REAL ESTATE

This is a search result page



AI Sales Assistant Penetrating Alternative Finance Raises $34 Million in Series B Round

December 15, 2016
Article by:

digital brokersWondering how your competition always seems to be so on top of their game? They might be using an artificially intelligent sales assistant. Such technology was reported on last month when AltFinanceDaily learned that it had penetrated the alternative business financing industry through at least one company named AI Assist. AI Assist is powered by Conversica, a Foster City, CA-based technology firm that announced it had raised $34 million in a Series B round on Wednesday led by Providence Strategic Growth Capital Partners L.L.C. More than 1,000 companies across technology, automotive, higher education, finance, insurance, real estate and hospitality are using Conversica.

“Conversica’s AI technology has helped IBM be smarter about engaging our prospective customers and maximizing their value as they move through our sales funnel,” Kevin Pollack, head of IBM’s Global Email Marketing Practice, is quoted as saying in a press release. “Not only have we freed up resources within the marketing team and gained immediate value in the form of qualified sales opportunities, we are also seeing how AI can help transform our entire business moving forward.”

For Roman Vinfield, who launched a merchant cash advance ISO in 2015, it changed his life. “I hadn’t heard anything like an artificial-intelligence sales assistant,” said Vinfield. “The results we got within a month of using it were unbelievable.” Within the first month, Vinfield made $35,000 in revenues by spending just $4,000 and he eventually reduced his staff of 24 to 4 people. He’s since launched AI Assist, the exclusive reseller of Conversica to the alternative finance industry.

“We’ve gone way beyond the theoretical,” Conversica CEO Alex Terry told Fortune. A demo given by Vinfield of AI Assist, demonstrated that its artificial intelligence can communicate with merchants over emails in a way that is indistinguishable from a human. According to Fortune, Terry said the sales assistant software has proven so effective for some customers that recruiters have even mistaken the software for a human and tried to make a hire. Other contacts have sent in thank-you notes and flowers, he added.

Conversica has raised more than $56 million since inception. Providence, who led the Series B round, also owns stakes in Hulu and the Yankees Entertainment & Sports Network (YES Network). Conversica’s technology is only available to this industry via AI Assist.

Don’t Write Off Marketplace Lending Just Yet; Silicon Valley Just Made a Big Bet

November 18, 2016
Article by:

PeerStreet CEO and COO

Don’t lose all hope on marketplace lending yet. Silicon Valley just made a big bet on one startup. 

Silicon Valley’s leading venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz invested $15 million in PeerStreet, a marketplace for secured real estate loans. PeerStreet was founded in 2013, by former Google employee Brett Crosby and former real estate attorney Brew Johnson, who oversaw the sale of travel website VirtualTourist to Expedia/TripAdvisor for $85 million. The Manhattan Beach, CA-based company’s crowdfunding platform offers investors secured real estate loans that it sources from local real estate lenders across the country.

“This round of funding will help us further execute on our goal of building a world class investment platform for real estate debt,” said co-founder and CEO Brew Johnson.

To date, it has funded over $165 million in loan investments with $50 million in returns to investors and has 50 lenders on the platform. The company has secured funding from marquee Silicon Valley investors including Michael Burry of The Big Short fame who predicted the 2008 subprime crisis and Adam Nash, former CEO of Wealthfront. Alex Rampell, general partner at Andreessen Horowitz and co-founder of consumer lending Affirm Inc led the investment and will take a seat on PeerStreet’s board.

“They (PeerStreet) have a unique distribution model that allows them to leverage existing lending networks to lower loss rates, and grow without direct marketing,” said Rampell in a statement. 

Some Alternative Funders See Pot As Next Big Market Opportunity

October 17, 2016
Article by:

Marijuana Industry

This story appeared in AltFinanceDaily’s Sept/Oct 2016 magazine issue. To receive copies in print, SUBSCRIBE FREE

For some funders, marijuana is not just about sewing their wild oats. Rather, they see the business potential of being early to what’s expected to be a highly profitable and long-lasting party.

Indeed, for the right type of funder, doling out money to marijuana-related businesses is a promising market—certainly in the short term because these companies are so capital-starved. Because marijuana is still classified by the feds as an illegal drug, many related businesses can’t even get a bank account much less access to bank loans or more traditional funding. Many alternative funders are also unwilling to lend to marijuana-related businesses, which has left a significant void that’s beginning to be filled by opportunistic private equity investors, venture capitalists and others.

Meanwhile, rapidly shifting public opinion and state-centered initiatives bode well for what many estimate is a multi-billion dollar market. Indeed, industry watchers say marijuana funding will eventually be an even stronger niche than lending to alcohol producers, tobacco companies or pharmaceuticals because of all the ancillary business opportunities related to medical marijuana use.

marijuana farmer“I think it’s probably the biggest opportunity we’ve seen since the Internet,” says Steve Gormley, managing partner and chief executive at Seventh Point LLC, a Norwalk, Connecticut-based private equity firm that invests in the cannabis industry. “Consumption continues to grow and demand is there,” he notes.

Despite shifting public opinion, legalized marijuana use is still quite controversial. So, all things considered, it takes a particularly thick-skinned funding company—one that has no moral objectives to marijuana and is also willing to accept a significant amount of legal, business and reputational risk—to throw its hat in the ring.

One of the biggest challenges keeping banks and many mainstream funders at bay is that cannabis remains illegal under law. Despite numerous attempts by proponents to scrap marijuana’s outlaw status, the DEA recently dealt out a significant blow by opting to maintain the status quo. This means that for the foreseeable future marijuana remains a Schedule I drug, on par with LSD and heroin, and as a result many lenders will choose to remain on the sidelines for now.

It remains promising, however, that over the past several years, the federal government has taken a more laissez-faire approach, giving individual states the authority to decide how they will deal with legalizing marijuana use. Forty-two states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories of Puerto Rico and Guam have adopted laws recognizing marijuana’s medical value, according to the Marijuana Policy Project, an advocacy group. Four states—Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Colorado—as well as the District of Columbia have gone even further. They allow the recreational use of marijuana for adults, with certain restrictions. Meanwhile, marijuana initiatives are on the November ballot in numerous states.

“I THINK IT’S PROBABLY THE BIGGEST OPPORTUNITY WE’VE SEEN SINCE THE INTERNET”


As these changes have percolated, forward-thinking alternative funders have been dipping their toes in the market—getting an early start on a market that’s hungrily looking for growth capital. “The last couple years there have been fewer investors than capital needed, but we believe that tide is changing,” says Morgan Paxhia, managing director and chief investor of Poseidon Asset Management LLC in San Francisco, an investment management company founded in 2013 to invest exclusively in the cannabis industry.

Paxhia says he’s starting to see more venture capitalists, lease-finance companies and private equity investors willing to provide liquidity to marijuana-based companies that are seeking to grow. The short-term cash advance marketplace, however, is not there yet. The challenge is finding funders willing to do the business with them.

“The people that are building these businesses have to always be worried about their cash. It’s not a given that they’ll get new additional investment,” Paxhia says. “Most people are quick to brush it aside. They won’t give it a minute to take a serious look at it and understand that it is already a multi-billion dollar market growing at 30 percent annualized for the next several years,”

A QUIETLY GROWING INDUSTRY

There are a number of private investors and venture capitalists who have spent the last several years researching and ramping up to invest in what they see as a goldmine of business opportunities. Many of these companies aren’t shy about publicly expressing their support for change.

“We see this as an opportunity of a lifetime to witness a societal change and we want to be a part of it,” says Paxhia who together with his sister runs a $10 million investment fund.

At the same time, there are also some alternative funders who dabble in this space and won’t discuss it publicly—partly because of the perceived stigma and partly out of concern that their financial backers won’t approve. To cover themselves, some are only willing to deal with companies that have hard assets. Often times the rates they offer are much higher than businesses in other industries with comparable financials would pay.

Andrew Vanam, founder of Rx Capital Funding LLC, an ISO in Norwalk, Connecticut, who focuses on the healthcare and medical industry, has helped a handful of few marijuana-related businesses get funding in the past few years and would love to help facilitate more deals. But he says it’s extremely difficult to find lenders that are willing to fund cannabis-related businesses as well as offer reasonable rates. Many of the files he generates in the cannabis space have incredible financials, positive cash flow, and month-on-month growth. However, lenders still treat these businesses as high-risk and offer rates so high it’s not even worth bringing back to a client. Instead, “they are taking hard money loans from private investors that put these cash advance offers to shame,” he says.

Marijuana Dispensary Sign in Springfield, ORASSESSING THE RISKS

Certainly there are risks to funding marijuana businesses. In Colorado—one of the first states to legalize the recreational use of marijuana—values are getting lofty, and people are overpaying for properties that house marijuana-related businesses, notes Glen Weinberg, a partner in Fairview Commercial Lending, a hard-money lender with offices in Atlanta and Evergreen, Colorado.

Weinberg has financed between 75 and 100 commercial real estate loans where marijuana businesses were involved, but says recently he’s shied away. “I’m not comfortable with the valuations at a lot of these marijuana properties,” he says.

Even investors who are bullish on the space urge caution. “If you’re in a [nationwide] market that is growing at about 64 percent per year, that rising tide floats all boats, but there’s a lot of risk, so you have to be careful,” says Chet Billingsley, chief executive of Mentor Capital Inc., a public operating company in Ramona, California, which acquires and provides liquidity for medical and social use cannabis companies.

Billingsley says he has learned some hard lessons through his dealings with about nine marijuana-related companies. For example, he recently won a court judgment against a company that Mentor had supplied with millions of dollars in cash and stock. The company later balked at the terms of the deal and tried to renege, but Mentor ultimately prevailed in court. Still, Billingsley says Mentor went through many unnecessary hassles and racked up $300k in legal costs over the course of its two-and-a-half-year legal battle.

Many business owners in the marijuana space started out during a period when it w as completely illegal. Often these companies march to the beat of their own drum; to protect themselves, lenders need to do more than offer a standard funding contract and hope for the best, Billingsley says.

“The contract has to be solid and it has to be explained in detail to the marijuana operator who is often not sophisticated with regard to contracts.” If you leave things open to interpretation, you’re likely to end up in court, where anything can happen, he cautions.

Companies that fund cannabis businesses say they have very extensive vetting processes—so much so that they turn away a good portion of requests. Jeffrey Howard, managing partner of Salveo Capital in Chicago, says about two-thirds of the companies that come across his desk don’t make it past the company’s initial criteria. “We see a ton of companies and business plans from companies seeking capital to raise money,” he says. “We are going to be very selective about who we invest in and how much.”

Gormley, of Seventh Point, leverages all the same resources he would if he were buying any retail or production manufacturing outfit. He does extremely invasive vetting of the individuals involved and uses private detectives to help.

It many cases it comes down to the business’s management team, according to Paxhia of Poseidon Asset Management. “All the businesses are very early-stage and most companies have a very short track record, so you have to place a greater emphasis on the people,” he says.

OPPORTUNITIES ABOUND

Despite the risks, funders that work in the marijuana space say they are filling an important need by providing capital to marijuana-related businesses. For Gormley of Seventh Point, it’s a calculated risk in an area he’s been following for quite some time. “How often do you get to be part of history, and how often do you get to participate in a burgeoning market?” he says.

Industry participants stress the many funding opportunities aside from companies that cultivate and distribute the plant. Indeed, there are many ancillary businesses that provide products and services geared towards patients and cannabis users without having anything to do with the actual plant.

Howard of Salveo Capital, says his company is gearing up to provide private equity and venture capital to several marijuana-related businesses through its Salveo Fund I and will only make select investments into companies that “touch the plant.” The goal is to eventually have $25 million of committed capital to invest in multiple early-stage companies that offer ancillary products and services to the marijuana industry. “We think there’s more exciting opportunities than ‘touch the plant’ investments,” he says.

Crowdfunding platforms are another avenue for companies in the marijuana space. This type of funding hasn’t yet been utilized to its full potential, industry watchers say.

“I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT IN THE INTERIM THERE’S A SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE FOR PLAYERS LIKE US TO BE FUNDING AND TO BE IN ON THE GROUND FLOOR OF THIS INDUSTRY BEFORE IT CHANGES”


Eaze Solutions, a San Francisco-based provider of technology that optimizes medical marijuana delivery, is one example of a company that turned to crowdfunding. It raised part of a $1.5 million infusion to fund its expansion via the crowdfunding site AngelList in 2014. Loto Labs, in Redwood City, California, is another example. It raised more than $220k via Indiegogo to fund production of its Evoke vaporizer. There’s also CannaFundr, an online investment marketplace for companies in the cannabis industry to gain access to capital.

Cannabis Store in Springfield, ORSeth Yakatan, co-founder of Katan Associates in Hermosa Beach, California, suggests that crowdfunding will become more of an option for certain types of cannabis based companies, specifically those that aren’t as closely tied to the actual production of the plant. “Until federal regulations change, it’s going to be hard to raise money for an entity where you are actively engaged in the cultivation, distribution or sales of a product that’s federally illegal,” says Yakatan, whose company invests in and advises cannabis-related companies that have a biotech or pharmaceutical orientation.

Because laws on legalized marijuana are still in limbo, industry watchers say the market is still many years away from being mainstream. “Public perception will be similar to alcohol in 10 years from now,” predicts Weinberg of Fairview Commercial Lending, adding that he expects banks to enter the funding arena in five to 10 years.

In the meantime, alternative funders who can stomach risk continue to pave the path for others. Howard of Salveo Capital expects private equity investors, venture capitalists and other alternative players to continue playing a big role in getting the nascent industry off the ground.

“I strongly believe that in the interim there’s a significant advantage for players like us to be funding and to be in on the ground floor of this industry before it changes,” Howard says.

Indeed, many alternative funders believe the potential upside significantly outweighs possible negative consequences. “The perceived risk at this point is far greater than the actual risk,” says Paxhia of Poseidon Asset Management.

Entire Industries Still Unbankable Despite Big Data Boom

September 28, 2016

Restricted

The use of data and technology for assessing risk shows promise for new borrowers, safer bets and fewer delinquencies. Big data has been credited for overhauling traditional lending models and ushering in a new crop of lenders that do not shy away from risky businesses and low credit scores. But has it been successful in narrowing the list of industries previously ineligible to even be considered? And perhaps there’s a bigger story, that some lenders still maintain a list of industries they cannot or will not lend to despite the boom in data. AltFinanceDaily checked the temperature on restricted lending practices today with three lenders and here’s what we found.

Jersey City-based World Business Lenders whose average loan size is $150,000 does not lend to startups. According to chief revenue officer, Alex Gemici, startups usually don’t have revenues to justify payments. “Startups fail the ‘ability to pay’ test,” he said.

The restricted industries for WBL are the usual-suspects that fall in the federal legality grey areas like Marijuana related businesses and adult entertainment websites and weapon manufacturers that the company takes a moral stance against. Gemici said that the company has never lent to these industries and will evaluate the policy only if the need arises.

Apart from these WBL also classifies certain establishments as ‘high risk,’ either prone to defaults or without a steady cash flow like car dealers, childcare services, gas stations, real estate speculators, stock brokers, insurance brokers etc. which the company lends to with increased scrutiny and tighter checks.

risky businessOften, the risk appetite of a company depends on how long it has been in business and its funding track record. For instance, San Diego-based National Funding is 17 years old but is gun shy when it comes to lending to auto dealerships, thanks to sustained losses. “We don’t lend to auto dealerships because they already have enough MCA plans out there,” said CEO Dave Gilbert. “It’s too risky to be in that environment without being tied to actual assets, we have had too many losses.”

Government agencies, membership organizations (usually, non profit), insurance brokers, online dating services, weapon manufacturers, credit repair services, gambling and ticket sales websites are also industries the company does not lend to.

However, construction companies, oil companies, transportation and industries with high subsidies like solar businesses are what National Funding considers high risk and will finance cautiously, by tightening the credit window, advancing smaller amounts, demanding higher FICO scores and increasing scrutiny on cash flows.

Irrespective of whether a company automates underwriting, few contest the need for rich and varied data for calculating risk and approving a loan. Kennesaw, Georgia-based IOU Financial, which recently started lending in Canada, has a proprietary ‘Risk Logic’ score for underwriting which includes credit data, financial and non-financial accounts, public records, transactional data and a business owner’s personal credit information.

Despite this, it restricts lending to businesses with seasonal cash flow like tax prep services, industries that invoice out for larger orders including manufacturing, and marijuana dispensaries. IOU also does not lend to industries where it has faced high delinquencies in the past, like oil refinery service related industries and supply chain service providers that are subject to fluctuations in commodity prices.

And if OnDeck, the touted leader in deploying big data for underwriting prohibits 60 industries in five different categories including blood and organ banks, payroll companies and its own kind — non-bank financial companies, has big data really changed underwriting?

Shark Tank Star Barbara Corcoran Stars in OnDeck TV Commercial

September 27, 2016
Article by:

Real estate mogul Barbara Corcoran is going beyond Shark Tank to help small businesses, this time by appearing in TV commercials for OnDeck.

“All small business owners have grit and perseverance. That’s a given. What they sometimes lack is access to capital. That’s where OnDeck becomes so valuable. OnDeck has the services and solutions that entrepreneurs need to meet daily challenges and grow their business,” said Ms. Corcoran in an OnDeck announcement. “I’m delighted to communicate the good news to small businesses that, thanks to OnDeck, financing their dreams is easier and faster than ever.”

See both versions of the commercial below:


Corcoran isn’t the only Shark Tank star to promote a small business lender. Kevin O’Leary, for example, is a spokesperson for IOU Financial, Lori Greiner is a spokesperson for Kabbage, and Kevin Harrington actually co-founded Ventury Capital.

Why The Quiet Summer Was a Good Thing for ‘Marketplace Lending’

September 11, 2016
Article by:

Piggy in the FallA lackluster April turned into an explosive May. And then… well it got kind of quiet there for a bit as loan origination volumes for some lenders dropped.

A lot of theories have been challenged, a lot of absolutes shaken. Like given the choice between a short term loan at a high interest rate and a long term loan at a low interest rate, which one would a small business choose? A lot of lenders raised money on the belief that businesses would choose the latter, bolstered by a compelling argument that it is “better” for their well-being. But businesses are not neatly packaged entities with uniform interests, strategies and situations. It’s not uncommon for small businesses to choose both options. Simultaneously. Two loans. To serve different purposes.

And so what then? I believe to some extent the concept of algorithms with thousands of data points, yelp reviews and the rest of it are being challenged by basic scenarios such as what happens to performance models if the customer takes on more debt after the initial loan?

Why do many consumer borrowers that claim to be consolidating their debt end up more in debt? Maybe the lenders themselves expected this but it conflicts with the message that was being told to the outside world for a long time about what made these products so special, that borrowers were consolidating their high interest debt to lower rate loans that was all made possible thanks to the low cost required to operate an online lender fueled by revolutionary new algorithms.

Even the underlying low cost premise to operate is being challenged. Why are low cost lenders often wildly unprofitable if their secret sauce is supposedly the low cost of being a nonbank online lender?

The problem is that some stories sound great on paper but don’t work out exactly as planned in the real world.

Even the concept of peer-to-peer lending and to some degree the marketplace has transformed or been phased out. Marketplace lending as the term is survived by today is typically Wall Street institutions providing capital to nonbank lenders. There is no real marketplace, at least not for the little guy anymore.

All of these discoveries and evolutions are a good thing. Too many experiments being conducted in the market at the same time created chaos. Failures, slowdowns, and adjustments are a positive step toward a sustainable future. How could a lender reasonably rely on its performance models when every day some new company was opening up and pulverizing the market with billions of dollars of marketing and loans based on some untested unprofitable system?

It’s no wonder that like twenty trade groups formed this year alone. Regulators and legislators looking out into the world of fintech probably saw and still on some levels see a tornado of disruptive confusion.

Are you guys one of those crowdfunding marketplace bitcoin cash advance peer-to-peer lending companies I’ve been reading about? We need to regulate you.

They need help to sort through it all and fast.

The FDIC, for example, humorously defined marketplace lending as basically every kind of lending there is, from auto loans to merchant cash advance to medical patient financing to real estate lending. The industry became everything and as everything it’s essentially nothing.

And so the quiet summer months, though not totally dead, were much needed. Hopefully everybody has gotten a chance to breathe and can now continue the work they set out to do and truly provide sustainable value to the economic system.

Bring on Fall!

LendIt’s Peter Renton is Still Earning 8.72%

August 25, 2016
Article by:

Peter Renton, Chairman and Co-Founder LendIt,  speaking to LendIt USA 2016 conference in San Francisco, California, USA on April 11, 2016. (photo by Gabe Palacio)

Peter Renton, Chairman and Co-Founder
LendIt, speaking to LendIt USA 2016 conference in San Francisco, California, USA on April 11, 2016. (photo by Gabe Palacio)

LendIt Conference founder Peter Renton made more from his marketplace lending investments in the last twelve months than some people earn in a year just from their nine-to-five job. $54,936 to be exact, according to his latest blog post detailing his performance. That’s a result of investments on the Lending Club platform, Prosper, P2Binvestor (which requires you to be an accredited investor), the LendAcademy P2P Fund (which includes Funding Circle, Upstart, Lending Club and Prosper), and the Direct Lending Income Fund managed by Brendan Ross (which invests with lenders such as Quarterspot and IOU Financial).

Unsurprisingly, his business loan performance through the Direct Lending Income Fund has earned the highest yield, a TTM return of 12.77%.

While reporters and critics seem to be planning the funeral for several lending platforms, Renton remains steadfast in his optimism. “Eventually, I plan to have a diversified seven-figure portfolio made up of consumer, small business and real estate loans,” he wrote on his Lend Academy website.

Though Renton is reaping the benefits of being a platform investor, it’s the platforms themselves that may be in trouble, according to a recent op-ed by Todd Baker, a senior fellow at the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. On American Banker, Baker wrote, “Almost all [Marketplace Lending] revenue is generated from ‘gain on sale’ fees earned from new loan sales. This dependence on origination volume and gain-on-sale margins makes MPL results exquisitely sensitive to macro and micro trends in investor demand and risk appetite.”

And if a platform isn’t sustainable, the theory is that future investment opportunities may not be as available as they have been historically.

“MPLs need to shift to a more sustainable mode — either as banks or as nonbank balance-sheet lenders — before the end of the current credit cycle brings on a real shakeout and the MPL experiment becomes a financial failure,” Baker wrote.

Renton himself acknowledged a downward trend in his yield, conceding that it may never return to previous levels. “While I would love to be earning more than 10% again I don’t expect to get back there any time soon,” Renton wrote.

He also recently rebutted a Bloomberg article that argued Lending Club was being shady with repeat borrowers.

It’s Time to End the Phrase ‘Marketplace Lending’ – Because it’s Insane

May 19, 2016
Article by:

Madness

Nobody knows what “marketplace lending” means, including me. That’s kind of ironic considering AltFinanceDaily is for the most part a publication dedicated to it. In fact, the cover of the March/April issue featured a big yellow robot sporting a name tag that actually said, “Hello, my name is Marketplace Lending.” Even the letter I penned that introduced readers to the issue used the phrase not once, not twice, but FIVE TIMES.

The FDIC basically defined it as encompassing all types of financing that include the practice of pairing borrowers over an online platform. Eager to be hip to the industry’s newest lingo, I got on board, and unfortunately perpetuated something that makes almost no sense.

Many companies operating under the marketplace lending umbrella don’t even know that they’ve been lumped into it. It’s become a media buzzword, something to help the simple masses understand so that they will click on a news headline without worrying if the content will only be geared toward the financially savvy.

Imagine shopping for a loan at a supermarket, but ONLINE, and voilà, marketplace lending!

But there are virtually no online platforms that work like that. The simplest explanation to describe a dizzyingly diverse industry is the most incorrect one. Lenders set rates and terms, borrowers don’t choose exactly what they want from a virtual shelf and put them in an imaginary shopping cart. There are however, portals where prospective borrowers can review different offers from different lenders in an Expedia-like environment, but this is really just Online Lead Aggregation 2.0, not a new-age system of lending.

Of course, some adopters of the phrase will point out that the marketplace was supposed to refer to the investor side, not the borrower side. It is investors that can shop for loans or notes that they want to invest in. Indeed, on platforms like Lending Club and Prosper, investors can select individual notes with terms befitting their desires and place them in an online shopping cart for purchase. Behold, the marketplace!

But what if you didn’t deal with retail investors hand-selecting $25 notes at a time? Notably, some online platforms that sell their loans to institutions in giant pools by the thousands or millions believe that such activity constitutes a marketplace because somebody is buying what they’re selling. And so long as somebody is selling something to somebody else at some point, the whole thing might as well be a marketplace. And even if it’s not, referring to it as such anyway will garner more press, attract more investors, and boost valuations.

deBanked Marketplace Lending Cover

I mean, would a site like TechCrunch be more likely to write about a FinTech Marketplace Lender or a generic financial company that sold a batch of loans to a bank?

I can tell you firsthand that if a press release submitted to us used the term “marketplace lender” instead of “finance company,” we’d at least check it out, or at least we used to. These days, we are becoming numb to its overuse.

Loan ApplicationPeer-to-Peer lending was an awesome term and it was descriptive too. Everybody could understand it. But then those platforms had to go and start selling their loans to Wall Street instead of peers and come up with something else to still sound trendy, techie, and disruptive. There’s nothing trendy of course about selling loans to financial institutions. It is a quintessential boring business activity of Wall Street. It is the opposite of disruptive, except in the events where all the loans go bad and the entire economy collapses like in 2008.

The FDIC specifically said that marketplace lending can encompass unsecured consumer loans, debt consolidation loans, auto loans, purchase financing, real estate loans, merchant cash advance, medical patient financing, and small business loans. This wildly diverse list, which even includes a non-loan product, will obviously have platforms in every category where people or businesses can get paired with a source of funds via the Internet. It’s 2016. It’d be weird if you couldn’t search for financing online. You can do everything else on the Internet. Just because a search happens online shouldn’t mean that the resulting options should be thrown together in some special broad category of lending and then be judged according to what all the other sectors do.

None of this is said to diminish the technological feats that many platforms have achieved. People and businesses can access capital in much faster and more convenient ways than ever before. Their growth and success is America’s economic gain. Jobs have been created and borrowing costs reduced. Hooray, perhaps, for marketplace lending.

The problem is merely the characterization that anyone lending to anyone else these days must also be a marketplace. That makes no sense.

Who will be the first to stop the madness?