Catch up with Alternative Business Lending
May 7, 2013
If you feel like you’re falling behind on the news, you’re not alone. Things are happening FAST. here’s what you need to know:
5/7/13: Google Looks to Profit from Alternative Lending. Say hello to Mother Google.
5/6/13: Forbes interview with a Kabbage co-founder. It did not sound like they plan on remaining exclusive to the e-commerce side of business lending.
5/3/13: Summary of the ETA Expo. ACH is now the leading platform behind Merchant Cash Advance.
5/2/13: Google Acquires a Stake in Lending Club. This of course begged the question that was asked in BusinessWeek the next day on 5/3/13 in Does Google Want to be a Small Business Lender?
5/2/13: IOU Central smashes last year’s numbers. Publicly traded in Canada, this funder is only picking up steam.
5/1/13: Google Ventures and Peter Thiel invest in On Deck Capital. How’s that for big names?
5/1/13: My Silicon Valley VC prediction comes true with the On Deck and Lending Club announcements.
4/24/13: Business Financial Services Upgrades to $82 million credit facility. Not too shabby
4/24/13: IOU Central renews their credit facility.
4/24/13: Rumors begin to swirl that Amerimerchant has also landed a new credit facility. We have no confirmation on this.
How’s that for a 2 week span and those are just some of the headlines. More news is on the way as we are hearing rumors galore.
Be sure to join the industry chatter about these developments on DailyFunder in these 2 hot threads:
Google investing in the industry
OnDeck vs. Kabbage
I made another prediction back in February 2012 (Does Your Mom Sell Merchant Cash Advance?) in which I said consolidation was inevitable. With all these funders raising massive capital, mergers and acquisitions will be next on the agenda.
It Got Said – Merchant Cash Advance – Friday Fun
April 26, 2013In honor of Friday, we’re having some fun…
Caught on twitter
And Also
Business Financial Services landed an $82 million credit line
A third industry captain will be joining DailyFunder’s CEO Corner early next week at the ETA Expo. Stay tuned! Read articles put out by two other MCA CEOs.
Sean of Merchant Processing Resource and the DailyFunder co-founders will be on the trade show floor of the ETA Expo next week. Considerable time will be spent at Merchant Cash Group‘s exhibit at booth #751 and a guest appearance at Strategic Funding Source‘s booth at #916. We’d love to see you there. Make sure you download the DailyFunder iPhone app as we will try to maintain a live blog of the events.
Beyond Merchant Cash Advance: An Interview With Karlene Sinclair-Robinson
March 24, 2013Guest: Karlene Sinclair-Robinson
People come to me for advice on business lending quite often. I’ve spent years helping small business owners obtain financing, many of whom were turned down previously by a bank. And so the story has been told that if traditional lending doesn’t seem to be an option, there is an excellent Plan B, Merchant Cash Advance (MCA). The characteristics of an MCA have changed over the years though, by a wide margin.
At one point in the past, they were discernibly different from a loan, and most often structured as a purchase of future credit or debit card sales. Factoring costs amongst funding providers were relatively uniform, and advances were estimated to completely pay off in 8 months or less. It’s different now. MCA has since been semantically broadened to include non-bank financial service programs that are structured as a loan. Factoring or interest rates costs vary widely, and terms can go out as long as 18 months.
But maybe you knew all that, and so when the follow up question becomes, “Sean, how else can I raise capital besides MCA?” I resort to throwing out buzz words such as Venture Capital financing or Peer-to-Peer lending. Oh I can tell you how these things work but certainly not with the amount of details that I could about MCA. As some folks depend on me to help them out and list all of their options, I find myself promising to send them “something” through e-mail later.
As I started drafting one e-mail, I began to wish there was a comprehensive book, one that I could simply recommend as an easy read to newly minted entrepreneurs and wise old business owners alike. It turns out that such a book exists and it’s got tons of tips that I hadn’t even thought of; It’s called Spank the Bank, by Karlene Sinclair-Robinson. I was so glad to have found it, that I went off in search of Karlene, hoping that she would be able to answer some of my questions. Luckily, she was nice enough to respond!
——————————-
Sean: Karlene, I can tell you from my experience in the MCA field that a lot of people looking to start a business hope that MCA is the answer when the bank turns them down, when in fact it is not. You list many alternative funding options in your book, so if an individual were interested in starting a restaurant or brick and mortar retail business, what 4 options would you recommend they try? Which one do you think they should try first?
Karlene: Sean, thanks for reaching out to me and spreading the word about my book, Spank The Bank. In response to your question, it reminds me of a jigsaw puzzle. Why you might ask? This is due, in part, to the type of business, industry, how much financing they need and who the new entrepreneur will be. There are variables that must be considered in order to decide on the best financing solutions. So, in order to help a restaurant startup or retail business, they should consider the following, if appropriate:
- Equipment Lease or Vendor Financing
- Franchise Financing
- Microloan or Peer-to-Peer Lending
- Private Commercial Loan
The great part about alternative financing is the ability to use more than one option at the same time to gain the financing needed.
Sean: You list Peer-to-Peer lending in your book as an alternative. I am familiar with Prosper.com, but are there any others that you know of? Do you have any tips to make such a lending campaign successful?
Karlene: Great question. Yes, there are more Peer-to-Peer lending sites. Prosper.com is one of the two major sites I mention in the book. LendingClub.com is the other site borrowers should consider. They have funded over U.S. $1.5 billion as of this month. LendingClub.com hit the billion $$$ threshold on November 5, 2012, and so, in the space of just over 4 months have financed more than $500 million in loans. What is so unique about both sites is the maximum amount they can lend. Prosper lends up to $25,000 while Lending Club goes up to $35,000. Are they making a difference? Absolutely! By the way, this is not just a U.S. phenomenon, it is happening worldwide. Checkout Kiva.org
Sean: You mentioned that a website is important to alternative financing sources. I find this very interesting and agree with you completely. I have gone so far as to suggest to my peers in lending that in 2013 and beyond, it does not make sense to approve a business that does not have a website, even if the business looks decent on paper. There is even one specialized MCA firm that I know of that actually evaluates the amount of Likes and Followers you have on social media in the application process. For a very small business that just needs to get their web presence up and running, how much do you think it would cost to do this and would they need to hire a designer or programmer?
Karlene: Thanks for agreeing with me on the website factor. I believe it should be a part of the due diligence process. In order to help those who are in need of website development, I suggest you check with you local area SCORE offices, Small Business Development Centers, Women’s Business Centers or other business affiliated sources that can give you a good reference to a web designer or use networking sources to help you find a competent one. Depending on what must be on the site, the price can range from $500 to as high as $10,000. No startup business needs to pay that much. Use a budget that is in line with what you need first; then add on what you want at a later date. Be sure to carefully read the web designer’s contract that outlines what they are going to do and the cost to you. Pay for services based on work completed. Most will require a down payment.
Sean: A tough question now. Is it feasible for an entrepreneur that literally has no capital of their own to invest in their startup to go out and raise 100% of the funds to see it through? I ask because I have heard this story a lot. “I have a great business plan but I have no funds to make it reality.” Do they need to save up their own money first to get started? Even alternative lenders like MCA firms prefer for a business owner to be personally financially invested. It makes them more confident that the owner will never give up.
Karlene: This is a great question Sean. Let us add to the question – how much are they seeking? Again, the type of business will also determine the funding possibilities. However, let me make this very clear: startups need to come to the financing table with something to back them. Whether you are using savings, family and friends, or your IRA, having some money in the transaction or added collateral appropriate to the financing option to be used, makes it more likely that the financing request will be approved.
Sean: I’ve heard all the rumors about SBA loans; That they take 6 months to get an approval, 9 months to get the funds, that the bank can change their mind at the last minute, etc. But i’ve also heard it can happen in a matter of days. What is the real story here?
Karlene: Yes, I have to agree, there are a lot of rumors or myths about the SBA. Since I do not work for the SBA nor any banks providing SBA guaranteed loans, I cannot give the facts on this question. However, I can say this: since all financing requests (traditional and non-traditional) goes through due diligence phases from pre-qualification, initial approval, committee review (if appropriate) to final approval for transfer of funds, depending on all parties involved, it can be fast or it can be slow. When borrowers are unwilling to provide financial records or don’t have the required collateral to make a transaction work, this can delay or stop the deal. I often tell borrowers, lenders are in the business of lending, the more qualified transactions they can approve; they will do so. If the borrower is not on par with their financial records, this can also slow down the process.
Sean: Great answer. I agree that part of how long an application process takes is on the shoulders of the applicant. The more prepared they are, the faster it should be. Any final words?
Karlene: Sean, I appreciate the invite to shed more light on this topic of alternative business financing. You offer a product that many non-banking customers can use. Finally, I’d like your audience to take from this conversation, if nothing else, the fact that they do have options available to help them. So when banks say ‘no’, they’ll know where to go.
Sean: Thanks so much for taking the time to speak with me personally and for answering several questions that tons of small business owners and even peers in my field find themselves asking at some point. You are doing so many good things out there to help people and your book is excellent.
——————————-
After our interview, I also got to sit in on a twitter talk show in which Karlene was a special guest. The show was #SmallBizChat, a weekly event at 8pm EST. You can read the extended interview between the host and Karlene at http://succeedasyourownboss.com/03/2013/where-to-go-when-the-bank-says-no-finding-alternative-funding-for-your-small-business/. I intend to join as many future events as possible. So if you stop by, please say hello. I am @financeguy74.
Bio
Karlene Sinclair-Robinson, dubbed “The Queen of Business Financing” is the Bestselling Author of ‘SPANK THE BANK: The Guide to Alternative Business Financing’. She is considered a foremost expert on ‘Alternative Business Financing’ for startups, small businesses and struggling entrepreneurs. She is a speaker, instructor, business consultant and principal of KSR Solutions, LLC, based in Northern Virginia. She is also a top Twitter Business Financing source to follow via @KarleneSinRob. Website: http://www.SpankTheBankNow.com.
Your Web Presence Matters to Alternative Lenders
March 20, 2013
A bunch of my risqué comments about what’s right and what’s wrong in alternative lending just got some support. Phew. I happened to be reading the news, you know about Merchant Cash Advance… and I found a delightful article on CNBC today titled, Starved for Cash, Main Street Turns to Alternative Lenders
First, I will merely point out some of my corroborated statements between what I said in The Inefficient Merchant Lending Market Theory on March 5th and the story on CNBC.
Me: How is a business REALLY doing? Reviews will tell you a lot so long as there are enough of them, and not just the star meter, but the actual written reviews. | A business’s whole reputation can’t be assessed from paperwork and credit scores, but it can be by hearing from people in the local community. I would go so far as to say that any business that does not have at least a website, business fan page on Facebook, twitter account, or a reasonable substitute should be automatically declined for financing.
————-
On CNBC: The new crop of lenders are also using nontraditional measures to assess applicants. Those measures can include payroll, Better Business Bureau ratings, Yelp ratings and more.But more recently, public databases and even social-media activity have been factored into the decision-making process.
“Every restaurant we do, we look at their Yelp review,” said Joseph Looney, chief operating officer and general counsel for cash-advance company Rapid Advance, which consults with data scientists to refine its methods and discover new insights into a business’ prospects.
Rapid Advance considers the mere presence of an active social-media footprint to be a good sign of an active business.
The technology platform of lender IOU Central pulls in data such as personal business credit information, business cash flow, social media rankings, and other information from various databases. It can even consider such factors as restaurants’ health score.
IOU Central’s system taps sources that include payroll data, insurance information, accounting records, and social-media data.
Me: Relying on weak indicators forces lenders to charge higher rates since they must compensate for the risk of unknowns. It also decreases the length of time that lenders can trust their borrowers to hold their money for.
————-
CNBC: Most alternative lenders offer shorter-term, higher-cost loans.Many rely most heavily on an applicants’ submitted bank statements or other financial data.
Merchant cash-advance companies have been around for years, Breslow said, but they typically made up for sloppier underwriting by charging high rates.
Side Notes
Not so sure about this one. From the CNBC article: “The alternative-lending industry average for a six-month loan was 38 percent when On Deck started in 2007. Now, it’s 15 percent, and Breslow said it may come down further as this underwriting continues to improve.” I don’t believe this figure to be accurate. In 2007, commissions to sales agents were embedded into the cost of a deal. Meaning, if a small business signed for a 1.38 factor rate, the sales office would get up to .10 of it, reducing the funder’s return to 1.28. Additional closing fees could be added on top of it, but were not necessary. With a 15% deal, funders like On Deck Capital expect sales agents to upsell on their own to earn their commission. So 1.15 may be the base rate, but since there are no margins built in for the sales agents to earn a commission, the cost can be upsold to 1.25 or some other figure. It’s true that the cost has come down but it’s not practical to compare 38% to 15% since the latter number is not net of fees. I’m pointing this out to inform merchants about what to expect, but also so people don’t get the wrong idea about how much the price has changed over the years.
Wow: “We have 40 engineers working on this system,” he said. IOU Central’s system taps sources that include payroll data, insurance information, accounting records, and social-media data.” 40 engineers? That’s kind of intense…
Read a story today that pretty much claims FICO is irrelevant in 2013: http://gigaom.com/2013/03/20/forget-fico-how-data-is-changing-the-rules-of-credit-and-underwriting/
Your Life or Your Bank Statements
February 20, 2013“Um, I don’t feel comfortable sending them to you because they’re private.” One of the most interesting things I experienced as a broker and underwriter is the amount of times I heard merchants tell me their bank statements were too private to send in. I understand it’s not exactly the same thing as telling someone your phone number, but if you’re applying for a loan or intend to sell your future receivables, this doesn’t really cross the line as being too personal.
Let’s be honest here, there’s plenty of folks who get defensive over this simply because they’re overdrawn and they don’t want the lender to see it. I’ve heard every trick in the book, “the last 2 months statements are lost and my bank refuses to send me copies”, “I switched bank accounts yesterday and my old bank won’t send me my previous statements now”, or “I’ll send them over as soon as I have 100% final approval on the loan.” These excuses won’t work and they set off red flags with underwriters. Besides, if you lie about something during the application process and then proceed to sign a guarantee on the loan agreement that you’ve disclosed EVERYTHING, then you’ve already placed yourself in breach of contract or worse, you’ve committed fraud.
But on the flip side, just as many applicants are worried that submitting their bank statements could lead to identity theft. Maybe there is a slight chance it does, but probably only if you’re sending them to someone that already has all of your other identifying information like your social security number. That’s the “interesting” part I spoke of earlier because few people flinch when filling out their social security number on the application. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to induce worry in businesses that want money. What am I trying to say is that waiting until late in the application process to do research on the lender or broker is too late. You need to be 100% confident in the recipient of your personal information before you even fill out the preliminary application on the first day.
When it comes to identify theft, Your social security number, name, address, and date of birth is really all it takes for you to be fully compromised. The rebuttal on the bank statements is always “But I don’t want someone to know my bank account number because then they might try to take money out of it.” Really? Have you ever written a check to someone? Have you ever signed up for direct deposit? Have you ever seen a waste basket full of bank receipts next to an ATM machine? I hate to say it but your bank account information is already public and you probably give it out to people on a daily or weekly basis. Routing numbers are shouted from the rooftops and you can see that for yourself at routingnumbers.org. If someone is going to try to debit money out of your account, your bank statements aren’t really necessary. It’s sad, but it’s true. Financial institutions review and audit businesses that debit their customers, but sometimes bad guys slip through the cracks. Generally if an unauthorized debit does happen, you are not liable for the loss. According to FTC.gov:
Since December 31, 1995, a seller or telemarketer is required by law to obtain your verifiable authorization to obtain payment from your bank account. That means whoever takes your bank account information over the phone must have your express permission to debit your account, and must use one of three ways to get it. The person must tell you that money will be taken from your bank account. If you authorize payment of money from your bank account, they must then get your written authorization, tape record your authorization, or send you a written confirmation before debiting your bank account. If they tape record your authorization, they must disclose, and you must receive, the following information:
The date of the demand draft;
The amount of the draft(s);
The payor’s (who will receive your money) name;
The number of draft payments (if more than one);
A telephone number that you can call during normal business hours; and
The date that you are giving your oral authorization.If a seller or telemarketer uses written confirmation to verify your authorization, they must give you all the information required for a tape recorded authorization and tell you in the confirmation notice the refund procedure you can use to dispute the accuracy of the confirmation and receive a refund.
In the event these rules are violated and a debit happens anyway, the FTC advises this:
If telemarketers cause money to be taken from your bank account without your knowledge or authorization, they have violated the law. If you receive a written confirmation notice that does not accurately represent your understanding of the sale, follow the refund procedures that should have been provided and request a refund of your money. If you do not receive a refund, it’s against the law. If you believe you have been a victim of fraud, contact your bank immediately. Tell the bank that you did not okay the debit and that you want to prevent further debiting. You also should contact your state Attorney General. Depending on the timing and the circumstances, you may be able to get your money back.
It’s important that you know these rules, but it’s twice as important to do a background check on the financial service company before you send them ANYTHING. Your social security number is your crown jewel. Be smart about who you send it to. And as for your mysteriously missing January bank statement? There’s a pretty good chance your story about where it went or why it’s never coming back isn’t going to work. Good luck and safe funding!
– Merchant Processing Resource
../../
MPR.mobi on iPhone, iPad, and Android
Where’s the Reserve?
February 15, 2013
5 years ago it was merchant account sales. These days it’s all about the average daily ending balance in the business bank account. As the alternative business lending industry evolved, so too did the criteria to qualify, and nothing is more important now than historical cash flow. I spent a lot of time underwriting MCAs and one thing I noticed is that having a significant cash reserve is the exception, not the rule. Many small business owners I’ve encountered rely on overdraft protection just to pay their bills instead of using it as a backup cushion for the extremely rare circumstance that a check clears at the wrong time. The applicants with $1,000, $5,000 or $10,000 in daily reserves are treated very favorably in underwriting because heck, they can probably afford to take on debt. And then there’s the business owners with $20,000, $30,000 or $50,000 stashed away in the business account, a curious rarity that can actually throw up red flags.
“Why is this merchant applying for capital when they’ve got $30,000 sitting in the account right now? Something doesn’t add up here,” an underwriter might say. But the only thing that doesn’t add up is the fact that so many businesses are running on fumes. We’ve got a few small business owners writing about matters from their perspective on The Frontline, and we took great interest in something written by Chef Angela Bell. As a restaurant owner, she believes it is important to keep a cash reserve equal to a minimum of 3 months expenses. Depending on the size of the restaurant and seasonality, that reserve may need to be able to cover an entire year. This includes rent and salaries!
It seems in practice, this rule is constantly violated. Maybe holding on to extra cash hurts the competitive edge, maybe a cash reserve existed but was consumed during an emergency, or maybe the business just isn’t doing that great. There are a lot of possibilities to explain the disappearance of cash reserves, and I’m not faulting the businesses for being in this situation, but rather pointing out that in my experience, money seems to go out as fast as it comes in.
This isn’t a 2013 problem or a financial crisis problem. It’s a small business problem and one that has been around for decades. It’s why the purchase of future credit cards spawned into existence. The original Merchant Cash Advance (MCA) program wasn’t created to help people with poor credit, it was designed to help the businesses that had no cash reserves. If a business has $2,000 in deposits every day but also $2,000 in withdrawals, there’s a good chance a debt payment will bounce. Even with 750 credit, no bank would ever take the risk on a business like that, and that’s where MCA came in. Assuming the business’s plans were sound, an MCA funder would withhold a percentage of merchant account sales before they were even transferred to the business’s bank account. That eliminated the risk of bounced checks for the funder and put the burden of operating on tight cash flow on the small business. Funders then reduced the strain by withholding less in times of weak sales and more in times of strong sales. The percentage system was the bridge to ensure the relationship was not predatory.
I’ve heard the frustrated replies from a business owner that was declined for weak or negative balances. They often sound something like this “Well, if I had cash I wouldn’t be needing a loan from you now would I?!” I feel for these people, I really do, but their approach to debt is misguided. Debt is not something you take on when you are out of money so you can continue business as usual. Debt is for growth or to be used as a temporary cash flow measure. Banks approve applicants that don’t need money because those that NEED IT are more likely to default.
MCA was the good faith option for small business owners that cried foul over the banks that wouldn’t lend to them. How could there be NOBODY willing to take a chance on them? And so MCA funding companies came along and did what the masses demanded, but at a cost to compensate them for the significant risk.
Today, there is high demand for merchant loans, loans that are evaluated based on a daily average bank balance and monthly revenue. Many people will get less than they want and others should consider traditional MCA instead. Those few that are at the breaking point and believe a loan will allow them to pay past due bills and keep them afloat are better off not applying at all. And for the rest that are contemplating using the $50,000 cash reserve they built up to expand should seriously consider financing instead to protect their cushion as best they can.
Tomorrow, the health inspector could close your doors, vandals could destroy your valuable assets, or the town could perform massively disruptive construction right outside the front steps that cripples sales for months. If you’re running on fumes, you’ll run out of gas. Always keep the cash reserve tank full and nobody will be able to stop you.
– Merchant Processing Resource
../../
MPR.mobi on iPhone, iPad, and Android
History of Merchant Cash Advance
January 24, 2013The History of Merchant Cash Advance
Before it was mainstream, it was kind of mainstream. Merchant Cash Advance (MCA) is not new or even relatively new and it definitely isn’t a byproduct of the 2008-09 financial crisis. In fact, in 2007 some people thought the best days of the industry were already behind it. In an August 2007 issue of the Green Sheet, Dee Karawadra expressed reluctance to write about MCA because he believed the subject was stale.
When a GS Online MLS Forum member suggested I write an article on cash advance, I explained my research and said, “I think that boat has come and gone, and I missed it.”
Dee’s article is an excellent snapshot of the feeling of 2007. Excitement was running wild and bold predictions were being made. A lot of the same questions being asked today were asked and answered back then. Those employed in the industry that do not take the time to read up on MCA history are at a disadvantage. And one thing this industry did a great job of, was chronicling all of the events that unfolded.
The Green Sheet
Prior to 2007, The Green Sheet’s forum was the only source for information. It is still filled with threads going back as far as 2003 on the subject. The discussion seems to begin by one user posing the question:
Who thinks a cash advance program, (a loan) on future credit card volume will help themselves get more deals and their merchants operate better?
March 2003
By 2004, MCA was all the rage. Competition began to nibble at AdvanceMe’s monopoly, a monopoly they were rightfully entitled to because they owned the patent on split-funding. Many chose AdvanceMe anyway simply because they had already established a name for themselves.
You might want to check out AdvanceMe. I think they have a superior product and service as well as more money too … that you will be better served by AdvanceMe than you would by any of the other Cash Advance companies of which their [sic] are not that many.
August 19, 2004
And many weren’t even sure what they were selling exactly. Merchant Cash Advance had not yet even been coined as a term:
quick show of hands as to what title you would place on this product… A) Factoring of receivables B) Cash Advance C) something else… Just for the record – I don’t know what to honestly call it.
August 20, 2004
Those that responded called it an unsecured loan, factoring, merchant funding, and cash advance. Some that weren’t even familiar with the concept appeared completely lost in the conversations. It was common to confuse cash advance as meaning to take a cash advance out on an actual credit card. The need for a universal term was badly needed. An industry couldn’t progress forward if no one even knew what the industry was.
A Way to Build and Strengthen Merchant Account Portfolios
But on the subject of giving money to merchants in exchange for more back, programs offered by AdvanceMe and Rewards Network were compared on the merit of the cost to the customer. Since reps viewed MCA as an acquisition tool to obtain merchant accounts or retain them, commissions and renewals were rarely discussed. They were basically a non-factor and some folks from this era carried this mentality straight into the financial crisis age of MCA. Funders advanced merchants not to make money on advances, but to build their own processing residual portfolios and to sell or lease more POS equipment. The loan, cash advance, merchant funding, or whatever it was of the day was a tool to drive business, not a business itself. Right before and during the financial crisis, funding companies began to streamline their focus and suddenly it became all about funding and nothing else.
The MCA industry has remained in that state for about 5 years and some are starting to think that it’s time to evolve. A poster on DailyFunder.com recently ranted that his company can’t grow unless it diversifies, coincidentally citing that MCA would be better served as an acquisition tool. If this happened, history would repeat itself.
This should be a lesson to the MCA industry which is trying to make a product out of something everyone else views as an acquisition tool. Are we just lenders or diversified businesses? We are the former. As such, prices will never come down, margins can only get slimmer.
1/19/2013
In 2004, when the MCA industry was joined at the hip with payment processing, becoming a dedicated funder was a way to stand out from the crowd. But perhaps now that the market is saturated with dedicated funders, it is getting more difficult to build a presence in the market.
Behold! Merchant Cash Advance!
In May 2005, The Green Sheet was forced to label the product when it published a story about Merchant Cash Advances. We’re not claiming that this article coined the phrase, but it is a good approximation of when it started to be called such. A few sentences in, they actually disclaim their own term.
There isn’t even consensus on what to call the product, except that it is most definitely not a loan.
The three word term was not even used in the Green Sheet forums until October 2005, and then not again until March 2006. Soon after, that became the term of choice.
The One and Only MCA Blog
As MCA financing took on a life of its own outside of payment processing, the industry turned to a blog to learn about the unfolding events. From 2007 to 2010, David Goldin, the CEO of AmeriMerchant wrote weekly updates about his firm and experiences. He wrote about his harrowing battle with AdvanceMe. After invalidating their patent, he opened the floodgates for any funder interested in utilizing split-funding. He offered honest opinions and had excellent foresight, forever documenting what it was like for the MCA industry during the financial crisis. Anyone that didn’t get to experience that time firsthand should read it start to finish.
As Goldin’s company grew, he turned his focus to other matters. The North American Merchant Advance Association (NAMAA) was formed on April 29, 2010, a non-profit alliance designed to bring peace and order to an industry that had gone through tremendous turmoil in the last few years. He all but abandoned the blog afterwards.
Free Info for All
Where Goldin left off, I resumed by starting a credit card processing/MCA blog in July 2010 named Merchant Processing Resource (MPR). At that time, I was an MCAer that had toiled away as both the head of an underwriting department and as an account executive. The blog covered a lot of topics and was targeted towards business owners and ISOs simultaneously. I believed there was a vast amount of data that newcomers didn’t have about MCA and set off to share as much as I could without self-promoting a product or service.
By December, my web host (a very simple blog site named Webs.com) informed me that the website was using too much bandwidth for the current package. I upgraded it only to encounter the same problem again 9 months later. The site was forced to transfer to a real host in order to grow and be able to handle the surging stream of visitors. Webs.com’s format was not conducive to transfers and as a result, every article written prior to August 23, 2011 was time-stamped with that very date.
Three History Books
To recap, the Green Sheet and their forums were the places to follow MCA from 2003 to 2007. Goldin’s Blog narrated the story from 2007-2010 and MPR has carried the torch since then. If we go further back, and we believe everyone should, you’ll find that AdvanceMe kind of existed in a world of their own in the late 1990s. In 1999, they funded $9 million. What they were funding annually increased to $200 million by 2006, a time when they had already amassed more than 14,000 clients. These aren’t exactly the humble beginnings of a new industry. These are serious numbers that could arguably support the theory that MCA was already well into the mainstream.
MCA in Black and White
MCA information was publicly available nearly two decades ago via the U.S. patent office. Barbara S. Johnson is listed as the official inventor of split-funding AKA Automated Loan Repayment in documents filed in 1997. There were no forums or bloggers to explain how it worked. There was only this:
Systems and methods for automated loan repayment involve utilizing consumer payment authorization, clearing, and settlement systems to allow a merchant to reduce an outstanding loan amount. After a customer identifier (e.g., a credit, debit, smart, charge, payment, etc. card account number) is accepted as payment from the customer, information related to the payment is forwarded to a merchant processor. The merchant processor acquires the information related to the payment, processes that information, and forwards at least a portion of the payment to a loan repayment receiver as repayment of at least a portion of the outstanding loan amount owed by the merchant. The loan repayment receiver receives the portion of the payment forwarded by the merchant processor and applies that portion to the outstanding loan amount owed by the merchant to reduce that outstanding loan amount.
The Automated Loan Repayment kicked off an industry that would evolve significantly over the next 15 years and yet a payment processor was already doing this to fund merchants as far back as 1992. Litle & Company didn’t call it MCA. That name didn’t even come about until around 2005, but they were the first MCA funder in the country. The makes MCA more than 20 years old.
Been There, Done That
We may have closed a chapter in 2012 when it became evident the product had finally graduated from the minor leagues, but there is a forever long story that preceded it. MCA financing existed before some account reps were even born. Sadly some of these kids talk to prospects today without really even knowing what they’re selling. Then again, in 2004 no one knew what the heck they were selling either. There is still technically no formal name especially since split-funding is no longer the standard. If the poster in 2004 posed the same question today about what to label this product as, there would be just as much disagreement. Business cash advance, merchant financing, ach advance, cash flow loan, ach funding, merchant cash advance, unsecured loan, merchant loan. Nobody really agrees and nobody really even does it the same way as everyone else. It’s all MCA to me and I’ll keep reporting on it for as long as it lasts. And as long as it keeps reinventing itself, there will always be a chance to get in early. Those that read up on the past or were there and experienced it firsthand have a major advantage. History repeats itself in MCA.
You know those butterflies you’re getting about 2013? They were felt before in 1998, 2004, and 2007. MCA was kind of mainstream before it was mainstream. 2012 ignited a spark and some of us know what’s going to happen next. As for the rest of you, brace yourselves. It’s going to be more crazy than you can imagine.
– Merchant Processing Resource
../../
Funding Down to a Science
December 21, 2012Account rep: Congratulations, you’ve been approved for $27,000!
Merchant: How did you come up with these figures?
Account rep: It was science. Science did this.
Funny? Maybe not, especially since an underwriting super algorithm may be on its way to the United States. In the days after we posted Made for Each other?, friends, acquaintances, and strangers have been telling us to keep an eye on Wonga’s potential acquisition of On Deck Capital. “It’s not just a european company’s gateway to the US. They’re going to change everything,” a few have said. Aside from their background of being a payday lender, having prestigious VC backing, and the resources to throw a quarter billion dollars at a main street lender in a takeover bid a lot of people didn’t see coming, apparently there is much more to be seen.
Just like MCA in years past, Wonga has worked hard to repel a negative image. Not easy stuff, especially considering they embrace their hefty costs wholeheartedly. Sure, it’s easy to calculate an APR equivalent of a very short term loan and spin whatever number you come up with as the symbol of something evil. If I let a stranger borrow $100 today with the stipulation that they pay me the whole thing back tomorrow plus 1 dollar extra to make it worth my while, would I be evil? That’s an APR of 365%. If I did the same thing with 100 strangers, what are the real odds that all 100 would actually pay me back? Somewhere along the line because of a borrower’s circumstances, bad decisions, or even malicious intent, I’m going to lose the entire $100 I lent out. Others might need more time to pay me back. If one person out of those hundred doesn’t pay back, I break even. If two people don’t pay back, I lose money. If one person doesn’t pay back and another can’t come up with the whole thing, I lose money. You can lend money at 365% APR and lose BIG.
So how do banks manage to charge 4, 7, and 10% APR? Is it just because they’re smarter? No. They don’t make money off loans at these rates either. In the US, interest rates are distorted by government guarantees. Politicians have decided that certain interest rates sound “fair,” then push big banks to lend money at these low unsustainable rates. But of course it doesn’t work and so government agencies sweeten the deal by reimbursing banks for up to 90% of the losses on the borrowers that default. Banks make money on the loan closing fees and other services they sell to the businesses. The loan is the doorbuster offer the bank puts in the storefront window. Once you come inside, they try to sell you on other things so that you don’t walk away with just the loan, otherwise they’re losing money.
So when you hear “banks aren’t lending,” don’t be so surprised. Lending money means giving it away to someone that might not pay it back. That’s a really tough business to be in, no matter how qualified the borrowers are or how good the underwriters are supposed to be.
But somewhere in between the opinions of the Merchant Processing Resource staff and government bureaucrats over what is fair, is a special recipe that determines once and for all what works best. It’s science. Wonga’s lending success is rooted in science and propelled by an advanced algorithm that can systematically calculate risk better than any bank in the world, or so they say.
One of Wonga’s major investors, Mark Wellport, is a knighted renowned immunologist and rheumatologist that has defended Wonga’s methods against regulation. He believes their data-based process and strong motivation to make their borrowers satisfied places them in an entirely different category than payday lenders.
Wonga takes a human-free approach, something no MCA provider in North America does regardless of how automated their process may seem. In the UK, their business loan application process takes only 12 minutes and the funds are wired 30 minutes later. That’s it. Their max loan is £10,000 but just think about how that compares to MCA in the US. How much time and overhead is being spent on printing documents, underwriters, conference room meetings to discuss deals, setting up the merchant interview, trying to reach the landlord, trying to get page 7 of a bank statement from 6 months ago and the signature page of the lease, etc. etc. Funders might have had the wrong approach all along.
Wonga’s founder, Errol Damelin believes in data. According to some quotes in The Guardian, Damelin believes interacting with the borrower actually impairs a lender’s judgement.
From the Guardian:
Asking for a loan from a financial institution had traditionally involved making a strong first impression – putting on a suit to see the bank manager – then rigorous questioning, checking your documents and references, before the institution made an evaluation of your trustworthiness. In a way, it was exactly the same as an interview, but instead of a job being at stake it was cash.Damelin found this system old-fashioned and flawed. “The idea of doing peer-to-peer lending is insane,” he says. “We are quite poor at judging other people and ourselves – you get to know that in your life, both with personal relationships and in business. You realise that we’re not as good as we think we are at that stuff, and that goes for almost everybody. I certainly thought I was much better at it.
The 42-year-old entrepreneur grew up in apartheid South Africa, and he believes the experience of living in that country in the 80s has had a significant impact on his outlook. He was active in student politics at the University of Cape Town and marched in civil disobedience protests. So, when it came to deciding who should be lent money, Damelin says he wanted to strip away some of the prejudice – decisions would be taken without a face-to-face meeting; you wouldn’t even speak to an adviser on the phone, because people subconsciously judge accents too. The final call on whether to hand out cash would be based on “the belief that data could be more predictive than emotion”.
According to Wired, Damelin and his team created a system to approve or decline applicants all on its own. They tested it on a site called SameDayCash by using Google Adwords and within ten minutes of their ad going live, their system had already approved its first customer. In its early forms, it wasn’t very profitable from a lending standpoint but it did allow them to collect a massive amount of data.
From Wired
its strategy over this period wasn’t just to disburse money — it was to accumulate facts. For every loan, good or bad, SameDayCash gathered data about the borrowers — and about their behaviour. Who were they? What was their online profile? Did they repay the money on time? The site was feeding an algorithm that would form the basis of Wonga, launched a year after the beta experiment that was SameDayCash.
MCA has utilized Adwords for lead generation for years with mixed success, but few have used it for the purpose of accumulating facts. This isn’t to say that the firms collecting information for the purpose of leads aren’t sitting on treasure troves of data, it’s just that none of it to date has led to 100% computerized underwriting. The MCA industry is quite possibly about to undergo a major shift in how they promote their product on Adwords as a result of Google’s ominous warning a couple weeks ago. New disclosure requirements may change the way consumers respond and apply, ultimately impacting the data collected.
So will european science work in the good ‘ol US of A? If Wonga acquires On Deck Capital, you can bet they’ll try to replicate their success. There is a gigantic market of really small businesses that aren’t getting funded, and even the ones that are, they’re waiting 3-7 days to deal with the paperwork, handle the phone calls, fax documents, complete a landlord verification, and in some cases, deal with a credit card processing equipment change. If On Deck Capital becomes a household name as Wonga is in the UK, a lot of smaller funders are going to get squeezed.
Wonga claims to have a net-promoter score above 90%, a customer satisfaction metric that beats most banks and even Apple Computer. It’s a company that seems to be winning on every front.
Critics will say that the American lending market is big enough for everyone, that the loans Wonga has done traditionally are really small and therefore not in the same league as MCA, or that their own company has something similar or better. We believe however, that if this deal goes through that it’s a bad idea to get comfortable. There are Wonga-like companies in the US already, data fortresses that will soon revolutionize how loans are issued and determine what makes a successful business. New York based Biz2Credit is one such example.
We’ve been right about a lot of things in the last couple years and wrong about some. But we believe it is inevitable that any lender ignoring the automation revolution on the horizon is not going to last very long. Go ahead, brush it aside and convince yourself that this whole Automation thing is just hype as BusinessWeek did in 1995 about the Internet. “Automation? Bah!”
As Damelin told Wired in June, 2011, “For me the epiphany was right there. People were online, looking for a solution to a problem.” Ask any funder using Adwords or pouring work into SEO and they’ll tell you the same thing. People are looking online for money. What happens after they fill out the form on the website is what makes the USA MCA/alternative lending industry different from Wonga.
But will a perfected european algorithm work in the US? Americans approach debt and money differently than the rest of the world and small businesses operate in a much more open manner. You never know, the european lab coat wearing scientists could come here and get their butts handed to them. Plenty of smart companies have jumped headfirst into MCA and left after disastrous results. Some veterans that have been in this business a long time will you tell that an impressive resumé, big investors, and a fancy algorithm will help you make it through the first six months. After that, you better know what the hell you’re doing, if you can continue to do it at all.
If in three years the average small business owner thinks Wonga is the last name of a guy that owns a chocolate factory, we promise to write a jingle that admits we were wrong about them. But On Deck Capital has been around the block and knows the business. They would allow Wonga to skip the learning curve and together could quite possibly nail lending down to a science.
Oompa Loompa do-ba-dee-doo, I’ve got another algorithm for you.
– Merchant Processing Resource
../../
