Alternative Lending: People are Finally Getting it
September 12, 2013
Alternative lending is all the rage these days and so much so that BusinessWeek asked the question: What Do Small Businesses Need Banks for Anyway?. They go on to name many companies with ties to the merchant cash advance industry, which is no surprise to us of course. It is interesting however to notice that the mainstream media is not only giving us the time of the day, but starting to treat us like royalty.
Five and a half years ago this very same collective of lenders were referred to as bottom feeding vampires¹. Over the next couple years they upgraded us to a very expensive alternative, then to an acceptable alternative, and now finally to who the hell needs banks when you have these great companies?!. You have to laugh just a little bit at the shift.
It’s easy to call a lender that charges high rates a bad seed when you have no sense of the context. The reality in lending is that a material amount of borrowers don’t make their payments on time or they don’t pay back the loan at all. That causes rates to go up to compensate for the losses. Critics argue that borrowers can’t make the payments or default because the rates were too high to begin with. Some lenders cave to that assumption and position themselves as a fair lender by undercutting the market rates. They eventually learn that defaults are less related to the cost of the loan and more so tied to a borrower’s willingness to repay or ability to repay. Meaning, loans with no interest tacked on to the principle will still be rocked by late payers and defaults. Wait, seriously?
Yes, welcome to America where sometimes borrowers face circumstances beyond their control or they maliciously decide they don’t want to pay. The overwhelming majority are in the former camp, the ones where sudden or gradual hardship is interfering with their ability to make good on their commitment. I admit, even I feel uncomfortable mentioning this. Nobody wants to be seen as picking on borrowers. We’d all rather pretend that lenders are inherently bad and borrowers are inherently innocent. The truth is that most lenders and borrowers are good but some lenders and borrowers are bad. Lending is a two way street and what’s fair for all is somewhere in the middle.
My friends in the commercial banking sector tell me their tolerance for bad debt is less than 1%. Even 1 single loan default over the course of a year could cause their entire portfolio performance to come crumbling down. They do make loans, but they’re often in the tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars and only to large established businesses that quite often, don’t even need the capital but would rather not jeopardize their liquidity by spending their own cash. Some of these loans end up getting classified as small business loans even though there’s nothing small business about them.
Mom and pop shops see the statistics and the corresponding rates of say 4% to 10% APR and set that as the bar to shoot for. Then they head down to their local bank and hit a roadblock. The average small retail/food service business is going to have a greater than 1% chance of default no matter how good it looks on paper. I mean think about it, what are the odds that things will go 99% as planned for a restaurant over the next 12 months? Do you think it’s reasonable to assume there is at least a 5% chance that any of the following could happen in the next year even without knowing anything specific? A failed health inspection, bad reviews published online, a revoked liquor license, construction outside impeding pedestrian traffic, internal damage caused by a flood or disaster, extreme weather hurting sales, major job losses in the area leading to people having lower disposable income, key employees quitting, theft, landlord not renewing the lease, competitor opening up in the neighborhood, or declining sales for no single identifiable reason? Lending money to retail businesses is risky, really risky. Suppose the above business owner had a history of late payments and defaults to begin with. At what cost does it begin to make sense to do this deal? And those are just the risks of what could happen to the business itself, so what about the other risks involved?
To a bank, the stereotypical entrepreneur is damaged goods. The hard knock humble beginnings of turning a vision into a successful business usually comes with personal financial sacrifice and in turn a lower credit score. And just as the successful entrepreneur is getting ready to explain his/her high debt to income ratio and story of triumph, they’re already being declined. Banks don’t care about the story. They care about the aggregate mathematics. If there’s just a 5% chance that the business isn’t going to be where it thinks it will be in a year from now, then the deal’s probably a non-starter. Leveraged? Declined. Poor credit? Declined. Business is running smoothly? Who cares, it’s declined already!
Extension on your taxes? Declined. Showing modest profit or a loss for tax purposes ::wink wink:: ? Declined. Didn’t file a tax return? Declined. Co-mingling funds with your personal finances? Declined. Overdrafts or NSFs? Declined. Unaudited financials? Declined. No collateral? Declined. Doing the books with paper and pen? Declined. Have less than 5 employees? Declined. Can’t find a document the bank wants? Declined. Need the money really badly? Declined. Experiencing a downturn? Declined. Have a tax lien? Declined. Have a criminal record? Declined.
Get the picture? If you take a look at Lending Club, an alternative lender, they’re widely known to have a 90% decline rate. Their maximum interest rate is 29.99% APR. Think about that for a second. Some people would say, “WOW, 30% are you kidding me?” but statistically, Lending Club would be losing money on the deal 9 times out of 10 if they approved every single person that applied. Lending Club actually used to be more liberal with their approvals when they first started and what happened is that too many borrowers just didn’t pay. If you believe that Lending Club should approve even more loan applications than they already do, then they would have to compensate for the increased risk and we’d quickly see APRs reach well into the 40s,50s,and 60s.
A critic might argue that once an applicant exceeds the risk of a 30% APR loan, they probably shouldn’t be getting a loan from anyone. That’s not a bad suggestion and what happened is that when the lending world concurred with that 5 years ago, Americans and politicians went up in arms because “Banks weren’t lending.” No loans? Businesses can’t hire. No loans? Businesses can’t grow. No loans? Economy gets stuck in neutral. The nation demanded that capital flow despite the risks presented to the lenders. And so the finance world heeded the call to provide solutions and came up with a smorgasbord of financial products. Merchant Cash Advance financing was already established but had an especially unique characteristic that allowed it to take off. It structured financing as a sale, not a loan. A big problem was that traditional lenders and alternative lenders were at the mercy of state regulated interest rate caps. Once an applicant reached a certain risk threshold, they just couldn’t do the deal anymore. But when financial companies came in to buy future revenues in exchange for a large chunk of cash upfront, the system started to gain some traction.
The effective cost of the money got high, very high, yet they weren’t predatory. I say that because despite how expensive it seemed, most of them were getting eaten alive by defaults. From 2008 – 2010, many merchant cash advance companies filed for bankruptcy. One of the main attributes of a predatory lender is for the lender to actually be getting filthy rich. That means layering on interest way in excess of a healthy profit. Losing a lot of money to help borrowers and small businesses when no one else will can hardly describe a predatory lender.
One has to wonder that perhaps there is a better way. If unsecured financing breeds high defaults, then surely things would be different if a risky applicant secures the loan with collateral. Have the borrower put skin in the game and we’d have a different outcome right? Lenders such as Borro publicly describe their default rate as falling between 8-10%. They offer collateralized personal loans and are described as a “pawn shop for the posh” in the below video, though most of their clients are small business owners. This tells me that even in the instance where borrowers have something very valuable to lose, a significant percentage of them will not repay the loan in full regardless.
A look around at what merchant cash advance companies have been willing to admit has put their average bad debt between 2-5%. In my experience in this industry however, 8% – 15% is a lot more realistic. But are these funding companies getting filthy rich or treading water? Anyone can look at the financial statements of IOU Central², a lender that’s part of the broader merchant cash advance industry. Since they’re owned by a publicly traded company in Canada, we get to see firsthand that they’re suffering tremendous losses quarter after quarter. I find that to be perfectly in line with what I suggested about undercutting the market earlier. IOU Central’s allure is that their loans cost less than a traditional merchant cash advance. The end result is that after paying commissions to sales agents, paying interest on their capital, and factoring in bad debt, they’re hurting pretty badly.
On Deck Capital too, a company mentioned in the BusinessWeek article above acknowledges that they are not profitable, though they do not make their financials public to verify how unprofitable they are or if that’s really even the case.
An SBA loan through a bank may cost approximately 5.5% APR, but if the loan goes bad, the SBA covers almost all of the bank’s losses. There is no such security blanket in the real private sector. The market determines the rates based on the risk. Each funder measures risk differently and in 2013, there is no longer a one-size-fits-all cost of unsecured funding much like there was in 2007 with merchant cash advances. Compared to a bank loan, almost all of these alternative options will be perceived as expensive, but if banks don’t approve anyone, then they’re a terrible standard for a comparison.
It’s taken a long time for the public and the media to come to terms with that. Banks are still technically in the game but by proxy. They are financing numerous alternative lenders and merchant cash advance companies. Banks shouldn’t be lending out their client’s deposits to really risky businesses anyway. A bank is supposed to be safe. If they’re lending money to 100 businesses and 15 of them aren’t paying it back, then that’s the opposite of safe.
So what do small businesses need banks for anyway? Checking, payroll, overdraft coverage, debit cards, wires, record keeping, CDs etc. There is a place for banks in 2013 and beyond. Alternative lenders charge more and that’s okay. Ultimately it’s up to the borrowers to decide what they can sustain. It is better to have expensive options than no options at all. There’s endless proof of that when credit dried up five years ago. Small businesses cried foul so the market reacted. And here we are now with Kabbage, On Deck Capital, Business Financial Services, and Capital Access Network being portrayed as the norm, the new standard. Almost everything that would cause a bank to say “no” can be resolved in some way. That’s incredible and how it should be.
People are finally getting it.
– Merchant Processing Resource
../../
MPR.mobi on your iPhone, Android, or iPad
¹ It took 5 years but Forbes has Finally deleted the March 13, 2008 article that haunted the merchant cash advance industry forever. In Look Who’s Making Coin off the Credit Crisis, Maureen Farrell referred to merchant cash advance companies as vampires that were feasting on small businesses and singled out some of the biggest names in the business at the time. It was Global Swift Funding* (GSF), one of the major funders cited by Farrell that exposed this assertion to be blatantly false. Not too long after the article was published, GSF closed their doors and filed for bankruptcy. It would seem that small businesses actually feasted on them by defaulting in record numbers. Back in April of this year, Forbes essentially rebuked that article when Cheryl Conner revisited the industry to note how much good it was doing in ‘Money, Money’ — How Alternative Lending Could Increase Your Company’s Revenue in 2013
*Disclosure: Raharney Capital, LLC the owner of this website currently owns the former domain of Global Swift Funding (GlobalSwiftFunding.com) though the companies did not have and do not have any ties to each other.
² IOU Central is a subsidiary of IOU Financial Inc. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations as of August 22, 2013 are available at: http://cnsxmarkets.com/Storage/1563/144040_MDA_%282Q2013%29_-_FINAL.pdf
Hey Banks, Where’s the Profit?
July 21, 2013
One of our favorite points of reference, a document from 1996 has finally been deleted from the www.frbsf.org website. We didn’t save the document but we’ve thankfully used this quote from it before:
There’s a large small business segment that needs and wants to borrow on a commercial basis, but their needs are very small. Business owners want $10,000, $20,000 or $30,000 loan–the average is somewhere around $25,000. Traditionally, that’s been a very unprofitable business for a bank.
– The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
Now compare that with the results of a 2011 study that found banks lose money on customer checking accounts:
The average checking account cost banks $349 in 2011
The average revenue per account is just $268
This implies a loss of $81 a year
Source: Moebs Services via Bankrate.com
So a small business opens up a checking account and it may be causing the bank to lose money. So naturally a bank would lend that money out to turn a profit then right? Well, not so fast. Between the cost of processing a loan, servicing it, trying to collect on it, repossessing collateral (in some cases), and the potential loss on a default, lending isn’t such a good bet either, especially when there are legal caps on interest rates.
Folks in the alternative business lending industry have been saying for years that they are satisfying a role that banks will not fill. Banks do small business loans alright, but their sweet spot is a $1 million loan and above.
John Smith business owner who has banked with ABC community for 20 years may think that such strong loyalty warrants an approval for the $20,000 he seeks. What he doesn’t know is that the bank has been trying to get rid of him for 20 years.
In an article by the Motley Fool, Bank of America is described as a bank that has let their customers know exactly how they feel about loss inducing checking accounts. In 2012, they were ranked as the worst performing bank across the board for customer service.
It’s easy to point the finger at banks as money grubbing crooks every time they charge a bogus sounding fee, but many of those fees are keeping them afloat, very profitably afloat mind you, but still afloat.
My favorite fee that my own bank has come up with is a “teller interaction fee.” If I make a deposit or a withdrawal with a human teller instead of at an ATM, a fee is assessed.
I use the ATM every time. I’m guessing my bank would like me to pack up and leave… that is unless I’m looking to borrow a million bucks. God knows how much time that will take and how much paperwork they’re going to ask for though. I think I’d rather just apply for a merchant cash advance 😉
– Merchant Processing Resource
../../
MPR.mobi on iPhone, iPad, and Android
The Funders of Summer
August 2, 2012What’s new? Who funded? What happened? Merchant Processing Resource will try to give you a glimpse into the Merchant Cash Advance (MCA) universe:
We all know salespeople love to fund, but underwriters?!! This banner hangs on the wall of the underwriting department at mid-sized MCA firm, Rapid Capital Funding:
Holy Moses Batman! $10 Million in a month?! Yellowstone Capital is reporting a new personal monthly funding record of $10,245,000.
There has been an influx of really creative instructional/promotional videos about MCA lately. Cartoons are really “in” right now:
PayPal white labeled a Merchant Cash Advance program in the U.K.
Will the mega banks be next?
It feels like 2006 all over again says First Annapolis Consulting in a recent article:
This seems to be the same bullish sentiment that surrounded the industry in 2006, when there was a constant influx of new MCA providers into the industry and what appeared to be unlimited financial sources. What might be different now is the experience accumulated in the industry during the recession. In the last few years, and as a result of the mounting losses that the industry suffered during the economic crisis, MCA players have implemented more conservative risk management practices and procedures.
Underwriters industrywide are also reporting that stacking, splitting, double funding, and fake statements are on the rise. It certainly brings back some nostalgia for veterans and not the good kind. A screenshot of a current ad on craigslist that is directed at bad apple merchants:
A new chapter opened for Merchant Cash Advance (This is soooo last month but a great read if you missed it).
http://greensheet.com/emagazine.php?issue_number=120602&story_id=3088
Is the loan shortage a banking problem or a merchant problem? Ami Kassar makes the case in his New York Times column.
“Where are the leads? I need the leads. Can you tell me where the leads are?” We literally get asked daily where to get leads from. We recommend:
http://SmallBusinessLoanRates.com
http://meridianleads.com
By the way… for every company that says cold calling doesn’t work, there’s a company getting rich doing just that. Same goes for SEO, mailers, e-mail blasts, PPC, and so. Marketing is an art form. Just because it doesn’t work for you, doesn’t mean it doesn’t work period. Keep doing what you’re doing. Too many ISOs/agents/marketing directors abandon campaigns after 30-60 days. Practice makes perfect!
Have you abandoned social media? We ask this question: What looks worse to a prospect?
Not having a business twitter account or having one but failing to tweet at all in the last 8 months?
Not having a business blog or having one but failing to add any new blog posts in over a year?
We didn’t spend much time researching hard data but we would surmise that freshness is a psychological component to a prospect’s shopping experience. If a business blogged regularly on their site up until May, 2011 and then stopped, might a merchant think the entire business itself is abandoned or gone? Is a facebook fan page with 1 post from 8 months ago a positive or negative selling point? WE SAY: If you build it, maintain it. Nothing brings down your presence on the Internet like abandonment. We understand that smaller companies might not have the manpower, time, or creative energy to write informative articles or engage people through social networking, especially when it’s hard to measure the results and value it creates. Consider the value you might actually be losing by projecting to the world that you have given up. It’s like operating a store with a sign out front that says “THIS BUILDING HAS BEEN CONDEMNED” even though you are actually open for business. If WE stopped posting articles for a year, would you still come back several times a month?
Here are two examples of MCA firms that keep it FRESH!:
http://unitedcapitalsource.com/blog/
http://takechargecapital.com/category/blog/
Don’t you just love MCA? We do! Visit our site again soon.
– Merchant Processing Resource
../../
Law to Reduce Debit Card Fees to Retailers Has Opposite Effect
December 12, 2011We’ve had many negative things to say about the debit card reform law that went into effect a few months ago (AKA the Durbin Amendment). We’ve repeatedly made claims that retailers won’t participate in the savings but for the few that do, those savings won’t be passed on to the consumer.
According to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, something much worse is happening; Debit card fees are going up!
“Jason Scherr had a lot on his mind the day after he opened his fifth Think Coffee shop in Manhattan last week. The fan was blowing too hard, the classical music was playing a little too loudly—and he was trying to figure out how to get more customers to pay with cash.
Manhattan coffee-shop owner Jason Scherr says his debit-card fees are higher since the Dodd-Frank law.
A new law that was supposed to reduce costs for merchants that accept debit cards has instead sent Mr. Scherr’s monthly processing bills much higher and forced him to reassess the way he does business.
“My choice is to raise prices, discount for cash or get an ATM,” says Mr. Scherr, a lawyer who has been in the coffee-shop business for more than a decade.
Just two months after one of the most controversial parts of the Dodd-Frank financial-overhaul law was enacted, some merchants and consumers are starting to pay the price.
Many business owners who sell low-priced goods like coffee and candy bars now are paying higher rates—not lower—when their customers use debit cards for transactions that are less than roughly $10.
That is because credit-card companies used to give merchants discounts on debit-card fees they pay on small transactions. But the Dodd-Frank Act placed an overall cap on the fees, and the banking industry has responded by eliminating the discounts.
“There will be some unhappy parties, as there always is when the government gets in the way of the free-market system,” says Chris McWilton, president of U.S. markets forMasterCard Inc. He said the company decided that it couldn’t sustain the discounts under the new rate model because the old rates had essentially subsidized the small-ticket discounts.
Merchants now are trying to offset their higher rates by raising prices, encouraging customers to pay in cash or dropping card payments altogether.”
Read the full article at WSJ.com
Banks Don’t Care About SBA Loans or Your Tax Dollars
August 23, 2011
Need proof the Small Business Administration (SBA) does more harm than good? The SBA has been protecting banks for decades against up to 90% of losses on eligible business loans. Funded by taxpayer money, it was designed to stimulate lending in the private sector. But banks have perverted the system and are using it as a literal blank check to commit fraud and reap profis.
With the Government footing the bill on defaults, banks have made it their business to make as many loans as possible to generate fees, regardless of whether or not the borrowers could repay. We have proof and it comes right from the source in a report prepared by the Office of the Inspector General.
MATERIAL DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED IN
EARLY DEFAULTED AND EARLY PROBLEM
RECOVERY ACT LOANS
Report Number: ROM 10-19
Date Issued: September 24, 2010
Prepared by the
Office of Inspector General
U. S. Small Business Administration
The Office of the Inspector General performed an audit on loans that had problems or defaulted especially early. On the sample they selected, it was determined that 82% of the loans should not have been made at all. From the report: “The audit identified material deficiencies in 32, or 82 percent, of the 39 early defaulted or early-problem Recovery Act loans reviewed, which resulted in the disbursement of approximately $5 million to borrowers who could not repay or were ineligible for the loans.“
82%?! And no, these loans were not flagged for technicalities, but rather for wildly incredible mistakes or intentional malice. This includes:
- Failure to request a business credit report on the borrower
- Using a borrower’s old credit report since a current credit report would make the applicant ineligible
- Using financial statements by the applicant that were more than 2 years old
- Not verifying business income
- Not verifying the age of the business
- Ignoring the borrower’s financial reports and creating their own figures that would make the applicant eligible
- Making loans to borrowers that did not even own businesses
- Failure to report fees both earned and paid for referrals to the SBA as required
An example: “One lender used 2007 personal income of $443,110 for a loan approved on April 13, 2009, even though the borrower noted annual income of only $750 on its April 1, 2009 loan application.”
As of June 30, 2010, there were a total of 484 early-defaulted or early-problem Recovery Act loans approved for $69,205,600. If the audit is any indication, it’s because 82% of the time, the banks just didn’t care. And why should they? The Government has only stepped up the effort to spur lending using this massively failed approach.
See more on that in our article, More Funding for Small Business Loan Programs – A Dysfunctional System
It may be interesting to note that while the traditional banking system is mired in corruption, an alternative financial product known as a Merchant Cash Advance (MCA) has been helping small businesses for years. With no taxpayer default guaranties, flexible terms, and an openness to borrowers of all credit types, it’s on track to become the most sustainable form of financing for businesses in the U.S.
SBA Loan vs. Merchant Cash Advance
Perhaps we’re a tad biased since we follow the MCA industry religiously, but one thing is for certain, don’t trust your banker for a second. They’re trying to pull a fast one almost 82% of the time.
– The Merchant Cash Advance Resource
Interchange Regulation and Reduction: Proof it will fail
August 23, 2011Originally Published on April 16, 2011.
As proponents and opponents debate debit card fee reform, few seem to be aware that interchange regulation has been
implemented before and the results were disastrous. In 2000, The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) published a 90 page report (A STUDY OF INTERCHANGE FEES AND ACCESS) that outlined their assessment on card payment interchange rates and the impact. It’s central thesis was this: “The study is concerned with the economic efficiency of these [payment] networks. Most importantly, are they delivering the best possible service at the lowest cost to end-users?”
Eerily similar to the U.S. Federal Reserve’s 2010 analysis, the RBA reached the following conclusion: “While a pricing system based on interchange fees still seems to be the most practical arrangement for the credit card network, the levels of interchange fees are high relative to costs and fees of this magnitude are not essential to the continued viability of this network.”
Bolstered by the findings, consumer activitsts groups pushed for regulation and by 2002, the RBA announced that 4 party payment networks such as those operated by Visa and MasterCard would need to make serious changes. Lobbyists groups fought to rally against regulation but came up short. In 2004, strict measures to limit costs became law and with that a series of unintended consequences.
The U.S. should examine the outcome in Australia, a country whose values and economic system is much like our own. 3 years before the Durbin Amendment came to pass, MasterCard did just that. In early 2007, it researched the impact and side effects of regulation in a report titled “Interchange Regulation: Lessons From the RBA Intervention in Australia.” We reviewed the rules that most closely resemble those of the Federal Reserve and have republished MasterCard’s findings below:
Regulatory Measure #1: Reduction of Interchange Costs
Intended Consequence #1: Merchant fees would be reduced, which would then be passed onto consumers, resulting in lower prices for all.
Actual Outcome: 70% of merchants did not realize that any changes had been implemented and thus did not make an effort to pass on savings to consumers. Annual reports actually showed that retailers pocketed the difference instead. This issue has been largely debated in the U.S., with many retailers openly stating that they would not pass on any savings. Proposed New Debit Card Rules May Not Help Consumers Much
Intended Consequence #2: Debit card usage expands while credit usage declines.
Actual Outcome: Debit card usage declined instead. This appears to be the same path the U.S. is on already as implementation of the law approaches. JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup Might Limit Debit Card Purchases
Regulatory Measure #2: Elimination of The “No Surcharge” Rule
Intended Consequence: Merchants would judiciously surcharge for accepting credit cards; and in so doing, make credit usage less attractive than debit usage; which would in turn encourage higher debit card usage.
Actual Outcome: Where surcharging actually occurred, it appeared to be mainly by brand, applied in a way that is not disclosed to consumers, and done mainly outside of retail markets. As of July 2010, the U.S. implemented a similar law under the Durbin Amendment that is already in effect. See an article we wrote on the subject back in December titled “Take Your Rewards Card and Get Out My Store!.”
The outcomes seem to answer questions that we in the U.S. are spending too much time debating. Regulation in Australia was a failure. “Contrary to the RBA’s intention of making the payments system more efficient and increasing competitive intensity, the exact opposite has happened in Australia. In addition, the payments system has actually become more expensive for the average cardholder. While there is no evidence of retail price reduction by the merchants (so confidently predicted by the RBA), there is widespread acknowlegement that issuers have actually increased fees to cardholders to compensate for lower interchange fees since the RBA regulation.”
Consumer rewards programs are already disappearing as reported by CBS News. “Banks to strip debit card rewards; What next?” This is the exact sequence of events that happened abroad. MasterCard addressed this in their report, but did not offer any hard statistics. “For the most issuers, the rewards programs have been downsized, and in some instances very substantially.”
Many believe the shortsighted push for reform has less to do with savings for retailers and consumers and more with to do with a desire for Americans to punish the banks for their role in the financial crisis. The banking industry employees millions of people so the harm intended for rich CEOs is more likely to affect the jobs of the middle class.
There is still hope. A few Senators have proposed the Debit Interchange Fee Study Act of 2011, which seeks to delay regulation for two years. This will allow the Federal Reserve to properly assess the goals they hope to achieve, come up with a better plan of action, and study the likely consequences.
While two years seems fair, we can’t help but point out the chain of events in Australia should be all the evidence we need. Ignorant disdain for the electronic payments industry is a major distraction from the real issues facing our country today. The unemployment rate, the national deficit, and the educational system all lose our full attention every time we quip about debit card fees.
Customers spend more when they pay with plastic. Consumers don’t need to carry bundles of cash in their pocket. Banks employ millions of workers. Everybody already wins. AltFinanceDaily’s advice? Let’s move on to fix a different system that’s actually broken. We’ll all be better off.
– AltFinanceDaily
Merchant Hash Advance
July 16, 2011
Short on capital? Your business may benefit from a Merchant ‘Hash’ Advance. Restaurants, retail stores, and auto repair shops can easily obtain funding, but medical marijuana dispensaries need love too.
A few cannabis related deals have floated around the Merchant Cash Advance (MCA) industry before, but rarely do they close. At best they elicit a few chuckles from underwriters, who will likely make a few juvenile jokes before turning down a viable, serious, and legal business. The store owners walk away frustrated but neither side is to blame.
In states like New York, where many MCA powerhouses reside, marijuana of any kind is illegal. That makes the sale of it for medicinal purposes in states where it’s legal a foreign concept. We spoke to an underwriter of one Long Island, NY based MCA firm who shared this: “I’ve eaten dinner at a restaurant and I’ve bought flowers from a florist. I understand what makes both businesses tick. I’ve never been to, nor met anyone who has been to a medical marijuana dispensary. I don’t really know what the transaction is like, what risks they face, what their profit margins should be. It’s a big unknown. Is it easy for a dispensary to lose their license and suddenly go out of business? Are there laws that prohibit outside financing? Do we need to keep tabs on where they obtained their inventory from? We typically call a restaurant’s vendors prior to funding to ensure they’re in good standing. I would feel a little weird calling up a weed farm for a reference.”
And he’s not the only one that feels that way. Banks do too. Funding aside, evidence shows cannabis related businesses stuggle to fulfill basic needs such as opening a bank account or accepting credit cards. According to a report by creditcards.com, it’s not uncommon for their checking accounts to be closed without warning, sending the business scrambling for help elsewhere.
But the situation isn’t all grim. We interviewed Nick Emerson, the Managing Director of 420 Card Processing in Campbell, CA (420 CP), a firm that’s changing it all. 420 CP not only provides card acceptance services to medical marijuana dispensaries but can also connect them with access to capital.
Using the concept of MCA, 420 CP and their funding partner will provide actual loans based on credit/debit card processing volume It’s a joint partnership. (Sorry couldn’t resist!). And there’s great news. The typical easy criteria that made traditional MCAs so popular still applies. So long as the license to sell medical marijuana can be proven, dispensary owners have the same odds of being approved as a restaurant would.
So the oportunity is there and the target market is bigger than most people think. According to Nick, “Medical marijuana is legal in sixteen states and DC to the best of our knowledge. Those states are: AK, AR, CA, CO, DC, DE, HI, ME, MI, MT, NV, NJ (still pending), NM, OR, RI, VT and WA. Some of these states are in the throes of evaluating how to implement the ballot measures that were passed and they do not all enjoy the same structures.” But once the ground rules are in place, it’s business as usual. “We have faced no problems as our company is dedicated to providing credit card processing services solely to the medical marijuana industry. As you can imagine, our clients love us.”
Add that to the ever growing list that the Mechant Cash Advance concept is being applied to.
- Damaged Credit? Funded!
- Short Time in Business? Funded!
- Restaurants? Funded!
- Retail Stores? Funded!
- Auto Shops? Funded!
- Las Vegas Casinos? Funded!
- E-Bay Stores? Funded!
- Medical Marijuana Dispensaries? Funded!
Short on capital? If you accept electronic payments, someone somewhere is willing to provide cash against those future sales. No matter what you do…
– The Merchant Hash Advance Resource
###
About 420 Card Processing
420 Card Processing was founded by card processing professionals, with decades of combined experience, who are committed to equal access and opportunity for those involved in all aspects of providing medical marijuana to patients in states that have legalized its use. 420 Card Processing provides services to retailers, wholesalers, suppliers of gardening equipment, and physicians. 420 Card Processing is a member of Americans for Safe Access, California NORML and the National Cannabis Industry Association.
For more information on obtaining a merchant account or funding from 420 Card Processing, contact Nick Emerson:
Sales@420cardprocessing.com
(800) 579-1675900 E. Hamilton Ave.
Suite 100
Campbell, CA 95008
