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
Keeping Lending Club (and others) Honest
October 19, 2014
Now that institutional money is flowing into the alternative lending industry, some retail investors are starting to express concern that the rules are changing. Lending Club for example is no longer considered a peer-to-peer lending platform, but rather an online credit marketplace.
Investors don’t exactly make loans to individuals in that marketplace, but that’s sort of how the concept began. Today, a bank issues the loan to the borrower, Lending Club buys the loan and creates a note tied to the performance of the loan, and then sells that note to investors.
Lending Club holds all the power and that worries retail investors who believe that the company is not always forthcoming about what they’re doing. It’s not easy to find dissenting voices when the market is growing rapidly especially since the media is cheering the revolution on.
But in the back corners of the Internet there are groups of investors growing suspicious, if not downright paranoid that all is not right in Lending Club land.
On Peter Renton’s Lend Academy forum for example, healthy discussions are being replaced by collaborative investigations into Lending Club’s practices. As a retail investor myself, I can’t help but be drawn to it. Below is a list of some of the issues:
The Borrower Member ID number is never reused
If a consumer borrows money from Lending Club in 2013 and again in 2014, it would probably be useful for investors to know about the previous Lending Club loan. Instead, borrowers are issued additional Member IDs with each successive loan, masking the history of past loans.
Borrowers may be taking two loans simultaneously
Acknowledging that Member IDs can never be reused, curious retail investors used other data points disclosed by Lending Club to link borrowers together. They believe they discovered a number of borrowers who got two Lending Club loans back-to-back, sometimes within days of each other.
The concern here is that the borrowers were taking on much more debt than the investor was led to believe. For instance, an investor might feel comfortable with the borrower taking a $10,000 loan, but has no idea that another $20,000 is being issued to them days later under another Member ID number.
Whether or not this is actually happening and the scale of how often it is happening is tough to say, but a little detective work by others indicates that it has possibly occurred.
What happens if Lending Club goes bankrupt?
While a poll with so few responses (52 total) on the Lend Academy forum may not be statistically relevant, 75% of the respondents claimed to be concerned in some capacity that Lending Club has no Bankruptcy Remote Vehicle for retail investors. 21% said they were extremely concerned. Absent a BRV, a Lending Club bankruptcy endangers all retail investors from getting paid regardless of whether or not the borrowers are actually paying their loans.
Anil Gupta, the founder of PeerCube wrote the following on the Lend Academy forum in response to the BRV issue:
You are not alone. I am also in the extremely concerned category when it comes to BRV for LC. This segment has been wild-wild west and reminds me of combination of dot-com bubble in 1999 and housing bubble of 2007. Overall, I am very concerned with platform risks.
Premature IPO attempts by p2p platforms is also concerning. I am taking that as indication of founders, VCs and early employees want to cash out and exit while the market is hot. They may be seeing the growth reaching a plateau and increased competition. I believe we will see a lot of shake out when interest rate start to rise. Potentially stepped up government regulations of p2p platforms once investors lose money.
Startup woes?
Retail investors, particularly those that have deployed a substantial amount of their capital in Lending Club notes gripe that sometimes the financial reports they get are missing data, experience glitches, or are just totally wrong. While usually resolved to everyone’s satisfaction, as a seven year old company, one might expect for Lending Club to be much more careful at this stage in the game. With an IPO in the works at this very moment, they should be way past problems such as data in the downloadable files not matching the website.
New fees
In August, Lending Club announced they would begin charging investors 18% of the delinquent amount recovered if the loan is at least 16 days late and no litigation is involved. When investors pushed back, it turned out that was always their written policy, they were just waiving it for everyone’s benefit until now.
While the move means a few more dollars out of every investors pocket, it was noticed that loans that have been restructured at the borrowers request are not marked as current for the duration of the payment plan even if they are in fact current on the payment plan itself. So when loans get restructured, Lending Club begins taking 18% of every payment as if it were a continuing collections problem.
From a firsthand perspective, I had several loans entering into payment plans almost immediately following the issuance of the loans. Basically the loan would be issued, the borrower would make their first payment, they’d plead hardship, go on a payment plan, and then Lending Club would begin deducting 18% of every payment going forward.
In these situations, our interests are not aligned. By entering a payment plan, not only is the amount the borrower is paying monthly reduced, but 18% of each of my payments now belongs to Lending Club instead of me. Basically, the appearance that Lending Club has a personal incentive to place borrowers on a modified plan at my expense and without my consent is a conflict worth monitoring.
Automated Investing under delivers?
For those with too much money or too little time to choose notes to buy themselves, Lending Club offers Automated Investing, a program that will automatically buy notes within parameters you set when they become available. The draw back is that the filters are limited and some investors are complaining that they’re ending up with notes they never would’ve bought manually.
WebBank woes
On October 6th, Lending Club announced that investors would have to sacrifice several days worth of accrued interest to WebBank, the bank that issues the loans for Lending Club.
Citing the move as necessary to keep Lending Club robust in a changing environment, the run up to the IPO has had some investors feel like they are suddenly being nickel and dimed.
Refinanced
Not that this is necessarily bad, but there’s evidence that shows Lending Club is encouraging its own borrowers to refinance their loans to a lower rate. If they do it, it results in the original note being paid off. The payoff returns the cash to the investor who then may have to wait two weeks or more to put that money back into a new note.
It must be said that any time I’ve published a gripe about something Lending Club is doing, my account representative there has called me to try and resolve it. That’s surprisingly good service!
But while I feel safe enough about my investments now to keep them there, there’s nothing wrong with reminding Lending Club and all of the other disruptive financial companies out there that investors are watching their every move.
As long as they have your money, it’s healthy to keep them honest.
Merchant Cash Advance SEO War Still Raging
October 9, 2014
The top ten merchant cash advance companies ranked on a review website must have earned their placements due to actual reviews, right? Not so, say rival online marketers who’ve claimed sites such as topcreditcardprocessors.com are really just part of an elaborate paid lead generation scam.
Mark Jackson, a blogger and marketer, had alleged that a website known as TopSEOs.com had been using deceptive practices for years. Three weeks ago a former employee of TopSEOs.com emailed Jackson to offer damning information that his suspicions had been right. That included a list of 15 other websites related to TopSEOs.com that were running similar review schemes. All are apparently owned by an individual named Jeev Trika.
While I don’t know Trika or if the allegations are true, I do know from what Jackson wrote is that he forwarded the email chain and the website list to Google’s director of web spam, Matt Cutts. That included topcreditcardprocessors.com
In recent years, Google has taken aggressive action to de-rank and de-list sites engaged in bad behavior from their search index. One example of bad behavior is a site that provides a poor user experience. Deceiving users into believing that businesses had been reviewed and ranked accordingly is deceptive if the true model is just about who pays the most to get ranked the best.
In New York State, fake reviews can be a criminal offense. Just ask the 19 companies that were ensnared in a deceptive review sting last year, causing them to be hit with $350,000 in penalties.
In addition to credit card processors, topcreditcardprocessors.com also ranked merchant cash advance companies. What’s rough is that all of the websites Jackson submitted to Cutts have been de-listed from Google’s search index, indicating that Google likely concluded those domains violated their Terms of Service.
Jackson pointed out that Trika, the mastermind behind it all, was already taking measures to get back up and running in Google’s search index by moving from TopSEOs.com to TopSEOsGlobal.com. Similarly, topcreditcardprocessors.com has already moved their content to topcreditcardprocessorsglobal.com. All their first page search rankings have been lost for now so that probably means fewer leads for many companies over the next few weeks.
Of course there are a few similar websites to topcreditcardprocessors.com that purport to review merchant cash advance companies. The risk if they’re shut down is not just a loss of leads but a potential loss of trust by search engines for anyone that paid to appear on them. Google treats sites participating in link manipulation schemes unfavorably and has expanded the scope of how these schemes are defined a lot in the last twelve months.
@financeguy74 I like the full-size Penguin in the doorway–I think we have one of those!
— Matt Cutts (@mattcutts) September 30, 2014
Unless you’ve been in a coma, Google’s Penguin algorithm specifically targets websites engaged in link schemes. It’s uncertain if paid links on review sites like these would be covered under Penguin, but Penguin’s 3rd major run is expected to roll out any day now.
Google’s director of web spam has a good sense of humor when it comes to Penguin jokes, but Cutts is known to be absolutely ruthless when he discovers actual terms of service violators in their index. Back in December, Cutts articulated that he wanted to break their spirits. As quoted on Search Engine Land, he said:
if you really want to stop spam, it is a little bit mean, but what you want to do, is sort of break their spirits. There are lots of Google algorithms specifically designed to frustrate spammers. Some of the things we do is give people a hint their site will drop and then a week or two later, their site actually does drop. So they get a little bit more frustrated.
Just emailing Cutts evidence of manipulation is enough to put offending sites out of business or at least out of reach from Google searchers. That is what Mark Jackson appears to have accomplished by forwarding an email chain referencing TopSEOs.com and other sites.
A screenshot of the home page of what is now topcreditcardprocessorsglobal.com below:
Review sites might be one way companies are generating leads online now, but check out some of my historical coverage regarding the war for Internet leads in this space:
Six Signs Alternative Lending is Rigged: Do Lending Club and OnDeck have a helping hand?
Google Penguin 2.1 takes swing at the MCA industry
Your merchant cash advance press release may be hurting you
Is Google your only web strategy?
The other 93% [of leads]
The SEO War for Merchant Cash Advance: The first story on this topic
Rapid Capital Funding Acquires American Finance Solutions
October 8, 2014
Miami, Florida-based Rapid Capital Funding will acquire Anaheim, California-based American Finance Solutions today in perhaps one of the most significant deals in merchant cash advance history.
Rapid Capital Funding, not to be confused with RapidAdvance, is led by the company’s founder Craig Hecker. Hecker and AFS’s CEO Scott Griest broke the news to me on a call together. “It’s a roll-up,” Griest said. AFS will continue to operate under their brand name for the time being and Griest will remain a leader in the company.
Meanwhile, the operations of the two companies will begin to merge, with Hecker confirming already that their head underwriter, Andrew Hernandez, was in California getting up to speed on AFS’s operations.
The news comes less than five months after American Finance Solutions struck an equity deal with CapFin partners. I am unsure if CapFin is still involved in the company.
Griest and Hecker were both excited about working together. “Griest has done a great job managing the sales partner channel,” Hecker said. Griest will continue to develop those relationships for the company.
This is the first major merger in the industry. Historically, just about all of the equity deals in merchant cash advance have been acquisitions by institutional investment groups. This is a consolidation.
RCF, while based in Miami, has an office in New York City. The AFS deal puts them on the ground in the 3rd major industry hub.
The two executives hinted that this deal was just the beginning.
OnDeck Already Filed Form S-1
September 27, 2014
Back on August 14th, the Wall Street Journal reported that OnDeck was preparing to file for an initial public offering. Since then, industry insiders have been bustling with anticipation to see the S-1 filing, the document that would reveal once and for all their true financial standing.
Update 11/18/14: Click to see OnDeck’s Public S-1 Filing
In between then and now, Lending Club, their rival in the business loan market, filed their S-1 on August 27th. The peer-to-peer lending world went nuts and merchant cash advance veterans such as AmeriMerchant’s David Goldin were asked to comment on BloombergTV.
And then… things quieted down. OnDeck went radio silent on August 14th, despite the SEC requiring such only after the S-1 form had actually been filed. Speculation began to build as to whether or not the WSJ report in August was a false alarm or misinformation. And with no word from the industry’s beloved charismatic superstar Noah Breslow, something seemed to be amiss.
And then the Financial Times dropped the bombshell that the registration documents had already been filed… last month… confidentially.
Admittedly, I didn’t even know a company could file confidentially, a process done offline so that it is not recorded electronically. Thanks to the JOBS Act, companies with less than a billion dollars in revenue can submit draft versions of their registration documents to the SEC, allowing the SEC to review, revise, and agree on a final version that will ultimately have to be made public. The takeaway here is that an OnDeck IPO is in the process and the registration documents will eventually be released. The law states that OnDeck must make the documents public at least 21 days prior to pitching investors.
The New Yorker walked readers through confidential registrations back when Twitter was planning their IPO, noting that it was not uncommon to choose this method, “Twitter is much like its peers: most small companies that have gone public since the passage of the JOBS Act have filed their S-1s confidentially,” the New Yorker said.
So why be secretive? The New Yorker continues to explain:
From the perspective of companies, the new rule has a couple of virtues. First, it allows companies that are thinking about going public to test the waters—they can gauge investor reaction, get feedback from the S.E.C. on their filings, and so on—before deciding if they want to go ahead with an I.P.O. If a company goes through that process publicly, and then decides to abandon the offering, its reputation gets damaged, even though it often makes sense for a company not to go public. Do it privately, and no one gets hurt.
-Source: http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-virtues-of-twitters-confidential-i-p-o-filing
OnDeck’s biggest critics are their competitors, naysayers convinced that they are recklessly undercutting pricing to acquire market share. Indeed FT reported that OnDeck posted annual losses of $16.8m and $24.4m in 2012 and 2013, and losses of $14.4m in the first half of 2014.
With $1.3 billion funded since 2006, an independent report cited in the registration by Oliver Wyman estimates the untapped market to be between $80 billion and $120 billion.
There’s plenty of runway left, but OnDeck has yet to turn a profit. In An Insider’s Perspective, I wrote, “What scares their competitors though, is that this strategy has been intentional. Very few if any players in the industry have had the luxury, guts, or the purse to lose money for seven years as part of a coup to conquer the market.”
If the IPO goes through, we can all place actual monetary bets on the company’s future. What a trip that will be. I expect the stadium of insiders to get loud once the public documents are released. Good luck OnDeck.
Why Your Deal Got Stolen
September 16, 2014
Back in April, I presented the idea of trigger leads coming to the alternative lending industry. In subsequent discussions about that blog post, many folks particularly in merchant cash advance questioned whether such a concept could possibly exist or would even be legal.
For those not familiar, this is the methodology behind trigger leads using a hypothetical scenario:
- OnDeck runs the personal credit of a merchant using Experian.
- Experian sells the contact information of that merchant to OnDeck’s competitors immediately after credit is pulled.
- Competitors solicit that merchant and convince them to go with them instead.
Again, the reaction I get to the above scenario by most people is, “yeah, right. I don’t believe that could happen.” But if you look at the raw amount of ISOs complaining their deals got stolen, it’s evident that perhaps there is something else brewing than just the usual assortment of rogue underwriters and shady funders.
Most ISOs are convinced that if their client is working with them and only them, that a shady business dealing has taken place if that client is randomly called out of the blue with the knowledge that they’re pursuing funding. To them, the only conclusion is that their deal got backdoored.
And while backdooring does seem to happen out there from time to time, another culprit may very well be trigger leads. Credit bureaus and big data aggregators are selling credit pull data in real time. UCC-1 leads are leads after the funding has taken place. Trigger leads are leads before the funding has taken place. But do they really exist?
Elsewhere in alternative lending, trigger leads are the backbone for how companies tailor their direct mail campaigns. If a consumer’s credit was pulled today by a mortgage lender, companies like Lending Club and Prosper will make sure that consumer receives a mail ad for a home improvement loan tomorrow.
Today at the Apex Lending Exchange conference in New York City, Ron Suber, the president of Prosper, referred to this trigger methodology as “getting to the right borrowers at the right cost.” In their sector, trigger leads are marketing 101. In merchant cash advance, it’s perceived as a pipe dream. Odds are that whoever is taking advantage of trigger leads in this industry would want to keep all the other players in the dark about it.
As much as you might hate to believe it, all of the backdooring paranoia that’s been rampant lately might actually be caused by the credit bureaus, not the funders. The lesson here is that as soon as your merchant’s credit is pulled, the clock is ticking until your competitors find out even if that merchant talks to nobody else.
I know ISOs want to believe that their merchant is only theirs, but in the age of advanced technology and big data, your merchant belongs to the cloud. As soon as your relationship with the merchant interacts with technology, somebody else will find out about it. And that’s why your deal got stolen.
Lend360: The Industry Event of the Year
September 5, 2014It’s being called the full circle of lending. Non-bank business lenders, merchant cash advance companies, peer-to-peer lenders, consumer lenders, lead generators, and Wall Street tycoons are descending on New Orleans from October 14th to 17th to attend Lend360. I’ve partnered up with the event through the DailyFunder name.
From the governmental arena, Governor Bobby Jindal (left) and U.S. Senator David Vitter (right) are speaking at the conference.
On the business side, here are some speakers you might recognize that are definitely confirmed.
- Brendan Carroll, Victory Park Capital
- Brendan Ross, Direct Lending Investments
- Scott Termini, Direct Media Power
- Bob Coleman, Coleman Report
- Heather Francis, Merchant Cash Group
- Nick Owens, Magnolia Strategic Partners
- Sean Murray, DailyFunder (myself)
- Ken Rees, Elevate
- Mark Curry, Sol Partners
- Sasha Grutman, MiddleMarch advisors
- Al Wild, Crest Financial
- Mark Doman, eBureau
- Tim Madsen, PartnerWeekly
- Dickson Chu, Ingo
- John Hecht, Jeffries
If you’re involved in MCA or business lending, you NEED to be there.
Here’s the most recent version of the agenda:
October 14-17, 2014 New Orleans, LA
In Partnership with
| REGISTER TODAY |
Lending Club IPO: The Mirage of Diversifying
September 1, 2014Behold, the fool saith, “Put not all thine eggs in the one basket” – which is but a matter of saying, “Scatter your money and your attention”; but the wise man saith, “Pull all your eggs in the one basket and – WATCH THAT BASKET.
– In Pudd’nhead Wilson by Mark Twain
Is peer-to-peer lending really offering you a chance to diversify your portfolio?
Scores of investors just like myself are jumping on the Lending Club bandwagon. The returns are sweet and the concept has mass appeal. Like a gambler getting overconfident after a long winning streak, it’s easy to get caught up in the excitement.
I have tens of thousands invested in Lending Club loans at this very moment and I think it’s time to take a breather. Other people are in deeper, six figures worth, and then there are those who are placing their entire retirement savings in the hands of everyday borrowers.
Once IRAs and 401(k)s enter the picture, the situation gets serious…
Lending Club appeals to the diversity conscious with their seven risk tiers, A,B,C,D,E,F and G. A rated loans are deemed the least risky but charge the lowest amount of interest. G rated loans carry the most risk but carry interest rates in the neighborhood of 26%.
To diversify, you could spread your funds into all of them or at least across multiple tiers. You can also make many small investments of $25 as opposed to a few investments in larger sums.
Mirage?
In an excellent Bloomberg article, Matt Levine explains that investors on Lending Club’s platform are not really making loans to consumers, Lending Club’s bank is. They sell the loan to Lending Club and Lending Club creates a note and sells it to you. The borrowers owe Lending Club money and Lending Club owes you money. Your relationship is with Lending Club, not the borrowers, and therefore the entirety of your investments however seemingly diversified, are really in Lending Club itself.
A few months ago I wondered if it made sense to buy Lending Club stock over buying their notes.
The note prospectus explains “the Notes are unsecured and holders of the Notes do not have a security interest in the corresponding Loan or the proceeds of the corresponding Loan.” This means these loans are not collateral if Lending Club goes south.
If the company were to file for bankruptcy, you would need to add yourself to the list of unsecured creditors. As stated, “if LendingClub were to become subject to a bankruptcy or similar proceeding, the holder of a Note will have a general unsecured claim against LendingClub that may or may not be limited in recovery to borrower payments in respect of the corresponding member loan.”
Unsecured note holders are still better off than common shareholders in the event of a bankruptcy, but that assumes that the borrowers are still paying their loans.
What if they weren’t? Or worse yet, what if they didn’t have to pay them?
One basket
Lending Club’s S-1 warns of major dangers. “Additional state consumer protection laws would be applicable to the loans facilitated through our platform if we were re-characterized as a lender, and the loans could be voidable or unenforceable,” it says. “In addition, we could be subject to claims by borrowers, as well as enforcement actions by regulators.”
If Lending Club is at some point re-characterized, your portfolio would be killed off instantly. Your eggs however well diversified are in the Lending Club basket. Such a situation happened in a closely related industry where a merchant cash advance company was challenged to be a lender in disguise. In 2008, a class action lawsuit was brought against AdvanceMe Inc in California. The case was settled but AdvanceMe could no longer collect payments and they actually had to give a lot of the money they had already collected back.
In a Lending Club nightmare scenario, note holders could potentially be forced to forfeit any principal and interest they’ve already collected in the event of a harsh judgment or settlement. If Lending Club is only obligated to pay what’s collected to note holders, then what if they’re told give it all back to the borrowers? It’s a nightmare scenario indeed.
Sleep tight
If the goal is to invest in consumer loans, you should spread your investments around. Put some in Lending Club, some in Prosper (their #1 competitor), and at least another. More importantly, don’t invest all of your money in peer-to-peer lending companies or consumers loans as this is not diversifying either. Peer-to-peer lending should be just one component of your overall investment strategy. Stocks, bonds, CDs, and even FDIC insured savings accounts should round out your holdings.
The Lending Club IRA and 401(k) program is wildly risky at best. Would you invest a significant portion of your retirement savings in the hands of just one company? I considered it for a second…
And then I took a deep breath.
The Lending Club IPO has been labeled an awareness event. Millions of people will be learning about it for the first time through the publicity of a stock offering. If you do decide to put some eggs in, WATCH THAT BASKET!
AmeriMerchant’s CEO David Goldin shared his own thoughts on the IPO on Bloomberg TV:
Industry Takes ALS Ice Bucket Challenge
August 24, 2014Have you been nominated to take the ALS ice bucket challenge yet?
Kabbage below:
Their video made the local Atlanta news.
OnDeck in Times Square NYC:
Noah Breslow, their CEO also did it:
Funding Circle:
PayPal
Coincidentally, in the industry’s 2012 fantasy football competition for charity, league winner Sure Payment Solutions chose to donate all funds raises ($7,100) to the ALS Association.
Whether you get nominated or not, you can donate at http://www.alsa.org/.
Feel free to tweet @financeguy74 if you or your company accepted the challenge. 🙂
