Sean Murray


Articles by Sean Murray

rss feed

I Got Funded, OMG I’m a Merchant!

March 3, 2017
Article by:

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

OMGI’ve read the press releases, interviewed the executives, and written the summaries about the latest and greatest innovations in alternative finance. I’m the guy that’s supposed to know how everything in this industry works, but do I REALLY REALLY know? In the last decade, I’ve worn an underwriter hat, an MCA broker hat, a syndicator hat, a lead generator hat and a reporter hat just to name a few. This diverse array of experiences has surely influenced deBanked’s success. But even as we publish content about the funders, lenders and other Fintech players in the wider industry, deBanked is truly a small business first.

Independently owned, there are no investors in the company to turn to for assistance. And that’s not such a bad thing if you know at all what it can be like to have partners. At the end of last year, we did what hundreds of thousands of small businesses around the country have done, we got funded by a marketplace lender. Through that experience, I found myself wearing a brand new hat, one that says “merchant” on it.

On December 1st, my company received a deposit for $35,000. It was a loan from Square Capital and I didn’t pursue it for a story, but rather to facilitate cash flow at the busiest time of the year. I was moving into a larger office on the same floor of our building and the hustle and bustle of the pre-holiday craze was upon us. The circumstances may come off a bit cliché, simulated even, but there it was at the right time and the right place, an email telling me that my business had been “selected.” If you’ve ever wondered if that kind of marketing works, it must, because a half hour after reading through the materials, I made an educated decision and applied for a loan.

The higher-ups at Square Capital, those above the underwriting department, might have no idea that they even funded us (our legal name is different from our trademark publication name). And I haven’t reached out to them for comment because I didn’t want to turn this into a PR stunt or get them riled up about my account. But if you work at Square and you’re reading this now, you don’t need to hold your breath. Everything seemed to work just as the press releases, ads, and executives claim it does. Phew! That’s good for you, but it was also very good for me.

The most pleasant surprise was that our business got approved for the maximum amount advertised in their email. Here’s how it went down:

11/29/16
1:34 PM
Received email offering a business loan up to $35,000 to repay over 12 months

2:01 PM
Applied for $35,000, which consisted of logging into my Square account and tapping a button

8:02 PM
Got approved for $35,000

11/30/16
Square sent out the funds via ACH

12/1/16
Received full loan deposit in my business bank account

Square Capital OfferAll in all, it couldn’t have been any simpler. The deposit was for the full $35,000. And try as you might to hate me for saying this, I never calculated what the APR is. Square explained the cost as a fixed fee, which for me was $3,160. That’s approximately 9% of the principal of which the whole loan and fee would be repaid in equal installments over the next 12 months. To those that work in the industry, I got a 12-month 1.09 deal.

As a small business owner, I calculated whether or not it made sense to pay a set fee for $35,000 over that time period and determined it did. An APR would not have impacted my decision, nor would I really have found it helpful in determining the supposed true cost. The true cost is already there in black and white, the total dollars I agreed to pay.

Two things guided me, speed and economics. I wasn’t motivated to shop around to try and get the absolute best deal, just one that made economic sense with the least amount of work in the shortest amount of time. It sounds ironic to write that, especially as someone who has a bachelor’s in both Accounting and Finance but if you’re someone who works 7 days a week like I do, well maybe you’d understand my thought process. If I was applying for a million bucks, then yes, I’d shop and think on it pretty hard, but in my circumstances, a few thousand dollars in fees is relatively small stakes for the company. Besides, I was using the money proactively, as a positive tool.

I knew my patience for waiting was thin. For example, an experience with one of my banks earlier in the year had already left me rattled. I had asked to extend the limit of a business credit card and I was told that in order to do so, I’d have to visit the bank branch where I had originally signed up for the card (I don’t even live near that branch anymore) and that I would have to bring financial statements with me to present for review. By the way, this was for a limit increase to an amount that was much less than $35,000.

I learned that day that the rumors about (some) banks are true. They wanted me to visit a branch… and bring paperwork… for some kind of unspecified analysis… in 2016. Lo and behold I never showed up, and was more entrenched in my belief than ever before that the world needed to become de-banked and soon.

square capital approvedMy business already processes cards through Square so I’ve got a track record with them. Applying didn’t place any inquiries on my personal credit report nor did anyone at Square ever call me to ask me any questions. I know that most of their competitors conduct what is commonly known as a “merchant interview” prior to full approval or funding, but they didn’t. It wouldn’t have bothered me if they did though since we have a good business and would be using the money for the right reasons.

Alas, the entire process really all just came down to clicking a button online. I kept waiting for the catch, for them to let me down, to come up short of all the promises that the Fintech revolution has made about changing the world, but it never happened. A month later, Square withdrew their first payment from our account. Like I said earlier, I was satisfied with the entire process and it was a big help. Had I been given the option however, I might’ve opted to structure the arrangement differently and sold a portion of our future sales proceeds rather than simply borrow money. Allow me to explain.

It’s entirely possible that the next 12 months of business won’t pan out the way I project. If my sales drop, I still have to make the fixed monthly payment in accordance with my loan terms regardless. Not so when selling future sales since the delivery of those funds to the buyer is entirely tied to actual sales activity. A structure like this, what many consider a merchant cash advance, is actually what Square used to offer up until early 2016.

When the pace of sales slow down, delivery of the sales proceeds slows with it. When the pace of sales increases, so too does the delivery to the buyer. And if I went out of business, well then the buyer would get what they purchased, nothing.

Merchant cash advances are harder to bundle up and securitize though because there are no maturity dates nor is there even a guarantee the buyer will get what they purchased in full. They’re investments with loads of uncertainty built in for the buyer, and that’s probably why Square switched to loans and also probably why the cost of my loan was relatively inexpensive. They’ve minimized the uncertainties.

Nonetheless, the loan I ultimately got, is just fine. In the moment that I needed it, the process couldn’t have been any simpler or any faster. The banks have met their match. I got funded and loved it, now it’s your turn.

This article is from deBanked’s Jan/Feb 2017 magazine issue. To receive copies in print, SUBSCRIBE FREE

See You At LendIt

March 3, 2017
Article by:

Monday kicks off the LendIt conference at the Javits Center in NYC. Given that it’s the biggest event of the year for the industry, I certainly hope to meet as much of you there as possible.

If you still haven’t registered, make sure you at least take advantage of a 15% discount by using promo code: Debanked17USA. My schedule is pretty booked up, fueled in part by the excellent session topics this year which I want to catch a bunch of. That being the case, I am potentially available to get together even on Sunday or Wednesday (since I live in Manhattan) or any other day outside of the conference.

I hope you enjoy LendIt. You should check out their story of how they came to be HERE.

Letter From The Editor – Mar/Apr 2017

March 1, 2017
Article by:

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

Out of the many lenders and marketplaces that reported their 2016 earnings in the last month, several didn’t look so good. If algorithms and branchless-finance was supposed to make lending so much more efficient, why is it that so many online lenders are struggling to make a pro t?

As it would turn out, banks were not as doomed or as outdated as the technologists characterized them to be. Their cost of capital and brand name recognition (for most of them anyway) is proving very tough to compete with. In this issue we explore the latest trend, the drift back towards banking. That doesn’t mean that we are returning to a purely bank-dominated lending universe, however. On the contrary, it’s mainly the prime borrower market that banks are working to service better. There’s an entire segment out there for which bank financing is not the answer, at least not yet, and there’s plenty of exciting events taking place.

For small business owners, some still want a relationship with the person helping them obtain capital, they just want it in a different way. In the last few months, we spoke with several professionals who attest to having a text-based relationship with their clients, as in they communicate back and forth through their phones over text.

When I first heard about this, I assumed it had to be a one-off. “Wait, your applicants text you for updates with the underwriting process?” I asked a sales representative who seemed stunned that I would think that was odd. After a quick poll of other salespeople at a conference, the truth became clear to me. If you don’t attempt to have a text relationship with your clients, you might be at a disadvantage. In this issue, we explore why that might be.

And on that note, RU ready 4 this issue? Cuz I g2g so ttyl. Thx. emojis

–Sean Murray

Prosper, A Marketplace for the World’s Richest Banks and Billionaires?

February 28, 2017
Article by:

gold

Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and funds tied to some of the world’s richest billionaires (including George Soros) all make up the “consortium of institutional investors” and “syndicate of lenders” involved in Prosper’s recently announced landmark deal. The terms allow for the investors to purchase up to $5 billion of loans on the platform while the lenders will provide warehouse financing up to $1 billion. It’s safe to say that this is not your father’s peer-to-peer lender.

The WSJ reported too that investors will receive warrants to buy equity in Prosper that’s tied to the amount of loans they buy, all the way up to 35% of the company if they buy the full $5 billion.

Prosper used to call itself a “peer-to-peer lending marketplace” but these days it’s adopted a slightly different label, “consumer lending marketplace.”

Back in July, I half-jokingly scoffed at the phrase marketplace lending as the industry had begun to call itself, seeing that it was morphing into just Wall Street lending after Goldman Sachs announced it would actually be launching an online consumer lending arm to compete against Lending Club and Prosper.

The deal is obviously great for Prosper, whose future seemed kind of up in the air, but it’s hard to get excited about the world’s biggest banks and richest funds now being the consortium behind an online lender who pioneered peer-to-peer lending, if things like peer-to-peer lending excited you.

To be fair, peers/retail investors can still invest on the platform too so I guess there’s that.

Confidence Stable For Small Business Lenders and MCA Companies

February 26, 2017
Article by:

Recent events may be putting a slight damper on the confidence of industry CEOs in being able to access capital needed to grow their businesses, but continued success of the industry in general is ticking back up. This data is according to the latest survey conducted by Bryant Park Capital and deBanked of small business lending and merchant cash advance company CEOs.

CEO Industry Confidence Index

Confidence in the industry’s continued success bumped back up to 81.9% in Q4, while confidence in being able to access capital reached its lowest level since the survey’s inception. Still, at 82.7%, it’s high.

CEO Access to Capital Confidence Index

In late November of 2016, CAN Capital, one of the industry’s largest companies, encountered problems that caused the company to suspend funding. Several of their competitors since then have reported a boost in submission volume, which they partially attributed to that event.

Pressure on companies to merge or exit the market may also be kindling optimism for larger players who stand to gain market share.

The quarterly survey is distributed to industry CEOs of companies both large and small

Prospa, Now Valued at $235 Million, is a Major Online Small Business Lender

February 22, 2017
Article by:

deBanked Down UnderOnline small business lending in Australia is taking off, especially for Sydney-based Prospa, who according to the Australian Financial Review, has slightly more than half of the industry’s market share. The company just announced a $25 million (AUD) equity round led by AirTree Ventures that pegged Prospa’s value at $235 million (AUD).

Prospa is significant in that it received early support from US-based Strategic Funding, the same company that just absorbed the US operations of Capify. A 2013 press release said that Strategic would be providing the technology for the electronic servicing, underwriting and cash management of all Prospa Advance accounts in Australia in addition to jointly funding all the merchant cash advances and loans they originated. Sources say however that the arrangement is no longer in effect.

In September 2015, The Carlyle Group, one of the largest private equity firms in the world, participated in a $60 million round for the company. Prospa has now funded more than $250 million to small businesses since inception.

“The market in Australia has been very ripe for alternative finance,” Prospa co-CEO Beau Bertoli said to deBanked about 18 months ago. “We see an opportunity for the alternative finance segment to be more dominant in Australia than it is in America.”

The Australian Financial Review cites Bertoli as more recently saying that the market there could grow to at least $20 billion in the next five years.

Similar to offers in the US, Prospa lends between $5,000 to $250,000 for loans up to one year.

‘Peers’ Continue Retreat from Lending Club

February 18, 2017
Article by:

escapeThe 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.

bank funding

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
Article by:

OnDeck CapitalOnDeck 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.