BFS Capital Launches Canadian Tech Hub
October 16, 2019
Small business lender BFS Capital is making an expansion push with the creation of a new data science and engineering hub in Toronto. BFS, which serves customers in a trifecta of jurisdictions that in addition to Canada includes the U.S. and the UK, has undergone a technological transformation that includes building out a tech team for the next generation of the firm’s products.
BFS Capital CEO Mark Ruddock took some time to discuss the Toronto expansion with AltFinanceDaily.
“We have an ambitious roadmap and plan to innovate quickly,” said Ruddock, “As a result, we had to ask ourselves, where could we best do this? We looked at cities across North America with strong tech and data science talent, and which were millennial friendly. We were frankly quite surprised by Toronto. Something fundamental is happening in Toronto – it’s fast becoming a leading city for data science, AI, and mobile app development in North America.”
Indeed, AltFinanceDaily hosted its inaugural Canadian event in Toronto this past July after keeping an eye on its burgeoning fintech scene there for years.
“We are seeing a fundamental transformation happening in our customer base, from a less digitally savvy generation of entrepreneurs willing to accept the traditional financial products to a demanding, digital first generation, seeking new financial solutions,” said Ruddock, pointing to a two-pronged approach of real-time algorithmic decisioning and a mobile-first user design. “The intersection of those two things is the tipping point for small business financial services for the next while,” he added.
BFS Capital is finding that the younger generation is well equipped with technological skillsets, noted Ruddock, pointing to the Universty of Toronto and University of Waterloo as two of the best schools in North America for tech talent.
Interest in State-Backed Digital Currencies Rising
October 4, 2019
This week, two House Representatives presented Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell with a letter calling for the Fed to seriously consider the creation of a digital currency.
Beginning their letter with, “As you are aware, the nature of money is changing,” French Hill (R-AR) and Bill Foster (D-IL) run through a brief history of money as we know it before relaying their central worry, “that the primacy of the U.S. Dollar [sic] could be in long-term jeopardy from wide adoption of digital fiat currencies.”
Such concern is bolstered by the knowledge that over 40 other countries are investigating the use of digital currencies, with Sweden, Uruguay, and China’s programs each being name dropped by Hill and Foster; as well as by comments by the President of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, who noted that in the absence of digital currencies backed by central banks, private firms will be left to dominate the space, effectively bypassing banks, and ceding control of monetary policy as well as power to combat illegal financial activities such as money laundering.
Before signing off, the authors warn of the troubles that Libra, Facebook’s unlaunched cryptocurrency could release into the world of finance if the tech giant is allowed to run free of regulation; and they finish by asking Powell to consider a number of questions relating to the establishment of a US dollar digital currency.
Not found among these questions is the conundrum of whether a sovereign digital currency would be referred to as legal tender despite it being intangible.
Hill and Foster aren’t the first to raise this issue, in fact former Chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Sheila Bair wrote in Yahoo Finance last year urging the Fed to shift its focus. Naming the potential digital currency ‘FedCoin,’ Bair explains the benefits of such a creation, saying that during recessions the Fed could reduce the interest rate on FedCoin in order to encourage spending, while during boom years interest rates could be increased to avoid overheating of the economy. As well as this, Bair proposes that in the case of a downward economic spiral, the Fed could issue time-limited coins that will expire if not spent on consumption.
Although it isn’t all sunshine and economic prosperity in Bair’s assessment, as she also notes that FedCoin has the potential to be a massive disruption to credit availability, with its implementation meaning that the over $10 million which is currently deposited by customers in American banks could vanish overnight if every American moved their savings to FedCoin. Regardless, Bair concludes her article with the warning that “If it does not stay ahead of this technology, not only could banking be disrupted – but the Fed itself could also be at risk.”
Bair’s comments are matched by former Bank of England Governor, Mark Carney, who, at the Economic Policy Symposium in August, discussed how a digital currency backed by a coalition of central banks, or as he termed it, a synthetic hegemonic currency (SHC), could allow for economies to move away from the US dollar as the global hedge currency and, thus, remove themselves from the currency’s domineering influence.
Interestingly, Hill and Foster’s letter comes the same week as news of a sovereign digital currency in Venezuela. President Nicolás Maduro confirmed that his government has plans to develop payment methods based off Bitcoin and that the country would begin stockpiling cryptocurrencies for its international reserves. These developments will accompany Petro, the cryptocurrency issued by the Venezuelan government that is backed by the country’s oil and mineral reserves.
As noted by Decrypt, despite his history of supporting Bitcoin, Juan Guaidó, Venezuela’s other President whose claim to the position has been recognized by Donald Trump, has described his rival’s move toward a digital currency as a show of “desperation.” In true crypto form, Guaidó also lambasted Petro in 2017 for not being a real cryptocurrency as its value is determined by oil.
With the initial promise of cryptocurrency as the herald of a more egalitarian currency free of borders and regulators having been largely undelivered in the developed world, as such currencies are instead used for speculating and turning profits, Maduro is framing his decision to double-down on digital currencies as a return to the original vision.
“Donald Trump and his sanctions are blocking Venezuela from carrying out transactions in any of the world’s banks,” said the president this week. “There’s other formulas to pay, and it’s what we’re using, because our payment system works perfectly in China and Russia … Venezuela is working with the world of cryptocurrencies as a free national and international payments system … The finance minister and Venezuela’s central bank have new instruments which we will activate very soon so that everyone can do banking transactions, as well as national and international payments through the central bank’s accounts.”
Whether or not Maduro’s plan will actually fulfill the original hopes for Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies is unsure, what is certain however is that more and more world leaders and policy makers are beginning to consider digital currencies as an issue to be reckoned with, rather than something to hodl at arm’s length.
To Niche or Not to Niche, That Is the Fintech Question
October 1, 2019
A store that sells only cufflinks. A restaurant that serves nothing but grilled cheese sandwiches. A tiny stand where you buy only artisanal salt. In the not-too-distant past, these kinds of shopping and dining options were almost unheard of. Readers of a certain age will remember that if you wanted cufflinks, you went to an all-in-one department store like Macy’s. If you had a hankering for a grilled cheese sandwich, you ordered one off the kids menu at TGI Fridays. And if you wanted fancy salt, you probably learned how to make it yourself. But as times changed, so did consumer behavior, and industries adapted; these days a consumer can find a singular shopping or dining experience for almost any bespoke want or need (entirely egg-based restaurants—they’re a thing). These specialty places have done well by a) focusing on a niche product or service, b) applying expertise to something they believe in and c) executing and perfecting it daily.
In the past decade, the fintech industry has followed this model to a tee. Whether it was B2B or B2C, fintech startups broke the banking business into narrower segments, offering singular niche services for various finance needs, e.g. credit card refinancing, small business loans, student loans, P2P payments, mortgages and more. From this model, big banks became the TGI Fridays of financial offerings (where you go to experience a full spread of financial services), and fintech platforms became the speciality grilled cheese shops (where you go to get the one thing you really crave).
Fintech Niches Fill Big Gaps
Many startups went niche not only because it was a business model that worked, but because the legacy banking industry model was out of date and there was room for true disruption. With these opportunities, niche fintechs could hone in on services that fulfilled singular needs, and they could do it with a focus, passion and dedicated customer service that most general banks couldn’t provide—and the results of this have been mostly positive. Globally, financial inclusion of unbanked people has improved. According to The World Bank, 69 percent of adults or 3.8 billion people now have an account at a bank or mobile money provider. In the U.S., niche fintechs made it easier for small businesses to get a loan post-recession. A host of online lenders stepped in to fill the gap, understanding that without access to relevant capital, small businesses struggle, which ultimately affects economic growth, jobs and inflation.
Can Fintechs Stand up to Tech Giants?
Tech giants thrive when users treat their platforms/offerings as a one-stop shop, something that is already commonplace in China, where millions of people use Tencent’s WeChat app to do almost everything—pay bills, book medical appointments, chat, play games, read news and pay for meals. Although this is not at the same level of activity in the U.S., it is a trend likely to continue.
The winds have been shifting as fintech companies question whether it makes sense to stay true to their niche or offer additional services as a path to scalability and profitability. By taking the latter path, former niche startups are now either a) building out and offering more financial services or b) partnering with more established companies/banks. Some recent examples include eBay and Square Capital, Venmo and Uber and KeyBank and HelloWallet. These partnerships seem to be a win-win—for the niche companies hoping to solve for scale and revenue stream issues, and for the established companies looking to offer complimentary services their core customers already use—but they also have fintech startups standing at a crossroads. Will working a niche be sustainable in 2020 and beyond, or is becoming a jack of all trades the only means of survival?
Beware of Diluting the Brand
For starters, the only means of survival for any fintech company is to solidly define what the company brand is and what it stands for. For example, many small business lenders are deeply passionate about fueling the American dream through helping business owners unlock their financial potential. Supporting small business is key to our country’s economic fabric. Dynamism and the ability to recover from an economic downturn are both dependent on startups’ ability to grow quickly, and in most cases, the only way for them to do so is through access to capital. For a fintech lender to become a trusted brand to small business owners, it must remain devoted to them as a company that has the financial wellbeing and vitality of small businesses in mind. This means facilitating the right loan for them, right when they need it.
The key for fintech companies is to be careful about diluting the brand. When companies stray too far from what they are passionate about, their core audiences suffer. Tech giants enter new spaces every day, whether from R&D or acquisitions. A strong brand (and the loyalty its customers have to it) will not only insulate a fintech company from the tech giant threat, but make its mission and voice stronger by comparison. Think about this the next time you are eating at In-N-Out Burger (sorry, East Coasters!). The humble hamburger shop became a cultural phenomenon through its razor-sharp focus on simplicity, quality and consistency.
Always Consider the Human Factor
Innovation and automation are both critical to survival in the fintech space. But how much tech can a fintech leverage in its solutions to avoid becoming too niche? The answer lies in understanding the core customers’ needs and how much technology can be used to fulfill those needs. For an e-wallet app, the key needs of customers are frictionless payments and transfers happening in real time; it is not a solution (when it’s working) that needs a lot of human interaction. A fintech company such as this can use technology and machine learning to automate most of its services.
Conversely, the human factor is still a huge part of the equation in some fintech services. For example, a person’s livelihood is at stake when a small business takes on a loan or another capital solution for its growth needs. This is a very personal and consequential decision for a business owner. In fact, in the majority of cases, they don’t want to rely solely on a technology-powered platform to deliver the most appropriate loan options for their needs, not to mention address their specific concerns and questions. A fintech lender can leverage technology at every touchpoint to optimize the application and loan approval process; but ultimately, many business owners will desire interaction with a live representative, not a chatbot. The human factor is crucial in business lending, and something that could become lost as a result of brand dilution. While scalability is important, customer service is equally so.
In the end, the decision to offer niche services or to go wide will depend on what’s at the core of a fintech company. Indeed, the pressures to scale, grow and earn returns for investors are huge for any business, but decision-makers must keep their perspective on the market they serve and the problems they solve best. If expanded offerings and partnerships with other service providers enhance your brand and what it stands for, then this approach makes sense for growth and customer satisfaction. If not, then serving up the best grilled cheese sandwiches around, to the folks who really crave them, may well be the best path.
Head of MyPayrollHR Charged in Massive Nine-Year Bank Fraud
September 23, 2019
When MyPayrollHR left thousands of companies and their employees high and dry without their paychecks earlier this month, suspicion grew that the company’s rather mysterious owner, Michael Mann, may have been involved in some unsavory business. New information has emerged that around that time, Mann voluntarily checked in to the US Attorney’s office in Albany and admitted to a fraud he’d been running for 9 long years.
Since then, according to the Department of Justice, “Mann fraudulently obtained at least $70 million in loans from banks and other financial institutions. He created companies that had no purpose other than to be used in the fraud; fraudulently represented to banks and financing companies that his fake businesses had certain receivables that they did not have; and obtained loans and lines of credit by borrowing against these non-existent receivables.”
He has not paid them back. By the end, Mann resorted to kiting checks, the DOJ claims, in that he wrote checks back and forth to himself at different backs to inflate the balance of one or more accounts.
His largest creditor, Pioneer Bank, is owed tens of millions. Earlier this month, Mann attempted to route funds meant for his customers’ payrolls to an account at Pioneer Bank. Pioneer Bank responded by freezing all of the funds, causing all of MyPayrollHR’s clients to get caught in the crossfire.
Mann is charged with Bank fraud. If convicted, he faces up to 30 years in prison and a maximum $1 million fine.
Avi Wernick and Boris Kalendarev Move to RDM Capital Funding
September 23, 2019
Avi Wernick and Boris Kalendarev are joining RDM Capital Funding as the new Director of Partnerships and Strategy and CFO/COO, respectively.
The move comes after a fruitful year for the company, with it securing a $7.5 million credit facility from Charleston Capital, an amount that it has since extended; upping its funding originations from $300-500,000 per month at the beginning of 2018 to over $2.5 million currently; and witnessing 300% growth over the previous 12 months.
Wernick is moving from BlueVine, where he was a Business Development Manager. Seeking to develop and create new opportunities for RDM, as well as ensure the stability of these prospects, Wernick says that he’s bringing with him the skills and lessons learned at the New Jersey-based funding company, believing that how he will operate in RDM will serve as a “nod to his time and the guys at BlueVine.”
Prior to this, Wernick had done consulting work for Morgan Stanley in the early 2010s. Saying that he “wasn’t enthralled by” the world of institutional finance, he moved to RDM during its launch year, 2015, before starting at BlueVine in February 2018. Speaking of his homecoming to RDM, Wernick notes that he is excited to return to the “blend of ideas” that he says is integral to RDM’s approach towards operations and culture.
Kalendarev echoes this, saying that himself, Wernick, and Reuven Mirlis, RDM’s CEO, have been friends outside of business for years and that he enjoys the overlap of his personal and professional connections. “It’s something we arrived at gradually, it wasn’t like, ‘hey, we’re all working in finance, let’s pool our efforts.’”
Coming from Santander, where he was a Vice President, Kalendarev will be focusing on the operations of RDM. Having been a Financial Advisor for Wachovia Securities during the early years of college, as well as beginning his time at Santander during the days of his senior year, Kalendarev has been in finance for over ten years. On his departure from the Spanish bank he said that it “was a very hard role to leave,” but that he savored the risk which came with building a less established financial entity, saying that “you’re more aligned with it, you’ve got skin in the game.”
On the pair joining, Mirlis had to say, “We’re very, very excited for both Avi and Boris. They have an immense amount of value and they’re going to be an integral part of our group going forward. We’re extremely excited to have them on board and to see what’s to come going forward.”
When asked about what exactly may come in the future for RDM, Mirlis noted he plans to reach 300% growth for a second year in a row.
On the topic of the recent COJ bill, the new hires were optimistic, with Kalendarev remarking that RDM stopped using the contracts over eight months ago and that he thinks “it’s good for the space.” “It’ll be a challenge for these companies who tried to get rich quick and take short cuts and not build a sustainable operation,” said Wernick. “You know regulation is a scary thing.”
Gone with the Wind: $35 Million Missing as Payroll Company Closes and President’s Home Raided
September 18, 2019
Knocking on the door of a lake-view house in Edinburg, NY last week, reporters from both the Times Union and Daily Mail were met with pleas from a woman to leave her property and notice that she would call 911 if they continued. This week the FBI come knocking instead.
The woman is assumed to be Kim Mann, wife to Michael Mann, President of ValueWise Corp, who has recently vanished following the sudden closure of MyPayrollHR, a company belonging to ValueWise, and the disappearance of an estimated $35 million from employers who were using the company’s payroll services.
With his location currently unknown, Mann is at the center of a search for clarity as to what happened with the missing funds. Both the media, FBI, and victims of MYPayrollHR’s seeming misappropriation of funds are discussing his absence, with the last of these taking place in a Facebook group for those affected by the scandal.
The alarm bells began to ring on September 5th, when customers of MyPayrollHR were abruptly informed that the company would be shutting down that day. And they continued to ring when employers began receiving reports that their workers bank accounts had been docked the amount that should have been deposited for that pay period. Some victims have reported that they were credited twice for the same amount, and one employer has claimed that one of her employee’s had $1 million withdrawn from her account. The names on these transactions are a mix of the victims’ employers; MyPayrollHR; and Cachet Financial Service, a payroll processor that had been working with MyPayrollHR for twelve years.
Over 4,000 companies have been affected, with the number of employees impacted being in the tens of thousands. The unwarranted withdrawals have left many victims with negative balances, resulting in overdraft and late repayment fees.
Cachet similarly claims to be a victim, asserting that it risked losses of $26 million. Wendy Slavkin, General Counsel for Cachet, said last week in a Times Union interview that “as it stands today … the biggest victim, and really the only victim and victims, is Cachet … The employers are getting back their money, we are not.” This week it became clear that Cachet was responsible for withdrawing wages due from employers and depositing these in a holdings account, and that because of what Slavkin described as “manipulation,” these funds were deposited in accounts under Mann’s control. Cachet, realizing that it was now down $26 million, withdrew the amounts due to employees from their accounts.
Slavkin’s claim of Cachet being the singular victim has been decried by members of the Facebook group ‘victims of MyPayrollHR and CachetFS,’ which over 2,000 have joined. “How can you be general counsel for a bank that specializes in payroll and not understand how banking or payroll work?” Asked one user. “What is wrong with Wendy Slavkin?!” Asked another. And “Cachet Banq is just as scummy as MyPayrollHR has turned out to be,” asserted a third. One member of the group also stated their intentions to file a lawsuit against Cachet this week.
Meanwhile, other payroll companies have been active within the group. DailyPay has set up a $25,000 relief fund to aid victims pay off their overdraft and late fees, and Paylionce has been privately messaging members of the group offering their payroll services.
Vocal members have urged others to report their cases to the National Automated Clearing House Association, saying that they have helped with the recovery of their wages, especially those who are with Bank of America. While others have claimed that Cachet has partially refunded what was credited, restoring the first withdrawal to the account but not the second.
Currently, uncertainty remains as to what exactly happened with the $35 million that has gone missing. Michael Mann is seemingly nowhere to be found and no media outlet has been able to produce a photo of either Michael or his wife Kim. The former’s LinkedIn profile is sparse except for two entries in his work history as well as endorsements for, among other things, strategic planning and customer relationship management.
All that there is to work off is a panicked call that Mann made to the Edinburg Building Department on September 5th, in which he asked about a permit he had received the previous year to build a two-car garage with a bedroom and bathroom above it onto his home in Adirondack Park, which he noted might have to be sold.
Earnin, Say What’s Your Price? Nas-backed Earnin Comes Under Investigation
September 17, 2019
Earnin, the self-proclaimed alternative to payday loans, is part of a new online lending category that is under investigation in eleven states and Puerto Rico for its similarities to payday loans. With such loans being banned in sixteen states, the app-based personal loans company has drawn the attention of various regulators after it was suggested that its lending model potentially shares a similar APR with payday loans.
Backed by rapper Nas (only as of June and on undisclosed terms), the company came under fire after it was reported that in a meeting its founder and CEO, Ram Palaniappan, discussed hiring a private investigator to look into the past of a New York Post journalist that was writing about them.
Operating under a ‘tipping’ system, Earnin profits from the loans it provides by suggesting that customers give a voluntary tip when repaying their loans. The default amount is $9 per $100 taken, but people have paid up to $14 per $100, this being the limit one can tip.
According to the New York Post, these tips can lead to APRs of over 400% for an individual advance. Uncertainty looms over Earnin’s model as the phrasing of ‘tipping’ confuses whether or not this can be classified as a loan fee. Say what’s your price? Borrowers may not be aware that their tip could put the loan’s cost on par with costly payday loans.
Earnin relies on analytics gathered from customers’ phones, with the company knowing how much users are paid per hour as well as knowing how long they were at work via their location, Earnin can accurately predict incoming wages.
In a company statement, Earnin said that its system “is a brand new model, so we expect, and welcome questions from regulators like the New York Department of Financial Services.” Since this announcement, Earnin no longer suggests a tip to users in New York and Nas has yet to comment on the situation.
Online Lender Wins Massive Arbitration Award After Retailer Challenged The “True Lender” Of The Loans
September 13, 2019
An arbitrator was unconvinced by a retailer’s arguments that business loans it obtained from Celtic Bank via Kabbage were responsible for the business’s eventual failure.
In 2017, NRO Boston, LLC and Alice Indelicato filed a lawsuit against Kabbage Inc. and Celtic Bank Corporation for allegedly violating Massachussetts’ usury law when the parties engaged in financing transactions years earlier. The complaint alleged that Kabbage’s relationship with Utah-based Celtic Bank was a “rent-a-bank” scheme that enabled Kabbage, as part of a sham, to piggyback off of Celtic Bank’s exemption from state usury laws. State chartered banks are typically not subject to state usury laws even in other states. The usurious loans it obtained from the parties, NRO argued, caused severe mental anguish, emotional distress, and financial strain which forced them to obtain even more loans from other lenders.
At the time, the National Law Review said this case exemplified the litigation risk inherent in using bank partnerships and that it was the latest example in the burgeoning area of “true lender” litigation.
Kabbage responded to the suit by enforcing its arbitration provision and the underlying litigation was stayed. The arbitration process proved to be extensive and expensive and tallied up more than 800 exhibits and 12 witnesses. On July 24, 2019, the arbitrator announced his decision, and it didn’t bode well for NRO Boston.
The difficulties the retailer encountered, the arbitrator wrote in his written decision, were caused by the owners’ inexperience, mismanagement of the business, the rapid expansion of the business, the assumption of millions of dollars of debt, and excessive owner compensation. NRO’s F rating with the BBB and the fact that the owners had paid themselves a whopping $1.3 million from 2010 – 2013, well in excess of industry averages, were reasons the business failed, the arbitrator wrote. Furthermore, Kabbage and Celtic Bank only accounted for 2.3% of NRO’s debt.
“The obvious conclusion, and I so find, is that Celtic and Kabbage and their business arrangement had nothing to do with the demise of NRO.”
More to the point, the arbitrator concluded that there was no merit to the allegation that Kabbage’s relationship with Celtic Bank was a “rent-a-bank” scheme.
As a result, Celtic Bank was awarded a grand total of nearly $3.3 million in legal fees, costs & expenses, and the outstanding balance owed on the loans.
On September 9, NRO filed a petition in federal court to vacate the arbitration award, in part because they believe the arbitrator engaged in a manifest disregard of the law. The matter is currently pending.
