering working capital. But are they?
A year ago, a Wall Street Journal article said,
“A big reason online lenders make heavy use of mail, they said, is that it is still more effective than other types of direct marketing. Across all industries, the overall response rate for direct-mail overtures is 3.7%, compared with 0.1% for both email and social-media marketing campaigns, according to a recent report from the Direct Marketing Association, an industry group.”
Mintel Comperemedia, a database which tracks advertising data highlighted the use of technology as being the paramount shift in marketing for the financial services industry. But is the transition from analog to digital underway?
For some companies, it is. New York-based SOS Capital does not have a sales team and does all of its marketing on social media. The company sends no direct mailers, limits email blasts and instead scouts for small businesses on Facebook, LinkedIn and Yelp.
With more small businesses ramping up their social media presence, discovering leads has not only become easier but also cheaper. “Small business presence on Facebook is growing every day and finding them there can save you a lot of money,” said David Obstfeld, CEO and co-founder of SOS Capital. “Facebook is not explored by most funders but we have had great success.” The company spent $6,500 marketing to SMBs on Facebook and had 120 conversions over a period of two months.
How does that compare with the conventional methods of direct mail campaigns, email blasts and phone calls?
According to Justin Benton, sales director at leads generation firm, Lenders Marketing, it could cost about $100,000 to send out a million emails to active, verified accounts and as much as a dollar for a nice direct mail, including printing and postage.
“Even though it’s cost prohibitive for some folks and some others think that it’s past its prime, direct mail still wins,” said Benton who urges his clients to consider social media marketing which he says can be “virtually free.”
Discovering companies on sites like LinkedIn and Yelp can offer insights into the business and target customers better. “Calling a lead once and saying the words, ‘business loans’ or ‘working capital loans’ does not work, you need to understand the business,” Benton added.
Digital marketing can also help one keep better track of leads and reinvest in the ones that work. “It’s important to have a leads scoring system,” Benton said. The opposite of that, to him, looks like “Making a gumbo from scratch but you have no idea how you did it and cannot recreate it.”
Competition among financial companies will eventually force them to get more creative with their marketing tactics. Like Partners Funding for example, an MCA funder that markets to ISOs, uses incentives as baits. “If the ISOs fund three deals over $50,000, we reward them with extra points or give them marketing dollars,” said Michael Jenssen, ISO sales manager at Partners Funding, which sticks to marketing through email blasts, calls and exhibiting at trade shows.
Ultimately, the road to a lasting relationship with clients is paved with effective marketing. And the line between pushing call to action and being pesky is quite fine. “Funders have been using the same marketing campaigns and it’s making the clients sick,” said Obstfeld. “There are only so many mailers one can receive. They have to be creative about marketing to people without annoying them.”
For Obstfeld, the value in pursuing businesses through channels like Facebook is having more control over deals and interacting with the merchants directly, without any interference from ISOs. “It’s not just about saving money but the control over the deal. When there is no ISO involved, there is no stacking involved.”
The transition to moving all marketing online might be slow but inevitable. Until then, using bank check imagery to promote big pre-approvals will be more than just gags.
Merchant Cash Advance’s Impact on Factoring
October 6, 2016
A little more than two years ago, the International Factoring Association voted to ban merchant cash advance companies from membership, citing loose underwriting standards and competitive pressure.
On Wednesday, at the NACLB conference in Las Vegas, Craig McGrain, President of factoring company Durham Funding, hinted on a panel at just how strong that competitive pressure has become. According to him, about 70-80% of their applicants today already have a merchant cash advance. Five years ago, it was only 5% of businesses, he said. He thinks a lot of that has to do with small businesses not knowing what all of their available options are.
The numbers may not be all that shocking considering that Funding Circle VP Michael Rabil also said at the conference that 30-40% of their applicants already have an MCA. Funding Circle provides small business term loans.
That’s a lot of merchants turning to MCA before finding their way to another product.
AltFinanceDaily: Europe’s ING Bank, Commerzbank to Slash Jobs, Go Digital
October 3, 2016Europe is debanking.
Last week, two large European banks — ING and Commerzbank announced they are slashing jobs and spending the savings on digitizing its their businesses.
Amsterdam-based ING Bank will slash 7,000 jobs, around 3500 jobs in Belgium and another 2300 in the Netherlands. The savings ( around 900 million euros in five years) under the bank’s ‘Think Forward’ strategy, will be used to migrate to a single integrated banking platform in the Netherlands and Belgium. Separately, ING will also invest 800 million euros in digital initiatives over the next five years.
“Customers are increasingly digital and bank with us more and more through mobile devices. Their needs and expectations are the same, all over the world, and they expect us to adopt new technology as fast as companies in other sectors,” said CEO Ralph Hammers in a statement.
ING is not alone in marching towards technology; Germany-based Commerzbank also said that it will slash approximately 7,300 jobs over the next four years and spend 700 million euros annually on technology under its ‘Commerzbank 4.0’ strategy. Later this month, the bank plans to roll out ‘One,’ an integrated sales interface, enabling the bank’s sales staff and customers to interact and transact on the same platform and by 2020, it aims to have 80 percent of its relevant business processes digitized.
“It is inevitable that the various measures and intentions announced today may have a significant impact on many of our colleagues. It means some functions will change significantly in nature,” said Hammers.
The move from major banks is coming at a time when fintech is heating up — Europeans startups raised $348 million (£238.2 million) in the first quarter of the year, up from $337 million (£230.6 million) in the first three months of 2015. And with banks deciding to go lean, it could only open up the opportunity for more collaboration than competition among banks and startups.
Marketplace Lending: Where No One Makes Any Money?
September 28, 2016
At the Marketplace Lending and Investing conference in NYC, LendAcademy founder and p2p lending expert Peter Renton asked a group of panelists a stunning question, “Why is no one making any money?”
For the sake of context, Renton explained that if banks were basically the most profitable business type on Earth, then how could it be that those companies infringing on their space or partnering up with them weren’t partaking in that.
The question was posed to Noah Breslow of OnDeck and Sam Hodges of Funding Circle, two of the most high profile players in the alternative small business lending industry. Both companies have been operating at a loss despite being in business for quite some time, in the case of OnDeck, almost ten years now.
Breslow took the question in stride, saying that “first you have to look at the unit economics of a loan. If you’re not profitable there, you’re in trouble. You can’t scale your way out of that.” He added that there are indeed competitors that fail on this test alone who won’t likely be around for much longer.
But as to why they personally were still not profitable? He put a lot of emphasis on their continued strategy to expand.
Funding Circle’s Hodges offered a similar explanation, saying that they have spent a lot of resources on expanding into five countries. He also said that “their plan takes them to profitability next year.”
Of course, neither OnDeck nor Funding Circle are as diversified in their product offerings as banks, explaining perhaps why the analogy between bank profitability and their profitability isn’t apples to apples. LoanDepot CEO Anthony Hsieh touched upon this in his presentation earlier in the day when he said that his company acquires an astounding 600,000 leads per month, a record high, but with very low conversions. So many [lenders] are monoline, he said.
Surely that affects the bottom line.
Google Payday Loan Ad Ban Conspiracy Theory Gains Steam: It Was The CFPB
September 28, 2016
This past May, Google told the world that they were the good guys.
That’s when they banned payday lending ads from their search results to “protect [their] users from deceptive or harmful financial products” all the while brushing aside the fact they were significant investors in LendUp, a payday loan company.
But LendUp wasn’t just any payday company. They were disrupting the entire game, according to a 2013 story that appeared in TechCrunch that hyped up how they were all about helping borrowers with poor credit improve their credit scores so that they could move up the ladder.
Less than three years later, LendUp CEO Sasha Orloff was still preaching the same principles. “Everything has to be transparent. There is no fine print. No hidden fees. And everything has to get someone to a better place,” Orloff insisted.
But that wasn’t true, according to a Consent Order published by the CFPB and settlement agreement released by the California Department of Business Oversight, in which the company agreed to pay millions in refunds and penalties. LendUp miscalculated APR and for years did not even report the payment history of many eligible borrowers to credit agencies. In fact no loan information was even reported to any credit bureau at all up until February 2014. They also weren’t transparent about their fees.
“Many of the benefits Respondent advertised as available to consumers who moved up the LendUp Ladder were, in fact, not available,” the CFPB asserts in its September 26th order. “Although it advertised all of its loans nationwide, from 2012 until 2015, Respondent did not offer any loans at the Platinum or Prime levels outside of California. In many states Respondent still does not offer such loans.”
Not that they did any better in California, where the DBO charged them with violating basic state laws through expedited funding fees, extension fees, and the condition that they buy other goods or services in order to get a loan.
LendUp told the WSJ that the settlements “address legacy issues that mostly date back to our early days as a company, when we were a seed-stage startup with limited resources and as few as five employees.”
But LendUp may just be a pawn in a bigger game between the CFPB and Google.
I fingered the CFPB as being the likely culprit behind Google’s payday loan advertising ban back in May 2016, when it was very likely that a CFPB investigation of LendUp was currently taking place. That theory was even picked up by The New Yorker. Today it looks awfully likely.
The CFPB mentioned LendUp’s use of facebook advertising and Internet search results advertising in its Order against the company. “Respondent used online banner advertisements appearing on Facebook and with Internet search results (emphasis mine) that included statutory triggering terms, but Respondent failed to disclosed in those advertisements the APR and whether the rate could be increased after consummation.”
Internet search results were used to carry out the deceptive practices, they allege? Sounds like Google had a potential problem on their hands.
Let’s recap:
- November 2013 and January 2016: Google Ventures invested in LendUp which promoted itself as a disruptively transparent and educational short term lender whose mission was to help consumers move up the ladder
- May 2016: Google suddenly bans payday loan ads from their search results seemingly out of nowhere
- September 2016: The CFPB and California DBO announce settlement orders over LendUp’s deceptive practices, wherein it was alleged that LendUp did not exactly do what it advertised and their ads in Internet search results violated TILA and Regulation Z
Was a CFPB investigation the real reason that Google had a change of heart about its lucrative payday loan advertising revenues?
It’s hard to ignore the evidence.
Lendio Improves Access to Capital, Continuing Marketplace Trend
September 22, 2016
Small business loan marketplace Lendio partnered with Detroit-based working capital financing company Supplier Success to improve capital access to businesses owned by minority and women owners.
“By joining forces with Supplier Success, we’re able to expand our capabilities to provide minority business owners easier access to financing,” said Brock Blake, CEO and co-founder of Utah-based, Lendio.
Supplier Success is the latest addition to the string of partners the company already works with. In August, the company announced that it had facilitated over $250 million in funding transactions and of that, $55 million was originated in Q2 alone. Partnerships with GoDaddy and Staples originated $14 million and $4 million respectively.
Loan marketplaces have been quick to board the partnership wagon, forging customer-share deals to expand their reach. Recently, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania-based small business lender CapitalFront partnered with Lenders One, a marketplace for mortgage brokers to offer unsecured business loans on the Lenders One platform.
Lenders One is a mortgage banking cooperative with 250 members including credit unions and community banks. Under the customer-sharing partnership, CapitalFront will offer funding to self-employed residential mortgage customers.
“Roughly 20% of mortgage borrowers are self-employed business owners,” said Brian Simon, CEO of CapitalFront in a statement. “The relationship between CapitalFront and Lenders One allows the cooperatives members to differentiate their services and strengthen their relationships with their customers by offering borrowers access to capital for their business needs.”
Denver-based Marketplace Lender P2Bi Secures $10 Million Credit Facility
September 20, 2016Denver-based marketplace lender P2BInvestor (P2Bi) closed a $10 million credit facility with Pittsburgh-based mortgage service company Urban Settlement Solutions.
Founded in 2012, P2Bi provides revolving lines of credit of up to $10 million to businesses. With an average line of $1 million, the company’s customers include businesses in retail, manufacturing and consumer goods packaging. They have originated $300 million since 2014. “Partnering with Urban Lending Solutions proves our ability to fund large facilities to established businesses through our marketplace model,” said Krista Morgan, CEO and cofounder of P2Bi in a statement.
This investment follows a round of $50 million funding the company raised in March this year.
