Sean Murray is the President and Chief Editor of deBanked and the founder of the Broker Fair Conference. Connect with me on LinkedIn or follow me on twitter. You can view all future deBanked events here.
Articles by Sean Murray
IOU Financial is Playing Offense in 11th Hour
September 19, 2015
Perhaps jolted awake by corporate raiders attempting a hostile takeover, IOU Financial is making some bold moves and issuing some optimistic news. Yesterday on September 18th, IOU announced that they took home a profit for the months of July and August and in addition signed a letter of intent for a credit facility of up to $50 million. They also said that the board has received an offer to proceed with a private placement of up to $10 million in principal amount of convertible debentures, with committed subscriptions in excess of $7 million.
It should be noted that neither is guaranteed and a letter of intent is not a closed deal. The lender’s loan originations for the months of July and August, totaled US$31.3 million, representing a year over year increase of 150% in comparison to the same period in 2014.
IOU is fighting to stave off Qwave Capital, a VC firm that recently made a formal bid to buy a controlling stake for $17 Million CAD. IOU’s board has adamantly rejected the offer and has been urging share holders to turn it down.
The offer expires at 5pm EST on Tuesday, September 22nd.
“We continue to believe Qwave’s Offer provides IOU shareholders with excellent value, liquidity and opportunity,” said Serguei Kouzmine, a manager of Qwave Capital in a release dated September 17th. “The IOU board has failed to deliver an alternative offer, has repeatedly refused to act in the best interests of all shareholders, and has approved related-party transactions that put insiders first. We think IOU shareholders deserve better, and we’re asking them to tender their shares and partner with us to help IOU realize its full potential.”
Is The Small Business Administration An Ally to Alternative Lenders?
September 16, 2015
Add the Small Business Administration (SBA) to the list of organizations likely to understand the rise of tech-based business lending. Miriam Segal, a research economist for the SBA, recently published a report titled, Peer-to-Peer Lending: A Financing Alternative for Small Businesses. In it, she opens with a line that is all too familiar in the merchant cash advance and non-bank lending industry. “Imagine that you own a small bakery and you need $15,000 to buy a new oven,” she writes. She later adds, “Data suggest that peer-to-peer lending may be a viable financing alternative for small businesses, particularly given the post-recession credit market.”
After having read the recent Federal Reserve study that essentially concluded that small business owners are just too confused to make sound financial decisions, the SBA report is a welcome sign that there is little to fear from “alternative lending.”
While the SBA is sometimes cast as a villain to the private sector, what with their ability to assuage banks into making small business loans at very low interest rates with the assurance of default guarantees, a practice viewed by some economic ideologues as anti-free market, there hasn’t actually been much competition with alternative lenders. The average SBA loan is about $371,000, much higher than the average merchant cash advance transaction of about $30,000. And although they are a government agency, the SBA is scrutinized far more than today’s alternative lenders are. Politicians have sought to shut the agency down for decades but it has managed to survive. If any small business lending group knows what it’s like to be a political football, it’s the SBA. They’ve even been accused of similar antics, like being a participant to predatory lending.
Chris Hurn, Fountainhead Commercial Capital’s CEO, offered his opinion on such in the Huffington Post when he wrote, “I realize that calling some behaviors ‘predatory’ will raise some hackles, but what else would you call a virtually systemic practice of convincing small business owners to accept an inferior loan program on commercial real estate transactions, which almost certainly puts these borrowers in future harm’s way, only so a bank can maximize its income?”
Where have we heard this viewpoint before?
In the SBA report, Segal acknowledges a wide array of working capital options including merchant cash advance products. “P2P lending may fill a gap in small business lending for entrepreneurs seeking small amounts of capital when existing options are not suitable or available (e.g., bank loans, credit cards, and merchant cash advances),” she states.
She also gets to the heart of the issue that those touting the superiority of long term loans seem to be missing and that is that, “the majority of small business borrowers appear to be interested in relatively short-term loans in relatively small amounts.” Using data made available by Lending Club, 56% of small business owners applied for loans of $15,000 or less. Although the SBA will guarantee really small loans, it’s uncommon for banks to spend time and effort underwriting these, not to mention that many small businesses lack collateral and other minimum requirements for eligibility.
The reality is that alternative lending is for the most part the world outside of the SBA’s scope. “For some small businesses, an expensive loan may be better than no loan,” Segal concludes.
Given the variations in application process, interest rate, loan amount, and term length across loan products, it is apparent that each option presents a unique set of pros and cons. Peer-to-peer loans offer the benefits of expedited application processing, smaller loan amounts, and shorter terms, but borrowers pay for these conveniences in the form of higher interest rates.
– Miriam Segal
Research Economist, SBA
From the perspective of small business advocacy, the report gets it right. “Peer-to-peer lending to small businesses is rising while the origination of small business bank loans is decreasing. Micro businesses are interested in borrowing small amounts of money, although their credit applications are the most likely to be rejected. Therefore, the financial regulatory environment in which P2P lending exists is particularly important to small businesses.”
And it concludes, “Peer-to-peer lending has the potential to change the landscape of small business financing for the better. In order for this to happen, financial regulations must reflect the need for investor protection and simultaneously allow small businesses to access the capital that many individuals are willing to provide—no small task.”
As the wider industry is being researched by regulators, it is an especially important time to discover who shares the same understanding of the facts. Although not an immediately obvious choice of ally, the SBA is undoubtedly qualified to communicate the needs of small business. That makes them an especially good candidate to help explain the story about the what, why, and how of the changing landscape.
Major Business Lending Fraud Has Consequences
September 15, 2015
It appears that commercial financing fraud is not limited to just the average $40,000 transactions typical in the merchant cash advance and non-bank business lending sector. Four executives for a small business named Projuban, LLC, DBA G3K Displays, Inc., were sentenced last week to serve time in prison for their role in an $18 million loan fraud.
G3K was a New Jersey-based company that provided in-store displays for retailers. According to a report published by the FBI, the execs “engaged in a scheme to falsely inflate G3K’s revenue and accounts receivable, and as part of the scheme, made and caused to be made materially false and misleading statements about G3K’s financial condition. To create the false impression of sales, the defendants created phony documents, including fake and falsely inflated purchase orders purporting to reflect sales to G3K’s customers.”
One of the lenders that fell victim to the fraud is Veritas Financial Partners LLC. Veritas is no stranger to the merchant cash advance industry, having financed at least one merchant cash advance funder themselves just a few years ago. They are regularly involved in multi-million business financing transactions, deals that are typically considered too large for merchant cash advance companies and other non-bank lenders.
In addition to the prison sentences which ranged from 4 months to 40 months, The FBI report says that, “STEVEN KAITZ, 56, of Jersey City, New Jersey, was ordered to forfeit $1,382,427 and pay $18,687,518 in restitution; LATCHMEE MAHATO, a/k/a “Robbie,” 50, of Jamaica, Queens, was ordered to forfeit $2,215,417 and pay $18,687,518 in restitution; JONATHAN WHEELER, 46, of Southport, Connecticut, was ordered to forfeit $957,435 and pay $18,687,518 in restitution; and ZACHARY KAITZ, 32, of Brooklyn, New York, was ordered to forfeit $100,000 and pay $18,687,518 in restitution.”
Perhaps the lenders working on really large transactions should heed the advice of those working on small transactions, and that’s to stop relying on paper statements. In this case, the perpetrators heavily relied on the use of fake documents.
“ZACHARY KAITZ, who was skilled in graphic design, helped carry out the fraud by creating fraudulent documentation, such as fake invoices, purchase orders, and bills of lading, to support the false representations to the lenders about G3K’s business,” the FBI report states.
Who’s On Your Fantasy Funding Team?
September 14, 2015
A few years ago, a friend of mine was dropped by the funding brokerage he worked for and put on the waiver wire. He was promptly picked up by a competitor and today ranks among one of the top closers in the industry. It was one of the strangest moves of the season because his numbers had been really good month after month. It turned out that he was turned loose for earning too much money, something the firm wasn’t content with.
Even though he was compensated on a commission-only basis, he was apparently putting the company over their salary cap. That of course begged the question, why was there a compensation cap for a top performer, somebody who was directly leading to the firm’s growth? For what it’s worth, he was entitled to approximately 20% of the company’s gross commission revenue. So on every deal funded the company took home the other 80% of the commission. This worked for both parties until the closer started earning well into the six figures, at which point they told him he wasn’t allowed to earn more than a certain amount.
Although discouraged by the sudden limitation, he continued to work hard to prove why the cap should be removed. It wasn’t. Soon afterward he found himself on the waiver wire.
He was replaced by two rookies fresh out of college who were willing to do the same job for a lot less, but neither had any experience in the field.
As someone who has been active in this industry for nearly a decade, I’ve watched this scenario play out dozens of times.
- Firm needs top talent to grow
- Firm hires Talent
- Talent produces
- Firm grows
- Firm doesn’t like that Talent is making so much
- Firm fires Talent or Talent quits
As the firms gallop off to the next scouting combine to find somebody younger and more malleable, the pool of experienced talent is dispersed across a sea of competitors. A consequence of this is that each of those companies become more evenly matched and it becomes increasingly difficult to stand apart from the crowd.
At trade shows and happy hours, it’s not uncommon for top players to openly question what would happen if they all joined forces to create a funding dream team of sorts. And while such cohesion rarely actually happens, I can’t help but imagine if given the opportunity to build the best team to win, who I would pick.
Top talent is expensive. I know this because I recently spent 89% of my budget in a fantasy football auction draft to acquire just three players. And last year I spent a similar percentage on only four players and won the entire league. My thought process was to build a team that was centered around the best of the best. Previous years of conservative play led to mediocre results and I wanted to change that.
Today, there are hundreds of alternative business financing companies and thousands that can be considered brokers. There’s a lot of decent teams out there but few that are built around a group of all stars. And oddly, some companies seem to be dumping their best and brightest on purpose, just like I described previously. That might lead to improved margins for the firm, but probably won’t help them win in the long run.
Here’s something to think about while you’re watching Monday Night Football. If you had to build your company around a core group of talented people, who would you pick? Don’t worry about whether or not they’re available or if they fit into your budget. Those are obstacles that can be overcome.
Here’s a list of positions to help you imagine your fantasy funder:
- 1 Senior Manager
- 2 Underwriters
- 2 Closers
- 1 Flex Spot
- 1 Admin
- 1 Collector
- 1 Tech Person
Good luck!
Financing Not Really an Issue for Small Business According to the NFIB
September 11, 2015
Small businesses need money right? Well according to an August 2015 survey conducted by the National Federal of Independent Business, 21% of respondents said that taxes were the single most important problem facing their business today. That ranked highest on a list of ten issues. Only a minuscule 1% said that financing and interest rates were the most important problem. Even inflation was ranked as more important than financing.
Thirty-three percent of all owners reported borrowing on a regular basis and similarly, thirty-three percent reported all credit needs met. 49 percent however, explicitly said they did not want a loan. This data is based on a sample of 3,938 small-business owners/members that translated into 656 usable responses received for a response rate of 17%.
20% of respondents said that government requirements and red tape were the single most important problem they face, second to taxes.
One could infer from the data that access to capital is not a challenge for small business right now, which would make sense given how many non-bank alternatives are currently available. It also raises the question as to why regulations for non-bank alternatives would be considered a priority when small businesses seem to be pretty content with the way things are. If anything, the message here is that the best solution to grow small business is to lower their taxes. With that remedy being unlikely, a potential takeaway from this study then is that non-bank financing companies should consider ways to address their prospects’ two biggest pain points, taxes and government requirements. And if not those two, then the third issue that respondents said was the single most important problem, poor sales.
How can non-bank financing companies help small businesses address poor sales? This may be the key to long-term mutual success.
Yellowstone Capital to Drive Job Growth in New Jersey
September 11, 2015
According to Business Facilities Magazine (BF), NYC-based Yellowstone Capital is considering a move to Jersey City and was approved for up to $3.3 million in Grow NJ tax credits over 10 years.
Grow NJ is a New Jersey job creation program that is designed to give the state a competitive economic edge against surrounding states.
BF says that Yellowstone Capital would create 45 jobs.
The move would loosen the grip that Manhattan’s financial district has on the fast growing alternative business financing industry. Currently located at 160 Pearl Street, just steps away from Wall Street, Yellowstone surprised many industry insiders several months ago when their lifetime funding figures of $1.1 billion were published on the industry’s leaderboard.
A move to the Garden State would not be surprising in the midst of all the infrastructural improvements the company has made in 2015.
Competing Factions Hurt Alternative Lending’s Message
September 10, 2015
It’s over. Legislators and regulators in Washington DC know alternative lenders exist, and there’s no going back. There will be regulations that impact the industry in some way. That seems to be a definite at this point. What aspects will be regulated and to what extent however is yet to be determined.
And here’s the important thing you need to know about that impending conversation with folks in DC; They’re not up to speed on many of the issues being debated between industry insiders, and honestly probably won’t be for a long time, if ever.
They’re literally on square one. So if you were secretly hoping that regulators were on the verge of outlawing stacking, excessive broker fees, or high interest rates, you’re going to be very disappointed. I would argue that more than likely they’d have no idea what you were talking about if you broached these issues with them and it would come across like this:
And that’s because they’re trying to fully understand more basic things such as, why would a small business borrow money online as opposed to a bank? And what does marketplace lending really mean and how does it work?
Folks in DC are genuinely curious about the basics. They want to understand because they don’t want to be caught not understanding and ignorantly lead the nation into another financial crisis. That’s why the Treasury recently issued a Request For Information. You should notice how there’s nothing about stacking in it, but rather more fundamental issues like whether or not marketplace lending is helping borrowers that were historically underserved.
You have to applaud the Treasury’s approach because informed regulations, if that’s what this all leads to, would be much better than uninformed regulations.
The process could easily be jeopardized however if everyone’s so caught up in choosing teams, sides, and points of view that they believe are the “right” ones with the hope of scoring nothing other than perceived political points.
If this is what folks in DC see while they are in the information gathering stage, well then it’s probably not going to be a good outcome for anyone:
Companies that buy future receivables with daily payments and lenders originating 3-year loans with monthly payments actually have a lot in common on the fundamental level. They’re both bank alternatives. And for a number of reasons, small businesses are choosing them over more traditional sources. That’s where the conversation needs to begin.
The opportunity to communicate with rule-makers shouldn’t be squandered on complaints about what other people are doing, but rather on the what, why, and how for small business.
The worst thing that could happen is that divisive language within the industry leads to a regulatory result that negatively impacts all the parties involved, including the small businesses that benefit from this improved system of accessing capital.
Surely there is a way forward for everyone…
Revenue Advance Searches Up, Small Business Loan Searches Down
September 8, 2015Back in early 2013, I explored the popularity of Google search phrases related to the industry. At the time, keyword phrases such as merchant cash advance were on a downswing after reaching their peak back in September 2008. Oddly, the keyword hasn’t been able to match the popularity it had seven years ago, but it is on the way back up.
Other keywords are just about dead, but perhaps most interesting of all is that small business loans has been declining consistently for about ten years straight, though it appears to have tapered off a bit.
Take a look:
three additional terms: merchant loans, ach loan, merchant financing
Hanna Kassis of Oarex Capital Markets noticed that the term Revenue Advance is at an all-time high. You can read his thoughts about that here:
