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
‘Peers’ Continue Retreat from Lending Club
February 18, 2017
The peer aspect of peer-to-peer lending continued to erode last year, according to Lending Club’s year-end earnings presentation. Self-managed individuals, those still making their own investment decisions, only made up $263 million of their 4th quarter’s origination volume, reaching the lowest level in two years. That’s nearly 38% lower from the peak of $419 million in Q1 of 2016.
Overall monthly originations haven’t really moved, hovering at around $2 billion per quarter over the last 3 quarters, down from the peak of 2016’s Q1 when they hit $2.75 billion. There’s money coming from somewhere though, of course. A chart in the presentation revealed that 74% of Lending Club’s Q4 originations came from banks and managed accounts. The managed accounts category is comprised primarily of asset managers who invest mainly in marketplace lending.
A glance at Lending Club’s self-managed individual originations as a percentage of total originations per quarter is below:
| Q4 2013 | Q1 2014 | Q2 2014 | Q3 2014 | Q4 2014 | Q1 2015 | Q2 2015 | Q3 2015 | Q4 2015 | Q1 2016 | Q2 2016 | Q3 2016 | Q4 2016 |
| 27% | 27% | 23% | 25% | 19% | 19% | 15% | 15% | 13% | 15% | 17% | 14% | 13% |
Retail investors were largely skimmed over during the Q4 earnings call, with CEO Scott Sanborn and CFO Tom Casey choosing to focus their attention on bank participation. “As you know, banks returning to the platform has been a priority for us and acts as an endorsement of our strength and compliance and controls,” Casey said.
Using the Seeking Alpha transcript as a guide, the word bank was said on the call 32 times while retail investor was only mentioned once.
To that end, Lending Club’s announcement highlighted its bank funding achievement.
Meanwhile, the word retail doesn’t exist anywhere in the announcement unless you count the necessary Safe Harbor Statement.
RIP the retail investor.
Layoffs, Big Losses for OnDeck in Q4
February 16, 2017
OnDeck weathered a brutal fourth quarter driven largely by an increase in provision for loan losses which increased to $55.7 million, up from $20.0 million in the comparable prior year period. $18.7 million of this can be attributed to loans with original maturities of 15 months or longer whose performance has deviated or is expected to deviate, the company said. “As a result, the Provision Rate in the fourth quarter of 2016 was 10.2% compared to 5.6% in the comparable prior year period,” the company reported. For the full year of 2016, the Provision Rate was 7.4%, compared to 5.8% in 2015. CFO Howard Katzenberg said on the earnings call that it will likely continue to hover at around the 7% level.
The company lost $36.5 million in Q4 and $86.5 million for the year.
To try and turn things around, OnDeck is laying off up to 11% of their staff as part of a “cost rationalization plan.”
James Hobson, their COO, recently announced his resignation and March 15th is his last official day.
On the earnings call, Katzenberg wouldn’t say how many loans in their portfolio were 15 months or longer, but did say that it’s more than a third of their book. This is notable given that this segment is the one in which performance isn’t matching their models and led to the recalibration of loss expectations.
Meanwhile CEO Noah Breslow explained that losses did not stem from their partnership with Chase since Chase held all those loans on their own balance sheet. Breslow said their role in that relationship is servicing.
No origination channel was directly responsible for the loss provision increase. One analyst surmised if perhaps third party brokers or funding advisors, as OnDeck calls them, might be responsible, but the company said that origination channel wasn’t a factor.
Despite the fact that OnDeck is now using the 5th generation of their proprietary OnDeck Score, they were unable to predict performance on loans that now make up more than a third of their portfolio, yet the company said they remain very confident in their scoring model.
“Loans sold or designated as held for sale through OnDeck Marketplace represented 15.8% of term loan originations in the fourth quarter of 2016 compared to 39.8% of term loan originations in the comparable prior year period,” the company reported.
‘Debt Collection Terrorist’ Wants FCC to Get Rid of Implied Consent in TCPA
February 9, 2017
Craig Cunningham, the serial TCPA plaintiff who once aspired to author a book titled, Tales Of A Debt Collection Terrorist: How I Beat the Credit Industry At Its Own Game and Made Big Money From the Beat Down, now wants to make it easier to sue for TCPA violations.
Cunningham appeared in a deBanked story about telemarketing last year after it was discovered that he had sued alternative business finance companies for alleged violations. Declining to speak with me at the time, there was plenty to glean from his trail of forum posts where he uses the alias Codename47. One post stands out. “TCPA enforcement for fun and for profit up to 3k per call,” is the title of one thread he started in 2014 on the FatWallet forum.
And if his motives are fun and profit, then a petition filed by Cunningham with the FCC to limit the scope of “prior express consent” might concern you because it would create more opportunities for him and others to initiate lawsuits. This week, the FCC actually asked the public to comment on his petition.
With this Public Notice, we seek comment on a petition for rulemaking and declaratory ruling filed by Craig Moskowitz and Craig Cunningham (Petitioners).1 Petitioners request that the Commission initiate a rulemaking “to overturn the Commission’s improper interpretation that ‘prior express consent’ includes implied consent resulting from a party’s providing a telephone number to the caller.”2 Specifically, Petitioners request that the Commission issue a rule requiring that for all calls made to wireless and residential lines subject to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) restrictions in 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B),3 “prior express consent” must be express consent specifically to receive autodialed and/or artificial voice/prerecorded telephone calls at a specified number, and such consent must be in writing.4 In addition, Petitioners seek a declaratory ruling to remove uncertainty regarding the meaning of “prior express consent” resulting from previous Commission orders.5
In the original description of Cunningham’s never-written book, his co-author Brian O’Connell, a famous writer, wrote this of Cunningham’s baiting strategy:
“The key was baiting the collections agent on the other end of the line and waiting for the agent to say something incriminating that crossed the line into what the law considered abuse. He began taping calls and soon had his first lawsuit against a security alarm company looking for $450 from an early termination fee.”
He has long since moved on from just debt collectors and files a lot of suits over allegedly unwanted calls.
Comments on Cunningham’s FCC proposal to make suing even easier, can be submitted online or by mail.
What Shakeout? Breakout Capital Secures $25 Million Credit Facility
February 8, 2017
Put a tally up on the board for small business lenders in 2017. McClean, VA-based Breakout Capital, which just announced a move into a larger office last week, has also secured a $25 million credit facility with Drift Capital Partners. Drift is an alternative asset management company.
Breakout is young by today’s industry standards, founded only two years ago by former investment banker Carl Fairbank, who is the company’s CEO. And don’t count them out just because they’re not in New York or San Francisco. Washington DC’s Virginia suburbs have become somewhat of a hotspot for fintech lenders. OnDeck, Fundation, StreetShares and QuarterSpot all have offices there, Fairbank points out. “And Capital One is right up the street,” he adds while explaining that the community has a strong talent pool that is familiar with creative lending. Breakout has already grown to about 20 employees and they’re still growing, he says.
Fairbank considers Breakout to be a more upmarket lender, whose repertoire includes serving the near-prime, mid-prime customer. CAN Capital and Dealstruck had focused on this area and both companies stopped funding new business in 2016. As I point this out, I ask if that suggests that segment is perhaps too difficult to make work.
“Candidly, that’s the part of the market that I feel the best about,” he says matter of factly. The company tries to product-fit deals based on the borrower, and will even make monthly-payment based loans. “I think the subprime side with the stacking and the debt settlement companies is a very very difficult place to play right now,” he says, adding that they have worked with subprime borrowers using their original bridge program but that they’ve kind of pulled back from doing those. As with all programs regardless, their goal is to graduate merchants into better or less costly products later on. We have helped merchants move on to get SBA loans, he maintains.
That all sounds very hands on, and part of it is, Fairbank confirms while asserting that technology does indeed do a lot of the legwork. “There’s absolutely a human element to underwriting these deals,” he says. He also agrees with much of what RapidAdvance chairman Jeremy Brown wrote in a deBanked op-ed titled, The New Normal. Both Breakout and RapidAdvance refer to themselves as technology-enabled lenders, an acknowledgement that tech is a component of the company, not the entire company itself.
“I think we will see the beginning of the demise of fully automated, no manual touch funding,” Brown wrote in his article.
Brown also predicted that the legal system will ultimately impose order on some industry practices like stacking or that a state like New York could take a public policy interest in products he believes have legal flaws. As he was writing that, Governor Cuomo’s office published a budget proposal that redefined what it means to make a loan in the state. And it leaves much to be desired, some sources contend. Two attorneys at Hudson Cook, LLP, for example, published an analysis that demonstrates how its wording is ambiguous and far-reaching.
“What they really need to do is take the time to think through the implications and basically do a full study of the market to ensure that what they’re pushing forward is going to have the desired consequences,” Breakout’s Fairbank offers on the matter.
This doesn’t mean he’s anti-regulation. The company already holds itself to high standards and customer suitability and is a founding member of the Coalition for Responsible Business Finance.
“I personally do believe that there’s bad forms of lending or cash advances in the market and I’m sure that’s what Cuomo thinks as well but at the same time, it’s getting pushed very quickly and they really really ought to step back and do the research to understand the broader implications and to understand what exactly they’re trying to accomplish,” he maintains.
His pragmatism extends to the OCC’s proposed limited fintech charter, which he finds intriguing, assuming it gets buttoned up. “I believe it’s a concept worth pursuing,” he says, explaining that regulators will need to get comfortable with unsecured lending.
In the meantime, he’s optimistic about Breakout’s prospects. “In a time when institutional appetite for alternative finance companies has dried up, we believe our ability to raise a credit facility in this market speaks volumes about what we have already accomplished, our position as a leading player in the space, and our prospects for strong, but measured, growth,” Fairbank is quoted as saying in a company announcement. The company was also invited and joined the Task Force for the PLUM Initiative, a collaboration between the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Milken Institute to more effectively provide capital to minority-owned businesses throughout the United States. The Task Force consists of a very select group of industry leaders, who are in positions to improve access to capital in underserved markets, according to the announcement.
While other companies are making adjustments or in his opinion, continuing to make questionable underwriting decisions, Fairbank thinks his formula for success works. “I think that we do look at deals differently than most folks because I intentionally built the core of my underwriting team with folks who are not from this space so they take a more traditional approach and mix it with some of the greatest aspects of alternative finance.”
SoFi Plays It Safe With Super Bowl Ad – And Kind of Wants to Be Your Bank
February 6, 2017“Here’s to conquering more together in 2017,” SoFi’s Super Bowl ad asserts. The company wants to help you own a home, start a family and see the world. They essentially want to be your bank for life, and now that their acquisition of Zenbanx allows them to offer checking accounts, they pretty much can be. It was no surprise then that their infamous tagline “Don’t Bank” was nowhere to be found in their Super Bowl ad. Watch below:
The ad they ran last year received criticism for labeling people as either great or not great. Maybe it wasn’t the best approach, but it was a very SoFi thing to do at the time.
This year, the only thing missing from their feel-good we-want-to-be-with-you-through-all-your-life-milestones ad is a voice coming on at the end to say “There are some things money can’t buy, for everything else, there’s MasterCard.”
Perhaps SoFi will consider changing their slogan from Don’t Bank to Bank With Us. It’s only a matter of time.
New York’s Proposed Budget Slips In Sweeping Regulation of Non-bank Business Lending and Finance
January 28, 2017In New York, Governor Cuomo’s 309-page budget proposal includes a handful of sentences tucked in towards the end (Part EE) that would revise Section 340 of the state’s banking law. And the implications are broad, given that it calls for any person or entity involved in the soliciting, arranging or facilitation of business and consumer loans or other forms of financing to be licensed in order to engage in such activity. It appears that MCA companies as well as business loan brokers and ISOs would be directly impacted.
If it passes, the regulator tasked with overseeing that would be the New York Department of Financial Services. It would be effective January, 2018.
For consumer loans, it applies to loans $25,000 and under. For business financing, $50,000 and under.
If a Bank Made the Loan in California, It Doesn’t Matter What Happened Next, Federal Court Holds
January 27, 2017There’s no reason to examine whether a party intended to enter into a usurious loan if there is a constitutional exemption that permitted the lender to make the loan in the first place, a federal court in California’s central district ruled. In Jamie Beechum et al. v. Navient Solutions, Inc. et al, a student loan borrower argued that loans made by Stillwater National Bank and Trust Company, are a sham because the defendants who bought the loans from Stillwater (who were not a bank) originated, underwrote, funded, and bore the risk of loss on the loans.
Beechum asked the court to examine the substance and intent of the agreements between the bank and the defendants, which they claim were designed specifically to evade state usury laws. The court did not believe it was necessary to look beyond California’s constitutional exemption since both plaintiff and defendant agreed that Stillwater Bank was the lender. The complaint was therefore dismissed.
As a secondary defense, defendants had also contended that as a national bank, Stillwater was also exempt from state usury laws under the National Bank Act, but the court did not even have to consider that to arrive at their conclusion.
A good analysis of the case (including why buying a loan from a bank differs from buying a loan from a tribe) was written in Leasing News by Tom McCurnin, a partner at Barton, Klugman & Oetting in Los Angeles, California.
This So-Hot Robot Is Launching a Marketplace Lending Hedge Fund
January 26, 2017
LendingRobot has come a very long way since I first connected with them two years ago. Back then, CEO Emmanuel Marot was simplifying access to marketplace lending for individual investors by automating the decisions and executions. A year later, they were the first in the industry to introduce that technology via a mobile app. As someone who has used their service for a long time, one thing was always the same, the company helped you invest and monitor performance but they didn’t have custody of the actual money.
That’s all changing with the announcement of their new hedge fund (“LendingRobot Series“), which will actually be separate and only open to accredited investors. The fund is managed by LendingRobot’s robo-advisor technology which scores, invests, and even manages secondary market activity without any need for human advisors. Basically the robots are doing the heavy lifting and they’re only investing in loan marketplaces such as Lending Club, Prosper and Funding Circle. Because of that, the fund only charges 1.00% of assets under management, and caps fund expenses at 0.59%.
The way Marot tells it, they’re taking the mystery out of a hedge fund. There’s no “black box,” he says. Instead, the fund uses Blockchain technology to deliver a public, unalterable ledger, so that LendingRobot Series investors see exactly which loans the fund is invested, where the defaults are, and exactly what the costs are across the fund.
One of the biggest allures of investing in marketplace loans in this fashion is the liquidity offered. Investors don’t need to wait 3-5 years to wait for the loans to fully mature to take their money out. Investor money is converted to Units of ownership in these Series that are issued on a weekly basis. By default, loans payments keep being re-invested and the Units value increases.
Marot said that the company only has 7 employees, yet they’ve managed to rack up more than 6,500 clients (myself among them) for their original service and have helped those clients deploy more than $120 million in assets along the way. They claim that they’ve been able to improve returns in alternative lending by more than 2.5%.
Founded in 2012, the company raised $700K in seed funding and $3M series A from Runa Capital.
As mentioned, LendingRobot Series is available to accredited investors only, and they’ll initially only allow 99 investors to participate in the fund with a minimum investment amount of $100,000.
