Archive for 2018
Boiler Rooms Are Not Brands, Kabbage CEO Says
April 21, 2018
Kabbage CEO Rob Frohwein has a knack for speaking his mind at lending conferences and LendIt two weeks ago was no different. Below are some of the most notable quotes from his April 10th presentation.
On building a brand
Unfortunately, in the online lending space, most companies basically think that boiler rooms = brand. Boiler rooms don’t equal brand. They have these huge call shops and that’s what they’re focused on. That doesn’t create brand. It just doesn’t. You have to spend money in order to build a brand over time. You have to have a brand obviously from a user experience and a customer service experience that people love. That’s how you build a brand.
We’ve invested over $125 million into building our brand specifically. We don’t use brokers and brokers are those 3rd parties that go out and find loans for you, but they don’t represent your company in the process.
How 2018 differs from 2015
About 6 months ago, I was asked to speak on a panel and it wasn’t this conference. And so, I got on the phone with the conference organizer and he said to me “Hey, we’d like to do a panel on fintech and bank partnerships.” Total yawn. 2015 called. They want their panel topic back. I mean, after all, there are probably more panels on fintech and bank partnerships than there are actual conversations going on between fintechs and banks. 2018 is all about relationships.
If the only thing you’re doing is lending money online, it’s going to go the way of the dinosaur. It’s very important. It doesn’t mean that the companies are gonna blow up. It doesn’t mean that there’s going to be any challenges, you know, trying to grow that business, but they’re not going to be the kind of exciting companies that we saw just a few years ago.
The only way to build substantial enterprise value is to be in a position to expand your brand’s offerings.
On whether or not your relationship with the customer can naturally extend to other products
I’ve heard lots of people say I had 2 million customers so I can sell them an auto loan. Actually, you can’t. That’s not the way it works. That’s not the way you build the company. You can certainly try, but the question becomes do you have implicit permission from the customer to make this kind of an offer?
How close is the next product you’re launching from both the function and a brand perspective to your last product? Right? Is it close? Smith & Wesson came out with a lot of bicycles. I am not sure what amendment covers bicycles, but they did not do great with the Smith & Wesson bicycles as far as I know.
The challenge is that most online lending companies don’t really have much of an idea about what their customers want or need because they only have basic credit info at the time of qualification and they also are just getting repayment information. That does not equal understanding the customer.
On engaging with your customers
If you’re not interacting with them very often, then they’re not thinking about you very often.
Kabbage customers take 20 loans over 4 to 5 years, 4-5 loans a year every year. We have that many positive interactions. Our competitors average 2.2.
Finally, I really think of this as the potato chip dream. And I think about Amazon a lot when I talk about the potato chip dream. What that dream is the day that Kabbage is able to sell bags of potato chips to our customers and our customers are like “of course, I’m gonna buy potato chips from Kabbage, why would I buy them from anybody else?” That will mean that Kabbage is worth hundreds of billions and our customers are incredibly happy in the process because it necessarily means that we will provide them with every product and service between where we are today and potato chips tomorrow. And that’s really the key for what we’re trying to accomplish, is allow us to expand our offerings in a natural evolutionary way and take care of our customers. And I really do think that all of us here should think about that as well especially if you’re running an online lending company. Focus back on the customer. Build those relationships. Figure out how to take it to the next level.
Wayward Merchants
April 19, 2018
Wayward merchants and outright criminals are continuing to bilk the alternative small-business funding industry out of cash at a dizzying pace. In fact, an estimated 23 percent of the problematic clients that funders reported to an industry database in 2017 appeared to have committed fraud, up from approximately 17 percent in the previous year. That’s according to Scott Williams, managing member of Florida-based Financial Advantage Group LLC, who along with Cody Burgess founded the DataMerch database in 2015. Some 11,000 small businesses now appear in the database because they’ve allegedly failed to honor their commitments to funders, Williams says.
Whether fraudulent or not, defaults remain plentiful enough to keep attorneys busy in funders’ legal departments and at outside law firms funders hire. “I do a lot of collections work on behalf of my cash-advance clients, sending out letters to try to get people to pay,” says Paul Rianda, a California-based attorney. When letters and phone calls don’t succeed, it’s time to file a lawsuit, he says.
Lawsuits become necessary more often than not by the time a funder hires an outside attorney, according to Jamie Polon, a partner at the Great Neck, N.Y.- based law firm of Mavrides Moyal Packman Sadkin LLP and manager of its Creditors’ Rights Group. “Typically, my clients have tried everything to resolve the situation amicably before coming to me,” he observes.
That pursuit of debtors isn’t getting any easier. These days, it’s not just the debtor and the debtor’s attorney that funders and their attorneys must confront. Collections have become more difficult with the recent rise of so-called debt settlement companies that promise to help merchants avoid satisfying their obligations in full, notes Katherine Fisher, who’s a partner in the Maryland office of the law firm of Hudson Cook LLP.
Meanwhile, a consensus among attorneys, consultants and the funders themselves holds that the nature of the fraudulent attacks is changing. On one side of the equation, crooks are hatching increasingly sophisticated schemes to defraud funders, notes Catherine Brennan, who’s also a partner in the Maryland office of Hudson Cook LLP. On the other side, underwriters and software developers are becoming more skilled at detecting and thwarting fraud, she maintains.
Digitalization is fueling those changes, says Jeremy Brown, chairman of Bethesda, Md.-based RapidAdvance. “As the business overall becomes more and more automated and moves more online – with less personal contact with merchants – you have to develop different tools to deal with fraud,” he says.
A few years ago, the industry was buzzing about fake bank statements available on craigslist, Brown recalls. Criminals who didn’t even own businesses used the phony statements to borrow against nonexistent bank accounts, and merchants used the fake documents to inflate their numbers.
Altered or invented bank statements remain one of the industry’s biggest challenges, but now they’ve gone digital. About 85 percent of the cases of fraud submitted to the DataMerch database involve falsified bank documents, nearly all of them manipulated digitally, Williams notes.
Merchants alter their statements to overstate their balances, increase the amount of their monthly deposits, erase overdrafts, or hide automatic payments they’re already making on loans or advances, Williams says. Most use software that helps them reformat and tamper with PDF files that begin as legitimate bank statements, he observes.
To combat false statements, alt funders are demanding online access to applicants’ actual bank accounts. Some funders ask for prospective clients’ usernames and passwords to examine bank records, but applicants often consider such requests an invasion of their privacy, sources agree.
That’s why RapidAdvance has joined the ranks of companies that use electronic tools like DecisionLogic, GIACT or Yodlee to verify a bank balance or the owner of the account and perform test ACH transfers – all without needing to persuade anyone to surrender personally identifiable information, Brown says.
Other third-party systems can use an IP address to view the computing device and computer network that a prospective customer is using to apply for credit, Brown says. RapidAdvance has received applications that those tools have traced to known criminal networks. The systems even know when crooks are masking the identity of the networks they’re using to attempt fraud, he observes.
RapidAdvance has also developed its own software to head off fraud. One program developed in-house cross references every customer who’s contacted the company, even those who haven’t taken out a loan or merchant cash advance. “People who want to defraud you will come back with a different business name on the same bank account,” Brown says. “It’s a quick way to see if this is somebody we don’t want to do business with.”
Sometimes businesses use differing federal tax ID numbers to pull off a hoax, according to Williams at DataMerch. That’s why his company’s database lists all of the ID numbers for a business.
All of those electronic safeguards have come into play only recently, Brown maintains. “We didn’t think about any of this five years ago – certainly not 10 years ago,” he says. In those days, funders were satisfied with just an application and a copy of a driver’s license, he remembers.
Since then, some sage advice has been proven true. When RapidAdvance was founded in 2005, the company had a mentor with experience at Capital One, Brown says. One piece of wisdom the company guru imparted was this: “Watch out when the criminals figure out your business model.” That’s when an industry becomes a target of organized fraud.
As that prediction of fraud has become reality, it hasn’t necessarily gotten any easier to pinpoint the percentage of deals proposed with bad intent. That’s because underwriters and electronic aids prevent most fraudulent potential deals from coming to fruition, Brown notes. The company looks at the loss rates for the deals that it funds, not the deals it turns down.
Brown guesses that as many as 10 percent of applications are tainted by fraudulent intention. “It’s meaningful enough that if you miss a couple of accounts with significant dollar amounts,” he says, “then it can have a pretty negative impact on your bottom line.”
Some perpetrators of fraud merely pretend to operate a small business, and funders can discover their scams if there’s time to make site visits, Rianda notes. Other clients begin as genuine entrepreneurs who then run into hard times and want to keep their doors open at all costs, sources agree.
Applicants sometimes provide false landlord information, something that RapidAdvance checks out on larger loans, Brown notes. Underwriters who call to verify the tenant-landlord relationship have to rely upon common sense to ferret out anything “fishy,” he advises.
Underwriters should ask enough questions in those phone calls to determine whether the supposed landlord really knows the property and the tenant, which could include queries concerning rent per square foot, length of time in business and when the lease terminates, Brown suggests. All of that should match what the applicant has indicated previously.
Lack of a telephone landline may or may not provide a clue that an imposter is posing as a landlord, Brown continues. Be aware of a supposed landlord’s verbal stumbles, realize something’s possibly amiss if a dubious landlord lacks of an online presence, note whether too many calls to the alleged landlord go into voicemail and be suspicious if a phone exchange with a purported landlord simply “feels” residential instead of commercial, he cautions.
Reasonable explanations could exist for any of those concerns, but when in doubt about the validity of a tenant-landlord relationship it pays to request a copy of the lease or other type of verifications, according to Brown. Then there are the cases when the underwriter is talking to the actual landlord, but the applicant has convinced the landlord to lie. It could happen because the landlord might hope to recoup some back rent from a merchant who’s obviously on the verge of closing up shop.
Occasionally, formerly legitimate merchants turn rogue. They take out a loan, immediately withdraw the funds from the bank, stop repaying the loan, close the business and then walk or run away, notes Williams. “We view that as a fraudulent merchant because their mindset all along was qualifying for this loan and not paying it back,” he says.
Collecting on a delinquent account becomes problematic once a business closes its doors, Rianda notes. As long as the merchant remains in business, funders can still hope to collect reduced payments and thus eventually get back most or all of what’s owed, he maintains.
In another scam sometimes merchants whose bank accounts are set up to make automatic transfers to creditors simply change banks to halt the payments, Brown says. That move could either signal desperation or indicate the intent to defraud was there from the start, he says.
Merchants with cash advances that split card revenue could change transaction processors, install an additional card terminal that’s not programmed for the split or offer discounts for paying with cash, but those scams are becoming less prevalent as the industry shifts to ACH, Brown says. Industrywide, only 5 percent to 10 percent of payments are collected through card splits these days, but about 20 percent of RapidAdvance’s payments are made that way.
Merchants occasionally blame their refusal to pay on partners who have absconded with the funds or on spouses who weren’t authorized to apply for a loan or advance, Brown reports. Although that claim might be bogus, such cases do occur, notes Williams of DataMerch. People who own a minority share of a business sometimes manipulate K-1 records to present themselves as majority owners who are empowered to take out a loan, Williams says.
In a phenomenon called “stacking,” merchants take out multiple loans or advances and thus burden themselves with more obligations than they can meet. Whether or not that constitutes fraud remains debatable, Rianda observes. Stacking has increased with greater availability of capital and because some funders purposely pursue such deals, he contends.
Some contracts now contain covenants that bar stacking, notes Brennan of Hudson Cook. As companies come of age in the alt-funding business, they are beginning to employ staff members to detect and guard against practices like stacking, she says.
Moreover, underwriting is improving in general, according to Polon “The vetting is getting better because the industry is getting more mature,” he says. “The underwriting teams have gotten very good at looking at certain data points to see something is wrong with the application – they know when something doesn’t smell right.” They’re better at checking with references, investigating landlords, examining financials and requesting backup documentation, he contends.
Despite more-systematic approaches to foiling the criminal element and protecting against misfortunate merchants, one-of-a-kind attempts at fraud also still drive funders crazy, Brown says. His company found that a merchant once conspired with the broker who brought RapidAdvance the deal. The merchant and the broker set up a dummy business, transferred the funds to it and then withdrew the cash. “The guy came back to us and said, ‘I lost all the money because the broker took it,’” he recounts. “Why is that our problem?” was the RapidAdvance response.
Although such schemes appear rare, some funders are developing methods of auditing their ISOs to prevent problems, notes Brennan. They can search for patterns of irregularities as an early-warning system, she says. It’s also important to terminate relationships with errant brokers and share information about them, she advises, adding that competition has sometimes made funders reluctant to sever ties with brokers.
Although fraud’s clearly a crime, the police rarely choose to involve themselves with it, Brown says. His company has had cases where it lost what it considered large dollar amounts – say $50,000 – and had evidence he felt clearly indicated fraud but the company couldn’t attract the attention of law enforcement, he notes.
Rianda finds working with law enforcement “hit or miss,” whether it’s a matter of defaulting on loans or committing other crimes. In one of his cases an employee forged invoices to steal $100,000 and the police didn’t care. In another, someone collected $3,000 in credit card refunds and went to jail. If the authorities do intervene, they may seek jail time and sometimes compel crooks to make restitution, he notes.
“Engaging law enforcement is generally not appropriate for collections,” according to Fisher from Hudson Cook. However, notifying police agencies of fraud that occurs at the inception of a deal can sometimes be appropriate, says Fisher’s colleague Brennan, particularly when organized gangs of fraudsters are at work.
At the same time, sheriffs and marshals can help collect judgments, Polon says. He works with attorneys, sheriffs and marshals all over the country to enforce judgments he has obtained in New York State, he says. That can include garnishing wages, levying a bank account or clearing a lien before a debtor can sell or refinance property, he notes.
When Rianda files a lawsuit against an individual or company in default, the defendant fails to appear in court about 90 percent of the time, he says. A court judgment against a delinquent debtor serves as a more effective tool for collections than does a letter an attorney sends before litigation begins, Rianda notes.
But even with a judgment in hand, attorneys and their clients have to pursue the debtor, often in another state and sometimes over a long period of time, Rianda continues. “The good news is that in California a judgment is good for 10 years and renewable for 10,” he adds.
So guarding against fraud comes down to matching wits with criminals across the country and around the world. “It makes it hard to do business, but that’s the reality,” Brown concludes. Still, there’s always hope. To combat fraud, funders should work together, Brennan advises. “It’s an industrywide problem … so the industry as a whole has a collective interest in rooting out fraud.”
Demand for Tax Guard Grows, and Receives Private Equity Investment
April 19, 2018
Hansen Rada, CEO, Tax GuardTax Guard announced on Monday that it received an investment from Falfurrias Capital Partners, a Charlotte, NC-based private equity firm.
“What really excites me about [partnering with Falfurrias Capital Partners] is the breadth of experience that they bring to the table,” said CEO and co-founder Hansen Rada. “They have some real icons in banking that are now going to be members of the board and will continue to assist us from a strategic point of view as we begin to expand our platform.”
Tax Guard generates tax liability research on companies and individuals for lender clients that want a clearer picture of who they might be lending to.
“Across the board, 22 percent of businesses owe money to the Internal Revenue Service, and no lien has been filed,” Rada told deBanked. “In other words, there’s no public record of this. That’s where Tax Guard [comes in]. We identify these tax liabilities before the lien has been filed to notify lenders of potential risk.”
Rada said that since 2010 tax liens have dropped by 70 percent, yet the number of people and businesses that owe money has gone up steadily. This is because of a tactic the IRS uses, according to Rada, where it issues fewer liens which allows people’s credit scores to rise. When credit scores rise, people and businesses can take out loans that they can ultimately use to pay back to the government in taxes.
Regardless of whether or not this is a tactic, in addition to fewer liens, even existing liens have become more difficult for lenders to see. In March, Experian, one of the three major credit bureaus, said that it would stop reporting all tax liens from its consumer credit reporting database this week. And the other two major credit bureaus, Equifax and Transunion, have already stopped including civil judgments and tax liens on their consumer credit reports.
Rada agreed that these developments are positive for his business and said that this continues to validate the company’s value proposition. Specifically, Tax Guard provides reports to commercial lenders to let them know, in real time, if a business fails to pay its taxes.
“Our clients are anyone that cares if the people or businesses they are lending money to owe money to the IRS,” Rada said.
Rada said Tax Guard does business with about 350 lenders, including a national bank, community banks and alternative online lending companies.
So how does Tax Guard conduct its research? It contacts the IRS directly about specific people and companies. For the most part, this data-collecting process can be done by anyone. But it takes a long time and Rada said they are able to bypass the “middleman,” like public record searches and county courthouses. Tax Guard gets paid by its clients per business/individual report that it produces, and it customizes pricing based on volume.
As part of the investment deal, four people connected to Falfurrias Capital Partners will be joining Tax Guard in some capacity. Chris Marshall, a co-founder of Capital Bank and previously a senior executive at Bank of America, will join Tax Guard as Executive Chairman. Marc Oken, co-founder of Falfurrias Capital Partners and a former Bank of America CFO, will join the Tax Guard board, along with Geordie Pierson, a principal at Falfurrias Capital Partners, and Joe Price, a former Bank of America CFO.
Founded in 2009, Tax Guard has 65 employees at its office in Boulder, CO.
What Got Said in The California Senate Hearing About Commercial Loan Disclosures
April 19, 2018
California State Senator Steve Glazer was the reason that representatives from small business finance trade associations were in Sacramento on Wednesday. Glazer’s bill, SB 1235, calls for mandatory APR disclosures on loan and non-loan products alike, even if the transaction is business-to-business and even if the transaction assesses no interest charges and even when no such APR can be calculated or exists.
That proposal caught the attention of several interested groups, including those whose members offer short term small business loans, factoring, and merchant cash advances. Among those who testified in front of the Senate Committee on Banking and Financial Institutions on Wednesday was Joseph Looney, COO & General Counsel of RapidAdvance, who spoke on behalf of the Small Business Finance Association, and Katherine Fisher, Partner at Hudson Cook, LLP, who spoke on behalf of the Commercial Finance Coalition. Each of them were there representing separate constituents with their own individual views.
Transcripts of their testimonies are below:
![]() “Chairman Bradford, Vice Chair Vidak, and Members of this committee. I am Joseph Looney and I am the General Counsel for a commercial finance company named RapidAdvance. We are a California Finance Lender licensee and have provided more than $200,000,000 in capital to thousands of businesses in California. Today I am providing testimony on behalf of the Small Business Finance Association or SBFA, which is the leading association for companies that provide funding to Main Street businesses. The SBFA is in opposition to Senate Bill 1235 as currently drafted. While there are various issues with the Bill, the overarching concern we have is that it treats small businesses like consumers. States and the federal government have generally refused to treat small businesses the same as consumers when it comes to financing disclosures for two reasons. First, there is a significant concern that imposing consumer disclosures and regulation on small businesses would reduce the flow of capital and negatively impact the economy. Second, small business owners are sophisticated and do not need the same protections provided to consumers. Business owners hire and fire employees, handle taxes and payroll, negotiate with customers and vendors, arrange financing, handle litigation and execute on business strategies every day. Also, businesses look at money differently than consumers. A business gets capital and uses it to make more money or solve a problem in their business. In this scenario, the most important item to the business owner is how fast can they get the money and what are the conditions for getting it. The APR disclosure included in the Bill is problematic as it will create confusion. The CFPB has recently concluded the APR is confusing, does not provide as much value as thought and is extremely complicated for creditors to calculate. In fact, the CFPB is making the APR less important by moving it to the end of some disclosures and completely removing it in some cases. The APR is so complicated to calculate there are numerous pages in the Code of Federal Regulations devoted to explaining the calculation. Additionally, there are pages of guidance on how to handle various consumer products and payment types and what assumptions should be made for various products as well as shielding creditors from liability for minor calculation errors. This Bill does not address any of these issues. It simply takes an APR disclosure requirement for fixed monthly payment consumer finance transactions and concludes it should apply to materially different commercial products. While we do not support the Bill as it imposes consumer disclosures such as the APR on small business transactions, we are supportive of the idea of providing businesses with cost disclosures. Thank you.” |
![]() “Chairman Bradford and committee members: Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today regarding SB-1235. My name is Kate Fisher and I am here today on behalf of the Commercial Finance Coalition, a group of responsible finance companies that provide capital to small and medium-sized businesses through innovative methods. Small businesses face a gap in credit availability. Commercial Finance Coalition member companies are trying to close this gap and help spur entrepreneurship so more Americans and Californians can own and operate their own businesses. I also am a lawyer who works with providers of commercial financing on complying with state and federal law. The Commercial Finance Coalition supports California’s efforts to make business financing more transparent. Businesses benefit from having different types of financing available, and being able to comparison shop. SB 1235 would require commercial finance providers to disclose the cost of capital by providing the following helpful disclosures: The Total Amount of Funds Provided These three disclosures will help a California business owner understand and compare the cost of financing across different products. However, the Commercial Finance Coalition opposes requiring an APR disclosure. It’s important to note that SB 1235 aims at providing comparable disclosures across very different financing types. Commercial Finance Coalition members mostly engage in “accounts receivable purchase transactions.” These transactions are also known as merchant cash advance or factoring, and involve a business selling its receivables at a discount. For example, if a business’s sales go down, the business can pay less. If a business’s sales go up, the business can pay more. And if a business is burned down in a fire, the business can pay nothing until it can reopen its doors. SB 1235 would require disclosure of an Annual Percentage Rate (or APR). There are two problems with requiring an APR disclosure or even an “Estimated APR”: First – SB 1235 fails to address the complexity of calculating APR for different types of commercial finance transactions. This creates a significant litigation risk and minefield for finance providers making a good faith effort to disclose APR, and may stifle small business financing in California. Second – Requiring an Estimated APR disclosure creates an unfair disadvantage for offers of “accounts receivable purchase transactions” – or factoring. Again, these transactions are purchases, and do not need to be “paid back” unless the business has sufficient sales. Also, this disclosure could confuse a business owner who is looking for alternatives to lending. I’m very optimistic that California can lead the way in providing businesses with disclosures that are helpful – and not confusing. |
In response, Senator Glazer deferred to the experts who testified but he was not willing to make a key concession in the moment. At Glazer’s prodding, the bill made it out of committee with enough votes, and with the goal of continuing to fine tune the details particularly with respect to APR.
More information surrounding the bill and it’s progress will be made available soon.
Full video of the hearing below:
Industry Representatives to Testify at California Hearing
April 18, 2018
Several people will be testifying in front of the Senate Committee on Banking and Financial Institutions in California today. Among them are Joe Looney, COO & GC at RapidAdvance, who will be speaking on behalf of the Small Business Finance Association, and Katherine Fisher, Partner at Hudson Cook LLP, who will be speaking on behalf of the Commercial Finance Coalition.
At issue is SB 1235, a bill that would require providers of commercial financing to provide disclosures about the cost of that financing to the recipients of the financing.
Industry analysts believe the bill could have implications not just for small business lending but also for factoring and merchant cash advance.
Update: Full video of the hearing below
Ascentium Capital Surpasses $4 Billion in Originations
April 18, 2018
Texas-based lender Ascentium Capital announced last week that it had surpassed $4 billion in origination volume since the company was founded in 2011.
The company has two key channels of business. The vendor channel, in which Ascentium creates custom finance programs for clients like equipment manufacturers, distributors and resellers. It calls these clients its “vendor partners.”
“We do a lot of our business with vendor partners, typically [a company] selling something to a small business,” said Ascentium Capital CEO Tom Depping.
The other business channel is a direct channel where Ascentium makes direct loans to small and medium sized businesses of up to $250,000. Depping told deBanked that the company’s direct channel makes up about 30 to 40 percent of its business. Not an insignificant percentage. But he said that the company’s primary business is equipment finance via vendor partners.
Ascentium gets its leads from an internal sales team of 120 people and Depping said that he anticipates adding 50 additional sales people this year. Why the significant growth?
“Our award-winning finance platform, elevated levels of efficiencies and our personalized service continue to drive demand for our financial products,” said Depping. “Everything with us is very simple and very fast.”
The company currently employs 250 people with headquarters in Kingwood, TX, near Houston, with smaller offices in Dover, NH and Irvine, CA. Depping also counts 30 to 40 locations throughout the country where Ascentium Capital sales people either work from home or in micro-offices of one to two people.
CAN Capital Hires New CFO
April 17, 2018
CAN Capital has just hired Tom Davidson, a finance veteran, to become its new CFO. Davidson joins CAN Capital from Sierra Auto Finance where he was Chief Financial Officer and Chief Capital Officer. Before that, he worked at GE Capital for 16 years, eventually becoming Chairman and CEO of GE Capital Markets, Inc.
“Given that we’re growing rapidly and looking to expand our business significantly, we were looking for someone with the kind of experience Tom has,” CAN Capital CEO Parris Sanz said. “Mainly an expert in capital markets [with] great experience and expertise with securitizations, treasury and investor relations. [The decision to hire Davidson] is reflective of our future growth plans and the speed with which we expect to be growing.”
CAN has funded more than $200 million to small businesses since their rebirth in July last year. Between term loans and MCA funding, Sanz said that CAN Capital’s business is about 80 percent term loans and 20 percent MCA.
“It’s rare to have the opportunity to join a company that is a genuine pioneer in its field and also so well-positioned for future growth,” Davidson said. “[Also] what attracted me to CAN Capital is the opportunity to serve the small businesses that form the backbone of the American economy.”
Davidson will be replacing Ray De Palma who is staying on at the company in the role of Chief Accounting Officer. Founded in 1998, CAN Capital celebrates its 20th anniversary this year. It has about 150 employees spread across three offices in New York, Georgia and Costa Rica. The bulk – about 120 employees – are in Georgia. The executive and accounting teams are located in New York and part of the company’s IT team is based in Costa Rica.
Crypto Hype Man Ian Balina Hacked
April 16, 2018Cryptocurrency and ICO hype man Ian Balina has been hacked, according to a statement he published on social media. Balina’s self-reported fortune totaled $3.2 million just days earlier.
“I’m not worried about the money,” Balina tweeted. “I learned my lesson. I only care about catching the hacker.”
Balina is famous in the crypto world for his investment analysis and opinion on ICOs, in part because he managed to turn the $36,000 he had in cryptocurrency in May 2017 to $5.3 million by early January 2018. That rise was catalogued through his daily Instagram posts. The recent bear market cut into his profits significantly but his activity on social media had not let up. As of yesterday, he was still a millionaire.
Now his worth is uncertain.
Balina was previously mentioned on deBanked for having interviewed George Popescu about his ICO for Lampix. The value of Lampix, which Balina said he did not invest in, is down 77% from its ICO price.































