ACH Advances
Merchant Cash Advance Term Used Before Congress
December 18, 2013
I’d like to think that the term, merchant cash advance, is mainstream enough that a congressman would know what it was. I have no idea if that’s the case though. What I do know is that Renaud Laplanche, the CEO of Lending Club gave testimony before the Committee on Small Business of the United States House of Representatives on December 5, 2013.
Watch:
In it, he argued that small businesses have insufficient access to capital and that the situation is getting worse. We knew that already. However, he went on to explain that alternative sources such as merchant cash advance companies are the fastest growing segment of the SMB loan market, but issued caution that some of them are not as transparent about their costs as they could be.
The big takeaway here is that he didn’t say they are charging too much, but rather that some business owners may not understand the true cost. I often defend the high costs charged in the merchant cash advance industry, but I’ll acknowledge that historically there have been a few companies that have been weak in the disclosure department. That said, the industry as a whole has matured a lot and there is a lot less confusion about how these financial products work.
Typically in the context Laplanche used, transparency is code for “please put a big box on your contract that states the specific Annual Percentage Rate” of the deal. That’s good advice for a lender and in many cases the law, but for transactions that explicitly are not loans, filling in a number to make people feel good would be a mistake and probably jeopardize the sale transaction itself. If I went to Best Buy and paid $2,000 in advance for a $3,000 Sony big screen TV that would be shipped to me in 3 months when it comes out, should I have to disclose to Best Buy that the 50% discount for pre-ordering 3 months in advance is equivalent to them paying 200% APR?
This is what happened: I advanced them $2,000 in return for a $3,000 piece of merchandise at a later date.
I got a discount on my purchase and they got cash upfront to use as they see fit. Follow me?
Now instead of buying a TV, I give Best Buy $2,000 today and in return am buying $3,000 worth of future proceeds they make from selling TVs. That’s buying future proceeds at a discounted price and paying for them today. As people buy TVs from the store, I’ll get a small % of each sale until I get the $3,000 I purchased. If a TV buying frenzy occurs, it could take me 6 months to get the $3,000 that I bought. But if the Sony models are defective and hardly anyone is buying TVs, it could take me 18 months until i get the $3,000 back.
In the first situation, if the TV never ships I get my $2,000 back. In the second situation if the TV sales never happen, I don’t get the 3 grand or the 2 grand. I’ll just have to live with whatever I got back up until the point the TV sales stopped, even if that number is a big fat ZERO.
Best Buy is worse off in the first situation, but critics pounce on the 2nd situation. APR, it’s not fair! Transparency, high rate, etc.
Imagine if every retailer that ever had a 30% off sale or half price sale one day woke up and realized the sale they had was too expensive and not transparent enough for them to understand what they were doing. If only consumers had given the cashiers a receipt of their own that explained that they would actually only be getting half the money because of their 50% off sale, then perhaps the store owners would have reconsidered the whole thing. 50% off over the course of 1 day?! My God, that’s practically like paying 18,250% interest!!!
To argue that a business owner might not understand what it means to sell something for a discount is like saying that a food critic has no idea what a mouth is used for.
I will acknowledge that issues could potentially occur if an unscrupulous company marketed their purchase of future sales as if it were a loan. That could lead to confusion as to what the withholding % represents and why it was not reported to credit bureaus. I’m all in favor of increasing the transparency of purchases as purchases and loans as loans, but let’s not go calling purchases, loans. Americans should understand what it means to buy something or sell something. Macy’s knows what they’re doing when they have a Black Friday Sale. They do a lot of business at less than retail price. They are happy with the result or disappointed with it. They’re business people engaged in business. End of the story.
In recent years, the term, merchant cash advance, has become synonymous with short term business financing, whether by way of selling future revenues or lending. When testimony was entered that many merchant cash advance providers charge annual percentage rates in excess of 40%, I do hope that Laplanche was speaking only about transactions that are actually loans. As for any fees outside of the core transaction, those should be clear as day for both purchases and loans. I think many companies are doing a good job with disclosure on that end already.
Part 2
The other case that Laplanche made was brilliant. Underwriting businesses is more expensive than it is to underwrite consumers. Consumer loan? Easy, check the FICO score and call it a day. That methodology doesn’t even come close to working with businesses. He stated:
These figures show that absolute loan performance is not the main issue of declining SMB loan issuances; we believe a larger part of the issue lies in high underwriting costs. SMBs are a heterogeneous group and therefore the underwriting and processing of these loans is not as cost efficient as underwriting consumers, a more homogenous population. Business loan underwriting requires an understanding of the business plan and financials and interviews with management that result in higher underwriting costs, which make smaller loans (under $1M and especially under $250k) less attractive to lenders.
Read the full transcript:
LendingClub CEO Renaud Laplanche Testimony For House Committee On Small Business
Merchant Cash Advance just echoed through the halls of Capitol Hill. And so it’s become just a little bit more mainstream, perhaps too maninstream.
Thoughts?
Is Everyone Buying into the Technology Craze?
December 6, 2013
Following a wild 18 months of press releases and technology revolutions, I’m hearing that some ISOs are having technology fatigue. VCs and Private Equity want to invest in companies that are automating everything, but that doesn’t necessarily mean account reps are ready for it. The worst fear an account rep has is using an automated system to spit out numbers with a contract, get that contract signed by the merchant, and then have the figures revised or nullified during a later human review. Going back to the merchant with a 2nd contract with new numbers (often times worse) is a major credibility killer for them. It has bait and switch written all over it, even if they’ve made perfectly clear to the merchant that the terms they sign for are subject to a final underwriting review.
This problem has existed for years but that pressure has really been amplified by the recent tech race. Some funders are doing pretty good with it. Others aren’t. There are plenty of account reps that can’t function in a world where the answer is always 1 or 0 regardless. MCA came of age because of the shades of grey. I used to work for a company that was famous for listening to every merchant’s “story.” That factor can’t get baked into an algorithm.
As you might or might not suspect, there are funders thriving simply because they aren’t heavily tech oriented. ISOs get to talk to a human, negotiate the terms with an underwriter, and get exceptions that algorithms are programmed to disallow. When the algorithm says the deal is approved for a maximum of $10,000 and your merchant gets an offer from a competitor for $12,000, you’re going to need to get a human involved to match it. And if you’re a company that simply won’t bend your limits in situations like that, then that ISO isn’t going to send you deals in the first place.
Not everyone in the merchant cash advance business is convinced about automation. Then again, it’s not easy to convince people in this business about many things:
So what’s your criteria again???
We all know this guy
So it’s not actually approved then…
Oh really? What’s this ISO’s name?
As an account rep, I once had a funder make me get six re-signed contracts. Each time I got it re-signed, they decided they weren’t comfortable and revised the offer down. The final advance amount was more than 80% lower than the original approved amount. Streetz is rough.
More Merchant Cash Advance Memes on DailyFunder
Dear Ami
November 19, 2013I don’t know Ami Kassar personally, but I read the articles in his NY Times blog, a column dedicated to chastising merchant cash advance companies. In it he yearns for the glory days of 10 year loans at 8% interest for local mom and pop shops. Having been a broker for 3 years myself, believe me when I say I wish rates were lower and terms were longer. It’d be an easier sell. But having also been a very senior underwriter and risk manager, I know exactly why the terms are what they are.
The below post was intended to be a comment on Ami’s latest post, Assessing a Kevin O’Leary Investment on Shark Tank, but it shattered the 1,500 character limit so I’m posting it here. As it was intended to be a comment and not its own post, I did not expand or delve into as much as I wanted.
—-
Ami,
We get it. You don’t think expensive capital is right or moral and in a perfect world where small businesses have perfect credit and a 0% likelihood of delinquency or default, there probably wouldn’t be a merchant cash advance industry.
Unfortunately, the reality is that many small businesses are high risk borrowers for one reason or another. This isn’t because a bank says so but because there is substantial data that shows there is a high likelihood of delinquency or default. Almost all of the small businesses that existed in my neighborhood 25 years ago are gone. They were replaced by new businesses, which were replaced by new businesses, which were replaced by new businesses. To say that a store with 2 years in business and 700 credit in my neighborhood is a safe long term investment would be a huge mistake. Residents tired of eating the same food, local bars lost their cool factor, the CD store got replaced by digital downloading, the supermarket got replaced by one that only sold organic food, and Blockbuster Video is gone. The Exxon became Shell which turned into Gulf which got torn down and rebuilt as a bank. New extensions to a mall 3 miles away damaged 40+ retail businesses on Main Street. A failed health inspection killed a restaurant, bad Yelp reviews killed the bowling alley, and the 78 year old master tailor didn’t relate to the new generation of residents. A flood closed a clothing store for 2 months, a fire killed a coffee shop, and a hurricane wiped away a strip mall.
Shall I keep going? Partners had a falling out, a son ran his father’s cafe into the ground, development killed a farm stand, and increasing rent put a barbershop over the edge.
I’m not knocking small business, just acknowledging that it’s one of the toughest things in this country to manage. God bless the people that try and especially the ones that last decades.
You know what else happens with a lot of small businesses? They declare losses for tax purposes and make organizing financial documents secondary to all else. To a lender, there is a layer of risk built upon a mountain of risk.
You cited IOU Central as a shining example of rate fairness, but failed to acknowledge that they are wildly unprofitable and have teetered on the brink of insolvency for a year. IOU Central is a publicly traded company and I mean them no disrespect, but check out their books. Lending isn’t supposed to be charity.
SBA loans and defaults are synonymous with each other. It’s great for businesses, but the poor economics of them fall on the taxpayers.
There is this belief that merchant cash advance companies are predatory, but the rates they charge are what the market has priced as sustainable for both parties. There’s more than a hundred funding companies offering the same product. You want to know why the competition hasn’t dropped rates to 10% APR yet? It’s because they’d all be out of business. Rates have come down a little bit, but there is only so far they can drop. Small business is risky business.
As a broker out on the street shaking the wary hands of shop owners, I understand your frustration with the high cost. Believe me, the merchant cash advance companies wish they could lower the prices too. Some have done so at their own peril and closed up shop. Others are on their way to that point now. Would you rather only a tiny fraction of small businesses get non-bank financing at a rate in line with your comfort level and let the rest burn? Small businesses of all credit types and financial standings for years have cried, “HEY, WHAT ABOUT US?!” and in response, private companies made access to capital possible. Often times the money is expensive, very expensive. You are concerned that small business owners are making a mistake when they enter into these agreements yet you admittedly lock them into these deals yourself. It seems as though some of your clients would rather have the opportunity to do something positive with expensive money than have no opportunity at all.
I can think of few things tougher than running a small business. The way my old neighborhood looks today is proof of that. I barely recognize the place. You know what wasn’t around 25 years ago? Merchant cash advance companies. Who knows what would’ve happened if they all had access to capital despite a less than stellar credit rating. Some of those stores may have grew, evolved with the changing times, or become franchises. Things might’ve been different. We all want lower rates, sincerely we do. Competition will drive it down as far as it can go and there’s plenty of that today. Once we hit the floor, if we’re not there already, you will have to ask yourself this question. Are you living in a perfect world or the real one? Let the small businesses decide if the opportunity they’re given is one they want to take.
News from the Space
November 18, 2013
American Express recently teamed up with Heartland Payment Systems to provide split-processing loans tied to all card transactions rather than just American Express exclusively. The max loan size is $750,000. Prior to this deal American Express and other merchant cash advance companies rarely competed head-to-head. Unless a small business was processing substantial AMEX, they weren’t a candidate for American Express Merchant Financing. I expect them to make similar deals with other card processors.
Lending Club got a valuation boost with a $57 million investment from Yuri Milner’s DST Global and Coatue Management LLC. They’re now worth about $2.3 billion. They are expected to go public in 2014 which will be especially significant given their plans to enter the small business lending space as early as January. Today, alternative small business lenders worth tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars are the big shots in the industry. Expect major disruption if Lending Club achieves an IPO valuation in the tens of billions.
Zazma put their own spin on lending by financing the purchases small businesses make. Funds are actually wired directly to the suppliers instead of to the borrower. For now they are only doing up to $5,000 at one time, which is typically the minimum sized deal for the merchant cash advance industry.
ISO&Agent published a great article about merchant cash advance titled, Taming the Wild Frontier.
The end of the year is coming and Capital Access Network, which is now CAN Capital projects they will finish with $800 million in transactions for 2013. 15 years after they started, they are still the biggest in the business.
Merchant Cash Advance Hits Shark Tank
October 26, 2013
If you missed Friday night’s episode of Shark Tank, you absolutely must catch a rerun of it. Jason Reddish and Val Pinkhasov came on the show to pitch their merchant cash advance company, Total Merchant Resources. It was one of the best few minutes in merchant cash advance history for several reasons:
- Mark Cuban, the 213th richest man in the U.S. feared the growing popularity of expensive short term financing would invite tough government regulation.
- Kevin O’Leary understood that there were no barriers to entry and thus anyone with money can get into the industry.
- Robert Herjavec thought the capital was too expensive for small businesses.
- Kevin O’Leary said that non-bank alternative lenders like Total Merchant Resources were necessary to keep businesses afloat.
- Jason Reddish went at the Sharks like a Shark himself.
TMR walked away with a rather small 400k valuation through the deal they made with Kevin O’Leary that gave them 200k for 50% equity. It was O’Leary’s claim that his connections and capital would blow the lid off their business that was too good to pass up.
O’Leary had a compelling argument for why his terms were non-negotiable. Anyone can be in this business. The valuation itself was moot because two guys with a relatively small operation just became partners with a famous venture capitalist worth $300 million. Had I been in their circumstances, I would’ve taken the deal as well.
O’Leary’s name in the space makes TMR relevant and a company to watch out for, but they are by no means guaranteed success. They are up against much deeper pockets. Dan Gilbert, the 126th richest man in the U.S. owns RapidAdvance (through Rockbridge Growth Equity), a firm that got an enterprise valuation of over $100 million. Google and Peter Thiel have their hand in On Deck Capital. Google also has a stake in Lending Club, a peer-to-peer lender worth $1.55 billion that threatens to disrupt the alternative business loan market with their new loan product come early 2014. Capital Access Network funds nearly three quarters of a billion dollars a year. Every day another power player swoops in and raises the stakes, putting O’Leary in a position he’s probably not used to being in himself, in the shark tank.
At the end of the day, there are a lot of profitable ISOs and small funders. Pinkhasov and Reddish did what no one else to date has done, gone on TV and pitched Mark Cuban on merchant cash advance. And for that, they will go down in history. We’ll follow their story as it develops and I invite them to e-mail me if they’d like to comment.
You can follow the thread about their appearance on the show and find the link to the video on DailyFunder.
Here Comes Lending Club
October 17, 2013
As highlighted in BusinessWeek, Lending Club has finally entered the small business lending market. Some of you might say, “bahh… so what!” but you should be paying attention. Lending Club recently got a valuation of $1.55 billion when Google bought a piece of them back in May. To put that in perspective, that’s about 15x the enterprise valuation that RapidAdvance got in its acquisition by Rockbridge Growth Equity. A monster has entered the ring and it doesn’t matter if it’s peer-to-peer lending, because they’re targeting the same market. What Lending Club does isn’t much different than what the typical merchant cash advance industry does these days anyway. Both thrive on syndication, though one relies on a handful of partners and the other relies on tens of thousands of partners. Both are bank loan alternatives and both can get you funded within days.
Back in 2009, the only short term financing opportunities small businesses had was merchant cash advance. There really wasn’t anything else. There were banks or there was merchant cash advance… and banks weren’t lending. Now there’s a whole spectrum of bank loan alternatives and to say that they operate in markets that don’t compete with each other is crazy.
There was a time when folks said Kabbage was not a competitor in the merchant cash advance space. Now they’re synonymous with merchant cash advance financing, have patents that specifically use the merchant cash advance terminology, and they fund brick and mortar businesses. On Deck Capital supposedly wasn’t a competitor back in 2007 because they did loans with fixed daily ACH. On Deck wanted only the high credit merchants that wouldn’t settle for a cash advance and now they compete head to head with everyone else.
The market is all over the place with pricing and structures. Factors range from 1.09s to 1.50s. Deal terms range from 6 weeks to 24 months. For those already annoyed that there has been downward pressure on rates for high quality clients because of what it has done to margins, you may have more to worry about with Lending Club.
I’ve personally referred consumer loan deals for a commission to Lending Club in the past and they went pretty smoothly. They said if they approve a loan, it will basically fund within days. They don’t have any worry about approved loans not raising enough capital to be funded from syndicates/investors/participants. They said almost every approved loan funds. They also charge between 6.5% and 29.99% APR and make loans with terms of 3-5 years. Try competing against that.
Now I don’t know what repayment time frame will be offered on their business loans, but I do know that they’re used to making loans for very low interest over a much longer term than a merchant cash advance company. Something tells me that they won’t stray too far from that and they’re going to disrupt the market (the premium market anyway) on price and time frame more than a few other companies already have.
Granted, I will admit that Lending Club on the consumer side generally only approved applicants with higher than 680 FICO and a low debt-to-income ratio and I don’t think they’ll change that. That means they won’t be a competitor initially for a large chunk of the market. Lending Club will probably butt heads with On Deck Capital, NewLogic Business Loans, and all the premium 12 month programs floating around out there.
Peer-to-peer lending is part of the broader merchant cash advance industry. Deals fund quickly, the capital is unsecured, there’s little paperwork involved, and the deals are syndicated. Hence, Lending Club is now a competitor.
Being owned by Google also can’t hurt. Lending Club is typically ranked at or near the top of the 1st page for the search query, “unsecured business loans.” Coincidence?
Get ready for Lending Club. They won’t be the last billion dollar plus company to throw their hat in the ring.
—
Note 1: An edit was made to correct Rapid’s valuation as an enterprise valuation, which one insider noted can be substantially different than a raw equity valuation. That makes Lending Club likely a lot more valuable in comparison.
Note 2: I initially reported that Lending Club owned Dealstruck.com. This is not correct. Dealstruck.com has previously been reported to be the Lending Club of the small business space in the characteristic way of how they structure deals, but they are not actually part of Lending Club. Thanks to Darrin Ginsberg of Super G Funding for pointing out my mistake.
More on DailyFunder about this topic: http://dailyfunder.com/showthread.php/451-lending-club
Were You at the WSAA Conference?
October 9, 2013We didn’t make it to the Western State Acquirers Association Conference this year, but Merchant Cash Group did and they were nice enough to send over some photos from the show:
Merchant Cash Advance companies are going to a lot more conferences than they used to. At the Money2020 Conference in Vegas right now for example, Kabbage, Strategic Funding Source, On Deck Capital, and Capital Access Network are not only in attendance, they’re sponsors.
Update: Strategic Funding Source let us repost their photos on twitter of Money2020:
Come and find us #money2020 pic.twitter.com/560EDbTM2J
— Strategic Funding (@SFSCapital) October 7, 2013
Is a Merchant Cash Advance conference in the cards for the future? I floated this idea before back in April 2012 and I’ve heard other people mention it too.
Is PayPal’s Working Capital Program a Mistake?
October 5, 2013
A few weeks ago, PayPal announced the launch of their Working Capital program as a way to help small businesses in need. They classify it as a loan but the explanation for how it works is textbook merchant cash advance. A percentage of each PayPal sale is withheld and applied as a reduction to the merchant’s balance. PayPal joining the booming merchant cash advance/alternative lending market is really no surprise. After all, RapidAdvance just got acquired by the same group that owns Quicken Loans. We’re in a new era of alternative finance.
PayPal is respected as a payments company but are they ready for the high risk world of merchant cash advance financing? Critics are not so sure. Industry insiders have watched dozens of funding providers jump into the market with aggressive rates, attempt to undercut the competition, and acquire a lot of marketshare. The results are usually disastrous.
For years, journalists believed that the high cost of capital provided by non-bank lenders was fueled by the desire for immense profit. They didn’t understand the risks involved or realize that some funding providers weren’t even turning a profit at all. Last year, Opportunity Fund, a non-profit small business lender revealed that to make loans at 12% APR would fail to even cover costs. The for-profit sector of the industry charges factor rates (different than Annual Percentage Rates) between 1.14 and 1.50, not including fees. I explained this variance once before in The Fork in the Merchant Cash Advance Road.
So did PayPal learn anything from an industry that has been in existence for 15 years? It doesn’t look like it:
Doing some simple math (Total to be repaid / Loan Amount), the factor rates range from 1.04 to 1.12, figures that will probably only make sense if their average client has greater than 720 FICO, many years in business, and is virtually perfect on paper and in reality. Perhaps PayPal knows that and will decline 95% of applications or perhaps they believe their clients will buck the trend. I mean, is it possible that a corporate monster like PayPal could make a boneheaded mistake?
A 1.04 deal? Seriously? This has disaster written all over it. There are some people that believe that the losing proposition is intentional…
You can follow the discussion about this on DailyFunder.
