CAPITAL ADVANCE

This is a search result page



Alternative Business Funding’s Decade Club

October 22, 2015
Article by:

This story appeared in AltFinanceDaily’s Sept/Oct 2015 magazine issue. To receive copies in print, SUBSCRIBE FREE

10 years of fundingThe working capital business is a very different animal now than it was a decade or so ago when many of today’s established players were just starting out.

“At that time, the industry was a bunch of cowboys. It was an opportunistic industry of very small players,” says Andy Reiser, chairman and chief executive of Strategic Funding Source Inc., a New York-based alternative funder that’s been in business since 2006. “The industry has gone from this cottage industry to a professionally managed industry.”

Indeed, the alternative funding industry for small businesses has grown by leaps and bounds over the past decade. To put it in perspective, more than $11 billion out of a total $150 billion in profits is at risk to leave the banking system over the next five plus years to marketplace lenders, according to a March research report by Goldman Sachs. The proliferation of non-bank funders has taken such a huge toll on traditional lenders that in his annual letter to shareholders, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. chief executive officer Jamie Dimon warned that “Silicon Valley is coming” and that online lenders in particular “are very good at reducing the ‘pain points’ in that they can make loans in minutes, which might take banks weeks.”

The burgeoning growth of alternative providers is certainly driving banks to rethink how they do business. But increased competition is also having a profound effect on more seasoned alternative funders as well. One of the latest threats to their livelihood is from fintech companies, like Lendio and Fundera,for example, that are using technology to drive efficiency and gaining market share with small businesses in the process.

“Established lenders who want to effectively compete against the new entrants will need to automate as much decisioning as possible, diversify acquisition sources and ensure sufficient growth capital as a means to capture as much market share as possible over the next 12 to 18 months,” says Kim Anderson, chief executive of Longitude Partners, a Tampa-based strategy consulting firm for specialty finance firms.

Of course, there is truth to the adage that age breeds wisdom. Established players understand the market, have a proven track record and have years of data to back up their underwriting decisions. At the same time, however, experience isn’t the only factor that can ensure a company will continue to thrive over the long haul.

WORKING TOWARD THE FUTURE

Indeed, established players have a strong understanding of what they are up against—that they can’t afford to live in the glory of the past if they want to survive far into the future.

“With every business you have to reinvent yourself all the time. That’s what a successful business is about,” says Reiser of Strategic Funding. “You see so many businesses over the years that didn’t reinvent themselves, and that’s why they’re not around.”

“IF YOU’RE NOT CONSTANTLY INNOVATING YOU’RE IN TROUBLE,” SAID GOLDIN, CEO OF CAPIFY

Strategic Funding has gone through a number of changes since Reiser, a former investment banker, founded it with six employees. The company, which has grown to around 165 employees, now has regional offices in Virginia, Washington and Florida and has funded roughly $1 billion in loans and cash advances for small to mid-sized businesses since its inception.

One of the ways Strategic Funding has tried to distinguish itself is through its Colonial Funding Network, which was launched in early 2009. CFN is Strategic Funding’s secure servicing platform which enables other companies who provide merchant cash advances, business loans and factoring to “white label” Strategic Funding’s technology and reporting systems to operate their businesses.

“When you’re in a commodity-driven business, you have to find something to differentiate yourself,” Reiser says.

FINDING WAYS TO BE DIFFERENT

That’s exactly what Stephen Sheinbaum, founder of Bizfi (formerly Merchant Cash and Capital) in New York, has tried to do over the years. When the company was founded in 2005, it was solely a funding business. But over the years, it has grown to around 170 employees and has become multi-faceted, adding a greater amount of technology and a direct sales force. Since inception, the Bizfi family of companies has originated more than $1.2 billion in funding to about 24,000 business owners.

Adapt or DieEarlier this year, the company launched Bizfi, a connected online marketplace designed specifically to help small businesses compare funding options from different sources of capital and get funded within days. Current lenders on the platform include Fundation, OnDeck, Funding Circle, CAN Capital, SBA lender SmartBiz, as well as financing from Bizfi itself. Financing options on the platform include short-term funding, equipment financing, A/R financing, SBA loans and medium term loans.

Sheinbaum credits newer entrants for continually coming up with new technology that’s better and faster and keeping more established funders on their toes.

“If you don’t adapt, you die,” he says. “Change is the one constant that you face as a business owner.”

David Goldin, chief executive of Capify, a New York-based funder, has a similar outlook, noting that the moment his company comes out with a new idea, it has to come up with another one. “If you’re not constantly innovating you’re in trouble,” he says. “It’s a 24/7 global job.”

Capify, which was known as AmeriMerchant until July, was founded by Goldin in 2002 as a credit card processing ISO. In 2003, the company began focusing all of its efforts on merchant cash advances. Four years later, the company made its first international foray by opening an office in Toronto. The company continued to expand its international presence by opening up offices in the United Kingdom and Australia in 2008. The company now has more than 200 employees globally and hopes to be around 300 or more in the next 12 months, Goldin says. The company has funded about $500 million in business loans and MCAs to date, adjusted for currency rates.

THE CULTURE OF CHANGE

Five or six years ago, Capify’s main competitors were other MCA companies. Now the competition primarily comes from fintech players, and to keep pace Capify has made certain changes in the way it operates. From a human resources standpoint, for instance, Capify switched from business casual attire to casual dress in the office. The company has also been doing more employee-bonding events to make sure morale remains high as new people join the ranks. “We’ve been in hyper-growth mode,” he says.

CAN Capital in New York, another player in the alternative small business finance space with many years of experience under its belt, has also grown significantly (and changed its name several times) since its inception in 1998. The company which began with a handful of employees now has about 450 and has offices in NYC, Georgia, Salt Lake City and Costa Rica. For the first 13 years, the company focused mostly on MCA. Now its business loan product accounts for a larger chunk of its origination dollars.

This year, the company reached the significant milestone of providing small businesses with access to more than $5 billion of working capital, more than any other company in the space. To date, CAN Capital has facilitated the funding of more than 160,000 small businesses in more than 540 unique industries.

Throughout its metamorphosis to what it is today, the company has put into place more formalized processes and procedures. At the same time, the company has tried very hard to maintain its entrepreneurial spirit, says Daniel DeMeo, chief executive of CAN Capital.

One of the challenges established companies face as they grow is to not become so rule-driven that they lose their ability to be flexible. After all, you still need to take calculated risk in order to realize your full potential, he explains. “It’s about accepting failure and stretching and testing enough that there are more wins than there are losses,” says DeMeo who joined the company in March 2010.

ADVICE FOR NEWCOMERS

As the industry continues to grow and new alternative funders enter the marketplace, experience provides a comfort level for many established players.

“The benefit we have that newcomers don’t have is 10 years of data and an understanding of what works and what doesn’t work,” says Reiser of Strategic Funding. With the benefit of experience, Reiser says his company is in a better position to make smarter underwriting decisions. “There are many industries we funded years back that we wouldn’t touch today for a variety of reasons,” he says.

Experienced players like to see themselves as role models for new entrants and say newcomers can learn a lot from their collective experiences, both good and bad. Noting the power of hindsight, Reiser of Strategic Funding strongly advises newcomers to look at what made others in the business successful and internalize these best practices.

One of the dangers he sees is with new companies who think their technology is the key to long-term survival. “Technology alone won’t do it because that too will become a commodity in time,” he says.

Over the years Strategic Funding has learned that as important as technology is, the human touch is also a crucial element in the underwriting process. For example, the last but critical step of the underwriting process at Strategic Funding is a recorded funding call. All of the data may point to the idea that a particular would-be borrower should be financed. But on the call, Strategic Funding’s underwriting team may get a bad vibe and therefore decide not to go forward.

“We look at the data as a tool to help us make decisions. But it’s not the absolute answer,” Reiser says. “We are a combination of human insight and technology. I think in business you need human insight.”

Seasoned alternative funding companies also say that newbies need to implement strong underwritingcontrols that will enable them to weather both up and down markets.

The vast majority of newcomers have never experienced a downturn like the 2008 Financial Crisis, which is where seasoned alternative financing companies say they have a leg up. Until you’ve lived through down cycles, you’re not as focused as protecting against the next one, notes Sheinbaum of Bizfi. “Every 10 years or 15 years or so, there seems to be a systemic crisis. It passes. You just have to be ready for it,” he says.

Goldin of Capify believes that many of today’s start-ups don’t understand underwriting and are throwing money at every business that comes their way instead of taking a more cautious approach. As a funder that has lived through a down market cycle, he’s more circumspect about long-term risk.

money is out at seaOne of the biggest problems he sees is funders who write paper that goes two or three years out. His company is only willing to go out a maximum of 15 months for its loan product, which he believes is s a more prudent approach. He questions what will happen when the economy turns south—as it eventually will—and funders are stuck with long dated receivables. “You’re done. You’re dead. You can’t save those boats. They are too far out to sea,” Goldin says.

Having a solid capital base is also a key to long-term success, according to veteran funders. Many of the upstarts don’t have an established track record and need to raise equity capital just to stay afloat—an obstacle many long-time funders have already overcome.

Goldin of Capify believes that over time consolidation will swallow up many of the newbies who don’t have a good handle on their business. Hethinks these companies will eventually be shuttered by margin compression and defaults. “It can’t last like this forever,” he says.

In the meantime, competition for small business customers continues to be fierce, which in turn helps keep seasoned players focused on being at the top of their game. Getting too comfortable or complacent isn’t the answer, notes DeMeo of CAN Capital. Instead, established funders should seek to better understand the competition and hopefully surpass it. “Competition should make you stronger if you react to it properly,” he says.

This article is from AltFinanceDaily’s September/October magazine issue. To receive copies in print, SUBSCRIBE FREE

Legal Brief: Kalamata v. Biz2Credit and Itria Ventures

October 20, 2015

Stacking lawsuitThe typical merchant cash advance contract contains language that prohibits the merchant from stacking multiple merchant cash advances. Some cash advance companies, however, induce merchants to stack. This is where the legal concept of “tortious interference with contract” comes in. Tortious interference places legal liability on a person who wrongfully causes another person to breach an existing contract. In the merchant cash advance industry, these lawsuits usually involve disputes over whether a stacking cash advance company intentionally caused a merchant to stack additional cash advances, thereby breaching an existing contract. This is an evolving area of the law and what conduct constitutes tortious interference is a hot topic in the legal field.

Tortious interference is one of several claims that came up in Kalamata Capital’s recent lawsuit against Biz2Credit Inc. and Itria Ventures, LLC, and the court has already issued its first ruling on what conduct might constitute tortious interference with cash advance agreements.

Kalamata sued Biz2Credit and Itria for, among other things, stacking. One of Kalamata’s arguments was that Biz2Credit and Itria tortiously interfered with Kalamata’s contract. Biz2Credit and Itria filed a motion to dismiss. They argued that Kalamata failed to allege facts that would support a claim of tortious interference with contract. The court denied their motion because Kalamata alleged that 1) it had a business relationship with a merchant, 2) that Biz2Credit and Itria knew of that relationship and intentionally interfered with it, 3) that Biz2Credit and Itria acted solely out of malice, used improper means, illegal means, or means amounting to an independent tort, and 4) that the interference caused injury to Kalamata.

Kalamata alleged that, under its contract with Biz2Credit, Kalamata paid Biz2Credit commissions for referrals and for managing all of Kalamata’s accounts, including the referrals, on Biz2Credit’s online platform. Kalamata also alleged that the contract with Biz2Credit prohibited Biz2Credit from soliciting Kalamata’s merchants. The crux of the lawsuit is Kalamata’s claim that Biz2Credit secretly referred Kalamata’s merchants to Biz2Credit’s closely related company, Itria, and intentionally induced those merchants to stack additional cash advances in breach of the merchants’ contracts with Kalamata, despite an alleged agreement between Kalamata and Biz2Credit that prohibited Biz2Credit from doing so. Biz2Credit and Itria disputed Kalamata’s claims and argued that they were permitted to solicit any account that Biz2Credit referred to Kalamata or serviced for Kalamata.

Ultimately, the court found that if Biz2Credit was, solely for malicious purposes, sharing Kalamata’s confidential customer information with Itria, Kalamata’s competitor, and, if Itria and Biz2Credit were knowingly inducing Kalamata’s customers to breach their merchant agreements with Kalamata, then such conduct would rise to the level of tortious interference.

As this was a decision on a motion to dismiss, the motion focused on the legal sufficiency of Kalamata’s claims and did not address the merits of either party’s factual assertions.

Some Small Business Funders Are Pivoting or Closing Shop

October 20, 2015
Article by:

sorry we're closedOne of the unique insights AltFinanceDaily gets as a company that sends a lot of email and snail mail to folks in the industry is the rejection rate. One day an entrepreneur is telling us all about their new lending business and the next day the Post Office returns their magazine for a vacant address. Sometimes there’s a change in the model or a partnership didn’t work out. Other times lead generation became too hard or too many merchants defaulted very early on. The truth is, as much as the industry is growing, some companies are pivoting or closing their doors.

At Lend360, there were whispers around the trade show floor that acquisition costs have spiked and it was being felt on the bottom lines. Broker houses are opening, closing, merging with each other and being acquired. Funders have reacted by giving them lines of credit to either help them grow or stay afloat, hoping that their sources of deal flow don’t fall apart.

Andrew Hernandez Central Diligence Group and The Business Backer's Jim Salters
Andrew Hernandez of Central Diligence Group on left. Jim Salters of The Business Backer on the the right.

On one conference panel titled, A Discussion of Best Practices: Advancing The Cause for Business Finance, veteran underwriter and industry consultant Andrew Hernandez of Central Diligence Group, said he’s watched a lot of new entrants in this industry make mistakes. “We’ve seen guys lose their shirt,” he said. He explained that too often small business funding companies look to cut their acquisition costs in the wrong places, like simply paying less for leads or paying brokers lower commissions. That only works to a point. “Underwriters can help keep the cost of acquisition down by funding the right deals and trying to get good deals done,” he said.

The owner of one funder summed up his dilemma for me, my brokers are making more on a deal than I am and I’m the one taking all the liability on it. Maybe I should become a broker instead. Not that there would be anything wrong with that. For some companies in this industry, the best path forward is achieved through trial and error. For example, World Business Lenders’ Alex Gemici said at the conference that they started off by making unsecured loans and now only do loans secured by real estate. Gemici also said he believes the industry is heading for a major shakeout within the next three years and that irrational exuberance keeps him up at night.

If he’s right, an economic downturn could squeeze out a lot of players that are already feeling the pinch of high acquisition costs.

For those newer to the industry, they might not remember that the effects of the 2008-2009 financial crisis and ensuing recession was brutal. More than half of the providers of merchant cash advances went out of business, some within weeks when their credit lines were pulled.

A lot of the “industry leaders” of 2008 aren’t around anymore: First Funds, Fast Capital, Second Source, Merit Capital, iFunds, Summit, Infinicap, Global Swift Funding, and more.

Given the favorable economic climate and regulatory environment, this is a bad time to be struggling. 2015 may be one of the last years to pivot in a major way before it’s too late.

World Business Lenders Makes Credit Prediction, Employs Different Model

October 19, 2015
Article by:

World Business Lenders (WBL) Managing Director Alex Gemici thinks the next credit correction will take place within three years, he told a crowd at Lend360 last week in Atlanta. When he and his fellow panelists were asked what keeps them up at night, Gemici said, “irrational exuberance.” He clarified that by saying that there was an incredible amount of capital pouring in right now and insinuated that it’s not all being deployed intelligently. He also pointed to the country’s economic history and said we’re naturally due for a shift in the credit cycle.

Lend360 Panel
From Left to Right: Bob Coleman of the Coleman Report, Jason Rockman of CAN Capital, Craig Coleman of ForwardLine, Alex Gemici of World Business Lenders, David Gilbert of National Funding and Jeremiah Neal of Biz2credit

Part of WBL’s hedge (if you could call it that) against a future industry shakeout, is that their loans are actually collateralized, though they didn’t start out that way. When they launched in 2011, they initially offered unsecured loans and eventually evolved towards collateralizing them with all different types of assets. They have shifted even further in that direction and today the only collateral they accept is real estate. That makes WBL’s model quite traditional by comparison to competing products like merchant cash advances and OnDeck loans. Gemici says however, that they believe in technology and data mining to make better underwriting decisions, just like today’s unsecured fintech lenders.

But while they use technology, their process isn’t fully automated and that’s because Gemici believes algorithms aren’t advanced enough yet to make decisions on their own. You can’t ask Siri whether she’d approve a business loan yet, Gemici joked.

Will business loans backed by real-estate give them a long-term edge over unsecured lenders? Only time will tell. One thing many people agree on however is that there will most certainly be a shakeout when the next economic downturn hits.

Kabbage, Fora Financial and Square Have a Roaring Wednesday

October 15, 2015
Article by:

$1 billion unicornWednesday, October 14th was packed with exciting industry news. Right after Congressman David Scott blessed online lenders, Kabbage announced a Series E round investment led by Reverence Capital Partners for $135 million. The Wall Street Journal said the deal valued the company at over $1 billion, a figure that elevates Kabbage to unicorn status.

At the same time, Fora Financial announced that a Palladium Equity Partners affiliate had made a significant investment in the company. In the official release, Palladium principal Justin Green said, “we believe Fora Financial has developed a highly attractive credit offering and technology platform that have made it a valued provider of financing to thousands of small businesses seeking capital.”

Palladium once held a stake in Wise Foods, the potato chip snack company, and currently counts PROMÉRICA Bank, a full-service commercial bank in its active portfolio. They have more than $2 billion in assets under management.

And then there’s Square, the payment processor and merchant cash advance company who publicly filed their S-1 for an IPO. Their registration form uses the term merchant cash advance 16 times so there is no doubt it’s a significant part of their business. “Square Capital provides merchant cash advances to prequalified sellers,” the document states. “We make it easy for sellers to use our service by proactively reaching out to them with an offer of an advance based on their payment processing history. The terms are straightforward, sellers get their funds quickly (often the next business day), and in return, they agree to make payments equal to a percentage of the payment volume we process for them up to a fixed amount.”

As of June 30th, Square had already racked up a net loss for the year of nearly $78 million. In 2014, the company lost $154 million. While the losses stem mainly from their payment processing operations, they had outstanding merchant cash advance receivables of $32 million as of mid-year which illustrates how much exposure they have with that product.

The three announcements ironically coincided with comments made by SoFi CEO Mike Cagney about the industry’s lack of ambition. “The problem with fintech is that it’s not ambitious enough in terms of its objectives. It’s not really transforming anything,” he’s quoted as saying in the San Francisco Business Times. Cagney went on to categorize Lending Club as just an electronic interface bolted onto a bank to originate loans for them. While his comments hold weight given that his lending company recently just raised $1 billion in a Series E round led by Softbank, it may be fair to say however that Wednesday proved there was anything but a lack of ambition in the space right now.

Whoops! Lender Drafts Choice of Law Clause with Wrong State; Court Finds Interest Rate Usurious

October 9, 2015
Article by:

Whoops!A recent case out of Illinois serves as a reminder that when it comes to usury law compliance, its always best to double, or even triple check your contracts.

Preferred Capital Lending, a Nevada company that provides cash advances to attorneys working on personal injury cases, agreed to make a loan to the defendant. The defendant signed the promissory note in Preferred Capital’s Las Vegas office and the note expressly provided that it was executed in the State of Nevada. When the defendant later defaulted on the loan, Preferred Capital filed a breach of contract action in Nevada. The case, however, was transferred to Illinois pursuant to the loan contract’s choice of law clause which provided that that state’s law would govern.

In response to the complaint, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the loan carried an interest rate that exceeded Illinois’ usury cap. Preferred Capital countered that it had made a mistake when drafting the choice of law clause and that the clause should have stated that Nevada’s law applied. The court was unpersuaded by Preferred’s argument:

Preferred Capital contends that the Illinois choice-of-law provision was a mistake and the loan documents should have indicated that the law of Nevada, which has repealed its usury laws, applies to the loan documents. This assertion rings hollow in light of the fact that Preferred Capital analyzed its breach of contract claim under Illinois law in its opening motion for summary judgment, and expressly stated in a footnote that it was doing so pursuant to the Illinois choice-of-law provision in the promissory note at issue.

As a result, the court applied Illinois law and found that the amount of interest provided in the agreement violated the Illinois Interest Act.

Now to be fair, Preferred Capital operates offices in both Nevada and Illinois. So its understandable how a Illinois choice of law clause appeared in the loan documents. What’s less clear, though, is why Preferred Capital initially argued that the agreement should be governed by Illinois law given that it had originally filed the matter in Nevada. In any event, the oversight proved costly as Preferred Capital now finds itself defending a usury claim rather than collecting on the outstanding loan.

Preferred Capital Lending v. Chakwin, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137383 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 7, 2015)

Stop Saying Alternative Lending Isn’t Regulated

October 7, 2015
Article by:

regulations in alternative lendingI cringe every time I hear someone say that alternative business lending or merchant cash advances are completely unregulated. It’s true as a generality that there are fewer restrictions on commercial transactions than there are on consumer transactions, but fewer doesn’t mean none. If you are operating your funding business with the impression that it’s all unregulated, then you’re probably doing it wrong and should hire a lawyer (or several) immediately.

Things like interest rates, truth in advertising, and the banking system are already regulated. Who can invest and what has to be disclosed in an investment is regulated. Email marketing and telemarketing are regulated. The ACH network is regulated. Credit card processors and payment networks are regulated. Credit reporting and the process of declining someone for credit is regulated.

As de-banked as merchant cash advances and non-bank loans look, they all go through the traditional banking system and still obviously operate under state and federal laws just like everyone else. That means compliance with the OCC, OFAC, FED, FCC, FTC, SEC, IRS, state regulatory bodies and more. So when critics say there are no regulations in place for these products, one has to wonder what the heck they’re talking about.

In the context of merchant cash advances, there’s a pervasive myth that the process of purchasing future assets is really all just a loophole to charge Annual Percentage Rates (APRs) in excess of state usury caps. I can’t speak on behalf of all purchase agreements in general since every financial company structures theirs differently, but in a true purchase of future assets, it is literally impossible to calculate an APR. It’s not just a matter omitting the word loan from the agreement either, it’s the uncertainty of the seller’s future sales to which the agreement ultimately hinges upon (among other factors), that make such a calculation indeterminate even if one wanted to generate one just for comparison’s sake. These are purely commercial transactions that fall under the umbrella of factoring and they have no basis for comparison with loans. Oh, and they’re not new.

According to wikipedia, “factoring’s origins lie in the financing of trade, particularly international trade. It is said that factoring originated with ancient Mesopotamian culture, with rules of factoring preserved in the Code of Hammurabi [about 4,000 years ago]. Factoring as a fact of business life was underway in England prior to 1400, and it came to America with the Pilgrims, around 1620.”

Even Stegosauruses probably factoredWhile the subtle nuances of merchant cash advances may only be a couple decades old, the system on which they’re based precedes the arrival of Jesus. That makes the concept understandably new… if you’re a Stegosaurus.

But here in modern times, the courts in many states have reviewed these agreements and generally respect the arrangements when they are well-defined and compliant with state and federal laws. There’s that regulation thing again…

For funding companies that deal in actual loans, the industry is heavily regulated. The non-bank lenders we hear about on a daily basis have to acquire state licenses where applicable or forge partnerships with chartered banks to create a relationship in which the banks themselves are the ones that actually originate the loans. That means despite the excitement and fanfare of tech-based disruption, many of these lenders are really just servicing loans made by traditional banks. Kind of a bummer, isn’t it?

And when it comes to sales tactics, it’s important to remember that deceptive advertising is already illegal.

The regulation and compliance hurdles in FinTech are cumbersome even if some of the companies involved in the business appear scrappy and amateurish. According to a report that was recently published by accounting firm KPMG, titled Value-Based Compliance: A Marketplace Lending Call to Action, they offer a non-exhaustive list of federal legislation and networks:

  • Anti-Money Laundering (AML)
  • Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)
  • Blue Sky Laws
  • Card Act (CARD)
  • Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
  • Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA)
  • Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (ESIGN)
  • Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA)
  • Fair and Accurate Transactions Act (FACTA)
  • Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
  • Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)
  • Fair Housing Act (FHAct)
  • Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)
  • Gramm-Leach Bliley Act (GLBA)
  • Know Your Customer (KYC)
  • Service Member Civil Relief Act (SCRA)
  • Truth in Lending Act (TILA)
  • Unfair, Deceptive or Abusive Acts or Practices (UDAAP)
  • USA Patriot Act

Completely unregulated you say? You are sadly mistaken. =\

Fake Business Loan Application Fees Leads to Two Convictions

October 5, 2015
Article by:

advance fee scamTwo men were convicted last week of perpetrating an advance fee fraud scheme. David C. Jackson and Alexander D. Hurt defrauded more than 40 individuals out of $4.5 million, mainly by directing small businesses hoping to get a loan to pay phony application fees, collateral fees, or commitment fees. “These defendants and their co-conspirators took advantage of individuals and business owners who had limited options in acquiring business loans in the difficult financial environment that existed after the recession of 2008,” states a report issued by the Department of Justice.

Deirdre M. Daly, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, said that people need to be careful about loan offers online. “Those seeking business loans need to be wary of any provider of funding that requires significant fees in advance—especially those who use the Internet to prey upon trusting people who are unable to verify the representations made,” Daly said.

“Jackson was previously convicted of federal bank fraud and money laundering offenses in October 2006 and was sentenced to 41 months in prison, followed by five years of supervised release,” the DOJ report says. “He was released from federal prison in September 2009 and operated this advance fee fraud scheme while on supervised release.”

The two used a slew of personal aliases and business names to cover their trail. The business names included:

  • Jalin Realty Capital Advisors, LLC
  • American Capital Holdings, LLC
  • Brightway Financial Group, LLC

An archived version of American Capital Holding’s website said the following on the home page:

In today’s economic climate, finding reliable funding sources can be frustrating. Fortunately, we are partnered with an investment fund that provides commercial real estate development and acquisition projects. Due to our professionalism & honesty we have achieved massive trust worldwide.

One lesson here would be to cautious of anyone who says they have “achieved massive trust” but another is to conduct background checks on the online lender you’re considering.

And of course never pay a fee upfront for the promise of a loan in return.