Sean Murray


Articles by Sean Murray

rss feed

Good Riddance F and G Notes on Lending Club

November 9, 2017
Article by:

red inkWhen Lending Club announced they were discontinuing F and G grade notes on their platform for investors, I wasn’t surprised. Investors in general have been reporting disappointing returns, even dipping into negative territory some months. My own portfolio there is on track to generate a loss for 2017, which seems even worse when I consider that those funds could’ve returned nearly 15% in an S&P 500 index fund or more than 600% in bitcoin. Granted, only a small portion of my investable assets were tied up in Lending Club so it’s not all bad.

Out of the 3,262 notes I purchased on Lending Club, only 99 were F-grade and 53 were G-grade. They didn’t do so well in retrospect, echoing Lending Club’s findings.

27 of my G notes have already been charged off. 17 have been paid off, with the rest still outstanding. A charge-off rate over 50% is not so good on its own, but the data is worse because the interest earned on the performing ones was not enough to offset the charge-offs. Even if all of the remaining notes perform, it is no longer possible to earn a positive return on G notes. The amount I loaned exceeds the total dollars returned. The end result of a category that investors heralded as high-risk, high-return is a big fat loss.

31 of my 99 F notes have already been charged off. Only 26 remain outstanding, 4 of which are delinquent. The rest have been paid off. At this time, the amount I loaned exceeds the total dollars returned. It is still mathematically possible to break even if the remaining loans do not default, but we’ll see. Suffice to say, these were a bad investment.

I have been winding down my portfolio since May 2016. RIP F and G notes.

Lending Club is Discontinuing F and G Grade Notes

November 7, 2017
Article by:

F and G NotesPer Lending Club’s website, the company is discontinuing issuance of F & G grade notes.

According to an announcement published by the company:

We are consistently assessing the value our product delivers to our investors, and have noticed an increase in prepayment and delinquency rate in F and G grade Notes. We feel it is in the best interest of our investors to remove F and G grade Notes while we test new capabilities and refinements to the underwriting and pricing criteria and determine how to best offer a better experience for both borrowers and investors in the F and G segment.

Peers invested in previously-issued F & G grade notes will still receive their payments until maturity.

Performance played a role in their decision.

Every quarter, we review product performance. During our third quarter 2017 forward-looking analysis, we saw increases in delinquency and prepayment rates in F and G grade loans. This update allows us the opportunity to re-assess how we can best deliver value to our investors through the platform.

More information about this change can be found here.

Lending Club also published their Q3 earnings Tuesday afternoon. The company loaned $2.44B for the quarter and hit a record $154 million in revenue. The company still eeked out a $6.7 million loss, but that’s down from $19 million over the same period last year.

Dependence on retail investors or “peers” declined again. Only 10% of loan funding was sourced from the self-managed individuals category in Q3 or $249 million of the $2.44 billion funded.

Lending Club funded 9% of their own originations in the quarter or $217 million.

Catching Up With LendingPoint

November 6, 2017
Article by:

growthAt Money2020, we sat down with Chief Executive Officer Tom Burnside and Chief Strategy Officer Juan Tavares, both of LendingPoint, an online consumer lender we examined in the July/August magazine issue. Not mentioned in that story is Tavares’ background at Avanzame Latin America, a merchant cash advance company based in the Dominican Republic. Burnside, however, originally started on the consumer side at First Data, before working for 13 years at CAN Capital, until he left and launched LendingPoint.

The lender focuses on near prime consumers and has even trademarked the word “NEARPRIME.” Their algorithm, which processes data from dozens of APIs in 5 seconds, handles the heavy lifting, the secret sauce of which they could not disclose. “You could use 3,000 attributes but maybe actually 57 attributes could become your core,” Tavares says. Their “credit-first” mentality has allowed the company to build a healthy performing portfolio. And “credit-first” doesn’t necessarily mean FICO scores, Burnside says, it’s about “predictives” to price accordingly for the risk you take. “How you run [the variables] together, that’s the magic,” they say together.

An interesting initiative that they’re now just ramping up, Tavares says, is partnerships with hospitals that allow patients to determine their deductible expenses and obtain credit on the spot to pay for it. Fitting into their “point of need” strategy, Tavares say “We’re at the intersection between credit and payments.”

Burnside says that LendingPoint was on par to finish with $28 million in funded loans for the month of October. “Demand is not the problem,” Tavares interjects. “We’re tempering growth to make sure that we grow wisely.”

And the market to expand that growth is big despite the numerous tech companies competing in the lending space. Burnside reports the company receiving $2.5 billion worth of loan applications in September alone. 60% of their applications come in through mobile devices. Peak application hours are lunch time and late at night, sometimes as late as 1 or 2 in the morning, they say. The entire loan application process can be done on mobile without them ever having to talk to anyone. Tavares qualifies that by saying that doesn’t mean that they take shortcuts.

As to whether an IPO could be in the works, Burnside deflects and says, “we’re busy building something special right now. We’ll see what happens.”

“What I will tell you is, is that investor confidence is up,” Tavares says.

FundKite Event at the Jets/Bills Game Had a Big Turnout

November 3, 2017
Article by:

About 100 people attended the FundKite event at the Jets/Bills Thursday night game in The Meadowlands including several dozen ISOs. In addition to premium seating and sideline access through the 50 Club, a select group got to stand on the field during the national anthem. Below is a handful of snaps I took at the game:

FundKite’s Alex Shvarts leads guests out on to the field

Guests on the field

Guests on the field

Selfie on the field

Inside the Met Life 50 Club

The seats

Pretty close to the action

Bills Running Back LeSean McCoy looks right at us

Great experience

LendUp May Have a Leg-up

November 1, 2017
Article by:
Sasha Orloff
Sasha Orloff, CEO, LendUp

deBanked recently sat down with LendUp CEO Sasha Orloff and COO Vijesh Iyer at an auspicious time. The company, an online lender that provides consumers with alternatives to payday loans and credit cards, is uniquely positioned in the wake of the CFPB’s 1600+ page Payday loan rule that was issued in early October.

And that’s not exactly an accident. Orloff says the company was founded (5 years ago) with the expectation that the CFPB would issue an eventual rule. “At the time, we had no idea what it was going to be but I could imagine that if they were going to write a federal rule that it would completely change the industry,” he said.

Orloff’s journey, as he tells it, began by reading Banker to the Poor, which inspired him to move to rural Honduras nearly 15 years ago to help the Grameen Foundation, a non-profit that focuses on providing loans and education to the poorest of communities. He was only 21 at the time. After a three-year tour, he moved on to roles at The World Bank, Citi, and finally starting in 2012, LendUp.

When LendUp was being envisioned, he explains, the smart phone was making it possible for consumers to access financial services outside of what was in their neighborhood and bank technology was the last thing that was going to become modernized.

“The CFPB rule was going to make it harder for banks to work with underserved consumers,” he says. “So we said let’s start a financial services company that focuses exclusively on the people that have the least amount of options and let’s start reinventing [these] products one at a time.”

And with that, they consulted academics, educators, government officials, and people from the industry. “How do you give somebody credit in an emergency fashion that can change it from a trap into an opportunity? And so we did that and it turned out the rule looked really similar to what we did,” he explains.

“I think there’s a lot of things they got right [about the CFPB rule],” he says in regards to how to eliminate debt traps. LendUp, for example, doesn’t allow customers to roll over their loans, they have to pay off their loans in full before they can consider borrowing again. Rollovers were a big sticking point for the CFPB when they published their rule last month. Their official announcement on the matter had stated that “many borrowers end up repeatedly rolling over or refinancing their [payday] loans, each time racking up expensive new charges. More than four out of five payday loans are re-borrowed within a month, usually right when the loan is due or shortly thereafter. And nearly one-in-four initial payday loans are re-borrowed nine times or more, with the borrower paying far more in fees than they received in credit.”

One piece of the payday alternative puzzle is in the underwriting. COO Vijesh Iyer, an alumni of both Capital One and PayPal, says “we basically use a variety of data sources, both the traditional bureaus and as what we call the non-traditional bureaus.” For the credit card product, LendUp will pull credit from a traditional bureau. “For the small dollar loan product we use non-traditional CRAs,” he says. Their team of data scientists tries to extract the most significant signals out of all of the data sources they have at their disposal. “That’s really valuable when you’re dealing with a subprime customer where the reason why someone could be underserved or subprime is very different. We all have different life stories and we’re really trying to figure out the differences which we get from multiple signals, multiple data sources.”

“The easiest person to convince that we’re a better product is an existing payday user,” Orloff says. “because it’s slightly cheaper at the beginning, it gets much cheaper over time. It has a lot more flexibility. It gives people for the first time the opportunity to report to the credit bureaus. It teaches you better financial behavior. You can do it on a mobile phone. You can get alerts and reminders…”

Meanwhile, payday borrowers always have to pay the same amount, Orloff contends. The loan terms don’t improve, he says. One notable advantage a LendUp borrower might experience is that when they first run into trouble with making a LendUp loan payment, they can get a few extra days leeway at no extra charge, which usually comes as a welcome surprise.

Granted, a LendUp loan’s APR can still look pretty steep. A calculator on their website offers an example of one that is 458.86% APR. Orloff says a part of understanding that is understanding what a consumer’s options are and what the costs to process the applications are. A 220% APR might only equate to something like $30 total in fees depending on what the loan terms are, he explains. Their borrowers don’t get paid in APR though he says, they get paid in dollars. “They care about what’s the total cost of credit in terms of dollars.”

“Our customers pay more than that on overdraft fees,” Iyer adds. “Every time they have a slight overdraft, even if it’s for a dollar, even if it’s 10 cents. Even if it’s two dollars. No one ever tries to evaluate what the APR for that is. But that is their fee and this is also a fee.”

But more than anything else, it’s about whether the borrower’s and lender’s interests are aligned, Iyers contends. Right now, LendUp believes they’re doing the right thing at the right time.


This interview was conducted at Money2020 in Las Vegas

Q&A With Noah Breslow On Replacing ACH For Realtime Funding and More

October 25, 2017
Article by:

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

OnDeck CEO Noah Breslow at Money2020 in 2017An announcement by OnDeck, Ingo Money and Visa this week at Money2020 may be more consequential than it appeared. That’s because the partnership enables OnDeck to actually fund a merchant’s bank account (not their debit card) on days, nights, weekends, and holidays. Such a feature is not possible in the realm of ACH where funding typically takes place on the next business day and only if the transaction is submitted before a predetermined cutoff time. deBanked got to learn more about how this works in an interview with OnDeck CEO Noah Breslow on Tuesday as well as the opportunity to pick his brain about a few other things. Below is a curated excerpt of the interview that has been edited for brevity.

deBanked: For this real time funding you announced, do you have to have a Visa debit card?

Breslow: You do not, but you have to have a debit card. 70% of small business owners have debit cards. And this will work with Visa or Mastercard.

deBanked: So you’re not actually funding a merchant’s debit card, you’re funding their bank account but using the Visa network as the mechanism?

Breslow: It’s the rails, it’s the way to get the money into a small business owner’s checking account. My prediction is that every funder in the industry is going to be doing this in a couple of years. It’s going to be faster and small businesses will start to expect it. Now instead of waiting 2 days to get the money into someone’s account, it can be done on nights, weekends, holidays, 365 days a year.

deBanked: So you can fund a merchant’s bank account on the weekend?

Breslow: Yes, it’s real time. And to be clear we partnered with Ingo Money, Visa has the rails. Ingo is our interface point, they do the PCI compliance and the rest. We looked at a bunch of different players in the market and Ingo was unique in that they had covered small business checking accounts. Some of this stuff is happening in consumer already. We’re the first lender to use these rails for either consumer or small business in the US.

deBanked: Has this already gone into effect?

Breslow: No, it’s coming out in a couple months. Early 2018.

deBanked: Does this system work with every bank already?

Breslow: It doesn’t work with every bank yet. It works with most of them, all of the major ones.

deBanked: Speaking of payments… Square. PayPal. They’re both payments companies first that went into lending. Is there a potential reverse play for OnDeck to go into payments?

Breslow: Right now our product expansion stuff is very focused on additional lending products. I still feel like we haven’t lived up to our full potential there. There’s a couple other product categories that we’ve looked at and thought about. Equipment finance is one, invoice factoring, small business credit cards. And so we look to be the best small business lender in the world with the best set of products. And then we can partner with a lot of the payments companies. But right now, no we’re not going to sell merchant processing. Never say never, but not in the near future.

deBanked: Any news on the Chase front?

Breslow: We re-upped our agreement with them in early August. The customer experience is amazing, our platform is scaling, and we’re making progress. I can’t tell you a lot of other details about it.

deBanked: I’ve heard from folks in the industry about merchants who are being debited by Chase either daily or weekly. Is that you?

Breslow: That would be our platform. Chase’s product is more or less like the OnDeck product but cheaper obviously. It’s a daily or weekly collected loan. It goes up to 24 months for $200,000.

deBanked: I want to ask you about brokers, or as you call them “funding advisors.” Do you anticipate reliance on them increasing or decreasing?

Breslow: Stable. I don’t anticipate it moving up or down. We really like the funding advisors that we have and we’re continuing to grow with them. We’re also adding some new ones.

deBanked: What makes a good broker? What can they do to do things right?

Breslow: The value equation between the merchant, the lender and yourself has to be in balance. They should also be efficient and know the credit box of the lender they’re working with. They should invest in their employees, train them, and they should become more sophisticated about their online marketing and CRMs, which we’ve been seeing.

deBanked: Everyone’s talking about blockchain at this conference. Is there a way that blockchain fits into online lending and possibly OnDeck?

Breslow: I love the technology, I’m very intrigued by it. But we’re not actively using it and it’s not like I have a secret blockchain project in the works.

deBanked: Is there a universe in which OnDeck considers making an acquisition of a company?

Breslow: So we’re not totally opposed to that. They’re might be an opportunity for a complementary product or a complementary team. I think you’re going to see a lot of consolidation in the industry in the next 3-5 years.

ID Analytics Now Has 85% Visibility Into Online Consumer Lending

October 24, 2017
Article by:

money2020At Money2020, deBanked caught up with Kevin King, Director of Product Marketing and Ken Meiser, VP of Identity Solutions for ID Analytics. The last time I crossed paths with the company was six months ago at the LendIt Conference in New York City. Since then, the company has increased its visibility into the online consumer lending market to 85%.

Because so many lenders, including credit card issuers, are plugged into their system, ID Analytics can view where consumers are applying for credit across the spectrum. That’s bolstered by their visibility into where applicants are in the process with getting approved. “We’re seeing the lifecycle of that application,” said King, who added that it’s possible using their tool that a lender can know where in the process a borrower is with another lender, though without the ability to see who that lender is.

ID Analytics is not a credit bureau, but they can help lenders root out fraud by analyzing among many other factors, the “velocity” of a consumer’s credit applications. An example is the number of credit applications submitted in a short amount of time. It’s important to distinguish what kind of credit it is though, King and Meiser explained, because the way people apply for online loans can be different than how they apply for credit cards.

Meiser shared an example of something that might on its face look anomalous but is actually not, such as when someone moves and all of the sudden there are several credit applications tied to a home address never previously seen on record for that borrower. Are we talking about normal stuff like a store credit card at Home Depot to buy a refrigerator for the new house or is it for multiple loans? was the gist of a point he made.

ID Analytics won’t declare a loan application to be fraud, they just provide the lender with an ID Score®, a real-time fluid score that can signal to a lender to carry out more due diligence depending on the extremity of the score. If someone applies for five loans in one day, for example, that score could go up with each application. Their service helps root out fraud by looking at “leading indicators” rather than “trailing indicators,” they said.

“We’ve seen an interesting shift in how fraudsters are attacking,” King stated. The company is now reviewing about 1 million credit applications a day and can continuously scan for new trends. 7 out of the top 10 credit card issuers use their service, as do many online lenders and phone carriers.

Asked if their service would have anything to do with online lenders asking the occasional borrower to submit a utility bill or other document to confirm their identity all while other borrowers are not asked at all.

Lenders use a lot of their own factors, but if they’re suddenly asking for more documents to prove an applicant’s identity, there’s a good chance that could be because of us, they said.

Stacking Lawsuit Could Go to Trial

October 18, 2017
Article by:

CourtroomA lawsuit between RapidAdvance and Pearl Capital that has been making its way through the Maryland state court system for two years may be heading to trial.

In this case, plaintiff Small Business Financial Solutions, LLC (SBFS AKA RapidAdvance) alleged that Pearl Beta Funding, LLC (AKA Pearl Capital) interfered with a loan agreement it had with a merchant when Pearl “stacked” financial obligations to Pearl on top of the obligations the customer owed to SBFS. Ultimately the merchant defaulted and SBFS wants to hold Pearl responsible for the damages it incurred.

Pearl originally moved to dismiss the suit but was unsuccessful. Later, Pearl filed a motion for summary judgment. On September 29th, that motion was denied, with the judge opining that issues of fact remained that were best left for a jury.

Unless Pearl appeals the decision or the parties settle, the case will go to a jury.

A representative for Pearl Capital declined to comment on the decision, citing ongoing litigation.

Patrick Siegfried, Assistant General Counsel for RapidAdvance, opted to tell deBanked the following:

“The court’s decision from many months ago to reject Pearl’s motion to dismiss and its more recent decision to reject the motion for summary judgment and permit this case to go to trial confirms the anti-stacking position RapidAdvance has consistently taken. The court’s rulings make it clear that when a funding company funds a merchant knowing that doing so is a breach of the customer’s agreement with another funder and the stacker’s funding is a substantial cause of the merchant defaulting with the other funder, its actions constitute tortious interference. As a result, the company that stacked can be held liable for the losses the original funder incurs. While the outcome at trial is impossible to predict as the court will need [to] decide whether there are sufficient facts to satisfy each element, RapidAdvance is pleased that its legal reasoning on stacking has been confirmed in a written opinion and that we now have the roadmap for pursuing others that tortiously interfere with our contracts by stacking.”

Of note, is that RapidAdvance brought this case in The Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. Few other players in the industry may be able to designate Maryland as the proper venue. The standards for tortious interference may not be the same in other states. There are many circumstances in the case not discussed in this synopsis. Consult an attorney before drawing any conclusions. YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THE FULL DECISION HERE.

The case is Small Business Financial Solutions, LLC v. Pearl Beta Funding, LLC Case No. 411478-V in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland.