Year of the Broker
April 4, 2015
Many of the newcomers are fleeing hard times in the mortgage or payday loan businesses. Others are abandoning jobs selling insurance, car warranties or search-engine optimization.
“You have wandering souls trying to find their place in this industry, whether it be as a company or on their own,” said Amanda Kingsley, CEO of Sendto, a Florida-based company that assists new brokers.
Though exact counts appear difficult to obtain, Kingsley professed amazement at the volume of new entrants. “I’m swamped,” she said. “It’s crazy.”
Some of the new brokers discovered alternative financing in December, when OnDeck Capital’s initial public stock offering raised $200 million and valued the company at $1.3 billion. The Lending Club IPO that raised $1 billion the same month also raised public awareness of alternative loans.
Mesmerized with those whopping figures, salespeople from other businesses began committing themselves to a new career in alternative finance. In a business with virtually no barriers to entry, it’s easy to get started. To call themselves brokers, they just need a phone, someplace to sit and a list of leads they can buy online.
Virtually all of the entrants are pursuing dreams of lucrative paydays. Many even expect to make a fast buck with minimum effort.
If only it were that simple. Too often, the untutored new players are making mistakes simply because they don’t know any better, industry veterans maintained.
“A lot of people think you can just walk in and be successful,” said the sales manager of an established New York-based brokerage who asked for anonymity. “They don’t know what it takes to run a company. They don’t know what it takes to get a deal done.”
Worst of all – either unknowingly or with evil intent – new brokers are stacking deals. In other words, inexperienced salespeople pile second or third loans or advances on top of original positions. It’s an approach that clearly violates the industry’s standards, observers agreed.
In fact, virtually all contracts for a first loan or advance prohibit the merchant from taking on another similar obligation, noted Paul Rianda, an Irvine, Calif.-based attorney who specializes in payments and financing.
“I can’t remember one agreement I’ve seen that didn’t have that provision in it,” Rianda said.
Violating that stipulation could provide grounds for a lawsuit, and litigation is underway, according to David Goldin, president and CEO of New York-based AmeriMerchant and president of the North American Merchant Advance Association (NAMAA).
Bigger funders would sue smaller funders because the latter appear more likely to take on riskier, more problematic multiple-position deals, said Jared Weitz, CEO at United Capital Source LLC, a New York-based broker.
Plaintiffs have a case to make because stacking harms the broker and funder of the first position by increasing the risk that the merchant won’t meet the resulting financial obligations, Weitz said. “The guys going out 18 and 24 months to make this a more bankable product are being hurt by the people coming in and stacking those three-month high-rate loans,” he noted.
Deducting fees for more than one advance also impedes cash flow, adding another risk factor, Weitz said.
To further complicate matters, the company offering the second or even third deal sometimes moves the merchant’s transaction services to another processor, Rianda said. That forces the firms that made the first advance to approach the new processor to stake a claim to card receipts, he noted.
So the companies with the original deal suffer from the effects of stacking, but the practice’s shortcomings will haunt the stackers, too, observers maintained.
“It’s not a model that’s going to allow them to succeed,” a broker who asked to remain anonymous said of stackers’ long-term prospects.
Many hardly give a thought to staying power, according to Weitz. “A lot of people entering this space think it’s about fast money and not longevity,” he said.
Longevity requires that brokers build relationships with merchants, a process stacking undermines because too much credit can drive merchants out of business or merely prop up merchants already doomed to fail, sources said.
Yet stacking has become so widespread that it constitutes a business plan for some brokerage shops, said a broker who asked that his name and company not appear in the article.
It can begin when brokers buy lists of Uniform Commercial Code filings to find out what merchants have already taken out term loans or advances, said Zach Ramirez, vice president of sales and operations at Orange, Calif.- based Core Financial Inc.
The brokers then contact those merchants, many of whom are already over-extended financially, to offer additional credit or advances, Ramirez said.
Inexperienced brokers often resort to stacking because they don’t know how to generate leads that can bring alternative lending vehicles to merchants who weren’t aware of them.
Referrals from accountants or other business owners who deal with merchants can provide some of those greenfield prospects, Ramirez noted.
And leads aren’t the only area of cluelessness among newcomers, a broker who requested anonymity maintained.
“They don’t know why a bank declines a deal or approves a deal,” he said. “They don’t know what’s the basis for a good deal.”
To teach new brokers those basics of alternative business financing, the industry should establish standard policies and technology, according to Kingsley.
A credential, perhaps something similar to the Certified Payments Professional designation created by the Electronic Transactions Association, sources said. To earn the credential, candidates would pass an exam to show they’ve mastered the basics of the business, they proposed.
NAMAA is considering such a credential, said Goldin, the trade group’s president. It’s the kind of self-regulation that could forestall federal oversight, industry sources agreed.
But that might not matter, according to Tom McGovern, a vice president at Cypress Associates LLC, a New York-based advisory firm that raises capital for alternative lenders and merchant cash advance companies.
After all, McGovern noted, Barney Frank, former Democratic U.S. representative from Massachusetts and co-author of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, has gone on record as saying that piece of legislation focuses on consumers and does not govern business-to-business dealings like loans or advances to merchants.
That lack of regulation over B2B deals seems likely to continue, “especially in the world we’re in now with a Republican Congress,” said a broker who asked to remain nameless.
However, some members of the industry would welcome federal regulation as a way of barring incompetent or unscrupulous brokers. An agency patterned after the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, know as FINRA, could do the job, suggested a broker who requested anonymity.
Whether a government regulator or an industry- supported association should police the market, problems could remain stubbornly in place, some said.
Many doubt an association could build the consensus required for united action on some issues – stacking in particular.
For one thing, cleaning up the business could reduce profits for brokerages that profit from stacking, noted a broker who asked that his name not appear in the article.
“Everybody wants to make money,” he said. “Everybody’s out for themselves.”
Another barrier to agreement arises because some brokerages fear cooperation could expose their trade secrets, said Sendto’s Kingsley.
Moreover, unscrupulous brokers want to keep their employees uninformed of the industry’s potential for big profits, Kingsley said. That way they suppress compensation for an underclass of prequalifiers who work the early stages of deals, she noted.
Prequalifiers earn from $150 to $500 a week, depending upon the location, and don’t qualify for benefits like health insurance, Kingsley said. Once they realize what a tiny portion of the profits they’re receiving, brokers terminate the prequalifiers and many go on to become brokers themselves, she observed.
Closers who take over from prequalifiers to wrap up the sale can earn up to 50% or occasionally even 60% of a brokerage house’s commission – if the closer originates the deal and sees it through to completion unassisted, Kingsley said.
Eventually, closers realize they could keep all of the commission if they strike out on their own and become brokers, she noted.
In a way, the progression from prequalifier to broker or closer represents a market correction. And many seasoned industry participants believe market forces will also work out other problems the influx of new brokers is causing.
A large number of the new brokers simply won’t last long because they don’t understand the industry, they’re stacking deals and they’re signing up merchants that won’t stay in business.
Meanwhile, funders are beginning to perform background checks on brokers to make sure they’re dealing with reputable people, sources said.
Some funders protect themselves by simply declining to do business with new brokers, according to observers.
And many new brokers are learning the industry with the help of experienced brokerages that act as mentors and conduits and call themselves super brokers, super ISOs, broker consultants or syndicators.
“So what I’m saying is, ‘Guys, let’s not compete. Let’s grow parallel together,’ ” Weitz said of United Capital Source’s relationships with new brokers. The company began working with new brokers in October 2014.
In such relationships new brokers get advice from the more seasoned brokers. The older brokers can also provide the newcomers with services that include accounting, marketing and reporting, he said.
New brokers can also benefit from the customer relationship management platform that United Capital Source developed, Weitz said.
The new brokers also capitalize on the older brokers’ relationships with funders. Established brokers have earned better rates and terms because of reputation and volume, Weitz noted. Companies like his also know which lenders work more quickly and thus capture more deals, he added.
Older brokers can also steer new brokers away from newer funders that offer shorter terms and demand higher rates, Weitz said. Of the 30 to 40 companies that call themselves funders, only eight or 10 deserve the name, he contended.
The less-respectable funders place only a small amount of money in a few deals, he said.
Newer brokers become aware of their need for help from more experienced brokers when they see how many sales they’re failing to close, Weitz said.
The new brokers also come to realize that the puzzle of running a brokerage office has a lot more pieces than they may have thought, said Kingsley.
The percentage of the commission that the older broker charges can vary, according to Weitz.
“If someone needs a lot of hand holding and a lot more resources, they would get a different structure,” he said.
While Weitz said his company plans to acquire only about 10% of its volume through new brokers, Sendto specializes in helping newcomers. Sendto’s Kingsley described the company as “a turnkey solution that provides training and placement of deals. It’s for new brokers or sales offices that do not have what they need to be part of this industry.”
There’s room for entrants because not all merchants know about alternative business financing, said McGovern.
The market can even seem like it doesn’t have enough brokers in the estimation of experienced players skillful enough to find the many merchants who haven’t been introduced to the industry, said Ramirez of Core Financial.
And the big banks don’t really want the business because the deals aren’t big enough to interest them, McGovern said.
But the potential profits look promising to outsiders disillusioned with sales jobs in other industries.
Some experienced brokers even prefer to hire salespeople from outside the alternative financing industry, noted Kingsley. That way, they avoid employees who have picked up bad habits at other brokerage houses, she said.
Long-time members of the industry sometimes enjoy belittling new entrants who can seem clueless about the business they’re trying to master, noted Ramirez of Core Financial. But he recalled the time not so long ago that he himself had a lot to learn.
And regardless of how unsophisticated they may seem, new players have a role, McGovern said.
“They are performing a service,” he maintained. “They’re like the missionaries of the industry going out to untapped areas of the market – of which there are many – and drumming up business.”
To Kingsley, brokers in general – old and new – are beginning to earn the respect they deserve.
“A lot of people are afraid of the word ‘broker,’ ” she said. “I feel that 2015 is the year of the broker, and people should embrace what a broker can actually do. It’s a great thing.”
Alternative Lending: Big Government and Big Data
May 7, 2014– Professor Michael Barr at LendIt 2014
One of the clear themes of the LendIt 2014 conference was that borrowers are willing to pay extra for speed and convenience. Regulators have taken note of this trend but they’re still supportive of the alternative lending phenomenon anyway. Truth be told, the government is acting like a weight has been lifted off its shoulders. Ever since the 2008 financial crisis, the feds have prodded banks to lend more, but they’ve barely budged, especially with small businesses. Non-bank lenders have relieved them of the stress and all they need do now is make sure everybody plays nice.
Professor Michael Barr, a former US Treasury official, key architect of the Dodd-Frank Act, and Rhodes Scholar, believes the best way forward is to empower consumers. That’s something lenders can accomplish through education and transparency. On transparency, he cited many of the commendable practices that credit card companies and mortgage companies have implemented, but did not fail to note that these were forcibly instituted through regulation (Hint hint…).
When a LendIt attendee asked Barr to name someone in the alternative lending industry that is a great role model for transparency, Barr answered by saying, “I haven’t seen anyone in the industry doing things the way I would do them in regards to education and disclosure.” On the path towards transparency, “the potential is not yet realized,” he added.
While it sounded as if he favored eventual regulation of alternative lending, he offered all in attendance advice to prevent it. “Take the high road to prevent regulatory interest,” he said.
Barr’s sobering presentation also covered the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the role they might play in alternative lending, if any. Payday lenders and debt collectors were their primary supervisory targets he said, but added the “the CFPB has the flexibility in the marketplace to address problems before they occur.” That flexibility essentially gives them jurisdiction over whatever they decide they want to be in their jurisdiction.
Sophie Raseman, the Director of Smart Disclosure in the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Consumer Policy appealed to the industry in a different manner. “Small businesses are at the heart of the economy. We want to serve you [alternative lenders] better so that we can better serve them,” Raseman pleaded. As part of that, she came bearing gifts, a reminder that the federal government had loads of data available via APIs at http://finance.data.gov. The government wants to make sure we have access to as many tools as possible, most likely to help drive borrowing costs down. If you need to verify someone’s income, Raseman recommended the IRS’s Income Verification Express Service.
The Income Verification Express Service program is used by mortgage lenders and others within the financial community to confirm the income of a borrower during the processing of a loan application. The IRS provides return transcript, W-2 transcript and 1099 transcript information generally within 2 business days (business day equals 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. local IVES site time) to a third party with the consent of the taxpayer.
The irony with this service is the two business day timeline, though I haven’t confirmed if that’s still the case. Delays and archaic data aggregation methods are the exact things alternative lenders are trying to overcome. Kabbage comes to mind as the length of time it takes for them to go from application to funding can be as quick as 7 minutes, a time frame I found to be reality after watching the demonstration by Kabbage’s COO, Kathryn Petralia.
Kababge’s blazing speed is made possible by access to big data, which made Petralia an excellent choice to have on the Big Data Credit Decisioning Panel. She was joined by Noah Breslow of OnDeck Capital, Jeff Stewart of Lenddo, and Paul Gu of Upstart.
Stewart, whose company lends internationally presented the idea of mining not just data on social networks, but the photographs on them. One possibility was measuring whether or not borrowers appeared in photographs with other borrowers known to be bad, or whether or not they hung out with undesirables such as ex-convicts. He was a big believer in association risk, speculating that friends of bad borrowers also made them more likely to be bad borrowers themselves.
Breslow of course said you have to be careful with the noise of social media as there can be a lot of false signals. Does that mean there are big data problems then? Upstart’s Paul Gu said, “we have small data problems” in reference to why there seems to be so much trouble evaluating applicants that have little to no credit history. Gu believes that basic information such as where a borrower went to college, their major, and their grades can be used as an accurate predictor of payment performance and his company has acquired the data to back that up.
Somewhere along in the discussion though the meaning of automation got twisted. OnDeck for instance has an automated process, yet humans play a role in 30% of the loan decision making. Does that mean they are not actually automated? Breslow clarified that aggregating data from many different sources using APIs and computers was automation and that there was still a role for humans. The goal is to make sure that humans aren’t doing the same things that the computers are doing.
“The world’s greatest chess human can beat the world’s greatest chess algorithm,” said Lenddo’s Stewart. “Humans should be pulling what the algorithms can’t think of,” added Breslow. He presented an example of an applicant satisfying all of an algorithm’s criteria but sending up a red flag at the human level. “Why would the owner of a New York restaurant live in California?” Breslow asked. That’s something an algorithm might get confused about. It might mean nothing or it might mean something.
“Algorithms are probabilistic,” Stewart reminded the audience. They spell out the likelihood of repayment, they don’t guarantee it.
For Kabbage, algorithms and automation have been instrumental in allowing them to scale. “I don’t need to hire a lot more people to serve a lot more customers,” Petralia explained.
“Let the data speak for itself,” Breslow proclaimed. And there is a lot of statistically interesting data. “People with middle names perform better than people without them,” added Breslow.
For Gu, borrowers with degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics fare better than their academic peers, though he wouldn’t reveal which major is #1. That information, while probably available to OnDeck, likely plays little or no role. “There is a lot more data to analyze on the business side than the consumer side which is why [things like] the social graph is a little less relevant,” Breslow said.
In the end, lenders don’t need to go on a wild data goose chase to learn all about their prospective clients. Kabbage applicants for instance are asked to provide their online banking credentials in the very first step of the applications. “A lot of people would be surprised as to the amount of data borrowers are willing to share,” Petralia proclaimed. Indeed, many alternative business lenders and merchant cash advance companies are analyzing historical cash flow activity using third party aggregating services like Yodlee, something that requires the client’s credentials.
During Kabbage’s earlier demonstration, some members in the audience worried that factors such as deposit activity could be gamed. Petralia assured them that their algorithm was sophisticated enough to detect manipulation and at the same time explained that they analyzed far more than just deposit and balance history.
Perhaps all this technology though has gone overboard. Is it possible to predict performance just based on what the applicant says? Believe it or not, “the language someone uses is an indicator of default probability,” Stewart said. But even that kind of detection has become automated. “Lenddo uses semantic analysis. People tend to use different words when they’re desperate.”
Who knows, a year from now getting a loan might be as easy as picking up your phone and saying, “Siri, send money.” Just make sure to delete all the photos of you hanging out with criminals off your phone first. A lender might use them against you.
Regulatory Paranoia and the Industry Civil War
April 11, 2014Stacking is on everyone’s minds in the merchant cash advance (MCA) industry but that war is little more than smoke compared to the fire burning in our own backyard. One of the major topics of debate at Transact 14 has been Operation Choke Point, a federal campaign against banks and payment processors to kill off the payday lending industry and protect consumer bank accounts. Caught in the mix are law abiding financial institutions, some of which if affected, could potentially disrupt the merchant cash advance and alternative lending industries. Both have become heavily dependent on ACH processing. Could their strength become their Achilles heel?
Indeed, there was a rumor circulating around the conference that a popular ACH processor in the MCA industry is no longer accepting new funding companies. I know the name but was not able to confirm it as fact. There is a two-fold threat on the horizon:
1. The probability that ACH processors in this industry are also processing payments for payday lenders or other high risk businesses.
2. The likelihood that a bank or ACH processor would take preemptive action and terminate relationships with merchant cash advance companies and alternative business lenders, not because it’s illegal but as a way to make their books squeaky clean.
The sentiment at the conference however was that MCA providers and alternative business lenders had little need to worry. While Operation Choke Point specifies online lenders, they are narrowly defined as businesses making loans to consumers. MCA and their counterparts do not fall under that scope, even if they themselves lend exclusively online.
Is regulation coming?
There seems to be both a call for and paranoia about regulation, especially in the context of stacking merchant cash advances and daily repayment business loans. On the popular online forum DailyFunder, several opponents of stacking are under the impression that regulators will be busting down doors any day now to put an end to businesses utilizing multiple sources of expensive capital simultaneously. Many insiders who have had their merchants stacked on view the issue as both a legal and a moral one. Opponents get worked up about it for many reasons. They believe any one or multiple of the following:
- The merchant can’t sell something which has already been contractually sold to another party.
- That the merchant ends up borrowing and selling their future revenues at their own peril, endangering their cash flow and their business.
- That the stackers endanger the first lender or funder’s ability to collect.
- That the merchant taking on stacks won’t be eligible for additional funds with the first company, hurting the retention rate.
Stacking is not illegal, but it may be tortious interference. That allegation is the one that gets thrown around the most, but it’s important to recognize that actual damages are an integral part of any such case. If I stack on your merchant and the deal performs as expected for you, then what damages would you have suffered? But if I stack on your deal and it defaults 3 weeks later, you might be able to allege that I was the cause of it.
Insiders on DailyFunder’s forum that wonder how they might be able to get stacking to stop, only need to follow the example of what a few select funders are already doing, going on the offensive. The first thing one west coast MCA company does when they have a merchant default is find out if there was a stack that came on top of them. If they find out who it was, they send the offending funder a bill for the outstanding balance. That may sound cheesy, but given their industry prowess and litigious nature, they said that some stackers quietly mail them a check, rather than risk things escalating to the next level. The threats only hold weight of course if you’re actually prepared to bring the case to court.
I’ve spoken with dozens of proponents for stacking, many of sound character, high intelligence, and business acumen. They buck the stereotype of stackers as sleazy wall street guys with pinky rings. Few of these proponents believe that future revenue is a precise asset. It’s been said that, “future revenues are unknowable and possibly infinite. A business should be able to sell infinite amounts of these future revenues if there are investors out there that will buy them.” The general consensus on this side of the aisle is that a 2nd position stack, or “seconds” are here to stay. There’s a sense of calm and conviction, as if seconds were a boring subject of little contention. Many are okay with thirds “if the math works” but discomfort sets in on fourths, fifths and beyond. If they believe it’ll be a good investment, they’ll do the deal. They scoff at the notion that they’d willingly chance putting a merchant out of business since that would jeopardize their own investment.
To date, I’ve seen no data to support that stacking causes merchants to go out of business. I would not be surprised if there was a correlation between defaults and stacks, but that would not imply causation. A business that is on its way towards bankruptcy regardless may be able to obtain a few stacks in the process as a last ditch effort to stave it off. When the business finally fails, it may appear to look like the stacks caused it, even if they didn’t.
For those that don’t want to play cat and mouse with threats and lawsuits, there’s a growing call for regulation, both self-regulation and federal. That call feeds off the paranoia that regulators are knocking at the industry’s door already anyway.
NAMAA
In regards to self-regulation, insiders have been looking to the North American Merchant Advance Association (NAMAA) to create rules and become an enforcer. It’s no secret that their members are opponents of stacking, but as a powerful body of industry leaders, they’re up against a threat of their own, antitrust laws. Creating rules and enforcing them could be construed as anti-competitive. In truth, a lot of the MCA industry’s growth over the last 2 years can be attributed to stacking. A private association of the largest players actively working to establish rules to squash the fast growing segment of new entrants could indeed be perceived as anti-competitive.
But that doesn’t mean NAMAA is powerless to promote their views. Following in the footsteps of the Electronic Transactions Association, they could create a set of best practices, host workshops, and offer courses and sessions to train newcomers on these best practices. Such benefits and opportunities are a standard in the payments industry, but nothing like it is available in MCA or alternative business lending.
But is it too late for self regulation?
With all the government enforcement occurring in the rest of the financial sphere, fears of imminent federal involvement in MCA and alternative business lending are not unfounded… or are they?
In the wake of the financial crisis, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was formed to protect consumers in financial markets. The CFPB was instrumental in Operation Choke Point and they would be the most likely federal agency to field complaints about stacking. Unlike the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency which has jurisdiction over banks, the CFPB’s oversight extends to non-bank financial institutions. They’re the wild card agency that has financial companies across the nation on their heels.
I had the opportunity to speak with a former lead attorney of the CFPB off the record today about the definition of consumer. Could a small business be construed as a consumer? The short answer was no. The long answer was that there is no specific definition of consumer at the CFPB but it was meant to represent individuals. Although businesses at the end of the day are run by individuals, I got a pretty confident response that the CFPB would not have jurisdiction over a business lending money to a business, even if it was a very small 1 or 2 man operation. If they were acting in a commercial capacity, then they’re no longer consumers.
The other side of her argument was that it would take up too much resources to take on a case where the victim class was basically outside of their scope. The CFPB already has enough on their plate.
Is the government busy?
I also spoke with a few lobbyists and payments industry attorneys off the record and the unilateral response was that MCA and alternative business lending were not on any agenda, nor does the government have the resources to juggle something that is basically…insignificant in their eyes.
In the grand scheme of financial issues, a few billion year in small business-to-business financing transactions isn’t worth anyone’s breath. “A business acting in a business capacity was unhappy with a business contract they entered into? Take it up in civil court,” I imagine a regulator might say.
Regulators aren’t completely in the dark about MCA. Just a month or two ago, several industry captains and myself included were contacted by the Federal Reserve as part of a research mission to basically find out what this industry even was. The feds appear to have stumbled upon the MCA industry as part of their research into peer-to-peer lending. Who would’ve thought a 16 year old industry could be so stealthy?
If the big PR machines like Kabbage, Lending Club, and OnDeck Capital didn’t exist, I’m inclined to believe no one in the government would’ve heard of MCA for at least another 10 years. In 2014, they’re just now discovering it.
My gut tells me we’re a long way from any kind of regulatory enforcement. In a session I attended at Transact 14 today, a former member of the Department of Justice and a current member of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency both offered examples of cases that took 3-8 years before there was an enforcement action. In each scenario, they alerted the parties there was a problem and they were given time to correct it. They had to show progress along the way and eventually when no such progress was made after years of warnings, they acted.
In the conversation of regulation, alternative business lending and MCA are relatively tiny. Lending Club does more in loan volume each year than the entire MCA industry combined. So long as there’s no fraud involved, small business-to-business financing transactions are not likely to make it on the agenda for federal regulators for a long time. That doesn’t mean it won’t be there some day in the future.
I think it was Brian Mooney, the CEO of Bank America Merchant Services that said in the Transact 14 roundtable discussion that if something feels wrong in your gut, don’t do it. Debra Rossi, the head of Wells Fargo Merchant Services added that you can’t tell a regulator, “I didn’t know.” Keep those suggestions in the front of your mind.
No police
For the foreseeable future it’s on us as an industry to find a resolution to stacking. There’s no such thing as the cash advance police. On one side is tort law. On the other is creating best practices and actively educating newcomers. That’s where the blood boiling debates need to turn to. After all, there’s already a large crowd that yawns over seconds, a group that wholeheartedly believes a stack is just as legitimate as a first position deal.
Instead of waiting for a referee to call foul on somebody, I think 2014 is the year to realize that you might be stuck in the room with the person you hate. Could you bring yourself to tolerate them for years to come?
Blind spot
We should consider that the greatest threat to the industry may not come from within, but from outside. More than 50% of MCA/alternative business lending transactions are repaid via ACH. Government action on ACH providers or the banks that sponsor them could end up hitting this industry as collateral damage.
One metric that banks and regulators consider is the return rate of ACHs, namely the percentage of ACHs rejected for insufficient funds or rejected because the transactions weren’t authorized. Daily fixed debits run the risk of rejects and boost the return rate. Could the frequency of your rejects eventually scare the processor into terminating the relationship? With the pressure they’re getting from the Department of Justice, there’s always the possibility.
Data security is another sleeping giant to consider. Do you keep merchant data safe? Are you protected from hackers?
Know your merchant. The push towards automated underwriting seems dead set on eliminating humans from the analysis. But what if the algorithm misses something and loans get approved to facilitate a money laundering scheme? Or what if it approves a known terrorist?
Paranoia
If you’re paranoid you’re doing something wrong, then maybe you are doing something wrong even if there’s no current law against it. Follow your gut, create value, and work together. Who knows, maybe one day there will be an ETA-like organization for MCA and alternative business lending. Now is a good time to be proactive.
The Bubble That Wasn’t
August 17, 2012“The smaller the loan, the more likely a lender will deny it. The denial rate for applications for small loans (less than $100,000) was more than twice as high as it was for bigger loans.”
– CNNMoney 8/16/12
In early 2009, a very wise friend of mine gave me a bit of advice. As an ex-stock broker who made his fortune in the 80s, he’d seen his fair share of bubbles. And so he bestowed upon me his wisdom that the Merchant Cash Advance (MCA) industry’s days were numbered. “It’s got 6-8 months left of life in it and then it’ll go away. Everyone’s in freakout mode right now but things will go right back to the way they were and banks will push you right out of a job,” he lectured me. My expression didn’t change, for he wasn’t the first one to sing me this cautionary tale. He continued on, “You’re a nice guy so I suggest in the next few months, you go out and get into another line of work. You can always look at this experience as a wild ride but MCA is a fringe industry borne out of the financial crisis.” I thanked him for looking out for me and went home that night to mull over what he and a few others had been saying.
No one wants to believe their thriving business is part of a bubble that will inevitably burst. But at the same time, no one wants to later on be perceived as that naive fool that couldn’t see an obvious end coming either. And while the career itself seemed honorable and sustainable (helping small businesses get financing), there were a lot of pivotal moments along the way that made me think for a second that at any day I could be told to pack up my stuff and go home because there was suddenly no more demand for MCA.
I am reminded of the time when a Craigslist Ad was answered by over 500 recently laid off mortgage brokers and underwriters. Some had literally been hired to underwrite mortgages, only to be told days later that their division was closing down. Similarly, there were hot shots from the payday loan industry who stopped by to learn what our business was all about. These people looked like they had been punched in the gut and told stories of major success followed by unforeseen ruin as states legislated them out of business overnight. And still others had the mentality that MCA was a get rich quick scheme and went on to run their own funding companies or brokerage offices into the ground within a matter of months. They cursed the MCA gods and the bubble they believed they were a victim of, ignoring the reality that they had poorly managed themselves into oblivion.
As the 6 to 8 month timeline for destruction expired and the light shone on those still standing, I realized I had made the right choice by sticking it out. MCA was not a progeny of the financial meltdown. Heck, the product itself had already been around since the late 1990s and had gained significant popularity around 2005 when other players began entering the market. It also had none of the trademark signs of a bubble. If financing businesses was a bubble, there would be no such thing as banks today. Business financing has been around for literally thousands of years. MCA firms just catered to the ones that banks ignored and by 2008 that included nearly every small business in the country. One could argue that the growth rate of MCA would eventually slow down, supporting the claim with the same wisdom I had heard nearly a year before, that everything would return to “normal.”
Today’s world is anything but the world of yesterday. The unemployment rate in July was 8.3% and according to a survey reported by CNN, “[Today], the option most often sought by businesses — opening a new credit line — face[s] the lowest approval rate at 13%” Banks never did return to their old ways, nor does it seem likely that they will any time soon. Those that doubted MCA’s longevity in 2009, including those who left the industry altogether back then in fear, did not foresee the many roads of evolution that would allow it to thrive.
Years ago, an MCA was easily defined as a purchase of future sales that would ideally be completed in 6 to 9 months. Virtually every provider offered identical terms and costs, which stymied competition and eventually created stereotypes that would come to haunt the image of MCA for quite some time. For a while, America had a hard time envisioning MCA as anything but a 1.38 factor rate that was available to those that fit a certain credit criteria and processed a minimum amount of credit card sales monthly. So imagine the shock some small business owners felt when approved by RapidAdvance, a veteran MCA firm, for a ::gasp:: small business loan. A loan?! could it be? Yes, MCA has been semantically broadened to include many forms of short term lending. And then there’s Florida based Merchant Cash Group that became famous with their Fast Funding program, a financing option for businesses that fell outside the box for traditional MCAs. Some companies don’t even require businesses to accept credit cards as a form of payment. “Credit card sales? Who cares how much they’re doing in credit card sales?!” Would you ever imagine an MCA rep making such a statement in 2009?
MCA is still widely considered to be tied to credit card processing and it doesn’t ever need to officially evolve away from that. Withholding a percentage of sales directly from a payment processor is what initially allowed the many business owners that were horrible at making monthly payments suddenly eligible to receive capital. But for all the changes that have been applied to the financing product itself, something has changed with the companies offering it as well.
Competitors used to be ultra secretive about their practices. An MCA firm could be underwriting an application that another MCA firm funded the day before. Sure, the merchant wasn’t supposed to hop around and do this with more than one company at a time, but the other firm wouldn’t even confirm if they funded them if you asked. One of the great failures of the past was the lack of cooperation amongst the players in the industry. An ‘every man for himself’ mentality hurt more than it helped in a business that was struggling to create its identity in the mainstream world of finance. The North American Merchant Advance Association (NAMAA) sought to correct that through data sharing and the promotion of common standards. Some of the major members have years of experience under their belt including Merchant Cash and Capital, Strategic Funding Source, RapidAdvance, and Merchant Cash Group. These firms have been around the block and back. “MCA bubble? What bubble?,” they’ll say with 100% confidence in their tone.
So why a boring history lesson on MCA today? It’s only fitting on the day that CNN declared the bursting of the social media bubble, that I re-visit a decision I made 3 years ago. “I’m just looking out for you kid,” a mentor once told me. Bad advice for sure. This year, I am noticing many people that left MCA years ago are coming back. After so much time has passed, they are STILL getting in early on something that’s going to be huge, rather than coming back to ‘manage the decay’ (did I just take a swipe at Obama?!). VCs are having a field day trying to get in on it. Accel Partners recently forged an equity deal with Capital Access Network with the ultimate goal of what I’m guessing is to one day go public.
The only things bubbly in MCA these days are the excited account reps, underwriters, and support staff that are working to get America’s small businesses humming again. Some have taken to wearing their FUNDED pants 7 days a week. I know I have practically worn mine out.
I’m always struck now by the college grads that ask me if this business is sustainable. Their anxious parents are worried sick that their babies are going to be caught up in some bubble and be out of a job 6 to 8 months from now. To this I offer a few words of wisdom. “Providing small businesses with capital isn’t going away anytime soon. Sure, the product might evolve and the economy will change, but the fundamental demand for short term financing is here to stay. You seem like nice parents so I’d hate to see your kid get involved in some other industry at the end of its life cycle. He or She is getting in early on something big, something long lasting, something that has become a permanent staple of the American financial system.” Good advice for sure.
By: Sean Murray
Founder of Merchant Processing Resource (../../)
Began career in the MCA industry in August, 2006
P.S.
The FUNDED pants do exist and were created by Next Level Funding in early 2010.
The American Obsession With Startups
June 20, 2012Hi, I was just driving down 3rd Street and I saw an old building that had a For Sale sign on it. So I was just thinking it would be a great place to open a restaurant. It would have a really big outdoor eating area and I’ve always dreamed of owning my own restaurant. Lord knows I love food. I can’t talk long but I Googled loans on the Internet and you guys came up so I wanted to know if I could get a $4 million loan or line of credit to buy the building, fix it up, and make it into a Mexican restaurant, or maybe even Italian! Is that something you could do? I would need the money by friday…
This is the real transcript of a call to a Merchant Cash Advance brokerage. Don’t let anyone tell you that the U.S. is not a capitalistic society. Opportunity and entrepreneurship is so ingrained into the very fabric of our being that even self-proclaimed communists and socialists cast away their utopian worker ideals for the chance and self-satisfaction of turning something small into something big. We’re also an impulsive society, a trait partially due to our obsession with immediate self-gratification, but more to do with the fact that opportunities come and go in the blink of an eye. It is for these reasons that an individual who was taught to do market research, create a business plan, and mull things over is instead flying down the road with one hand on the wheel while the other hand is furiously applying for a $4 million loan to finance an opportunity he thought up 7 seconds ago.
How many other people driving down this road thought the same thing? How many of them have access to that kind of capital? Some might and so for the ones that don’t, the fear that someone is going to beat them to it turns them into unrealistic cash demanding lunatics. It’s true. The full service Merchant Cash Advance shops should probably offer John (the name we’re going to assign to the guy driving down the road) a proposal to help him create a business plan, form an LLC, and obtain the necessary licenses. These services would come with a price, a price that many people like John misinterpret as obstacles to be handled once he’s received the $4 Million. As John continues driving down the road, the dream of starting a restaurant is repeatedly crushed as he makes phone call after phone call to business lenders he found on the Internet. “There’s just no help for startups,” he concludes, and decides to hold off until the economy gets better before giving it another shot.
For 37 minutes that day, John was one of the many millions of startup businesses searching for capital. For the Merchant Cash Advance brokerage, he may have been one of the few hundred phone calls an account rep was bogged down with, while trying to help businesses that have been open for at least 1 year. The account reps have probably heard it all. “I want to start a home-based gas station“, “I need twenty million dollars for a good idea that I can’t tell you what it is because I don’t want anyone to steal the idea“, “I just got an LLC and I need $100,000 to come up with some business ideas“, “I’m gonna start an online shoe store and I need money to buy my first computer so I can get on the Internet.” We’re not poking fun at entrepreneurs since there are plenty of those who are really serious. But for the millions that call first and think second, they’re creating a disease unique to the U.S. It’s called startup fatigue. Business lenders are losing so much money by just talking to non-business owners, that they’ve taken to putting up big signs to ward them off.
The Internet is a great example because the cost of one click to the lender’s website can reach as high as $20. So how then does one tactfully express that their financing programs are for existing businesses only? It’s an art form that many have difficulty mastering. Advertisements, which are usually created to rope people in are instead being crafted to keep people out. “Hey Startups, GET OUT AND STAY OUT!” is the marketing campaign some lenders might be considering rolling out next quarter.
We expect that at this point in our post, startup specialists have already stopped reading and have instead taken to writing us long e-mails explaining how ignorant we are.
“DEAR MPR,
You are dumb. There are tons of startup lenders out there just begging for business.”
We’ll welcome any e-mails like this. Maybe these companies will stop hiding in the shadows and we can finally start helping people.
Raharney Capital, the organization that owns Merchant Processing Resource has a division that connects existing small businesses with financing companies. Coincidentally, they encounter a lot of pre-operational startups and continuously face the dilemma of how to service them.
Their first attempt to refer them out was with Go Big Network, a gargantuan networking service specifically for startups to obtain capital. Their homepage touts:
We help entrepreneurs find funding.
Over 300,000 Startups Have Used Go BIG to Connection with Millions of Dollars in Funding. Join today to connect with our network of over 20,000 investors.
They’ve been around for years and their advertisements can be seen all over the web. Inquiries about referring startups to them for a fee went nowhere as Go Big Network made abundantly clear that they did not want affiliates. Further attempts to refer them the business (even free of charge) went unanswered. It seems that even the startup masters don’t want to deal with more startups.
So we took to LinkedIn discussion groups and replied to the many individuals claiming to be angel investors or startup lenders. All of them backtracked on their original statements, with most eventually revealing that they were really looking for businesses that have been operating two years with positive cash flow. Are they liars? Not really. A young business is technically still a startup. What we did find though is that some Merchant Cash Advance providers are funding businesses that have been open for as little as three months. Not bad! (Check out: Capital Stack, Yellowstone Capital, United Capital Source, and Merchant Cash and Capital)
We thought we struck gold when we joined Startup Specialists, expecting to find lenders swarming the discussions with startup lending spam. Instead, we found no mention of financing at all. Interestingly though, this group was abuzz with activity. Thought you were cool because your post got 1 thumbs up? Thought that nothing was happening on LinkedIn? Some posts in this group are receiving hundreds or THOUSANDS of engaging, thoughtful responses! Sadly, no one seems to know where the money is, but that doesn’t seem to matter to them.
While writing this, our own inbox has grown considerably bigger and our voicemail box more full. Many are reaching out to us with questions about startup financing. The fatigue is slowly starting to set in.
One is a voicemail from Google, asking us to reactivate our Adwords campaign, something this site experimented with in the past with $100 in free ad credits. In their message, the account rep mentions that they have reviewed our site and can help startup lenders like ourselves create successful ads(what gave them this impression?). In startup-obsessed America, a stable, sustainable, and somewhat aged business is a mythical beast. Even Google has somehow mistaken our small business information site to be startup information. Too many people assume that small business means the act of trying to start a business. “Do You Have An Existing Business?” a bank advertisement might ask. Tons of people who don’t will still answer ‘yes‘ simply because the idea exists in their mind. It’s a beautiful thing in America to think that way, but getting off the ground and generating revenue shouldn’t be like winning the lottery, a game that you’ll never win but is fun to dream about.
We have interviewed writers for our site, some for volunteer positions, others to be paid. While instructing them to use small business as the subject matter, almost all of them revert to writing about starting a business. Marketing companies have also made the same mistake by pitching us their proposal to make cool videos for the site and then go on to create a demo video that talks about starting a business. One company actually asked us to provide a script and still they CHANGED IT to talk about how Merchant Processing Resource is a premier helper of startups. WHAT?!!!
By now, we’re running a high fever and the doctors suspect we have startup fatigue. Eleven more people have left voicemails, to request $300, $10,000, or $100,000,000 because they have this really sweet idea to make a restaurant named Chesster’s, (Chester’s with a double ‘s’) because each dining table will have a chessboard on it with chess pieces. Boo ya!! They haven’t worked out all the details yet but they thought the name was brilliant and oh yea… they need the money by tomorrow.
We’ll refer them to SCORE, a nonprofit association dedicated to helping small businesses get off the ground, grow and achieve their goals through education and mentorship. They may not get financing, but they will get HELP. And that’s really what Americans need. There isn’t a lending problem, there’s a helping problem.
Entrepreneurs like Mark Zuckerberg made it tougher for all of us. His progression went from random idea to scooping up cash from a classmate, to billionaire CEO of a publicly traded empire. He didn’t sit down with a SCORE mentor, do market research, and consult with a lawyer about how best to structure an organization. These are things he would have considered as obstacles to achieving his dream before someone else beat him to it. “I need the money by friday because this is going to be big,” Zuckerberg might have told a Merchant Cash Advance account rep who had heard the same story 97 times that morning alone.
Zuckerberg’s whirlwind success story portrays him as a role model genius, a boy who acted and capitalized on the split second window of opportunity while all the pieces fell into place after the fact. The rest of America so badly wants to replicate that. Too many people envision themselves in an interview with a New York Times reporter two years from now to talk about how they were driving down 3rd Street and the idea of starting a home-based gas station just popped into their heads, prompting them to Google business loans, and the rest of their billion dollar story is history. Similarly, when that doesn’t happen, just as many people chalk up their failure to a bad economy, Obama’s unwillingness to help, or the big bad banks indifference to the little guy.
It’s okay to go slow and get your ducks in a row. Hell, doing it this way is probably more honorable than what Zuckerberg did. You don’t need the funds by tomorrow, friday, or even next week. What you need is proof that you can provide a product or service for a profit and then to carefully plan and structure an organization that will last. Raising money should be a contingency for expanding sales, not for registering your LLC or to solidify an idea.
There’s a reason that the topic of small business is inundated with information on how to start one. So many fail to get off the ground. There are conflicting and sensational statistics that claim that 9 out of every 10 startups fail. In startup-obsessed America, it’s probably more than that. We would argue that John’s wild foray into entrepreneurship started when he spotted available space for a restaurant and failed when his first instinct was to search for lenders. In the meantime, a few financial firms got caught in the cross fire and spent money to answer his phone calls. Both sides were left frustrated since neither got what they wanted.
In today’s world there is a growing anti-startup movement. Americans want jobs to feed their families and lenders prefer to invest only in existing businesses. The problem is that without startups, fewer businesses will become established (bad for lenders) and fewer jobs will be created (bad for Americans). Our only hope then to turn the tide is to embrace the startups, not shun them. The message shouldn’t be: Get lost you potential job creating jerks! Every lender (and Merchant Cash Advance provider) should have a model to assist startups in some way. It’s okay to charge for this service and profit from it by the way. Any potential business owner who enters the startup arena expecting not to pay anything out of pocket is dreaming.
If America associates small business with starting a business, can a lender really parade themselves as a small business champion if their public message is to send startups packing? We don’t think they can. Similarly, individuals need to do their part and calm their impulses. Drawing up a plan, forming an LLC, and obtaining the necessary licenses aren’t annoying obstacles to take care of after the fact. You can’t really expect to raise capital on a wild whim while you’re flying down the street talking about a random building you saw on the side of the road. Imagine how crazy that sounds to a lender?
Patience and hard work, we say. That goes for the entrepreneurs and lenders alike. Let’s help each other, not hate each other. It won’t be easy, but then again success isn’t supposed to be like winning the lottery, a game that you’ll never win but is fun to dream about.
Still Curious About a Merchant Cash Advance? The Last Article You Will Ever Need to Read
August 23, 2011
You’ve seen the advertisements, received calls with offers for it, researched it online, but you’re still not sure about Merchant Cash Advance(MCA). Every business needs capital but bank loans just aren’t available. Alternative funding sources are out there and they spend millions of dollars every year trying to reach you. The word “alternative” usually causes business owners to put their guard up. Basically, all non-bank loans warrant skepticisim until proven innocent. We here at the Merchant Cash Advance Resource understand your concerns and would like to answer your questions once and for all. We are not a funding source, reseller, or advertiser and thus maintain an independent perspective on the the MCA industry.
image is the sole property of www.merchantprocessingresource.com
- How Legitimate is it?
- Who is Really Using it?
- How Big is the Industry?
- How Widespread is it?
- What is the Application and Underwriting Process?
- Who are the Most Well Known Providers of it?
- Who is Regulating it?
- What Happens if you Default on it?
- How does it Compare to an SBA Loans?
How Legitimate is a Merchant Cash Advance?
The purchase of future credit card sales(Merchant Cash Advance or MCA) has been mainstream since 1998. At that time, Kennesaw, Georgia based funding source AdvanceMe, held the patent rights to a process known as split funding. The patent was later invalidated and AdvanceMe was immediately joined by industry veterans AmeriMerchant, First Funds (now Principis Capital), Merchant Cash and Capital, Business Financial Services, and Strategic Funding. All of these firms have been operating since before 2006. As of 2011, there are now nearly 40 documented direct providers of capital.
MCA funding providers are backed by big name hedge funds, a few at one point by well known investment bank, Goldman Sachs. MCAs have frequently popped up in the news and are openly endorsed by some of the largest payment networks in the world. See for yourself:
Feb. 11, 2011 – 10 Reasons to Start a Business This Year
Sept 1, 2009 – Enterpreneurs Turn to Alternative Finance
Apr. 2009 – Merchant Cash Advance Financing: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
Brochure and advertisement directly From First Data, the largest merchant acquirer in the world.
Advertisment and endorsement directly from Chase Paymentech
Program is offered by NAB, one of the nation’s largest credit card processors and the 2008 Detroit Regional winner of Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award. 
Who is Really Using a Merchant Cash Advance?
Nearly every major national retail or restaurant franchise has used a Merchant Cash Advance. A small sample of the names include the following:
- Burger King
- Domino’s Pizza
- Hooters
- Subway
- Dunkin Donuts
- Taco Bell
- Denny’s
- Wendy’s
- Meineke Car Care
- Maaco
- Aamco Transmissions
- Curves Fitness
Data was obtained directly from Secretary of State UCC-1 filing records. More information on franchise funding can be read in one of our previous articles, “Who is Really Getting a $250,000 Merchant Cash Advance?“
How Big is the Industry?
Experts have predicted that more than $1 Billion in MCAs are being provided to businesses every year. We conducted independent research and was able to validate the size to be greater than at least $500 Million in 2010. Check out the study at, “Complete Merchant Cash Advance Statistics 2010“
How Widespread is Merchant Cash Advance?
The MCA product is not limited to the United States. This product is actively growing in:
- Canada
- United Kingdom
- Australia
- Hong Kong
- Singapore
For a list of international funding providers, take a peek at our article at, “Merchant Cash Advance – Canada, UK, and Beyond!“
What is the Application and Underwriting Process Like?
EASY! We recently released a guide for merchants that breaks the process down step by step. Download the guide here.
Who Are the Most Well Known Direct Providers of Merchant Cash Advance?
The biggest names are compiled in our Funding Directory. Many are BBB accredited and a few are Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year award winners.
Who is Regulating the Merchant Cash Advance Industry?
Since MCAs are a purchase/sale of future credit/debit card receivables, lending laws do not apply. However, most firms belong to a self-regulating body known as the North American Merchant Advance Association. As stated on their website, NAMAA’s purpose is to promote competition and efficiency throughout the industry by:
- Providing education and professional development to its members
- Developing ethical standards and best practices guidelines for the industry
- Evaluating and providing education regarding the development and enforcement of intellectual property rights that affect the industry
- Evaluating and developing improvements to existing business methods and practices
- Developing industry relevant products and services
- Engaging in regulatory and legislative advocacy
What Happens if You Default on a Merchant Cash Advance?
In the case of a legitimate business failure, the merchant’s assets tend to be protected. There is significantly less at stake than a bank loan. We covered this topic once before in an article here, “What Happens When you Default on a Merchant Cash Advance?“
How Do Merchant Cash Advances Compare to SBA Loans?
The Small Business Administration protects banks from defaults for up to 90% of the losses. Despite this wildly generous guarantee, SBA Loans are considered to rank lower than a MCA. How is this is possible and what specific proof is there? Check out our analysis in, “SBA Loan vs. Merchant Cash Advance.“
Conclusion
The Merchant Cash Advance financial product has been in existence for more than a decade and is legitimate, mainstream, endorsed by reputable names, has been used by the most popular franchises in the U.S., is easy to obtain, offers asset protection that loans cannot, is self regulated, and is in many ways BETTER than a loan guaranteed by the SBA. A MCA may not be right for every business, but if it was just uncertainty that was holding you back, fear no more. This thing is for real…
-The Merchant Cash Advance Resource
http://www.merchantcashadvanceresource.com
webmaster@merchantprocessingresource.com
