Some Alternative Funders See Pot As Next Big Market Opportunity
October 17, 2016
For some funders, marijuana is not just about sewing their wild oats. Rather, they see the business potential of being early to what’s expected to be a highly profitable and long-lasting party.
Indeed, for the right type of funder, doling out money to marijuana-related businesses is a promising market—certainly in the short term because these companies are so capital-starved. Because marijuana is still classified by the feds as an illegal drug, many related businesses can’t even get a bank account much less access to bank loans or more traditional funding. Many alternative funders are also unwilling to lend to marijuana-related businesses, which has left a significant void that’s beginning to be filled by opportunistic private equity investors, venture capitalists and others.
Meanwhile, rapidly shifting public opinion and state-centered initiatives bode well for what many estimate is a multi-billion dollar market. Indeed, industry watchers say marijuana funding will eventually be an even stronger niche than lending to alcohol producers, tobacco companies or pharmaceuticals because of all the ancillary business opportunities related to medical marijuana use.
“I think it’s probably the biggest opportunity we’ve seen since the Internet,” says Steve Gormley, managing partner and chief executive at Seventh Point LLC, a Norwalk, Connecticut-based private equity firm that invests in the cannabis industry. “Consumption continues to grow and demand is there,” he notes.
Despite shifting public opinion, legalized marijuana use is still quite controversial. So, all things considered, it takes a particularly thick-skinned funding company—one that has no moral objectives to marijuana and is also willing to accept a significant amount of legal, business and reputational risk—to throw its hat in the ring.
One of the biggest challenges keeping banks and many mainstream funders at bay is that cannabis remains illegal under law. Despite numerous attempts by proponents to scrap marijuana’s outlaw status, the DEA recently dealt out a significant blow by opting to maintain the status quo. This means that for the foreseeable future marijuana remains a Schedule I drug, on par with LSD and heroin, and as a result many lenders will choose to remain on the sidelines for now.
It remains promising, however, that over the past several years, the federal government has taken a more laissez-faire approach, giving individual states the authority to decide how they will deal with legalizing marijuana use. Forty-two states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories of Puerto Rico and Guam have adopted laws recognizing marijuana’s medical value, according to the Marijuana Policy Project, an advocacy group. Four states—Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Colorado—as well as the District of Columbia have gone even further. They allow the recreational use of marijuana for adults, with certain restrictions. Meanwhile, marijuana initiatives are on the November ballot in numerous states.
As these changes have percolated, forward-thinking alternative funders have been dipping their toes in the market—getting an early start on a market that’s hungrily looking for growth capital. “The last couple years there have been fewer investors than capital needed, but we believe that tide is changing,” says Morgan Paxhia, managing director and chief investor of Poseidon Asset Management LLC in San Francisco, an investment management company founded in 2013 to invest exclusively in the cannabis industry.
Paxhia says he’s starting to see more venture capitalists, lease-finance companies and private equity investors willing to provide liquidity to marijuana-based companies that are seeking to grow. The short-term cash advance marketplace, however, is not there yet. The challenge is finding funders willing to do the business with them.
“The people that are building these businesses have to always be worried about their cash. It’s not a given that they’ll get new additional investment,” Paxhia says. “Most people are quick to brush it aside. They won’t give it a minute to take a serious look at it and understand that it is already a multi-billion dollar market growing at 30 percent annualized for the next several years,”
A QUIETLY GROWING INDUSTRY
There are a number of private investors and venture capitalists who have spent the last several years researching and ramping up to invest in what they see as a goldmine of business opportunities. Many of these companies aren’t shy about publicly expressing their support for change.
“We see this as an opportunity of a lifetime to witness a societal change and we want to be a part of it,” says Paxhia who together with his sister runs a $10 million investment fund.
At the same time, there are also some alternative funders who dabble in this space and won’t discuss it publicly—partly because of the perceived stigma and partly out of concern that their financial backers won’t approve. To cover themselves, some are only willing to deal with companies that have hard assets. Often times the rates they offer are much higher than businesses in other industries with comparable financials would pay.
Andrew Vanam, founder of Rx Capital Funding LLC, an ISO in Norwalk, Connecticut, who focuses on the healthcare and medical industry, has helped a handful of few marijuana-related businesses get funding in the past few years and would love to help facilitate more deals. But he says it’s extremely difficult to find lenders that are willing to fund cannabis-related businesses as well as offer reasonable rates. Many of the files he generates in the cannabis space have incredible financials, positive cash flow, and month-on-month growth. However, lenders still treat these businesses as high-risk and offer rates so high it’s not even worth bringing back to a client. Instead, “they are taking hard money loans from private investors that put these cash advance offers to shame,” he says.
ASSESSING THE RISKS
Certainly there are risks to funding marijuana businesses. In Colorado—one of the first states to legalize the recreational use of marijuana—values are getting lofty, and people are overpaying for properties that house marijuana-related businesses, notes Glen Weinberg, a partner in Fairview Commercial Lending, a hard-money lender with offices in Atlanta and Evergreen, Colorado.
Weinberg has financed between 75 and 100 commercial real estate loans where marijuana businesses were involved, but says recently he’s shied away. “I’m not comfortable with the valuations at a lot of these marijuana properties,” he says.
Even investors who are bullish on the space urge caution. “If you’re in a [nationwide] market that is growing at about 64 percent per year, that rising tide floats all boats, but there’s a lot of risk, so you have to be careful,” says Chet Billingsley, chief executive of Mentor Capital Inc., a public operating company in Ramona, California, which acquires and provides liquidity for medical and social use cannabis companies.
Billingsley says he has learned some hard lessons through his dealings with about nine marijuana-related companies. For example, he recently won a court judgment against a company that Mentor had supplied with millions of dollars in cash and stock. The company later balked at the terms of the deal and tried to renege, but Mentor ultimately prevailed in court. Still, Billingsley says Mentor went through many unnecessary hassles and racked up $300k in legal costs over the course of its two-and-a-half-year legal battle.
Many business owners in the marijuana space started out during a period when it w as completely illegal. Often these companies march to the beat of their own drum; to protect themselves, lenders need to do more than offer a standard funding contract and hope for the best, Billingsley says.
“The contract has to be solid and it has to be explained in detail to the marijuana operator who is often not sophisticated with regard to contracts.” If you leave things open to interpretation, you’re likely to end up in court, where anything can happen, he cautions.
Companies that fund cannabis businesses say they have very extensive vetting processes—so much so that they turn away a good portion of requests. Jeffrey Howard, managing partner of Salveo Capital in Chicago, says about two-thirds of the companies that come across his desk don’t make it past the company’s initial criteria. “We see a ton of companies and business plans from companies seeking capital to raise money,” he says. “We are going to be very selective about who we invest in and how much.”
Gormley, of Seventh Point, leverages all the same resources he would if he were buying any retail or production manufacturing outfit. He does extremely invasive vetting of the individuals involved and uses private detectives to help.
It many cases it comes down to the business’s management team, according to Paxhia of Poseidon Asset Management. “All the businesses are very early-stage and most companies have a very short track record, so you have to place a greater emphasis on the people,” he says.
OPPORTUNITIES ABOUND
Despite the risks, funders that work in the marijuana space say they are filling an important need by providing capital to marijuana-related businesses. For Gormley of Seventh Point, it’s a calculated risk in an area he’s been following for quite some time. “How often do you get to be part of history, and how often do you get to participate in a burgeoning market?” he says.
Industry participants stress the many funding opportunities aside from companies that cultivate and distribute the plant. Indeed, there are many ancillary businesses that provide products and services geared towards patients and cannabis users without having anything to do with the actual plant.
Howard of Salveo Capital, says his company is gearing up to provide private equity and venture capital to several marijuana-related businesses through its Salveo Fund I and will only make select investments into companies that “touch the plant.” The goal is to eventually have $25 million of committed capital to invest in multiple early-stage companies that offer ancillary products and services to the marijuana industry. “We think there’s more exciting opportunities than ‘touch the plant’ investments,” he says.
Crowdfunding platforms are another avenue for companies in the marijuana space. This type of funding hasn’t yet been utilized to its full potential, industry watchers say.
Eaze Solutions, a San Francisco-based provider of technology that optimizes medical marijuana delivery, is one example of a company that turned to crowdfunding. It raised part of a $1.5 million infusion to fund its expansion via the crowdfunding site AngelList in 2014. Loto Labs, in Redwood City, California, is another example. It raised more than $220k via Indiegogo to fund production of its Evoke vaporizer. There’s also CannaFundr, an online investment marketplace for companies in the cannabis industry to gain access to capital.
Seth Yakatan, co-founder of Katan Associates in Hermosa Beach, California, suggests that crowdfunding will become more of an option for certain types of cannabis based companies, specifically those that aren’t as closely tied to the actual production of the plant. “Until federal regulations change, it’s going to be hard to raise money for an entity where you are actively engaged in the cultivation, distribution or sales of a product that’s federally illegal,” says Yakatan, whose company invests in and advises cannabis-related companies that have a biotech or pharmaceutical orientation.
Because laws on legalized marijuana are still in limbo, industry watchers say the market is still many years away from being mainstream. “Public perception will be similar to alcohol in 10 years from now,” predicts Weinberg of Fairview Commercial Lending, adding that he expects banks to enter the funding arena in five to 10 years.
In the meantime, alternative funders who can stomach risk continue to pave the path for others. Howard of Salveo Capital expects private equity investors, venture capitalists and other alternative players to continue playing a big role in getting the nascent industry off the ground.
“I strongly believe that in the interim there’s a significant advantage for players like us to be funding and to be in on the ground floor of this industry before it changes,” Howard says.
Indeed, many alternative funders believe the potential upside significantly outweighs possible negative consequences. “The perceived risk at this point is far greater than the actual risk,” says Paxhia of Poseidon Asset Management.
Funding The Great White North
September 13, 2016
As of last year, 98 percent of Canada’s employers were small businesses compared to 0.3 percent (2,933) large companies. Given this and what we know about Canada’s banking oligarchy, dominated by five large banks, it was inevitable that American alternative lenders would go looking for greener pastures in Canada.
When OnDeck set foot in the country two years ago, it accelerated the alternative lending movement by offering loans up to $150,000 CAD. But OnDeck wasn’t the first to discover the Canadian market. Merchant cash advance companies such as Principis Capital and AmeriMerchant (today Capify) have been there since 2010. Principis actually draws close to 15 percent of its business volume from Canada. But the credit that’s due to OnDeck is for expanding the horizons of small businesses who have been conditioned to think that lending begins and ends with banks. The crop of Canadian alternative lenders who do not otherwise have the resources for similar blitzkreig marketing are pleased with the industry’s promotion in general.
“We are happy that some of the bigger US players are coming up here and they are spending millions of dollars on advertising,” said Bruce Marshall, vice president of British Columbia-based Company Capital. “These companies raise awareness of the industry to a higher level and with us being a smaller company, we can ride on their coattails,” he said.
Company Capital has been operating as a balance sheet lender for five years and has provided term loans, working capital loans, merchant cash advances and ‘cash lines’ which are similar to lines of credit. For lenders such as Company Capital which makes loans in the range of $30K – $50K, the presence of bigger players like OnDeck saves them from consumer education-oriented marketing campaigns. “We cannot compete with the advertising of big companies but it works in our favor of creating awareness and becoming more mainstream,” Marshall noted.
And this not only helps the Canadian companies but also smaller US companies that feel comfortable entering a market with a leader. OnDeck’s presence nudged Chad Otar, founder and managing partner of New York-based commercial finance brokerage Excel Capital Management into considering Canada as a viable market. “We saw OnDeck go there and thought that there is some kind of money we can make,” he said.
But for OnDeck, Canada might just as well be another large US state. Most American companies including OnDeck, Principis Capital and Excel Capital run their Canadian operations remotely, treating it much like an extension to their US business with similar products.
“Our range of business is virtually the same in Canada as in the US. We don’t need to have an operation center there,” said Jane Prokop, CEO of Principis Capital. The company approaches Canada just like the US with accounts and customer service being handled in a similar fashion. “It’s a very manageable extension of the US market,” Prokop said. “It’s a smaller market so someone who enters Canada cannot expect the same kinds of volume as in the US.”
It also certainly helps to be spread across the same time zones and in such close proximity where a majority of the country also speaks the same language. If it was that easy though, shouldn’t we have seen more companies doing this?
“The fundamentals of the Canadian market are different. Our banks are established and trusted and in general do quite a good job, so the opportunity for market expansion is different than in the US,” said Jeff Mitelman, CEO of Thinking Capital, one of the country’s first alternative lenders.
Prior to Thinking Capital, Mitelman founded and ran Cardex, Canada’s first ISO which offered lending products with payment services. And that competitive edge helped him recently to partner with payment solution company Everlink to expand its customer base and offer loans online. The company previously secured credit facilities worth $125 million from two of the biggest banks in the country, The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and Nova Scotia.
Picking up the same strategy, some American companies decided to bank on these big banks (pun intended) for their success. For instance with Kabbage, it made sense to license its automated platform to Nova Scotia Bank and to rely on them to deploy capital while Kabbage provides the technology and customer experience. “We saw that Canada is ripe for technology but the differences in regulation among other things made us go the partner route,” said Peter Steger, head of business development at Kabbage.
The advantages of having an incumbent customer base, the brand equity and the supply of capital usually outweighs the costs and inconveniences of maneuvering in an unfamiliar business environment that only a few firms have the bandwidth for, some companies contended.
Secondly, there is a lack of reliable and robust data necessary for making lending decisions. Since only a handful of large financial institutions dominate the landscape, the data reported is limited to a small number of players and the outputs from credit bureaus may not be sufficient for making a credit decision. “The availability and access to government and financial data is scarce in Canada compared to other markets,” said Jeff Mitelman. “Most of the data relationships that fintech companies rely on, need to be developed on a one-to-one basis and is often proprietary information.”
Having the data presented in the right format can save a lot of underwriting time. Companies in Canada find the government and financial data available to be scanty and in less than ideal form. David Gens, CEO of Vancouver-based Merchant Advance Capital noted that Canadian merchants are slower to adopt technology which adds to the woes of online lenders. “Believe it or not, some Canadian merchants still use fax,” he said.
Even as the country plays catch up, Canadian lenders consider the market to be large enough for many players. “At this time, education is more important than competition,” said Mitelman.
Canada’s geographical dispersion and regional differences however are peculiar. The four provinces of Quebec, Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia make up 86 percent of the population and the greater part of the economic activity. And Quebec is often avoided, in part because of the bilingual mandate that requires businesses to advertise and produce materials in French. OnDeck and Company Capital both do not operate there, for example.
The cultural differences can also determine how customer relationships are handled, and being a part of that culture has given Canadian companies an upper hand. “It does definitely help to have a home advantage in terms of understanding the local peculiarities,” said David Gens. “Marketing to Canadian merchants is also different — being aggressive might not work very well here and they like to know they are dealing with someone nearby.”
For financial brokers such as Otar, Canadian usury laws can appear restrictive. As per Canadian interest rate rules, Under Section 347 of the Criminal Code (Canada), interest rates exceeding 60 percent per annum are termed “criminal rates of interest” and “interest” in the Criminal Code is broadly defined as a broad range of fees, fines and expenses which includes legal expenses.
“US lenders have had to change their way of doing business. Since, APR is less here, if your product is a loan contract, you will be restricted and you will have to service low risk for low rates,” said David Gens.
Even so, the business emerging out of Canada may now be supplemental for American lenders and the potential for growth beneficial to diversification.
Again? Wells Fargo Fined $100 Million for Creating Fake Accounts
September 8, 2016The CFPB fines Wells Fargo, again — this time for opening unauthorized deposit and credit card accounts.
The agency fined the bank $100 million after employees opened “more than two million deposit and credit card accounts” unbeknownst to borrowers, racking up fees and charges, the CFPB said in a statement. Wells Fargo is also required to pay $2.5 million in customer refunds.
According to an internal analysis conducted by the bank, employees opened 1.5 million deposit accounts and 565,000 credit card accounts, issued debit cards and enrolled customers to online banking without consent, for bonuses and meeting sales goals.
“Wells Fargo employees secretly opened unauthorized accounts to hit sales targets and receive bonuses,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Because of the severity of these violations, Wells Fargo is paying the largest penalty the CFPB has ever imposed. Today’s action should serve notice to the entire industry that financial incentive programs, if not monitored carefully, carry serious risks that can have serious legal consequences.”
This is strike two for Wells Fargo from the CFPB which alleged that the bank indulged in illegal student loan practices by charging consumers illegal fees, not reporting credit score information accurately and a failure to provide adequate disclosures for payment information. The bank agreed to settle the case for $4 million.
Sunshine and Deal Flow: Who’s Funding in Puerto Rico?
September 1, 2016
Lots of small businesses need capital in Puerto Rico and not many companies are trying to provide it. Combine that with the island’s tax incentives, tourist attractions and gaggle of ambitious entrepreneurs, and America’s largest unincorporated territory can seem like an archipelago of opportunity for the alternative small-business finance community – a virtual paradise.
But for alt funders, the sunshine, sandy beaches, swaying palms, picturesque rocky outcroppings, rich history and renowned cuisine can’t change two nagging facts about this tropical commonwealth that 3.4 million people call home. Alternative finance remains largely unknown on the island, and it’s difficult if not impossible to split credit card receipts there.
Let’s start with the good part. “If you call a restaurant in Los Angeles at 2 o’clock in the afternoon, you’re the 15th person to call them that day, but if you’re calling a business in Puerto Rico, you might be the only one,” says Andrew Roberts, director of partnership development for Merchant Cash Group, which funds some deals on the island. “So it’s not the same cutthroat competitiveness that we have here.”
But consumers in Puerto Rico’s tourist areas rely on PIN debit cards, which don’t qualify for split funding between merchants and finance providers because the cards don’t have Visa or MasterCard logos and thus merchants can’t run them as credit transactions, Roberts says. Besides, processors on the island don’t want to split the revenue from credit card transactions between funders and merchants, either, Roberts notes. “If there’s a processor in Puerto Rico that will split fund, I haven’t been unable to find them,” he says. “Believe me, I have looked.”
The two main processing platforms on the island, Global and First Data, require ISOs to carry 100 percent of the risk on a split, according to Elevate Funding CEO Heather Francis, who was involved in the island market at another company before taking her current job. That’s why split remittance “remains almost nil” in Puerto Rico, she says.
Splitting funds by using a “lockbox” – which works like an escrow account and distributes a certain percentage of receipts to the merchant and the rest to the funder – doesn’t provide a solution because banks in Puerto Rico decline to use the option, Roberts maintains. That’s why he advises that it’s easier to offer ACH-based products on the island.
Merchants on the island have to meet the same requirements for ACH that apply on the mainland, Roberts notes. That includes a reasonable number of checks returned for non-sufficient funds and a reasonable number of negative days. “The underwriting procedure on the island is pretty much the same as it is here,” he says.
Perhaps the difficulties of setting up the split in Puerto Rico shouldn’t cause any uneasiness about entering the market because the bulk of alternative funding on the island relies on daily debits—just as it does on the mainland, Roberts says. Still, he notes that some merchants in both places may qualify for split funding but fail to measure up for daily debit.
Though merchants and funders have those commonalities, the banking systems differ on the mainland and on the island. Banco Popular, which has held sway in Puerto Rico for nearly 120 years, controls much of the island’s banking and inhibits the growth of alternative funding for small businesses there, Francis says. Still, Puerto Rican merchants should have some familiarity with alternative finance or high-fee products because of the island’s high concentration of title loan companies, she notes.
Similarities and and differences aside, the Puerto Rican market provides a little business to some mainland alternative finance companies. United Capital Source LLC, for example, has completed five deals for small businesses on the island, says CEO Jared Weitz. Companies can provide accounts receivable factoring there, he says.
Alternative funding has yet to post runaway growth in Puerto Rico, Weitz says, because it’s not marketed strongly there, only a few mainland funders are willing to do business in Puerto Rico, the range of products offered there is limited, and small business remains less prevalent there than on the mainland.
But a handful of mainland-based companies have been willing to take on the uncertainties of the Puerto Rican market, and Connecticut-based Latin Financial LLC serves as an example of an ISO that has enthusiastically embraced the challenge. The company got its start in 2013 by offering funding to Hispanic business people on the mainland and began concentrating on Puerto Rico early in 2015, says Sonia Alvelo, company president.
Alvelo built a strong enough portfolio of business on the mainland that funders were willing to take a chance on her and her customers in Puerto Rico. Latin Financial now maintains a satellite office on the island, and the company generates 90 percent of its business there and 10 percent on the mainland.
Latin Financial has a sister company called Sharpe Capital LLC that operates on the mainland, says Brendan P. Lynch, Sharpe’s president. Alvelo describes Lynch as her business partner, and he says he’s started several successful ISOs. He credits her with helping Puerto Rican customers learn to qualify for credit by keeping daily balances high and avoiding negative days.
“It’s a small company with a big heart,” Alvelo says of Latin Financial. She was born in Puerto Rico and came to Connecticut at the age of 17. “For me it’s home,” she says of the island. She’s realizing a dream of bringing financial opportunity to business owners there.
To accomplish that goal, Alvelo spends much of her time teaching the details of alternative finance to Puerto Rico’s small-business owners, their families, their accountants and their attorneys. “You want to make sure they understand,” she says, adding that the hard work pays off. “My clientele is fantastic,” she says. “I get a lot of referrals.”
Latin Financial started small in Puerto Rico when a pharmacy there contacted them to seek financing, Alvelo says. It wasn’t easy to get underway, she recalls, noting that it required a lot of phone calls to find funding. Soon, however, one pharmacy became three pharmacies and the business kept growing, branching out to restaurants and gas stations. Already, some merchants there are renewing their deals.
Growth is occurring because of the need for funding there. Puerto Rican merchants have had the same difficulties obtaining credit from banks as their peers on the mainland since the beginning of the Great Recession, Alvelo says. “It’s the same story in a different language,” she notes.
Speaking of language, Alvelo considers her fluency in Spanish essential to her company’s success in Puerto Rico. “You have to speak the language,” she insists. “They have to feel secure and know that you will be there for them,” she says of her clients. Roberts agrees that it’s sound business practice to conduct discussions in the language the customer prefers, and his company uses applications and contracts printed in Spanish. At the same time, he maintains that it’s perfectly acceptable to conduct business in English on the island because both languages are officially recognized.
People in Puerto Rico have been speaking Spanish since colonists arrived in the 15th Century, and English has had a place there since the American occupation that resulted from the Spanish-American War in 1898. Still, more than 70 percent of the residents of Puerto Rico speak English “less than well,” according to the 2000 Census, but that’s changing, Alvelo says.
Whatever the linguistic restraints, the products Latin Financial offers in Puerto Rico have been short-term, most with a minimum of six-month payback and a maximum of 12 months, but Alvelo hopes to begin offering longer duration funding. She also believes that split funding will come to Puerto Rico. “It’s in the works,” she asserts, noting that she is campaigning for it with the banks and processors.
At the same time, mainland alternative finance companies are learning that the threat of Puerto Rican government default does not mean merchants there don’t deserve credit, notes Lynch. “Just because the government is having trouble paying its bills,” he says, “doesn’t mean these merchants aren’t successful. The island is full of entrepreneurs.” In fact, many of Puerto Rico’s merchants use accountants and keep their business affairs in better order than their mainland counterparts do with their homemade bookkeeping.
Alvelo also knows many merchants there are worthy of time and investment. She strives to listen to her customers when they express their needs and then help them fill those needs. “I’m very, very proud to be doing this in Puerto Rico now,” she says.
IT’S A BROKER’S WORLD
August 31, 2016
From east to west, small businesses are getting funded. But how they’re found and who they work with depends on where they are. In the US, where brokers tend to have a love/hate relationship with the funding companies they work with, they are no doubt a driving force in the market. In other countries, they might not even exist, are just starting to bloom or they add balance to a mature market. Is the world built for brokers? AltFinanceDaily traveled far and wide to find the answers.
Down under in Australia where American-based merchant cash advance and lending companies have expanded, the ISO (which stands for Independent Sales Office and is synonymous with broker) model has not really followed. David Goldin, CEO of Capify, an international company headquartered in New York, told AltFinanceDaily that there’s very few ISOs in Australia.
He believes that’s because there’s next to no payment processing ISO market there, a foundation that was a major precursor in the US towards the development of ISOs reselling merchant cash advances and business loans.
Luke Schmille, President of CapRock Services, echoed same. The Dallas-based company founded Sprout Funding in Australia earlier this summer as part of a joint venture with Sydney-based family office Huntwick Holdings. “Direct marketing is the primary method [of acquiring deal flow],” he said. “The credit card processing space is controlled by several large banks, so you don’t see ISO efforts in the acquiring space either.”
Big bank dominance was only one reason why another country’s emerging alternative small business funding market developed slowly. In Hong Kong, non-bank alternatives like merchant cash advances faced legal uncertainty for a long time. For example, Global Merchant Funding (GMF), once the only merchant cash advance company in the Chinese special administrative region, had been relentlessly pursued for years by the Secretary for Justice for conducting business as a money lender without a license. GMF fought it. And won.
In May of this year, the legality of merchant cash advances ultimately prevailed after the highest court ruled the agreements were not loans. Emboldened, several companies have stepped up their marketing of the product. But whether they’re doing daily debit loans or split-processing merchant cash advances (both of which exist there), marketing tends to be directed at merchants, not a middle market of brokers.
Gabriel Chung of Hong Kong-based Advanced Express Capital said that there are a handful of large brokers typically comprised of former bankers, but the rest of the broker market is highly fragmented, mostly made up of individual freelancers.
Adrian Cook, the Founder and CEO of Hong Kong-based Asia Capital Advance, agreed that marketing is usually aimed at merchants directly but that it’s changing. “Since the market is still very new and MCA is only beginning to gain popularity, brokers on the market are only starting to recognize MCA,” he said. “There is a lot of room for the brokerage market to grow.”
In the UK, where Capify also operates, CEO David Goldin explained that the UK doesn’t have a lot of credit card processing ISOs so there wasn’t a major migration from that business to MCA like there was in the US. But that doesn’t mean there is no middleman market at all.
Paul Mildenstein, executive director of London-based Liberis, said that brokers are an important channel, but not as dominant as they are in the US. “Our brokers are usually members of the NACFB, an organisation in the UK that actively supports and provides operating principles to the furtherance of the commercial finance broker community,” he wrote. The National Association of Commercial Finance Brokers claims to have 1600 members, one among them is Liberis.
“Many clients want the support of an experienced professional who can discuss the financial options available to them in their specific circumstances,” said Liberis’ CEO, Rob Straathof. “Given relatively low awareness of the Business Cash Advance product in the UK, this means that brokers have a key role to play in educating potential customers on when this is the right option for them,” he added.
Straathof stressed a robust criteria for the brokers they work with and explained that brokers are their eyes and ears in the market. “The relationships we have with them are not transactional, but transformational for our business,” he said.
The NACFB was also praised by Alexander Littner, Managing Director of Chelmsford, Essex-based Boost Capital. The company, which is actually a subsidiary of Coral Springs, FL-based BFS Capital in the US, sees a balance between their use of brokers and their efforts to acquire customers directly.
“As the alternative finance market is still relatively new here in the UK these brokers are important for this independent advice, and to help educate the market and establish trust,” Littner said. “At Boost Capital we work very closely with brokers across the UK, they are a critical part of our growth and fundamental to our ongoing success.”
In the US, brokers play such a dominant role in customer acquisition that some MCA funding companies rely on them to source the entirety of their business. Back in February, Jordan Feinstein of NY-based Nulook Capital told AltFinanceDaily, “We decided that the best way to grow is to build relationships to avoid the overhead, compliance, training and manpower that a sales team would require.” Nulook markets its broker-only approach as a strength.
Others take a more blended approach, like Justin Bakes, CEO of Forward Financing, for example. “While our priority is to self originate, it is essential to create and maintain partnerships in this business,” he said earlier this year.
Notably, no such guiding authority like the UK’s NACFB exists for brokers in the US so it’s not easy to track exactly how many there are or how they operate, but their role in the industry cannot be understated. AltFinanceDaily actually labeled 2015 The Year Of The Broker, when it published an article in its March/April 2015 issue that tried to capture the essence of the industry at the time. Tom McGovern, who was then a VP at Cypress Associates LLC, said of brokers, “They’re like the missionaries of the industry going out to untapped areas of the market.”
But preaching the gospel of alternative funding exists at different stages across the world. And Goldin, whose company Capify operates in four countries including the US, thinks that many middlemen here at home may not ultimately survive. In an interview, he predicted that the stronger ones over time will be acquired by funding companies and that direct marketing will only increase. “I think more and more companies are going to start building their own internal sales forces,” he said.
Other brokers are not convinced that acquisition costs will lead to the death of their businesses, especially if they’ve already found ways to reduce overhead costs. Several brokers have discreetly mentioned running operations from Costa Rica, Nicaragua or elsewhere as a way to keep things profitable. Still more, like Excel Capital Management based in Manhattan, have found that offering a suite of products allows them to monetize more customers. Chad Otar, a managing partner for Excel, said that they recently brokered a $4.9 million SBA loan. MCA is just one of their options these days. “As long as there’s small businesses, there’s always going to be opportunity,” he said.
In the US, the brokers have certainly seized it, but that’s because most funding companies offer big bucks and quick payment to those that are capable of sourcing customers. In other countries, compensation for services rendered might be the responsibility of the broker to arrange with the merchant since it may not be customary for funding providers to pay commissions. That would mean more work and more risk for the broker.
Ironically, some brokers in the US will tap into both sides, earning a commission from the funder and charging a fee to the merchant for services rendered. And if the broker has payment processing roots, they can go a step further and earn merchant account residuals as well.
Brokers can’t exist without funding companies willing to support their endeavors, of course. While their prevalence around the world varies, most of the funding companies AltFinanceDaily spoke to, appear eager to nurture the middleman’s role, so long as they act responsibly.
“Brokers in the UK are incredibly important as independent advisors to small businesses on the various sources of finance to suit their needs,” said Littner.
And as long as those customers, wherever they may be, are getting the value they want from a broker, that role, so long as it can continue to be done profitably, will likely have a place in the world for the foreseeable future.
Can an ISO “Excel” in 2016?
August 26, 2016
Don’t let anyone tell you that it’s too hard for a commercial finance broker to make a buck in exchange for honest work these days. One ISO in lower Manhattan is seeing more opportunity than ever before. Chad Otar, a managing partner of Excel Capital Management, sat down with AltFinanceDaily to make his case for a bright future.
“As long as there’s small businesses, there’s always going to be opportunity,” Otar said. “Business owners are always going to need money.” Ironically, his own company that he cofounded in 2013 with hometown friend Nathan Abadi, was formed without any outside debt. Bootstrapped even to this day and even as they’re expanding, they’ve seen firsthand what other businesses around the country have to go through to get ahead.
“We’ve always believed in the products that we’ve sold,” said Otar, who brokers merchant cash advances, business loans, SBA loans, factoring products and more. They want every deal to help their clients whether it’s big or small, explaining further that even he himself has to feel comfortable with what the merchant wants. When asked about size, Otar said the largest SBA loan they got done was for $4.9 million.
But when questioned if more merchants were moving towards factoring and other traditional products, he explained that some merchants just don’t want to deal with the hassle of something that might be overly invasive or a process that might take a long time. They just want to get funded quickly, he said. And that’s where they come in.
Otar and Abadi’s optimism is not just anecdotal. The two partners, who previously renewed one year leases for their small office on Maiden Lane, saw enough runway to recently sign a five year lease for a 2,700 sq ft. office on Greenwich Street, staying within the bounds of the city’s financial district. Between full time employees and contractors, they currently house about fifteen people in their new office.
Though the partners live in Brooklyn, they, like many other companies in the industry, believe a Manhattan headquarters makes the most sense. “Everything is here,” Otar said. It’s easier to recruit new hires, he explained. And they indeed have immediate hiring plans now that they’ve got the space for it, both in sales and operationally.
This new up-and-coming generation of business owners is very comfortable with the Internet and technology, Otar added, speeding up the process and allowing they and the funding partners they work with to do more deals together. One example offered was a small business owner who gave a guided tour of his establishment to an underwriter using FaceTime on his phone. Normally, the process would’ve been delayed by a few days because of the time it takes to hire a third party to perform a site inspection.
Some funding partners offer DocuSign so that merchants don’t even have to spend time printing and signing documents anymore, he said, qualifying that however by adding that while some merchants love it, others hate it and feel more comfortable doing things the old fashioned way. He acknowledged that was likely due to the generational gap that still exists.
When asked if the setbacks and gloom that had begun to envelop the consumer lending side of fintech, was also affecting the commercial side, Otar said he didn’t see it. Funders are still very aggressive with approvals and terms, he said. While paperwork required for approval is declining overall, he described one obstacle that he hadn’t really dealt with in previous years, UCC filings that are accidentally left active even when the agreements are satisfied in full.
Underwriters doing due diligence might interpret active UCCs to mean that outstanding obligations still exist. Absent a formal termination of the UCC, an underwriter may request that merchants provide documents from the secured party to support that a termination should’ve been filed. This in itself is not a burdensome task but Otar said he has seen merchants who have used alternative financing products continuously over the last eight years or so, who are then challenged to produce satisfaction letters from dozens of companies, some of whom the merchant may only vaguely remember.
But he is not discouraged when new challenges come up. “We’ve been constantly learning,” he said. And when asked what their secret to success has been up until this point, “It’s hard work and dedication,” he responded.
Is The “Uber” Of Merchant Cash Advance Actually Uber?
August 15, 2016
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Uber is paying the alternative small-business finance industry a high compliment. The San Francisco based ride-sharing company is offering its drivers some programs that closely resemble merchant cash advances.
New drivers receive part of the advance before they pick up their first fare and the rest soon after that initial ride. Clearbanc, which bills itself as a financial services provider for “the self-employed, freelancers, independent contractors and entrepreneurs,” is putting up the money. As with a merchant cash advance, drivers can choose to pay back the Advance Pay funds by directing a portion of their weekly earnings to Clearbanc, according to a blog by Rachel Holt, an Uber regional manager. In the test the companies are limiting the automatic deductions to no more than 50% of the driver’s weekly paycheck, she said. Participating drivers can still work whatever hours they choose.
If $1,000 isn’t enough to put an aspiring Uber driver on the road, the company has another plan. Through the XChange Leasing program Uber automatically deducts car lease payments from drivers’ weekly income, a company spokesperson said. A number of financial institutions work with the ride-sharing company in the program, according to the Uber website.
Applicants have to agree to what the company calls “a routine screening.” If they’re approved they receive a list of participating local car dealers. The leases are up to three years for new cars valued at as much as $20,000 and used cars worth up to $18,500. Cars can’t be more than seven years old or have more than 75,000 miles. They have to have four doors and five seat belts. Drivers put up a $250 security deposit when they receive the leased car. Typically, they might have 156 payments of $115 each for a 2013 Toyota Corolla or 156 payments of $143 each for a 2016 Corolla. California requires rideshare insurance, and Uber provides it through Farmers Insurance or Mercury Insurance.
Unlike many standard automobile leases, XChange Leasing does not have mileage caps, and drivers can exit the program by giving two weeks notice and paying a $250 “disposition fee,” essentially forfeiting their security deposit, the Uber spokesperson said. For drivers who prefer to own their vehicles, Uber has negotiated fleet discounts with a long list of car manufacturers, the company said. The deals can reportedly bring drivers thousands of dollars in savings over the sticker price of a car. Meanwhile, Uber is testing another foray into financial services. Drivers can use “Instant Pay,” an Uber debit card from Green Dot’s GoBank division, to collect the cash immediately after finishing a ride, according to Holt. The cards don’t require a minimum bank balance and don’t carry any fees, she said.
The company seemed upbeat about its new offerings. “We look forward to seeing how these pilots progress and to making innovative payment solutions more widely available to drivers soon,” Holt said in her blog of Advance Pay and Instant Pay.
But some Uber drivers don’t share that optimistic view. In fact, Advance Pay and XChange Leasing have both come under fire for what critics view as disadvantages for drivers and for the economy as a whole. Some have gone so far as to label the lease terms practices as predatory.
Uber offers Advance Pay only to new drivers, and they could receive just about as much as a signup bonus, according to a blog on UberPeople.net, a website for drivers. The author of the blog speculated that the company is using Advance Pay to eliminate the signup bonus and also to do away with its bonus for referring new drivers.
Drivers have to pay off the advance in 15 weeks, according to the UberPeople blogger. At the rate of 30 cents per mile that drivers receive in Detroit, paying back the $1,000 would require logging 3,333 miles, approximately the distance from New York to California, the blogger lamented. However, Uber pays a lower rate in Detroit than in most cities, according to statements from other drivers.
And although Advance Pay carries no interest, Clearbanc charges drivers a fee of up to $50 if they fail to pay off the advance in 15 weeks, according to published reports.
Complaints also arise with XChange Leasing, according to a website called therideshareguy.com. Dealers sometimes refuse to provide used cars for the program because they can make more money with new cars, according to the site.
If the dealers are willing to provide used cars, problems sometimes surface because XChange Leasing prohibits leasing a used vehicle for more than 105% of its book value, the site said. Cars with a reputation for reliability, such as Toyotas and Hondas, often sell for more than book value, according to the site.
Drivers have reported elsewhere that they feel trapped by the leases, many of them continuing to work for Uber just to make the payments. However, the Uber spokesperson maintained that drivers can leave the program anytime after the first 30 days. Some critics bemoan the spread of subprime auto leases, which they have compared to the subprime mortgage debacle that contributed to the Great Recession that struck in 2008. Uber prefers comparisons to Amazon, a company that has expanded by continuing to enter new businesses.
In general, Uber has met resistance repeatedly from traditional taxi drivers who find their livelihood threatened by the ride-sharing service. Taxi drivers around the world have chided Uber for failing to pay taxes, obtain taxi licenses and uphold safety standards.
Complaints aside, Uber continues to grow prodigiously and now serves riders in more than 400 cities in 70 countries, according to metrics supplied by the Uber spokesperson. Seventy-five percent of Americans live in counties where Uber operates, the spokesperson added. Globally, Uber employs 7,000 workers and 1 million drivers, the company said.
The word “uber” is defined as “denoting an outstanding or supreme example of a particular kind of person or thing, according to a dictionary entry the company sometimes cites. In German, “uber” means “across” or “above.” Many potential riders know the word “uber” from the phrase “Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles,” a line from the German national anthem that translates as “Germany, Germany above all else.” The words to the song were written during Germany’s unification, and the lyrics refer to the idea that allegiance to the nation should trump loyalty to local kingdoms. Maybe Uber should stick with its own definition of “uber.”
Google’s Payday Loan Ad Ban References The Truth in Lending Act (TILA)
August 15, 2016
Did the government pressure Google?
Payday loan ads have mostly disappeared from Google’s search results after they banned ads for personal loans where the Annual Percentage Rate (APR) is 36% or higher. In a May 12th post, shortly after the proposed ban was announced, I speculated that the sudden change was likely due to government intimidation, rather than the come-to-Jesus moral reckoning claimed by Google’s Director of Global Product Policy, David Graff.
Google’s official Adwords policy regarding personal loans now cites the Truth in Lending Act, hinting that compliance with the policy is really about compliance with federal law.
Advertisers for personal loans in the United States must display their maximum APR, calculated consistently with the Truth in Lending Act (TILA).
This policy applies to advertisers who make loans directly, lead generators, and those who connect consumers with third-party lenders.
The TILA regulations can be found at 12 CFR Part 1026. The description of which charges are included and excluded from the calculation of “Finance Charge” is found in Section 1026.4. The APR calculation for “Open-End Credit” is found in Section 1026.14. The APR calculation for “Closed-End Credit” is found in Section 1026.22.
The timing of this change is suspicious since just one month before Google announced the ban, the owners of an online payday loan lead aggregator were hit with a lawsuit by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Among the allegations is that the defendants ran a lead aggregation business that did not attempt to match consumers with the best loan for their needs, as consumers were led to believe by some lead generators.
“In particular, consumers are likely to be steered to lenders that charge higher interest rates than lenders that comply with state laws, that do not adhere to state usury limits, or that claim immunity from state regulation and jurisdiction,” the complaint says.
The company the defendants ran, T3Leads, was also sued by the CFPB in a separate action.
Google too, as master aggregator, arguably does not attempt to match consumers with the best loan for their needs, nor have they likely been continuously vetting their lending advertisers for legal compliance. While Google has not been sued or accused of any wrongdoing, the CFPB seemed to be laying the groundwork for such a challenge in the future. And as a blanket hedge or perhaps after a direct threat, they’re now applying certain federal loan laws as if they were already subject to them.
You can see an example of the before-and-after of Google’s search results HERE.
