Archive for 2017

That Awkward Moment in Alternative Lending When…

June 13, 2017
Article by:

That awkward moment when you apply for a bank charter (::cough:: SoFi ::cough::) and you realize your company’s motto has literally been #dontbank all along…

SoFi Don't Bank

The above is actually from a video they made about how much banks suck.

This is the beginning of a bankless world

A slight fix to their ads:

don't bank sofi

#dontbank meme

sofi bank

lie detector sofi

sofi bank bylaws

futurama sofi

sofi bank list

#dontbank

You can view the full bank charter application of the anti-bank whose slogan was #dontbank, here. You can also read an article about it on TechCrunch.

Sound Bites From Underwriting – The Risk of Imperfect Merchants

June 12, 2017
Article by:

underwriting blind

When you’re funding a business, does the risk begin and end with the business? Or does the character of the owners play a role? Can you judge the business on weak financials if your product is geared towards weak financials to begin with? And can you trust unaudited internally prepared financial statements?

At the Factoring Conference during a portfolio warning signs panel, Michael Bagley, VP at Action Capital Corporation, spoke about the risk of internally prepared financials:

“The issue is from a financial standpoint, are they breaking even? That gives you some ability they can function, but one thing that jumps out at you is the payables. It really seems pretty simple. But if you’re in an industry where there’s a critical vendor, or you’ve got a critical supplier, or you’ve got subcontractors and the payables are stretched beyond what is logical past terms, well, that’s a huge warning sign in the underwriting, but it didn’t always show up in underwriting, right, because these were internal financials and 90% of the time and they’re garbage, right?

They’re created by the user so that you at some level have to create or mitigate that by creating procedures that allow you to chase down what are your critical expenses associated with customers. So, for example, in the government space, it would be a subcontractor not getting paid. In manufacturing, it could be a critical vendor that you see on the aging. But if you see that their insurance company had not been paid a couple months, it may not be as big a deal.”

Emma Hart, the COO of Sallyport Commercial Finance, on where the risk lies:

“[…] More than anything I would say even beyond the collateral, it’s the integrity of the client that you’re dealing with. Because in my experience, it’s people that pay you back, not businesses.”

Hart again, on judging a customer’s financial situation:

“[…] quite often, that’s the reason they’re factoring, is because their AP is a mess and you can see the AP is a mess and you raise it in the underwriting, you know. Is anybody suing you? What are you gonna do about it? And they’re like ‘Oh, I’m gonna use the money that you provide to me to sort out my AP.’ ‘Okay then.'”

Melissa Baines, Risk Manager of Republic Business Credit, LLC, on a deal going too smoothly:

“We had a situation where I believe they were doing the parking lot striping, the painting on a parking lot. And it was one invoice. It was a dealership. A car dealership was the account debtor. The account executive who was helping out with the take-on sent out the verification letter. The no-offset verification letter came right back. No issues. And our CEO at that time— Again, going back to the gut feeling, just it was too easy— There weren’t even any questions asked. “What is this?” It was just “Sure. Send it over. I’ll sign it.” And he did and we got it back. And so, our CEO called and talked to him. And he said, “Yeah, yeah, yeah, it’s fine. It’s fine.” It still didn’t feel right. So, we called the dealership main line, got the receptionist. She answered the phone. She said, “Who signed it? Okay. Hold on.” Ended up somebody from the accounting department got on the phone and said, “That’s not real. You’re not the first person to call, you know, and then we’ll call you back.” And then ultimately, the owner of the dealership called back and said, “We will take care of this. It will not happen again, but it is not a real invoice. And please do not fund that to that client.” So, you know, don’t ever give up on that gut instinct. There was nothing that said it wasn’t real to begin with, but thank goodness for [employee’s name]. She just had that gut feeling. It wasn’t right. It was too easy. And here you go.”

This is one of several excerpts from this panel that we plan to post under the Sound Bites From Underwriting tagline.

Upstart’s Average Borrower

June 12, 2017
Article by:

Online lender Upstart considers more than 10,000 variables such as an applicant’s education, academic performance, and employment background, according to their website, a proprietary system they say is used to detect “future prime” borrowers. But according to a recent Kroll Rating Agency report, their borrower base looks prime even by traditional standards in that their average borrower is 28 years old, earns $95,000 a year and has a FICO score of 690. Upstart lends money (through Cross River Bank) to individuals for a variety of purposes including student loan refinancing and debt consolidation.

In the Kroll report, Upstart asserts its belief that its use of additional data points will outperform traditional credit models, but concedes that their system has not been tested through economic cycles.

Upstart has raised $88.35 million in equity to-date. The Kroll Report was prepared in anticipation of a $163 million securitization transaction that is expected to close this month. They expect to be making $100 million of loans per month by the end of the year.

Another NY Supreme Court Judge Casts Doubt On The MFS – Volunteer Pharmacy Case

June 10, 2017
Article by:

Just as an Orange County, NY judge found in Merchant Funding Services, LLC v. Micromanos Corporation d/b/a Micromanos and Astsumassa Tochisako that a uniquely structured merchant cash advance was not a criminally usurious loan, so too did the Honorable Maria S. Vazquez-Doles on June 8th, court records reveal. Vazquez-Doles, who also presides in Orange County, concurred that the attorney representing defendants in Yellowstone Capital LLC v M N B Waterford LLC d/b/a MAC N’ Brewz! Mac N.Cheez! LLC d/b/a Mac N’Cheez! Somerset and Gary E Sussman, misquoted the contract’s language in their motion papers to suit their argument that the agreement was in fact a loan. In her decision, she referred to defendants’ attempt to twist the words as “incomplete and palpably misleading.”

“The Agreement is not on its face and as a matter of law a criminally usurious loan,” she held.

This is the second judge to opine that the decision in Merchant Funding Services, LLC v. Volunteer Pharmacy Inc. was premised on the opposition palpably misquoting an addendum to the contract in their motion papers. The first was the Honorable Catherine M. Bartlett last month.

The weight of the Volunteer Pharmacy case to a cottage industry of attorneys hoping to argue that merchant cash advances are disguised loans, is rapidly declining. The actual language of the these particular contracts has now twice exonerated the merchant cash advance companies.

The Yellowstone case decided on June 8th is filed under Index Number: EF001264-2017.

Sound Bites From Underwriting – Gambling With a New Broker

June 9, 2017
Article by:

At the Factoring Conference during a portfolio warning signs panel, Emma Hart, the COO of Sallyport Commercial Finance, was asked if she recalled any red flag situations that hinted at collusion. Whether in factoring or not, you can probably relate to this situation with a new broker:

We had one fairly recently that we should not have funded that the CEO of our business puts on. It was a slow one. We needed the deals. The client was a flour mill supplying flour to Indian restaurants. It was a special type of flour. I can’t remember what it was. He had 4 debtors. The invoices were for $14,500 each. Each of the 4 debtors verified by invoice perfectly and we never heard from him again. And every single one of the debtors claim to have paid him directly. He came to pick up the checks. We don’t even know whether they were valid invoices, whether they even parted with the money, but we never saw him again. And the warning flags were all over the place. They were bright red, weren’t they? It didn’t pass any of the underwriting criteria. The individual was not an individual of good character. He had some history, but the deal had been given to Nick [the company’s president] by a broker. We were establishing a relationship. We always say in our business and every other business, you know, the new sales people get a freebie. Nick doesn’t get any freebies ever anymore, but that was a first funding loss. So, that was a classic first funding loss. It didn’t pass any underwriting criteria. We did it because we were slow. We needed some business. It was a new broker relationship. […] So, that was classic case of collusion, but we should have known better. Absolutely. And he absconded.

This is one of several excerpts from this panel that we plan to post under the Sound Bites From Underwriting tagline.

Humans vs. Bank Statements – An Underwriting Journey

June 8, 2017
Article by:

This story appeared in deBanked’s May/June 2017 magazine issue. To receive copies in print, SUBSCRIBE FREE

bank statementsAutomation hasn’t replaced humans yet when it comes to reading bank statements in the alternative small-business finance industry. ISOs, brokers, funders and underwriters still fend off drowsiness and ignore the risk of eye strain as they pore over months of paper or electronic documents.

Many consider the drudgery a necessary part of the business. A merchant’s bank statements can reveal negative balances and commitments to previous loans or previous cash advances – any of which can indicate a bad risk, observers say. Moreover, detecting altered statements can expose fraudulent attempts to obtain credit, they add.

So why not dispense with the tedium and possible tampering of reading paper statements and pdfs? Instead, interested parties could simply obtain the login credentials for a credit or advance applicant’s bank accounts and explore their banking records firsthand. But a mixture of fear, fraud and expense often prevents that direct and relatively simple approach, multiple sources contend.

“Merchants simply don’t want to give up their username and password to enable someone to log into their bank account,” says Sam Bobley, CEO of Ocrolus, a company that specializes in automating the reading of paper statements and statements that have been converted to PDFs. Fear of somehow falling victim to an electronic robbery may be at the root of that reluctance, many in the industry agree.

online bankingWhatever the source of the hesitancy to share login information, the wariness usually seems more pronounced at the beginning of the underwriting process than toward the end, notes Arun Narayan, senior vice president of risk and analytics at Strategic Funding Source Inc., a New York City-based direct funder. “I don’t think that’s a problem after the commitment to fund,” he says, “but it is a problem before the commitment to fund.” Funders can try to leverage their market power to urge brokers to obtain a username and password from a merchant, Narayan suggests. But he admits that approach works only some of the time.

Merchants who have had a bad experience applying for loans or advances or are submitting their first application exhibit the most fear of surrendering login credentials, according to John Tucker, managing member at 1st Capital Loans, a broker with headquarters in Troy, Mich. “If they’ve been through the process before, they pretty much know what’s expected of them,” he says.

All too often, applicants balk at presenting their login information because they have something to hide, notes Cheryl Tibbs, owner of One Stop Commercial Capital, an Atlanta-based brokerage that handles deals for multiple ISOs. She says her detective work with bank statements uncovers an average of two fraudulent applications per week.

Attempts at fraud average more than five a day at Elevate Funding, a Gainesville, Fla.-based director funder, says CEO Heather Francis. Her company’s underwriters learn what to look for in bank statements that can indicate a merchant is trying to defraud a funder, she says.

First, an underwriter who’s manually checking bank statements knows that documents bearing the names of certain banks have a higher likelihood of being bogus, Francis says. Apparently, fraudsters find the statements from those banks easier to alter, or perhaps they have the templates for those banks and can plug in false information, sources speculate.

WHETHER PAPER OR PDF BANK STATEMENTS PROVIDE TO BE ON-THE-LEVEL OR NOT, READING THEM MANUALLY TAKES TIME

Besides, anyone hoping to bilk a funder can buy a customized “vanity statement” for $25 or $30 on craigslist, complete with whatever deposits, opening balances and closing balances they choose, Francis notes. That can tempt troubled merchants as well as outright criminals, observers agree.

And some of the more bizarre errors that appear in falsified statements can seem almost comical. Tibbs cites the example of a statement she saw that was supposedly for January but was populated with transactions dated in February. On altered statements the ending balance for one month might not match the beginning balance for the next month, several sources note.

Sometimes the fake numbers that wayward applicants choose to include in their fraudulent statements can send up red flags, Tibbs maintains. If a merchant is seeking $40,000 and presents account documents indicating $80,000 or $90,000 balances at the end of each month, something’s amiss “10 times out of 10,” she says.

Tibbs tells the story or a referral partner from a one-or two-person ISO calling her in a state of near-euphoria in the middle of the night, breathlessly describing a potential customer with monthly sales of $800,000 and a need for $500,000 in capital. Experience told her immediately that something wasn’t right. In the morning, she saw the statement’s ending balances of $300,000 to $400,000, which confirmed her suspicions.

Yet grafting such unlikely numbers to a forged bank statement isn’t as unsophisticated as some of the telltale signs that the industry sees when viewing bank statements manually, notes Francis. Some aspiring crooks doctor genuine statements with white-out correction fluid and then type in new numbers in a mismatched font, she says.

Anyone reading bank statements should also beware of applicants who “shotgun” applications to multiple ISOs, often on the same day, Tibbs warns. She often comes across that scam because numerous partners refer deals to her, she says.

Whether paper or pdf bank statements prove to be on-the-level or not, reading them manually takes time. An experienced underwriter who knows where to look for what he or she needs to find to verify a statement requires 15 to 20 minutes to approve one from a familiar financial institution, Francis says.

It seems that nearly every bank or credit union has its own way of designing statements, so the manual reading process slows down when an underwriter manually reads a document with an unfamiliar layout, Francis notes. Unfamiliar types of statements sometimes come from small, obscure credit unions or remote community banks, observers say.

Familiar or unfamiliar, statements represent a key part of the underwriting process, and some funders accept the time and expense of reading them manually as simply a cost of doing business, according to Francis. But that expense can become a significant portion of the cost of a credit evaluation, according to Narayan.

That’s why Narayan and his colleagues at Strategic Funding Source have been working with Ocrolus, a startup company that automates the reading of paper statements and pdf’s of statements. Ocrolus uses optical character recognition, or OCR, to automate the reading of those statements.

OCRSimply stated, OCR enables a machine to make sense of the characters it perceives in an image, says Bobley, the Ocrolus executive quoted earlier. When the platform can’t make out certain data points, they’re snipped and verified by humans in crowdsourced mini CAPTCHA tests, which stands for Completely Automated Public Turing.

They’re those tests that ask computer users to type what they see to prove they’re not robots, Bobley notes. When two of three crowd workers agree on what an image says in the CAPTCHA test, the Ocrolus platform accepts their verdict as correct, he says.

Ocrolus envisions a large market for its new platform among the many funders still reading bank statements manually in the early stages of underwriting, Bobley says. However, in the later stages of underwriting many of those funders already use bank sync companies to verify statements.

Bank sync companies include DecisionLogic, MicroBilt, Yodlee, Plaid and Finicity. They connect directly with some financial institutions to verify statements. Funders often mention the expense when they talk about bank sync companies, and they also note that bank sync companies have not yet established connections with some lesser-known financial institutions.

But late in the funding process, Elevate Funding requires merchants to cooperate with the bank sync company it uses unless extenuating circumstance dictate otherwise, says Francis. The bank sync company can gain direct access to statements using encrypted login information that does not reveal the true username or password to Elevate Funding or the bank sync company, she maintains.

Some of Elevate Funding’s brokers maintain portals that merchants can use to provide their login credentials to get the bank sync process underway, Francis notes. The portal takes merchants to a page with Elevate Funding branding through a white-label program the bank sync company provides.

“IT HAS SAVED US FROM MERCHANTS THAT WOULD HAVE DEFAULTED…IT IS A NECESSARY TOOL – ONE THAT WE HAVE TO USE”

In about 85 percent of Elevate deals, the bank sync company is connected with the merchant’s financial institution and therefore theoretically capable of gaining access to the accounts in question, Francis notes.

Over the past 30 days the Elevate Funding bank sync results included 3 percent bank error and 17 percent merchant error, while 73 percent of the statements were verified, Francis says. Bank error occurs when the bank sync company is connected to the bank but still can’t obtain the account information. Merchant error sometimes happens when the potential client provides an incorrect user name or password, probably after forgetting the right one. Merchant error can also mean that the applicant was plotting fraud and abandoned the bank sync process upon realizing he or she was about to get caught.

The upshot? Some 73 percent of the bank statements submitted are verified, meaning that the information the merchants submitted matches the numbers at the bank, Francis reports. That also means that for whatever reason 7 percent don’t even start the process they’ve requested, she says.

Meanwhile, the bank sync connection also provides real time data that would indicate to the funder whether the merchant has had a decline in sales, an increase in negative activity or the recent addition of a credit provider, Francis says.

The service can pay off. In an average month, the bank sync service detects about 10 or 15 bad deals that Elevate Funding underwriters had accepted, Francis says. “It has saved us from merchants that would have defaulted,” she says. “It is a necessary tool – one that we have to use.”

But what about those cases where the bank sync company can’t connect with the financial institution and the merchant still won’t give up the login for the account? At 1st Capital Loans, Tucker can sometimes handle the situation by getting a bank activity sheet that lists transactions. If that type of sheet’s not available, he arranges a phone call to with a representative of the bank to verify that nothing’s amiss with the applicant’s bank account.

It’s another example of how – even with today’s rampant automation – the human touch sometimes remains indispensable in assuring that merchants deserve the loans or advances they seek.

This article is from deBanked’s May/June 2017 magazine issue. To receive copies in print, SUBSCRIBE FREE

Marketplace Lending: The Next 10 Years

June 7, 2017
Article by:

Looking out at the futureThe marketplace for consumer and small-business loans has come a long way over the last 10 years. Since the early days of peer-to-peer lending, there has been a great proliferation of new types of intermediaries creating new layers of distribution for the risk involved with the lending process. Now marketplace lending has reached an inflection point that will create a much different scenario with fewer players and more partnerships.

“Marketplace lending has created a much richer ecosystem for risk distribution,” said Shane Hadden, a marketplace lending consultant at BlackLine Advisory Group. “There are many more participants on the investor side, new origination strategies and more intermediaries. We are seeing new types of risk being distributed to the best holders of that risk. This is a very good development for consumers and small business borrowers.”

Now that investors agree that marketplace lending risk is attractive, this segment is poised to mature. Hadden has turned his attention toward the next stage of marketplace lending.

“Marketplace lending has been about intermediation with new types of technology-driven companies being placed between the risk and the ultimate loan holder. That’s going to collapse back over time,” said Hadden.

Indeed marketplace lending to date has been the practice of lenders going around the banks to reach bank customers. This has created a market where lenders are competing against banks for originating credit risk that they then distribute, which in turn has created an appetite from investors for this type of risk.

Now that investors agree this is the type of risk they desire, they’re examining the process to determine the most cost efficient way to take on this risk. As they look down the marketplace lending supply chain, they’re faced with multiple layers that ultimately lead to the consumer.

“The next phase is that investment firms will partner directly with credit originators, the ones that have the data. They will partner with banks, for example, directly. Or with data driven online aggregators like Credit Karma Whoever is the ultimate holder of the loan partners with the company that has the best primary relationships with the borrower, cutting out the middle man,” said Hadden.

The linchpin holding this model all together is technology including machine learning, which is driving more efficient distribution. “Technology is what has made marketplace lending so rich and competitive. But technology firms must now compete within the market they’ve created. And typically technology – once it exists can be commoditized,” said Hadden, adding that technology will eliminate intermediaries, not create new ones.

Meanwhile, growth for the software providers will be through partnerships. “In the short run technology companies will participate as new financial intermediaries, but that will eventually correct itself and we will be in a situation where there are fewer intermediaries. When the smoke clears, all of the technology will be in the hands of two parties — the primary originators and the ultimate lenders,” said Hadden.

So the big question is ‘who will survive?’ According to Hadden, it will be the players that transition into a natural competitive position as either the lender or the risk originator. “These are the two big specialties. Either you have capital and algorithms and are good at investing or you have relationships and data and you are good at originating loans. These firms need to go in one direction or the other,” said Hadden.

While the patchwork of the new marketplace lending space has yet to be completed, one thing seems abundantly clear. “It will look different from what it looks like today,” said Hadden.

Industry CEOs Were Less Confident in Q1

June 6, 2017
Article by:

According to the latest quarterly Bryant Park Capital/deBanked survey of industry CEOs, confidence dropped to the lowest levels since the survey first began in Q4 2015. Specifically, confidence in being able to access capital needed to grow dipped down to 78.7% from 82.7% in the prior quarter. Confidence in the continued success of the Small Business Lending & MCA Industry shrank from 81.9% in Q4 to 73.8% in Q1.

See the trends below:

Industry Confidence Q1 2017

Access to Capital Q1 2017

The survey does not ask participants to offer a reason for their confidence but the drop could probably be partially attributed to the events that occurred at CAN Capital, OnDeck’s struggles, and a general correction that took place at several other competing firms.