Business Lending
SBA Offers Balanced Review of Alternative Small Business Lending
September 15, 2015
In response to the Treasury’s RFI, I expect many industry commentators to encourage potential government regulators to engage in a careful review of the small business finance market before deciding on a course of action. As an example of the type of review necessary, these commentators could highlight the recent issue brief published by the SBA Office of Advocacy entitled “Peer-to-Peer Lending: A Financing Alternative for Small Businesses“.
While the scope of the paper is limited to P2P loans used for business purposes, it explains how alternative small business lenders are expanding access to capital:
Compared to traditional loan products, marketplace loans feature decreased search costs; this is a result of the proprietary credit scoring algorithms that the lending platforms use. This decrease in costs makes it economical for lenders to provide smaller and/or shorter-term loans to firms on which less information is available. Such firms may include those that are younger, less established, have a shorter credit history, lack collateral, or may be in acute financial distress (e.g., imagine that you own a bakery and your only oven stops working).
The paper recognizes that alternative lenders are able to offer financing to small businesses that previously had no way of obtaining working capital, a fact that is often misunderstood or disregarded by industry critics. The paper also explains some of the reasons why alternative small business loans charge higher rates when compared with other types of loans:
[E]ven controlling for observable borrower characteristics, loans for small businesses were more than 250 times more likely to perform poorly than loans for other purposes, which may give some insights into why such loans are charged a higher rate. Put simply, investors require a higher payoff in order to fund these riskier loans, and for some small businesses, an expensive loan may be better than no loan.
Overall, the paper is a evenhanded assessment of a complex topic. It highlights how alternative lenders have increased credit availability for small business owners while explaining the economics behind the rates charged. And as the policy discussion regarding marketplace lenders begins, explaining these facts will become increasingly important.
Major Business Lending Fraud Has Consequences
September 15, 2015
It appears that commercial financing fraud is not limited to just the average $40,000 transactions typical in the merchant cash advance and non-bank business lending sector. Four executives for a small business named Projuban, LLC, DBA G3K Displays, Inc., were sentenced last week to serve time in prison for their role in an $18 million loan fraud.
G3K was a New Jersey-based company that provided in-store displays for retailers. According to a report published by the FBI, the execs “engaged in a scheme to falsely inflate G3K’s revenue and accounts receivable, and as part of the scheme, made and caused to be made materially false and misleading statements about G3K’s financial condition. To create the false impression of sales, the defendants created phony documents, including fake and falsely inflated purchase orders purporting to reflect sales to G3K’s customers.”
One of the lenders that fell victim to the fraud is Veritas Financial Partners LLC. Veritas is no stranger to the merchant cash advance industry, having financed at least one merchant cash advance funder themselves just a few years ago. They are regularly involved in multi-million business financing transactions, deals that are typically considered too large for merchant cash advance companies and other non-bank lenders.
In addition to the prison sentences which ranged from 4 months to 40 months, The FBI report says that, “STEVEN KAITZ, 56, of Jersey City, New Jersey, was ordered to forfeit $1,382,427 and pay $18,687,518 in restitution; LATCHMEE MAHATO, a/k/a “Robbie,” 50, of Jamaica, Queens, was ordered to forfeit $2,215,417 and pay $18,687,518 in restitution; JONATHAN WHEELER, 46, of Southport, Connecticut, was ordered to forfeit $957,435 and pay $18,687,518 in restitution; and ZACHARY KAITZ, 32, of Brooklyn, New York, was ordered to forfeit $100,000 and pay $18,687,518 in restitution.”
Perhaps the lenders working on really large transactions should heed the advice of those working on small transactions, and that’s to stop relying on paper statements. In this case, the perpetrators heavily relied on the use of fake documents.
“ZACHARY KAITZ, who was skilled in graphic design, helped carry out the fraud by creating fraudulent documentation, such as fake invoices, purchase orders, and bills of lading, to support the false representations to the lenders about G3K’s business,” the FBI report states.
Financing Not Really an Issue for Small Business According to the NFIB
September 11, 2015
Small businesses need money right? Well according to an August 2015 survey conducted by the National Federal of Independent Business, 21% of respondents said that taxes were the single most important problem facing their business today. That ranked highest on a list of ten issues. Only a minuscule 1% said that financing and interest rates were the most important problem. Even inflation was ranked as more important than financing.
Thirty-three percent of all owners reported borrowing on a regular basis and similarly, thirty-three percent reported all credit needs met. 49 percent however, explicitly said they did not want a loan. This data is based on a sample of 3,938 small-business owners/members that translated into 656 usable responses received for a response rate of 17%.
20% of respondents said that government requirements and red tape were the single most important problem they face, second to taxes.
One could infer from the data that access to capital is not a challenge for small business right now, which would make sense given how many non-bank alternatives are currently available. It also raises the question as to why regulations for non-bank alternatives would be considered a priority when small businesses seem to be pretty content with the way things are. If anything, the message here is that the best solution to grow small business is to lower their taxes. With that remedy being unlikely, a potential takeaway from this study then is that non-bank financing companies should consider ways to address their prospects’ two biggest pain points, taxes and government requirements. And if not those two, then the third issue that respondents said was the single most important problem, poor sales.
How can non-bank financing companies help small businesses address poor sales? This may be the key to long-term mutual success.
Competing Factions Hurt Alternative Lending’s Message
September 10, 2015
It’s over. Legislators and regulators in Washington DC know alternative lenders exist, and there’s no going back. There will be regulations that impact the industry in some way. That seems to be a definite at this point. What aspects will be regulated and to what extent however is yet to be determined.
And here’s the important thing you need to know about that impending conversation with folks in DC; They’re not up to speed on many of the issues being debated between industry insiders, and honestly probably won’t be for a long time, if ever.
They’re literally on square one. So if you were secretly hoping that regulators were on the verge of outlawing stacking, excessive broker fees, or high interest rates, you’re going to be very disappointed. I would argue that more than likely they’d have no idea what you were talking about if you broached these issues with them and it would come across like this:
And that’s because they’re trying to fully understand more basic things such as, why would a small business borrow money online as opposed to a bank? And what does marketplace lending really mean and how does it work?
Folks in DC are genuinely curious about the basics. They want to understand because they don’t want to be caught not understanding and ignorantly lead the nation into another financial crisis. That’s why the Treasury recently issued a Request For Information. You should notice how there’s nothing about stacking in it, but rather more fundamental issues like whether or not marketplace lending is helping borrowers that were historically underserved.
You have to applaud the Treasury’s approach because informed regulations, if that’s what this all leads to, would be much better than uninformed regulations.
The process could easily be jeopardized however if everyone’s so caught up in choosing teams, sides, and points of view that they believe are the “right” ones with the hope of scoring nothing other than perceived political points.
If this is what folks in DC see while they are in the information gathering stage, well then it’s probably not going to be a good outcome for anyone:
Companies that buy future receivables with daily payments and lenders originating 3-year loans with monthly payments actually have a lot in common on the fundamental level. They’re both bank alternatives. And for a number of reasons, small businesses are choosing them over more traditional sources. That’s where the conversation needs to begin.
The opportunity to communicate with rule-makers shouldn’t be squandered on complaints about what other people are doing, but rather on the what, why, and how for small business.
The worst thing that could happen is that divisive language within the industry leads to a regulatory result that negatively impacts all the parties involved, including the small businesses that benefit from this improved system of accessing capital.
Surely there is a way forward for everyone…
Qwave Capital Steps Up Pressure to Acquire IOU Financial
September 2, 2015
The nuclear scientists in venture capital clothing have laid out their case to IOU Financial’s shareholders that they would be better served if they were running things. In a letter distributed on Monday by Qwave Capital, the firm trying to acquire IOU, they criticized the lender’s state of affairs.
In all, IOU continues to demonstrate that it cannot grow profitably and compete effectively within its current model. This is made worse by the fact that, because IOU does not have sufficient capital, conservative lenders are reluctant to provide IOU access to capital at competitive rates. In comparison, OnDeck, IOU’s major online lending competitor, had raised far more capital when at the same stage of development that IOU is at today. OnDeck can now attract the lower interest funds it requires to lend out to customers and support its profitable growth in the U.S. and Canada.
Qwave chastised IOU’s board members for decisions it didn’t feel aligned with the best interests of the company.
“IOU transactions have allowed Board members and insiders to maintain their dominant interest in IOU and purchase shares for below-market value,” they wrote.
And continued:
“For instance, IOU recently completed a private placement financing at $0.40 per share, a 20% discount to Qwave’s Offer and the private placement’s original $0.50 per share price. IOU completed the $0.40 per share offering even though Qwave’s offer was on the table and IOU had confirmed offers at $0.50 per share on its books. Parties related to IOU management subscribed to approximately 17% of the offering at the discounted offer price.”
Judging by the rest of the letter, IOU shareholders will certainly have a lot to consider. You can read a full copy of it here.
Dealstruck’s Response to the Treasury RFI
September 1, 2015
The Treasury Department has extended the comment deadline on the Marketplace Lending Request for Information until September 30th. In the meantime, one well known lender, Dealstruck, has already submitted their response. A few excerpts of their comments are below, but you can view their response in its entirety here.
We encourage the Treasury to weigh stated use of proceeds and debt service coverage ratio heavily when considering factors important in extending credit for alternative online lenders.
We have no opinion or recommendation as to whether lenders should have skin in the game. If there is a seller and a buyer for an asset, a market exists, and the United States promotes open markets. At Dealstruck, we have chosen to take balance sheet risk because it helps us to position ourselves for a longer-term sustainable model across economic cycles, and allows us more flexibility in riding out potential future economic downturns.
we believe that the best way for banks to participate in the alternative online lending space is to offer financing to the innovative lenders, rather than attempt to change underwriting procedures and processes to facilitate smaller, riskier loans themselves
The federal government can also take a substantial role in leveling the regulatory playing field in pricing and access to SMB capital. Each state has substantially different regulations over commercial transactions, including lender licensing and usury caps. This has created perverse and unintended consequences, hampering both small businesses and transparent lenders
Should Alternative Lenders Reconsider IPOs?
August 31, 2015
OnDeck has gotten very quiet over the past month as the stock hovers near its all time low, and down more than 50% from its IPO price. The only updates related to them on the news wire lately are reminders from law firms to join in on the existing class action lawsuit. One has to wonder if they regret going public.
To make the things murkier, the Madden v. Midland decision effectively makes it illegal in a handful of states for alternative lenders to rely on chartered banks to originate loans for them at interest rates that violate state usury laws. In states such as New York, that’s a big problem for OnDeck, but fortunately for them and other lenders like them, they can still fall back on a choice of law provision to still be able to make the loans.
Combine that landmark ruling with the Treasury RFI, The Dodd Frank Section 1071 Reg B rule that everyone wants enforced all of the sudden, and a chorus of lenders calling for regulatory action, and we don’t exactly have an ideal environment for other alternative lenders considering an IPO.
But does an IPO really matter?
I am reminded of a long email that Elon Musk sent to employees of SpaceX two years ago regarding their aspirations to go public so that they could monetize their stock options and get rich.
“Some at SpaceX who have not been through a public company experience may think that being public is desirable. This is not so.”
“Another thing that happens to public companies is that you become a target of the trial lawyers who create a class action lawsuit by getting someone to buy a few hundred shares and then pretending to sue the company on behalf of all investors for any drop in the stock price.”
“Public companies are judged on quarterly performance. Just because some companies are doing well, doesn’t mean that all would. Both of those companies (Tesla in particular) had great first quarter results. SpaceX did not. In fact, financially speaking, we had an awful first quarter. If we were public, the short sellers would be hitting us over the head with a large stick.”
“Public company stocks, particularly if big step changes in technology are involved, go through extreme volatility, both for reasons of internal execution and for reasons that have nothing to do with anything except the economy. This causes people to be distracted by the manic-depressive nature of the stock instead of creating great products.”
“It is important to emphasize that Tesla and SolarCity are public because they didn’t have any choice. Their private capital structure was becoming unwieldy and they needed to raise a lot of equity capital.”
“Those rules, referred to as Sarbanes-Oxley, essentially result in a tax being levied on company execution by requiring detailed reporting right down to how your meal is expensed during travel and you can be penalized even for minor mistakes.”
Any other alternative lenders possibly considering an IPO should strongly evaluate whether or not it’s necessary to go public to carry out their objectives. Surely the folks at OnDeck must be at least a little bit distracted by the manic-depressive nature of their stock price, the class action lawsuit, reactions to their quarterly reports, and the unyielding scrutiny by analysts and pundits. Surely it could be argued that they’ve lost some of their PR mojo in the mix.
It’s not easy running a public company, especially a lender in a post-financial crisis world where Wall Street hatred still runs hot. Hopefully if you are in this industry, you are in it for the long haul and not just for an IPO to cash out and give up…
Expansion Capital Group Crosses $50 Million Milestone
August 27, 2015
Move over New York and Silicon Valley, Expansion Capital Group (ECG), a young Sioux Falls, South Dakota-based business lender is quickly rising up the ranks. Founded just two years ago, a company representative has confirmed to deBanked that they’ve already funded more than $50 million to small businesses nationwide.
While South Dakota might be better known as the home state of Mount Rushmore, they have made a name for themselves in an industry largely centered around New York, California, and South Florida.
Jay Larson, ECG’s COO, shared with deBanked, “We are definitely excited to cross the $50 million deployment milestone. First and foremost, we’d like to thank all of our industry partners for all their help and support in getting us here. Second, this is only the beginning of ECG’s journey [and] as such we’re looking forward to reaching the $100M milestone in a much shorter period of time.”
On the industry leaderboard, ECG is not that far behind competitors that have been in the industry for much longer. Credibly, for example, has reportedly funded more than $140 million since inception but that’s spread out over a period of more than four years.
