ACH Advances

Merchant Cash Advance Blacklist

August 5, 2010
Article by:

If you default on a Merchant Cash Advance naturally or by breach of contract, there is virtually no chance you will be able to obtain a Merchant Cash Advance in the future. 2008 was a particularly brutal year for Merchant Cash Advance firms. Not only had the recession weakened the most aggressive players but merchant fraud was abundant. 90% of the time this business is conducted by phone. Being vastly easier to obtain than a loan, many merchants rigged the process to get funding from multiple firms at the same time. Some would “go out of business” only to obtain more funds under a different name.

Merchant Cash Advance providers have stuck by their mantra of providing a simple process to their clients and have created solutions to prevent fraud. Industry groups such as the North American Merchant Advance Association provide a live database exchange of clients in default. A merchant’s most sensitive information is not revealed but public information such as legal name, dba, owner name, business address, and phone numbers (to name a few) are all stored in the database. Live funding activity is also shared in some capacity. For instance, if you apply to funding firm A and funding firm B at the same time but are funded by firm A today, then Firm B will automatically be alerted not to fund you.

These deterrents and live databases are not broadcast to the public and thus some businesses try to obtain additional advances after having defaulted on one already. If you are a merchant and you are trying to hide the fact that you currently have an advance or defaulted on one previously, you will not be successful in obtaining funds from another firm.

How Did Merchant Cash Advance Companies Get My Information?

August 4, 2010
Article by:

I used a Merchant Cash Advance program and now I am being solicited because of it. How did these companies get my information?

The Merchant Cash Advance industry is a competitive business. Most firms file a UCC-1 (public notice with your secretary of state) on your business to let potential creditors, lawyers, and other Merchant Cash Advance firms know your future credit card receivables have been purchased. This is customary for a loan as well, although the language in the filing is different.

Since this information is public, it is possible to request a list of all UCC-1’s filed by a particular funding company from the states. Each UCC-1 includes the DBA, Business Address, and Date it was filed. Computer programs or manual google searches can fill in the blanks and obtain the owner’s name and business phone number.

In just a few minutes, a competing Merchant Cash Advance firm or reseller can determine when you received funding and where you got it from. For the competition, It’s a free, easy way to create a marketing list.

The same can be done for traditional loans and equipment leases.

Am I Talking to a Broker? Does it Matter?

August 1, 2010
Article by:

Many merchant cash advance applicants have found the relationship structure of the companies involved confusing. Others who thought they understood it, later found out they were wrong. There are likely to be at least 3 parties involved in the process. Below is a breakdown of each and their role:

Cash Advance Provider: This is the company taking liability on the advance. They are the entity purchasing your future receivables at a discount. They also handle the decision making on approvals. It is very likely that they do not have an outbound marketing campaign or customer service department. They may rely on Brokers to bring in clients and service the accounts. The Cash Advance Provider pays a commissioned percentage of the advanced amount to the Broker for their services.

Cash Advance Broker: This is the reseller of the cash advance. Their business purpose is to acquire clients and submit their applications to the Cash Advance Provider for approval. They generally will also provide customer service. The Cash Advance Provider pays a commission to the Broker for every client of theirs that is funded. Brokers do not have to charge their clients for their “service” as the Cash Advance Provider is already paying them.

Credit Card Processor: In most cases, repayment of your advance depends on the Processor diverting a percentage of credit card transactions to the Advance Provider.

In order to do so, the Processor has to have contractual agreements with the Advance Provider. That is why in most cases, businesses are required to convert their processing to a new company. There is no Advance Provider that is compatible with all processors.

The Credit Card Processor performs it’s own risk analysis on the business as well. They want to ensure that your transactions are legitimate, secure, and consistent with the stated business model. Approval of an advance conditionally relies upon approval with the Processor.

This being known, some Advance Providers rely solely on Brokers to acquire clients and thus there is no way to apply directly with the Provider directly. For cost purposes this shouldn’t matter. The cost of the advance itself is the same whether a Broker is involved or not. However, SOME brokers charge additional fees for their service to the client themselves. They may try to convince you that it is the Cash Advance Provider’s fee, a set up fee, a reprogramming fee, a legal fee, etc. These are just disguised names for the Broker’s fee.

In some cases the Cash Advance Provider may charge up to $200 to file a UCC1 on the client’s business once the contract has been executed. Any amount higher than that is most likely not a necessary fee to be passed onto the client.

Clients should ask upfront with their account representative if any additional fees will be charged upon execution of the contract. Some will charge, some won’t. Whom the client decides to apply with is their choice.

1 Application Turned into Multiple Credit Pulls

July 30, 2010
Article by:

credit pullsMany merchant cash advance applicants have filled out a single form only to later find out their credit was pulled multiple times. This is common amongst brokers. Many brokers will take the application and then submit it to multiple Cash Advance Providers for review. They do this to increase the applicant’s chance of approval and ultimately come out with the best deal.

There is a flip side to this strategy that every applicant should be aware of. Credit inquiries affect FICO score. Though multiple pulls in a very short span of time won’t be as damaging as if they were spread out (Credit Agencies realize that people shop for credit and thus your score isn’t lowered as much), the actual record of the inquiry will remain on the report for 2 years.

If there are upwards of 4 pulls or more, this can have negative implications. Many Cash Advance Providers view inquiries from competitors as a bad sign and there are instances where applicants will be declined simply because they’ve “over shopped.“

If an applicant was credit worthy to begin with and they were planning on obtaining a mortgage or auto loan in the near future, this needs to be seriously considered. That mortgage or car loan may no longer be available because of too many credit inquiries.

Advice: Anyone applying for a merchant cash advance should discuss with their account representative before hand to find out exactly how many times their credit will be pulled and what entities will be pulling it. Authorizing an entity to pull credit does not grant anyone unlimited usage for an indefinite amount of time.

If any applicant feels their credit was pulled more times than was authorized or by unauthorized entities, they should contact the entity responsible. The entity is required by law to prove they had authorization to pull credit. If they made the inquiry in error, they are required to send you a letter stating just that. This letter can then be used to have the inquiry removed when contesting with the Credit Agency.

If the entity does not respond within 30 days, they can be in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

An Underwriter in Salesman’s Clothing

April 1, 2009
Article by:

call centerIt was mid-2006 and AdvanceMe was finding it wasn’t so alone in the world anymore. First Funds, Amerimerchant, Merchant Cash and Capital, BFS, among others were abuzz with a business model and a dream. Practically fresh out of college I joined one of the few funding companies as an underwriter. For a kid with little experience in an industry where no one had experience, I was fortunate to have graduated from a great business school. I had held off pursuing a CPA to see where the Merchant Advance wave would take me.

After my first week, I was hooked. Merchant processing, purchasing future receivables, private investors, and millions of dollars being pumped into small businesses were all part of an average day. After a month, I had complete sign-off ability to approve an account and wire funds out. “Fascinating,” I thought.

“3 Merchant processing statements and a signed contract.” This was the industry wide standard documentation at the time. If one Cash Provider wanted more documentation than that, the ISOs could divert their business to another Cash Provider in defiance. Cash Providers spent a lot of time courting and tending to the needs of their ISOs. It was truly a day when salesmen ran the Merchant Advance world.

I remember visiting giant telemarketing centers with 50-100 people spreading the word about the Merchant Advance to thousands of people a day. At one in particular, there was a legendary ex-stock broker at the front of the room rallying the troops on a megaphone. “Sell! Sell! Sell!” The Team Captains had their names up on giant marker board with their stats for the month. Combined, they were at $2 Million in sales so far.

After I had done my “courting” and “tending” to the brass of these sales warriors, I saw a 21-year old salesman being written a check for $20,000 for a sales benchmark he had just hit. Rumor had it that he was a pizza delivery guy living out of his car just 6 weeks before. I wondered how people were making THAT much money. It was hard not to be caught up in the commotion and excitement. Nobody knew when the growth of this product would stop exploding. It wasn’t long after that when one of my fellow underwriters resigned to get in the action. I didn’t blame him, but it just wasn’t for me. I was an analytical type guy, not the sales type.

I spent my days of 2007 learning and dealing with the fact that small businesses were taking Advances simultaneously, huge commissions were paid for deals that were defaulting, 10% Closing fees were being charged, and new terminals were being sent to merchants that provided them with the opportunity to divert sales away from the Cash Providers.

This was all happening while ISOs/Providers were quadrupling their staff to deal with the surge in applications. Too much was happening at once. There were situations where Cash Providers became so overburdened and technologically unprepared, that it would take weeks just to determine what a merchant owed on their Advance. That’s not a good position to be in.

In all the madness, our team of underwriters were ahead of the game. There were alarming trends that spelled disaster. We believed the sales model had gone awry. It was $10,000 for $13,500 for our company, a profit of $3,500. It was 10% Commission + 10% closing cost + increased merchant processing rates + terminal leases, a profit of $2,000+ for the sales company. That was way too much for having no liability. There was no way these additional fees could be tacked on to what could already be considered our expensive product.

I eventually became Manager of the entire underwriting department on my platform of conservative underwriting. Boy, was I unpopular. I found myself butting heads with salesmen all day. I lobbied for more documentation and the elimination of closing costs.

What I especially subconsciously disliked, was that some Advance salesmen my age were earning 4x more than I was annually and I considered myself to be earning a hefty sum. They would debate constantly about declines and make excuses for required paperwork their merchants couldn’t produce. It was a rule that no matter how terrible the submitted application and paperwork looked, a full workup and discussion of the deal with the salesman would be had. For certain submissions, this just didn’t seem to make sense. To the salesman who worked hard for the application, it meant the world to him.

Some of us thought their over-ambitious tactics and need for closing costs were the result of greed. “A bunch of fat cat brokers”, some of us would think. Sure, there were the guys out there making $30,000 in a month, but a lot of the day-to-day calls were from guys only making 1.5% on the Advance amount, only a portion of the closing cost, and had no idea what bankcard residuals were.

It didn’t faze me when a salesman pleaded that he had been pitching a particular merchant for over 3 months and the excuse for why his May processing statement was missing. “No statement, no funding,” I asserted. Rules were rules and I would not put up with someone trying to circumvent them. The merchant probably would’ve been just fine too.

Our underwriting group took a lot of heat from the Execs at our company. Conservative underwriting jeopardized demand. It was a terrible cost-benefit debacle that we faced day in and day out. Sounds similar to the mortgage broker/ bank dilemma eh?

FAST FORWARD……

It was late Summer, 2008. Our company was stable and in good hands. I basked in our accomplishment. Some of our competitors hadn’t been so lucky. Like the friend of mine who left before me over a year before, I wanted in on the action. I resigned and became a salesman.

I never wanted to manage an ISO, I wanted to be a salesman on the front lines. I wanted the ringing phones, the commotion, the marker boards with stats, the glory, the $20,000 checks.

I became an Advance salesman at the worst time in history. Fast Capital had long gone, Merit left the arena, and some of the good ‘ol boys had changed to renewals only. Submitted applications were responded to by computer programs saying my deal was ‘automatically declined due to something or other” and would not even be reviewed. “How could my deal not get reviewed? I spent 30 days pitching this merchant only to find out he wasn’t even worthy of review?” My subsequent calls were met by agitated voices at Cash Providers who couldn’t comprehend why I wanted to know the status only 2 days after I submitted the application.

I shrugged it off in the beginning. In fact I found myself not even submitting a large chunk of the applications I generated because they didn’t look like approval material. That was the underwriter in me. I learned it to be a harmful habit.

It was 10 straight declined deals later that I found myself wondering if I should submit everything I get just to make something happen. I extended the streak to 15 declines and my subsequent phone calls to Cash Providers were met with cold responses about Policy, Policy, Policy. “No Statement, No funding,” I was told. My argument that my merchant could not provide his November merchant statement went unheard. They could not understand why I was trying to circumvent rules. I wasn’t. The streak was extended to 20 declined deals. “Under 500 FICO, too many NSFs, landlord reference insufficient, volume under $5,000, etc.” Some would suggest certain marketing campaigns produce low quality merchants. Maybe, maybe not.

The streak was extended to 25 declined deals and a merchant I had been pitching for literally 4 months was finally giving me a shot. The sweat, the stress, and the dwindling commission paychecks led to the addition of a 2% closing cost on the deal. The merchant ok’d it and signed my form. My stats on the marker board were pathetic and I was far from glory. What happened next is ironic.

The Cash Provider got wind of the closing cost and called our office. Something was said about greed and overburdening their merchant. A warning was issued and they were going to watch my submissions more closely. 25 straight declined submissions done via a computer program e-mailing me a notice of decline with no human discussion, 4 months of sweat in closing a deal, and only a quarter of that 2% closing cost actually going into my pocket. That’s pre-tax by the way. Now I’m on their watch list.

I’ve got to appreciate the irony of it all. I understand where the Cash Providers are coming from. I’ve seen it through their eyes. The power is back in the Cash Providers hands but it has become too much so.

With restrictions so tight, our collective target merchant has relatively good credit, money in the bank, current with all their vendors and rent, consistent processing, sufficient gross sales, and be able to submit a large amount of paperwork. These merchants are harder to come by and many of the amateur salesmen will not be able to close someone like that. Ironically, I personally obtained a credit card last week with 0% APR for 12 months with a $20,000 limit. I submitted no documents and spoke to no one. All I did was fill in my info online.

Cash Providers charge an $8,000 fee for $20,000 and we all know the hoops the applicants have to jump through to get there. Interesting. Makes me think 1.40 factor rates will not last forever regardless of any credit crisis.

The Cash Providers that brag, “We have ISOs that submit 10 deals a month and get 10 approvals” should realize they surely generated way more applications than that. They just sent the ones they knew you would approve. Marketing and overhead costs were incurred on all of them.

Many are shouting that only the strong will survive in this new world order of Merchant Advances. I think lending will free up again one day and all the Cash Providers that think providing ISO support means having a computer program spit out automated response e-mails and a toll free number that no one of decision making capacity answers will find themselves alone. There should be a bit more “courting” and “tending” to the ISO’s needs. They need you badly right now and you can’t live without them.

Perhaps I’m just ahead of the game again. Maybe I should apply for an underwriting job.