Archive for 2020

Funding Metrics Deal Puts Them On The Map

March 4, 2020
Article by:

Funding Metrics PaintingA new $100 million revolving credit facility is poised to give a big boost to small business funding provider Funding Metrics. The company operates the Lendini and QuickFix Capital brands, and this new credit facility comes as the company seeks to increase its base of more than 9,500 small businesses served so far.

“We now have the money to grow over all aspects of that spectrum,” President Jim Carnes said. Since 2014, the company has provided more than $500 million dollars of funding to small businesses in a variety of industries, including healthcare, real estate, construction, restaurants and others.

The $100 million worth of revolving credit comes from what the company called a “a multi-billion dollar institutional credit fund,” with Brean Capital serving as Funding Metrics’ exclusive financial advisor for the transaction. The new credit line as well as a newly developed website and streamlined funding process will allow for growth and fantastic customer service. Among the company’s main ideals is to provide funding request approvals or denials within three hours or less.

One of the main challenges for online small business funding and its related activities in 2020, said Funding Metrics co-founder David Frascella, is increasing awareness of all the offers and products out there, including from his company. “There are plenty of options in today’s market,” he said. Increasing that awareness, he added, is something the industry should come together to better address. “We look forward to additional submissions from the ISO network and funding the next wave of small business leaders nationwide,” he said.

Funding Metrics is also a platinum sponsor of Broker Fair 2020 on May 18th in New York City.

2020 and Beyond – A Look Ahead

March 3, 2020
Article by:

This story appeared in deBanked’s Jan/Feb 2020 magazine issue. To receive copies in print, SUBSCRIBE FREE

Looking AheadWith the doors to 2019 firmly closed, alternative financing industry executives are excited about the new decade and the prospects that lie ahead. There are new products to showcase, new competitors to contend with and new customers to pursue as alternative financing continues to gain traction.

Executives reading the tea leaves are overwhelming bullish on the alternative financing industry—and for good reasons. In 2019, merchant cash advances and daily payment small business loan products alone exceeded more than $20 billion a year in originations, deBanked’s reporting shows.

Confidence in the industry is only slightly curtailed by certain regulatory, political competitive and economic unknowns lurking in the background—adding an element of intrigue to what could be an exciting new year.

Here, then, are a few things to look out for in 2020 and beyond.

Regulatory developments

There are a number of different items that could be on the regulatory agenda this year, both on the state and federal level. Major areas to watch include:

  • Broker licensing. There’s a movement afoot to crack down on rogue brokers by instituting licensing requirements. New York, for example, has proposed legislation that would cover small business lenders, merchant cash advance companies, factors, and leasing companies for transactions under $500,000. California has a licensing law in place, but it only pertains to loans, says Steve Denis, executive director of the Small Business Finance Association. Many funders are generally in favor of broader licensing requirements, citing perceived benefits to brokers, funders, customers and the industry overall. The devil, of course, will be in the details.
  • Interest rate caps. Congress is weighing legislation that would set a national interest rate cap of 36%, including fees, for most personal loans, in an effort to stamp out predatory lending practices. A fair number of states already have enacted interest rate caps for consumer loans, with California recently joining the pack, but thus far there has been no national standard. While it is too early to tell the bill’s fate, proponents say it will provide needed protections against gouging, while critics, such as Lend Academy’s Peter Renton, contend it will have the “opposite impact on the consumers it seeks to protect.”
  • Loan information and rate disclosures. There continues to be ample debate around exactly what firms should be required to disclose to customers and what metrics are most appropriate for consumers and businesses to use when comparing offerings. This year could be the one in which multiple states move ahead with efforts to clamp down on disclosures so borrowers can more easily compare offerings, industry watchers say. Notably, a recent Federal Reserve study on non-bank small business finance providers indicates that the likelihood of approval and speed are more important than cost in motivating borrowers, though this may not defer policymakers from moving ahead with disclosure requirements.

    “THIS WILL DRIVE COMMISSION DOWN FOR THE INDUSTRY”

    If these types of requirements go forward, Jared Weitz, chief executive of United Capital generally expects to see commissions take a hit. “This will drive commission down for the industry, but some companies may not be as impacted, depending on their product mix, cost per lead and cost per acquisition and overall company structure,” he says.

  • Madden aftermath. The FDIC and OCC recently proposed rules to counteract the negative effects of the 2015 Madden v. Midland Funding LLC case, which wreaked havoc in the consumer and business loan markets in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. “These proposals would clarify that the loan continues to be ‘valid’ even after it is sold to a nonbank, meaning that the nonbank can collect the rates and fees as initially contracted by the bank,” says Catherine Brennan, partner in the Hanover, Maryland office of law firm Hudson Cook. With the comments due at the end of January, “2020 is going to be a very important year for bank and nonbank partnerships,” she says.
  • “…I’M NOT SURE THEY GO FAR ENOUGH”

  • Possible changes to the accredited investor definition. In December 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission voted to propose amendments to the accredited investor definition. Some industry players see expanding the definition as a positive step, but are hesitant to crack open the champagne just yet since nothing’s been finalized. “I would like to see it broadened even further than they are proposed right now,” says Brett Crosby, co-founder and chief operating officer at PeerStreet, a platform for investing in real estate-backed loans. The proposals “are a step in the right direction, but I’m not sure they go far enough,” he says.

Precisely how various regulatory initiatives will play out in 2020 remains to be seen. Some states, for example, may decide to be more aggressive with respect to policy-making, while others might take more of a wait-and-see approach.

“I think states are still piecing together exactly what they want to accomplish. There are too many missing pieces to the puzzle,” says Chad Otar, founder and chief executive at Lending Valley Inc.

As different initiatives work their way through the legislative process, funders are hoping for consistency rather than a patchwork of metrics applied unevenly by different states. The latter could have significant repercussions for firms that do business in multiple states and could eventually cause some of them to pare back operations, industry watchers say.

“While we commend the state-level activity, we hope that there will be uniformity across the country when it comes to legislation to avoid confusion and create consistency” for borrowers, says Darren Schulman, president of 6th Avenue Capital.

Election uncertainty

The outcome of this year’s presidential election could have a profound effect on the regulatory climate for alternative lenders. Alternative financing and fintech charters could move higher on the docket if there’s a shift in the top brass (which, of course, could bring a new Treasury Secretary and/or CFPB head) or if the Senate flips to Democratic control.

If a White House changing of the guard does occur, the impact could be even more profound depending on which Democratic candidate secures the top spot. It’s all speculation now, but alternative financers will likely be sticking to the election polls like glue in an attempt to gain more clarity.

Election-year uncertainty also needs to be factored into underwriting risk. Some industries and companies may be more susceptible to this risk, and funders have to plan accordingly in their projections. It’s not a reason to make wholesale underwriting changes, but it’s something to be mindful of, says Heather Francis, chief executive of Elevate Funding in Gainesville, Florida.

“Any election year is going to be a little bit volatile in terms of how you operate your business,” she says.

Competition

The competitive landscape continues to shift for alternative lenders and funders, with technology giants such as PayPal, Amazon and Square now counted among the largest small business funders in the marketplace. This is a notable shift from several years ago when their footprint had not yet made a dent.

This growth is expected to continue driving competition in 2020. Larger companies with strong technology have a competitive advantage in making loans and cash advances because they already have the customer and information about the customer, says industry attorney Paul Rianda, who heads a law firm in Irvine, Calif.

It’s also harder for merchants to default because these companies are providing them payment processing services and paying them on a daily or monthly basis. This is in contrast to an MCA provider that’s using ACH to take payments out of the merchant’s bank account, which can be blocked by the merchant at any time. “Because of that lower risk factor, they’re able to give a better deal to merchants,” Rianda says.

“THE PRIME MARKET IS EXPANDING TREMENDOUSLY”

Increased competition has been driving rates down, especially for merchants with strong credit, which means high-quality merchants are getting especially good deals—at much less expensive rates than a business credit card could offer, says Nathan Abadi, president of Excel Capital Management. “The prime market is expanding tremendously,” he says.

Certain funders are willing to go out two years now on first positions, he says, which was never done before.

Even for non-prime clients, funders are getting more creative in how they structure deals. For instance, funders are offering longer terms—12 to 15 months—on a second position or nine to 12 months on a third position, he says. “People would think you were out of your mind to do that a year ago,” he says.

Because there’s so much money funneling into the industry, competition is more fierce, but firms still have to be smart about how they do business, Abadi says.

Meanwhile, heightened competition means it’s a brokers market, says Weitz of United Capital. A lot of lenders and funders have similar rates and terms, so it comes down to which firms have the best relationship with brokers. “Brokers are going to send the deals to whoever is treating their files the best and giving them the best pricing,” he says.

Profitability, access to capital and business-related shifts

Executives are confident that despite increased competition from deep-pocket players, there’s enough business to go around. But for firms that want to excel in 2020, there’s work to be done.
Funders in 2020 should focus on profitability and access to capital—the most important factors for firms that want to grow, says David Goldin, principal at Lender Capital Partners and president and chief executive of Capify. This year could also be one in which funders more seriously consider consolidation. There hasn’t been a lot in the industry as of yet, but Goldin predicts it’s only a matter of time.

“A lot of MCA providers could benefit from economies of scale. I think the day is coming,” he says.

He also says 2020 should be a year when firms try new things to distinguish themselves. He contends there are too many copycats in the industry. Most firms acquire leads the same way and aren’t doing enough to differentiate. To stand out, funders should start specializing and become known for certain industries, “instead of trying to be all things to all businesses,” he says.

Some alternative financing companies might consider expanding their business models to become more of a one-stop shop—following in the footsteps of Intuit, Square and others that have shown the concept to be sound.

Sam Taussig, global head of policy at Kabbage, predicts that alternative funding platforms will increasingly shift toward providing more unified services so the customer doesn’t have to leave the environment to do banking and other types of financial transactions. It’s a direction Kabbage is going by expanding into payment processing as part of its new suite of cash-flow management solutions for small businesses.

“Customers have seen and experienced how seamless and simple and easy it is to work with some of the nontraditional funders,” he says. “Small businesses want holistic solutions—they prefer to work with one provider as opposed to multiple ones,” he says.

Open banking

This year could be a “pivotal” year for open banking in the U.S., says Taussig of Kabbage. “This issue will come to the forefront, and I think we will have more clarity about how customers can permission their data, to whom and when,” he says.

Open banking refers to the use of open APIs (application program interfaces) that enable third-party developers to build applications and services around a financial institution. The U.K. was a forerunner in implementing open banking, and the movement has been making inroads in other countries as well, which is helping U.S. regulators warm up to the idea. “Open banking is going to be a lively debate in Washington in 2020. It’ll be about finding the balance between policymakers and customers and banks,” Taussig says.

The funding environment

While there has been some chatter about a looming recession and there are various regulatory and competitive headwinds facing the industry, funding and lending executives are mostly optimistic for the year ahead.

“If December 2019 is an early indicator of 2020, we’re off to a good start. I think it’s going to be a great year for our industry,” says Abadi of Excel Capital.

Democrats Call for Interest-Free Loans for Small Businesses Affected by Coronavirus

March 2, 2020
Article by:

Covid-19The leaders of the Democratic Party in the Senate and House, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, respectively, have released a joint statement outlining their perspective on providing emergency funding to combat the coronavirus, otherwise known as covid-19. Among the provisions listed is a demand that “interest-free loans are made available for small businesses impacted by the outbreak.”

The statement comes at a point when the government has yet to confirm the amount of funds dedicated to treating and preparing against covid-19. Schumer has proposed devoting $8 billion, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has said that even $2 billion would be too little, opting instead for $4 billion. McCarthy has agreed with the Democrat leaders, saying that emergency funds should be not be stolen or transferred from other funds or emergency allotments. This position goes up against President Trump’s request for $1.25 billion from various existing funds, including $535 million from the Ebola preparedness fund.

Republican Senator Tom Cole expressed his uncertainty regarding the request, saying that “I just don’t think we should be penny-wise and pound-foolish on that.”

As well as calling for interest-free loans, the statement requests assurances that Trump will use the funds purely to fight covid-19 and other infectious diseases, that eventual vaccines will be available and affordable for all, and that state and local authorities will be reimbursed for costs incurred while assisting the federal response.

It is unsure whether or not these loans will actually come into play. While there does appear to be bipartisan cooperation within the House and Senate, the government seems to only have begun taking the virus seriously this week after it spread from China to Iran and Italy, and the first infection from an unknown source in America was diagnosed in California.

“We’re coming close to a bipartisan agreement in the Congress as to how we can go forward with a number that is a good start,” Pelosi told reporters in her weekly press conference. “We don’t know how much we will need. Hopefully, not so much more because prevention will work. But nonetheless, we have to be ready to do what we need to do.”

Maryland Legislative Committee to Meet On Merchant Cash Advance Prohibition (Rescheduled to Wednesday)

March 2, 2020
Article by:

Legislators in the Maryland State House will meet today on Wednesday at 1pm EST to discuss HB-1478, a bill to make merchant cash advances illegal in the state. A similar meeting is taking place tomorrow in the State Senate. The House meeting was originally scheduled for Monday but was postponed.

All four of the House bill’s sponsors are republicans. Today’s committee is expected to discuss the potential small business effect of prohibition. A legislative note that circulated before hand cautions that:

Any small businesses that utilize merchant cash advances, as defined by the bill, may be impacted, as the bill no longer allows such transactions. The Office of Commissioner of Financial Regulation advises that small businesses are likely to engage in merchant cash advance transactions, as they accept credit card payments and those receivables are their greatest source of liquidity. As such, prohibiting the use of such transactions may remove a source of financing that has traditionally been available to small businesses in the State. Additionally, prohibiting the use of merchant cash advance transactions may also affect small business lenders in the State that engage in these types of activities.

The bill, as written, would outlaw credit and debit card split transactions if it passed.

This bill prohibits a buyer from arranging, facilitating, or consummating a “merchant cash
advance transaction” with a seller in the State. The bill defines “merchant cash advance
transaction” as an arrangement between a buyer and a seller in which the buyer agrees to
purchase an agreed-on percentage of future credit or debit card revenues that are due to a
seller for a predetermined purchase price.

Income Share Agreements – Operating Under Current Regulations and Preparing for the Future

February 28, 2020
Article by:

The Income Share Agreement (“ISA”) market is rapidly developing with more providers offering ISA programs to students and outside money moving into the space. However, the legal environment remains uncertain, and providers entering the ISA market must prepare themselves both to operate in the current environment and for potential changes.

Background – What is an Income Share Agreement?

ISA providers have set a modest goal: disrupt the $1.6 trillion-dollar student loan market that has wreaked havoc on a generation’s finances by aligning the interests of students and providers. In an ISA transaction, the student does not owe a specific amount of money and no interest is charged on a balance. Instead, the student agrees to pay a proportion of their future income above a specified threshold for a certain number of years. The provider of an ISA has an interest in the student consistently earning a high income for the duration of the contract—because the ISA provider generally does not get paid if the student fails to earn sufficient income.

Evolving Legal Environment

The current legal environment has not yet adapted to ISAs entering the market for funding education and associated expenses. No federal statute directly addresses ISAs and only one state—Illinois—has passed legislation contemplating ISAs. Even that legislation (the Student Loan Investment Act) merely permits a state investment fund to enter into ISAs and does not impact the private ISA market.

California and Washington have both considered legislation related to ISAs, but neither passed anything into law. Indiana’s legislature exempted certain “State educational institutions” from its Uniform Consumer Credit Code, including leading ISA provider Purdue University. However, Indiana did not expressly address ISAs under the UCCC.

No federal or state courts have published cases analyzing the treatment of ISAs under state or federal credit laws. But federal regulators appear to be aware of this issue. In a December 2019 discussion paper on ISAs released by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, the authors acknowledged the uncertainty created by the lack of authoritative statements from courts and regulators, but did not weigh in on the legal issues.

Careful Consideration Required

When considering compliance with state and federal laws in this uncertain environment, participants must first assess which laws may apply. For state laws, if an educational institution is entering an ISA with a student, the institution must consider licensing, disclosures, and other restrictions applicable under state installment sales acts. Third-party providers must consider the application of lender licenses and associated disclosures and restrictions.

In either case, providers must consider the application of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), the Credit Practices Rule, state laws governing the assignment of wages, and generally applicable state and federal laws, such as laws governing unfair and deceptive acts and practices and certain anti-discrimination laws.

Careful analysis of each statute, implementing regulation, and associated commentary provides some initial guidance. For example, TILA’s Regulation Z commentary excludes an “investment plan” where the party extending capital to the consumer risks the loss of capital advanced from the definition of “credit” under the Truth in Lending Act. 12 CFR 1026.2(14) cmt. 1(viii). However, participants must carefully consider with their counsel whether the Regulation Z exclusion is intended to only apply to traditional equity investments because they are not debt, or if it more broadly excludes investments that do not create an absolute obligation to pay.

Additionally, the definition of “credit” under ECOA in Regulation B not only lacks a similar comment, but also includes a comment stating that Regulation B “covers a wider range of credit transactions than Regulation Z.” 12 CFR 1002.2(j) cmt. 1. Although the Regulation B comment arguably only refers to ECOA’s coverage of commercial credit and credit regardless of the number of installments or inclusion of a finance charge, this is one example of how providers must carefully consider each potentially applicable law.

Merely assuming that laws applicable to credit do not apply to an ostensibly non-credit product without conducting an appropriate analysis creates serious regulatory risks.

Potential Federal Changes

In 2017, Senators Rubio and Young introduced the Student Success Act, and in 2019, Senators Warner and Coons joined them with a more robust ISA Student Protection Act of 2019 (the “Act”). The Act proposes a number of important steps. First, it proposes substantive consumer protection rules on ISAs and defines a “qualified ISA” to include only ISAs meeting those substantive requirements. Second, the Act would expressly preempt state laws affecting the validity of a qualified ISA, in addition to state usury, ability to pay, and licensing laws for qualified ISAs. Third, the Act would clarify the treatment of ISAs under federal credit, security, and tax laws, and empower the CFPB to promulgate certain guidance and regulations.

However, that Act has not become law and it is unclear if, or how, lawmakers will address the issue in the future. For example, in response to reports that the U.S. Department of Education was exploring offering ISAs, Senator Warren questioned whether ISAs were “in the best interest of students,” stating they could be “predatory and dangerous.”

Conclusion

The market for ISAs continues to grow, and it’s easy to see why. Given the growing student lending crisis, the presence of an alternative has significant potential. However, due to the current regulatory uncertainty, market participants must carefully weigh the legal risks.


Caleb Rosenberg

Caleb Rosenberg is an associate in the Maryland office of Hudson Cook, LLP. Caleb can be reached at 410-782-2323 or by email at crosenberg@hudco.com.







Lendio Plans Development and Growth With $55 Million Series E

February 27, 2020
Article by:

Brock Blake LendioToday Lendio announced that it raised $55 million as part of its series E funding round. This included $31 million in equity led by Mercato Partners Traverse Fund and a $24 million debt facility from Signature Bank.

“We think that we’re just getting started, that there’s a really large opportunity in front of us and we’re excited that this round will give us the fuel that we need to continue to grow,” Lendio CEO Brock Blake told deBanked in a call. “We have a few different reasons for pulling together the round, but primarily, it’s all around investing in organic growth through partnerships and different marketing channels.”

Asked where these funding rounds may continue in an F, G, and H, Blake was unsure, saying that “every time we raise a round we do it with the expectation that it will be the last round.”

The funds in part will be used to further develop Lendio’s integrated lenders services, which are a set of tools used to identify which loan product and lender are the best match for a business owner; as well as the expansion of Sunrise, the bookkeeping platform Lendio acquired in 2019.

Intuit Agrees to Buy Credit Karma For $7.1 Billion

February 26, 2020
Article by:

Credit KarmaThis week the news broke that a deal had been reached between Credit Karma and Intuit that will see the latter purchase Credit Karma for $7.1 billion, paid for with cash and stock. After rumors of the deal leaked over the weekend, the agreement was confirmed on Monday by chief executives from both companies.

Under the deal, Credit Karma will continue to operate as a stand-alone business and its CEO, Kenneth Lin, will stay on and run the company. Beyond that, some believe that the merger will see Intuit rise as a go-to platform for financial services. Owning TurboTax as well as Mint, tools for filing taxes and budgeting, respectively, the addition of Credit Karma, which allows customers to view their credit score for free, would advance Intuit’s product suite as well as bolster the data it already has on users.

“There hasn’t been that much innovation in the financial services world in the past two decades,” Credit Karma Founder and CEO Kenneth Lin said. “The combination of the two companies will really be able to move consumers forward.”

Credit Karma claims to have 100 million customers, with half of all American millennials being included within that number. It also states that it has over 2,600 data points on each customer, including their social security number as well as loan history. The company makes its money by selling customer information to third parties who advertise new credit cards and loans on the Credit Karma site. Credit Karma also receives a couple of hundred dollars for each card and loan that is acquired through ads on its site. Being one of the few tech startups that actually turn a profit, Credit Karma claimed to have received $1 billion in revenue in 2019.

Speaking on the deal, Intuit’s CEO, Sasan Goodarzi, said that “This is very core to what we’ve declared around helping our customers make ends meet and make smart money decisions.”

Luxury Asset Capital Acquires and Relaunches Borro

February 26, 2020
Article by:

borroLuxury Asset Capital, the Denver-based lender that secures financing against goods such as Ferraris and Rolexes, has announced this month that it has acquired Borro and will be relaunching borro.com. LAC did not disclose the purchase price.

The news comes after LAC had been in talks to acquire Borro for years, LAC CEO Dewey Burke told deBanked. The merger will see Borro’s New York office remain open for business as many of its staff will stay on. As well as this, LAC and Borro will now be offering loans on a wider range of goods, that start at lower minimum amounts, and which will make use of more flexible terms, Burke stated.

“This was a transformational acquisition for us because obviously the competitor was out of the marketplace, but it really pushed us further to the forefront of being the preeminent lender in our niche space.”

Other news to come from announcement is that LAC is now offering to store customers’ luxury assets in its company vault, allowing the users who choose to do so to access capital immediately via a phone call. LAC will also be retiring its Lux Exchange and Pawngo brands, in favor of replacing them with Borro, because, as Burke put it, “we just thought it was a brand that was stronger than the legacy brands that we had.”

Beyond the merger, LAC plans to continue forging corporate partnerships, like that of its preexisting one with WatchBox, a trading service for preowned luxury watches. The strategy here being to link with the luxury goods ecosystem, enabling convenient pathways for customers to collateralize their asset.