Loan Brokers or Self Origination? Here’s What Experts Say
February 22, 2016
Last year belonged to the brokers in alternative finance — with a phone and a few leads pulled up online, anyone could sell a loan. With seemingly no barriers to entry, alternative lending attracted auto and insurance salesmen fleeing their jobs to cash in on the gold rush in an economy which was coming out of the shadows of distrust for big banks. And it found quick ascension to grow into a trillion dollar market.
But a year on, as the dust has settled, we asked industry veterans what it means to remain successful in this business and what is the key to sustainability — is it in going for the ISO/broker channel to find deals or originating your own.
Here’s what they had to say
Don’t Break the Broker
Tom Abramov of MFS Global voted for the ISO/broker channel and said that that’s how the company strictly does deals, working with brokers who have a track record as a part of their recruitment system. The six year old company that started as an broker shop now focuses only on funding with products that are a mix of merchant cash advances and lines of credit.
“We don’t look at FICO scores or SIC codes, we only look at cash flows of businesses,” said Abramov. “I want to see if I give a someone a dollar whether they can turn it into two.”
Abramov added that his firm offers brokers 20 percent commission and their default rates are sub 5 percent.
The advantages of scoring deals through a broker channel can be alluring. It involves no overhead, no staff that needs compensation, motivation and incentives, and makes use of the existing broker-merchant relationships.
Jordan Feinstein of NuLook Capital said that his firm works with brokers exclusively and the model has helped them respond to merchants faster. “We do not have a sales team speaking to merchants directly, that’s in conflict with our model,” said Feinstein. “We decided that the best way to grow is to build relationships to avoid the overhead, compliance, training and manpower that a sales team would require,” he said.
Building a Hybrid Model
There are some others who want to make the best of both the models and work with brokers while originating and funding their own deals. Forward Financing which uses a hybrid model has strategic partnerships with some brokers while still originating their own deals. “We have a hybrid model because our goal is to have a program for any type of business and work with companies across the spectrum of risk,” said Justin Bakes, CEO of Forward Financing. “While our priority is to self originate, it is essential to create and maintain partnerships in this business,” he said.
The Original Origination
While the allure of a lean business is certainly attractive, there are some who are in the industry to build a bigger business and create value by making it robust — Jared Weitz of United Capital Source is one of them. “There is a big market for both analytical process as well as sales process. It’s important to go after your strength,” said Jared Weitz, founder and CEO of United Capital Source. “When you originate and fund your own deals, you’re in a rewarding position and in control of how merchants get treated.”
Industry Trends
Speaking of the industry in general, these experts agreed that the business was undergoing a change with new entrants coming in and experimenting with better services and technologies.
“Last year was the year of brokers but we are still missing the education with merchants. Some brokers are interested while some are not,” said Abramov.
“I notice a clear difference between the old and the new in terms of technology and pricing model,” said Bakes.
“New funders are coming in with different products and terms with increased competition in the ISO market,” said Feinstein.
“Marketing is getting more expensive and only the ones who can afford to pay can play,” said Weitz.
‘Year of the Broker’ Gives Way to ‘Year of the Reduced Commission’
February 21, 2016
Many brokers just starting out in the alternative funding space may be in for a rude awakening. It’s not that the ‘Year of the Broker’ is over, per se, but 2016 certainly represents a new chapter for newbies—one in which getting rich quick and succeeding over the long-haul will be much more difficult.
“It’s the ‘Year of the Leader’ now. Fresh brokers coming into our space will have to work harder to set themselves apart, and it will be harder for many of them to make the money they once did,” says Amanda Kingsley, chief executive of Sendto, a Palm Bay, Florida-based firm that assists companies in the alternative finance industry with referral marketing and operational growth programs.
Funders today remain hungry for deals and are still paying relatively high rates to bring in new business. Yet there are several competitive realities putting a damper on a new broker’s earnings power.
“A few years ago, individual brokers could be making $20,000 or even $40,000 a month. Now those numbers are much more difficult to reach unless brokers have a unique lead generation method or their own money to participate in the deals,” says Zachary Ramirez, a vice president and branch manager in the Orange, California office of World Business Lenders, a New York-based lender.
Most funders today allow brokers to charge merchants between 8 and 12 points above the buy rate, with some allowing as high as 15 to 20 points, according to industry participants. But to win business amid a flurry of competition, brokers are being forced to take a lower cut on many deals. Not only are there more brokers to compete with, but merchants are also savvier—and more price-conscious—about alternative funding products than they were several years ago.
For higher quality deals, there’s another force at play driving down what sales reps can earn. That’s because a handful of large funders are instituting caps on what brokers can charge top-quality merchants. “They want to make sure that the price that’s charged to the merchant is fair,” says Stephen Sheinbaum, founder of Bizfi, a New York-based funder that has not instituted these caps.
Together, these competitive realities mean that sales reps, on average, are making much less than they did a few years ago. For example, on high quality deals, brokers might only be able to make 3 to 8 points per deal on average. For lower quality deals, on the other hand, brokers might make as much as 15 to 20 points.
So far, the changing economic tide hasn’t discouraged new sales reps from jumping in. In fact, the market is still hot for new brokers who continue to pour into the market at a torrid pace, buoyed by rampant media attention and aggressive advertising by funders and large brokerage houses. “I think it’s even worse now,” says John Tucker, a solo broker since 2009 who also blogs for DeBanked. “They’re signing up anybody with a heartbeat and a pulse.”
Clinging to Misperceptions
Despite the overcrowding issue, industry watchers expect new brokers will continue to flood in as alternative funding continues to gain traction. Many of these new brokers, however, won’t be around very long. That’s because many of them are coming into the space, especially from other sales-oriented jobs, thinking it’s easier than it is. “I think many people are going to come into the space, fail and leave bloodied and bruised,” says Ramirez of World Business Lenders.
Indeed, there are many new brokers who are still holding on to outdated notions about the business. Some are primed to think that they can easily make 10 points on a $100,000 deal and if they do that once a month, they have the potential to make $120,000 a year. “It’s just not as easy as it’s promoted to be,” says Tucker, who owns 1st Capital Loans in Troy, Michigan. Even Tucker, a seasoned broker, frequently has trouble connecting with merchants nowadays because they are inundated with sales pitches. They’ll hang up on him as soon as he makes it clear he’s a broker because they are getting so many calls from competitors, he says.
William Ramos, owner of Right Away Funding in Phoenix, Arizona, recently worked with a new broker who was convinced he was going to make $5,000 a week from the get-go. Ramos tried to manage his expectations by explaining he’d first have to learn the business and be persistent if he hoped to make that kind of money.
Ramos says the broker took his advice by asking lots of questions and working hard over the next six months. He’s not making what he had originally hoped, but he is up to about $5,000 a month, says Ramos, the former president of Staten Island, New York-based Supreme Capital Group, which he sold in 2015 to open a new firm.
In talking to new brokers, Nathan Abadi president of Excel Capital Management in New York, a lender and MCA funder, also sees a lot of misconceptions about what they think they can make and how easy it will be. It becomes problematic when the reality doesn’t match up with their expectations. For instance, he recently hired a used car salesman who worked for his company for about two months before they parted ways. The broker thought that because he had sold so many cars in the past, he could easily apply that to alternative funding. But he didn’t want to take the time to thoroughly learn about the new product set. He was just trying to ink deals based on cost, which is no longer a viable strategy, Abadi explains. “Customers know what the rates are. They’re not just applying with one person,” Abadi says.
The first month, the new broker closed a $175,000 deal based on a lead he was given and with Abadi doing the bulk of the legwork. After that, the broker got a few more deals, but he couldn’t do it on his own without significant support from the firm. A big problem was that he didn’t understand the math behind the deals he was pitching. “If merchants ask you a question and you can’t answer it properly, you’re done. The deal’s over. Not enough people are taking the time to understand the market as a whole,” says Abadi, whose firm is in the process of hiring new brokers for its internal sales force.
Edward Siegel, founder and chief executive of Fundzio LLC, a funding company in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, says he still sees plenty of new brokers who come into the business believing they can easily close a deal for $50,000, make 10 points and sustain that type of income. “The market has changed. The cost of capital has gotten a lot lower for the customer, and since there are more brokers in the marketplace they are willing to take a lesser amount just to get the deal to the finish line,” he says.
A lot of brokers come into the industry all gung ho and then flounder when they see how hard it really is. Siegel says he’s seen them submit deals for a few months and then realize they were living a pipe dream and leave the industry. “It’s not easy, especially in a competitive marketplace, especially when 10 other brokers might be knocking on that same guy’s door,” he says.
Nearing the breaking point
Andrew Reiser, chairman and chief executive of Strategic Funding Source, a New York-based funder, says that many brokers are operating under a false sense of security. “We’re in a strong economy in our space largely because of lack of other available sources of capital from larger institutions. When a market is very forgiving, mistakes are easily absorbed and swept under the carpet.”
He believes it’s going to get even harder for brokers over time, likening the situation with brokers today to that of stockbrokers a few decades ago. People used to be inundated with calls from stockbrokers at firms of all sizes about this stock or that one. Now many small brokerage houses have disappeared and larger firms have moved away from cold calling. Instead they are focused on money management and proving their prowess as specialists.
“You can’t be all things to all people serving a market this size,” he says.
Survival Strategies
Kingsley of Sendto says she receives many questions from new brokers about how to compete effectively, and it’s not an easy answer. Having a niche product, though, can help. “If you can learn how a particular industry works along with appropriate deal placement, you can develop a really good client base. It helps when presenting your clients to funding companies and you will build a more professional relationship,” she says.
Tucker, the broker with 1st Capital Loans, notes that UCCs and Aged Leads are outdated marketing tactics and says most new brokers don’t have enough industry knowledge to critically think to create new strategies for survival. “All they will end up doing is burning through the little capital that they do have and be out of the business within 12 to 18 months,” he says.
Having good training is critical for new brokers to survive, according to Mike Andriello, president of Cushion Capital Corporation in Poughkeepsie, New York. “I think that if brokers focus on the nature of the industry, actually pick the business owners’ minds and learn their business as best as they can, they will have a lot of success. It’s not all about making the biggest commissions; it’s about having the biggest client book,” he says.
Ramirez of World Business Lenders believes brokers can do better for themselves long-term by syndicating because it’s a way to make more money. “I don’t think it’s a long-term strategy if a broker’s not participating in his own deals,” he says.
Granted, some funders make it easier for brokers to participate than others do, but Ramirez believes brokers should seize opportunities to earn interest income over the life of the loan. So, for instance, on a $100,000 loan, instead of earning a $20,000 commission upfront, a broker might be able to apply that money to the deal and earn $26,000 or $28,000 over the life of the loan.
Of course, this strategy won’t work well for brokers living paycheck to paycheck. “But if you don’t need the commissions right away, you can roll the commissions into deals and increase your earnings exponentially,” he says. “Because of rising acquisition costs and decreased commission averages per deal, being forced to participate, or syndicate, is the natural evolution.”
Gearing for the Future
To be sure, industry watchers believe there is still ample opportunity for new brokers with drive and ambition to enter the space. “Successful brokers will always have a place in the ecosystem,” says Sheinbaum of Bizfi.
But there’s a general consensus that from now on these brokers will have to work harder than they have in the past to thrive. Says Andriello of Cushion Capital: “2016 will be the year of who was smart enough and made the right business moves to stay progressing and growing. It will also be the year a lot of funders and brokerage firms close shop.”
Over time, the changing economic reality will continue to set in. While it will be harder for individual brokers, it’s best for the industry when new sales reps understand the realities of the market and how to compete effectively. “You want the smartest people in the space. The more well-educated they are about the products and the processes, the better off everyone is,” Sheinbaum says.
Despite everything, it’s still a great time to be getting into the industry, provided you have the right mindset and proper resources behind you, according to Ramos of Right Away Funding. “If you’re just coming in and you just want to collect your weekly check, now’s not a good time to be a broker. It’s a great time for people who are hungry, motivated and determined to make something out of it.”
Without Scalia, Media Outlets Reporting Marketplace Lenders Supposedly Doomed With Supreme Court Case (They’re Wrong)
February 18, 2016
Without Antonin Scalia, marketplace lending is apparently doomed, according to news outlets reporting on the matter. A high profile case (in the banking world anyway) known as Madden v Midland, is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Midland Funding seeks to reverse an appellate court ruling that said that interest rate preemption under the National Bank Act did not apply to them and thus they were subject to New York State’s usury laws.
According to BankRate.com’s reporting on the Scalia angle, “The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to review a lower court decision that prevents marketplace lenders from getting around state usury laws by hooking up with banks headquartered in states that don’t have those rules.” But that’s not true at all. The case isn’t about marketplace lenders and the appellate court’s ruling isn’t currently preventing marketplace lenders from doing anything.
Midland Funding is a debt collector. Saliha Madden, a New York resident, obtained a bank issued credit card with an interest rate of 27% APR, racked up charges and didn’t pay them. The debt got written off and the bank sold the debt to Midland Funding. Midland continued to assess interest on the credit card debt while it attempted to collect. Saliha Madden sued on the basis that Midland was violating New York State usury laws. Midland Funding won and Madden appealed. Then a weird thing happened. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that in order “[t]o apply NBA preemption to an action taken by a non-national bank entity, application of state law to that action must significantly interfere with a national bank’s ability to exercise its power under the NBA.”
And from there began the somewhat justifiable panic in the marketplace lending industry. If a collector buying a charged-off debt from a bank can’t continue to enforce the terms as originally contracted, then could you make the same argument for loan platforms that buy newly issued loans? The answer is simply that you could make the argument. It’s not definitive. It’s one of those things that would likely have to be challenged in court by a borrower confident that a case involving a debt collector and a bank issued credit card somehow related to the matter between a marketplace lender and a borrower.
But there’s another problem in trying to make that link.
The Madden v Midland case involved a national bank and preemption under the National Bank Act. Many marketplace lenders such as Lending Club are not even conducting their business with national banks but with state-chartered banks. Their preemption ability falls under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
Lending Club did not shut their business down after the appellate court ruling and they didn’t stop lending in the states in which the Second Circuit has jurisdiction (New York, Connecticut and Vermont). Lending Club’s CEO Renaud Laplanche even expressed little worry about how it would impact their business when asked about it during their 2015 Q2 earnings call.
American Banker reported that “Scalia’s Death Is a Setback for Online Lenders in Key Court Fight.” But it’s really only a setback in the sense that a loss would peel away just one layer of the onion. Marketplace lenders weren’t going to suspend their operations regardless of whether or not the Supreme Court heard the case and regardless of whether or not Scalia was there to dissent.
Consider also that exporting home state interest rates using national and state chartered banks is only one system available to marketplace lenders. Square’s working capital program for example, is actually structured as a purchase of future receivables. There is no bank, no loan, and no preemption. An unfavorable Madden v Midland ruling would have no impact on that model or the dozens of merchant cash advance companies that offer similar products.
There’s also state by state licensing, which while costly and time consuming to set up, would at least allow marketplace lenders to lend in many states without relying on a bank or preemption. “I think the stronger business model is the state licensing model, as opposed to partnering up with a bank,” said Richard Eckman, a lawyer at Pepper Hamilton, to American Banker.
Even further distanced from this case are commercial marketplace lenders since state lending laws are generally less burdensome for business-to-business transactions.
And even if all else failed, a choice-of-law provision in a loan agreement can potentially decide which state’s law applies. Lending Club’s Laplanche said as much last year. “We continue to operate in the Second Circuit district where that decision was rendered, exactly as we did before and are relying on our choice of law provisions,” he said during an earnings call.
Scalia’s absence is at most a bummer for marketplace lenders. A win would only serve to tie up loose ends and finally put an end to bank charter model naysayers. Madden v Midland became so famous because the ruling was just so shocking. It practically begged the industry to take a look and wonder, what if? If this, then why not that? And if that, then who’s to say not this then? Even on AltFinanceDaily, we’ve explored the nightmare scenario in which a well established system totally unravels and the world ends. The real world holds much more promise.
The real losers in an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling would be national banks and credit card companies. And that’s because if debt collectors can’t enforce their loan agreements, then they’re not going to buy that debt to begin with. And if debt collectors won’t buy that debt, then banks are going to have to figure out a better way to collect on their own, else they make even less risky lending decisions.
Something tells me though that banks would find a creative work-around for that anyway. Because if they didn’t, Madden v Midland would end up being a massive boon for marketplace lenders.
Imagine that.
The Dual Aura of Fora – How Two College Friends Built Fora Financial and Became the “Marketplace” of Marketplace Lending
February 16, 2016A recent Bloomberg article documented the hard-partying lifestyle of two young entrepreneurs who struck it rich when they sold their alternative funding business. The story of their beer-soaked early retirement in a Puerto Rico tax haven came complete with photos of the duo astride horses on the beach and perched atop a circular bed.
But two other members of the alternative-finance community have chosen a different path despite somewhat similar circumstances. Jared Feldman and Dan B. Smith, the founders of New York-based Fora Financial, are about the same age as the pair in that Bloomberg article and they, too, recently sold an equity stake in their company. Yet Smith and Feldman have no intention of cutting back on the hours they dedicate to their business or the time they devote to their families.
They retained a share of Fora Financial that they characterized as “significant” and will remain at the head of the company after selling part of it to Palladium Equity Partners LLC in October for an undisclosed sum. Palladium bought into a company that has placed more than $400 million in funding through 14,000 deals with 8,500 small businesses. It expects revenue and staff size to grow by 25 percent to 35 percent this year.
The deal marks Palladium’s first foray into alternative finance, although it has invested in the specialty-finance industry since 2007, said Justin R. Green, a principal at the firm. His company is appointing two members to the Fora Financial board.
Palladium, which describes itself as a middle-market investment firm, decided to make the deal partly because it was impressed by Smith and Feldman, according to Green. “Jared and Dan have a passion for supporting small businesses and built the company from the ground up with that mission,” he said. “We place great importance on the company’s management team.”
Negotiations got underway after Raymond James & Associates, a St. Petersburg, Fla.-based investment banking advisor, approached Palladium on behalf of Fora Financial, Green said. RJ&A made the overture based on other Palladium investments, he said.
The potential partnership looked good from the other point of view, too. “We wanted to make sure it was the right partner,” Feldman said of the process. “We wanted someone who shared the same vision and knew how to maximize growth and shareholder value over time and help us execute on our plans.”
It took about a year to work out the details of the deal Feldman said. “It was a grueling process, to say the least,” he admitted, “but we wanted to make sure we were capitalized for the future.”
The Palladium deal marked a milestone in the development of Fora Financial, a company with roots that date back to when Smith and Feldman met while studying business management at Indiana University.
After graduation, Feldman landed a job in alternative funding in New York at Merchant Cash & Capital (today named Bizfi), and he recruited Smith to join him there. “That was basically our first job out of college,” Feldman said.
It struck Smith as a great place to start. “It was the easiest way for me to get to New York out of college,” he said. “I saw a lot of opportunity there.”
The pair stayed with the company a year and a half before striking out on their own to start a funding company in April 2008. “We were young and ambitious,” Feldman said. “We thought it was the right time in our lives to take that chance.”
They had enough confidence in the future of alternative funding that they didn’t worry unduly about the rocky state of the economy at the time. Still, the timing proved scary.
Lehman Brothers crashed just as Smith and Feldman were opening the doors to their business, and all around them they saw competitors losing their credit facilities, Smith said. It taught them frugality and the importance of being well-capitalized instead of boot-strapped.
Their first office, a 150-square-foot space in Midtown Manhattan, could have used a few more windows, but there was no shortage of heavy metal doors crisscrossed with ominous-looking interlocking steel bars. The space seemed cramped and sparse at the same time, with hand-me-down furniture, outdated landline phones and a dearth of computers. Job seekers wondered if they were applying to a real company.
“It was Dan and I sitting in a small room, pounding the phones,” Feldman recalled. “That’s how we started the business.”
At first, Smith and Feldman paid the rent and kept the lights on with their own money. Nearly every penny they earned went right back into the business, Feldman said. The company functioned as a brokerage, placing deals with other funders. From the beginning, they concentrated on building relationships in the industry, Smith said. “Those were the hands that fed us,” he noted.
By early 2009, Smith and Feldman started raising capital from friends and family members so that they could fund deals themselves. About that time, they developed a computer platform to track the payments they received from funding companies where they placed deals.
Smith and Feldman’s first credit facility came from Entrepreneur Growth Capital. The stake enabled them to begin handling deals on their own instead of passing them along to funders. At the same time, they expanded their computing platform to handle entire deals.
From there, Smith and Feldman expanded their computing capability to help with accounting, underwriting and other functions. A combination of staff and outside developers guided the platform’s evolution. Today, three full-time in-house tech people handle programming.
Smith and Feldman emphasize that they don’t consider Fora Financial a tech company, but Green said the company’s platform helped cinch the deal. “We view Fora Financial as a technology-enabled financial services company,” he maintained.
While building the platform and expanding the business, Fora Financial secured mezzanine financing from Hamilton Investment Partners LLC, a company that bases its investments on the strength of management teams. “I am industry-agnostic,” said Douglas Hamilton, managing partner and and cofounder. “Dan and Jared are one of the best young teams I have encountered in my 35 years of doing private investing.”
Meanwhile, Fora Financial moved six times to larger accommodations. The company’s 116 employees now occupy 26,000 square feet in Midtown, with half of the staff working in direct sales and the other half devoted to back office, underwriting, finance, IT, customer service, collections and legal duties.
Seventy percent of the company’s business flows from its inside sales staff and the rest comes from ISOs, brokers and strategic partners, Feldman said. “Most of the industry is the opposite,” he noted.
Finding salespeople presents a challenge in New York, where they’re in great demand. “We’ve invested a lot of money in finding the right salespeople,” Feldman said. “We also have to make sure that we’re right for them.” The sales staff includes recent graduates and experienced people from other sectors of financial-services or other businesses, Feldman noted.
“We don’t hire from within the industry,” Smith added. “From Day One, we’ve been training our staff our way and not bringing in tainted brokers.” That way, the company can make sure salespeople hew to the company’s ethical approach to business, he maintained. It’s part of creating a company culture, he said.
The Fora Financial culture also includes strict compliance with state and federal regulation because until recently Smith and Feldman owned the entire company, Feldman said. “Regulatory compliance is a core value with us and has been for some time,” he noted, adding that it’s also resulted in conservatism and due diligence.
Those traits have not gone unnoticed, according to Robert Cook, a partner at Hudson Cook, LLC, a Hanover, Md.-based financial-services law firm that has worked extensively with the company. “Fora was one of the first clients in this small-business funding area that took compliance to heart,” Cook said. “As time has gone on, we’re seeing more and more companies make compliance part of their culture, but Fora was one of the early adapters in this area.”
Top management at alternative finance companies often talk about compliance, and the discussion too often ends there and doesn’t filter down through the ranks, Cook said. But that’s not the case at Fora Financial, he maintained. “It’s throughout the organization,” he said of the company Smith and Feldman founded. “From a compliance attorney’s standpoint, that’s always a great sign.”
Nurturing a penchant for compliance and dedicating a company legal and compliance department to pursuing it became a factor in Palladium’s decision to become involved with the company, Feldman said.
The focus on compliance also spread to the way Fora Financial brings brokers on board, Smith said. The company scrutinizes potential partners carefully before taking them on, he maintained.
“We probably missed out on some business as the industry grew because we were more cognizant of doing things the right way, but that paid off in the long run and some of our competitors have followed suit,” Smith said.
Compliance first became particularly important when Fora Financial added small-business loans to their initial business of providing merchant cash advances. They began making loans because lots of businesses don’t accept cards, which serve as the basis for cash advances.
On a cash basis, the current portfolio is 75 percent to 80 percent small-business loans. Loans started to surpass advances during the fourth quarter of 2014. The shift gained momentum after the company began funding through its bank sponsor, Bank of Lake Mills, in the third quarter of 2014.
Growth of loans will continue to outstrip growth of cash advances because manufacturers, construction companies and other businesses usually don’t accept cards, Smith said. If a customer qualifies for both, Fora Financial helps decide which makes the most sense in a specific case, Feldman added.
“We don’t sell our loans – we carry everything on the balance sheet and assume the risk,” Feldman said. “If it’s not good for the customer, it’s going to come back and hurt the performance of our portfolio over time,” he noted.
That thinking helped the company recognize the importance of adding loans to the mix. “We were one of the first companies (in the alternative-finance industry) to get our California lending license,” Feldman said. The company obtained the license in 2011 and got to work on lending. Offering loans required some retooling because the underwriting criteria differ so much from those in the cash advance business, Feldman said.
With the help of several law firms, they made sense of regulation from state to state and began offering the loans one state at a time, Smith said. “We wanted to make sure we rolled it out the right way,” Feldman noted.
As the company was changing, Smith and Feldman saw a need to rebrand. Initially, they called their company Paramount Merchant Funding to reflect their merchant cash advance offerings. When they added small-business loans to the mix, they used several additional names. Now, they’ve brought both functions and all of the names together under the Fora Financial brand. Fora means marketplace in Latin and seems broad enough to cover products the company might add in the future, Feldman said.
Smith and Feldman are contemplating what form those future products might take, but they declined to mention specifics. “We’re constantly getting feedback from customers on what they need that we’re not currently delivering,” Feldman said. “We have ideas in the pipeline.”
Despite changes in the business, Smith and Feldman have managed to remain true to timeless values in their personal lives. Smith grew up near Philadelphia in Fort Washington, Pa., and Feldman is a native of Roslyn, N.Y. Both now reside in Livingston, N.J. and occasionally ride the train together to work in New York. Smith is married and has two children, while Feldman and his wife recently had their first child.
“We’re at it everyday,” Feldman said of their work-oriented lifestyle. “When we’re out of the office, we’re traveling for work. So is the rest of the team. We’re only going to go as far as our people.”
And what about that other pair luxuriating in the Caribbean? As Feldman put it: “New Jersey is a long way from Puerto Rico.”
—
Learn more about Fora Financial at www.forafinancial.com
Transaction Successful: Visa Buys 10% Stake in Square
February 12, 2016
Visa just bought a 10 percent stake Jack Dorsey’s payment company, Square.
The payments network revealed an SEC filing announcing its 9.99 percent stake in the company and Square’s stock jumped 11 percent at market opening. Visa seemingly upped its stake, from the previously undisclosed investment it made in the company in 2011, according to CNNMoney. The deal makes Visa the fourth-largest investor in Square following Jack Dorsey himself, venture capital firm Khosla Ventures and major mutual fund, Capital Research and Management.
Square was started in 2009 as a point of sale solution for merchants. It turned heads with $10 million in Series A funding from Khosla Ventures and Marissa Meyer at a $40 million valuation. Since then the company has diversified into p2p payments with Square Cash and Square Capital, offering merchant cash advances to small business merchants.
The company went public in November 2015 and debuted on NYSE with a 30 percent discount, pricing its share at $9.
As it tries to gain a foothold in the competitive payments space, this fresh infusion of capital comes as good news for the stock which has generated close to 27 percent losses since its IPO.
Real Estate Lender Patch of Land Sells $250 Million in Loans
February 11, 2016
Real estate lending platform Patch of Land announced that it signed a $250 million agreement with an east coast based credit fund to purchase its loans in a forward flow arrangement.
The reluctance to name the city or state of the fund suggests that in doing so would too easily reveal who it is.
Patch, an LA-based lender which uses a data-driven underwriting model, promises investors a risk adjusted return with extensive available data to support the underlying credit decision on each loan.
The company founded in 2013 had raised a million in seed funding and $125,000 in debt in 2014, followed by $23 million in Series A funding last year. And it has funded more than 200 projects, with an average blended rate of return to investors of 12 percent
This is continued evidence of institutional interest in loans generated by marketplace lenders. JP Morgan Chase bought loans worth a billion dollars from Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc earlier this month. The bank also partnered with OnDeck in December of last year to facilitate the underwriting of the bank’s small dollar small business loan program.
In an interview with Bloomberg, Funding Circle’s CEO Sam Hodges said that it’s the first of many such partnerships to come where big banks will realize the potential of fast-growing fintech startups.
Bizfi Welcomes Record Quarter, Raises Equity
February 10, 2016
Bizfi, the marketplace lender for small businesses, originated a record $142 million in business financing in the last quarter of 2015.
Formerly known as Merchant Cash and Capital, they have financed over 27,000 small businesses through their proprietary marketplace with over $1.4 billion since 2005. They rebranded to Bizfi in 2015 and raised $65 million from Metropolitan Equity Partners for adding products and speeding up funding.
When company founder Stephen Sheinbaum was asked by AltFinanceDaily about the possibility of exploring personal loans, they said they would only do that through their partnerships with companies like OnDeck, Funding Circle and Kabbage. Sheinbaum also said that they were considering referrals and marketing tie-ups with some of these companies.
Bizfi’s lending platform provides a host of funding options like short-term financing, medical financing and lines of credit. The company plans to add more partners enriching their product offerings, among other plans. Alluding to immediate growth plans, Sheinbaum said that the firm will raise institutional equity this year along with augmenting the underwriting process to attract more customers as well as forging new partnerships.
Yirendai Gets Smoked on Global P2P Lending Fears
February 10, 2016
The market has turned overwhelmingly bearish on tech-based lending companies lately, but no company has perhaps felt the brunt more than Yirendai, a Chinese company listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Since their IPO less than two months ago, the price has already dropped by more than 60%. Investors seem to be basing that judgment on one thing, the general fear of that business model in China.
And who can blame them? Only a week ago, Ezubao, one of China’s largest peer-to-peer lenders, was revealed to be a $7.6 billion Ponzi scheme. More than 900,000 investors were impacted. The CEOs of more than 250 similar companies there are in hiding after experiencing failures of their own.
On February 3rd, Yirendai announced a framework agreement with China Zheshang Bank Co., Ltd and CreditEase Pucheng.
“I am pleased to announce the cooperation between Yirendai and Zheshang Bank in the field of microloan lending and consumer finance,” said Ning Tang, Yirendai’s Executive Chairman. “This cooperation illustrates Zheshang Bank’s recognition of our strong online operation capabilities. It will provide the opportunity for individual borrowers to receive lower cost funding. ”
The news fell flat and the stock dipped down that day. The company closed at $3.83 yesterday, a new all-time low on no news.
