Business Lending
Federal Government Wants Your Thoughts About Online Lending
July 19, 2015
Whether you’re a funder, lender, broker, or platform, the U.S. Treasury Department deserves to hear your input.
Only July 16th, the Treasury announced that it was seeking public comment on various business models and products offered by online marketplace lenders to small businesses and consumers. One stated purpose of this is to study “how the financial regulatory framework should evolve to support the safe growth of the industry.”
The comment period is only open for six weeks.
Over the last year, many funders and brokers have voiced their opinions on best practices, ethics, and standards. Some want regulation to curb what they believe to be immoral behavior and others just want clarity where the laws are obscure, illogical, or even in conflict with themselves.
In at least one recent case, a merchant cash advance company CEO wrote about the complexity of dealing with an endless amount of state laws. In Lift the Fog, Give us Regulation, Merchant Cash and Capital CEO Stephen Sheinbaum wrote, “It is also better, at least for the financial services industry, if the central government is the one to craft the regulation instead of getting one rule from each of the 50 state governments.”
Meanwhile the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) will eventually start to enforce the amendments to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which technically already became the law under Section 1071 of the Dodd Frank Act. As part of that, underwriters of business loans and merchant cash advance alike may no longer be allowed to meet applicants, speak with them on the phone, examine their driver’s licenses, review their social media profiles, or even ask what their business model is or how they market themselves.
One has to look at any opportunity afforded by a government agency to share input before future regulations are implemented then as a duty. It might not matter, but you should do it anyway, just like voting.
Below are the questions, the Treasury wants you to answer (or Click to view on Treasury.gov):
1. There are many different models for online marketplace lending including platform lenders (also referred to as “peer-to-peer”), balance sheet lenders, and bank-affiliated lenders. In what ways should policymakers be thinking about market segmentation; and in what ways do different models raise different policy or regulatory concerns?
2. What role are electronic data sources playing in enabling marketplace lending? For instance, how do they affect traditionally manual processes or evaluation of identity, fraud, and credit risk for lenders? Are there new opportunities or risks arising from these data-based processes relative to those used in traditional lending?
3. How are online marketplace lenders designing their business models and products for different borrower segments, such as:
• Small business and consumer borrowers;
• Subprime borrowers;
• Borrowers who are “unscoreable” or have no or thin files;
Depending on borrower needs (e.g., new small businesses, mature small businesses, consumers seeking to consolidate existing debt, consumers seeking to take out new credit) and other segmentations?
4. Is marketplace lending expanding access to credit to historically underserved market segments?
5. Describe the customer acquisition process for online marketplace lenders. What kinds of marketing channels are used to reach new customers? What kinds of partnerships do online marketplace lenders have with traditional financial institutions, community development financial institutions (CDFIs), or other types of businesses to reach new customers?
6. How are borrowers assessed for their creditworthiness and repayment ability? How accurate are these models in predicting credit risk? How does the assessment of small 10 business borrowers differ from consumer borrowers? Does the borrower’s stated use of proceeds affect underwriting for the loan?
7. Describe whether and how marketplace lending relies on services or relationships provided by traditional lending institutions or insured depository institutions. What steps have been taken toward regulatory compliance with the new lending model by the various industry participants throughout the lending process? What issues are raised with online marketplace lending across state lines?
8. Describe how marketplace lenders manage operational practices such as loan servicing, fraud detection, credit reporting, and collections. How are these practices handled differently than by traditional lending institutions? What, if anything, do marketplace lenders outsource to third party service providers? Are there provisions for back-up services?
9. What roles, if any, can the federal government play to facilitate positive innovation in lending, such as making it easier for borrowers to share their own government-held data with lenders? What are the competitive advantages and, if any, disadvantages for nonbanks and banks to participate in and grow in this market segment? How can policymakers address any disadvantages for each? How might changes in the credit environment affect online marketplace lenders?
10. Under the different models of marketplace lending, to what extent, if any, should platform or “peer-to-peer” lenders be required to have “skin in the game” for the loans they originate or underwrite in order to align interests with investors who have acquired debt of the marketplace lenders through the platforms? Under the different models, is there pooling of loans that raise issues of alignment with investors in the lenders’ debt obligations? How would the concept of risk retention apply in a non securitization context for the different entities in the distribution chain, including those in which there is no pooling of loans? Should this concept of “risk retention” be the same for other types of syndicated or participated loans?
11. Marketplace lending potentially offers significant benefits and value to borrowers, but what harms might online marketplace lending also present to consumers and small businesses? What privacy considerations, cybersecurity threats, consumer protection concerns, and other related risks might arise out of online marketplace lending? Do existing statutory and regulatory regimes adequately address these issues in the context of online marketplace lending?
12. What factors do investors consider when: (i) investing in notes funding loans being made through online marketplace lenders, (ii) doing business with particular entities, or (iii) determining the characteristics of the notes investors are willing to purchase? What are the operational arrangements? What are the various methods through which investors may finance online platform assets, including purchase of securities, and what are the advantages and disadvantages of using them? Who are the end investors? How prevalent is the use of financial leverage for investors? How is leverage typically obtained and deployed?
13. What is the current availability of secondary liquidity for loan assets originated in this manner? What are the advantages and disadvantages of an active secondary market? Describe the efforts to develop such a market, including any hurdles (regulatory or otherwise). Is this market likely to grow and what advantages and disadvantages might a larger securitization market, including derivatives and benchmarks, present?
14. What are other key trends and issues that policymakers should be monitoring as this market continues to develop?
The Treasury asks that you include your name, company name, address, job title, email address, and phone #. You can submit your responses on http://www.regulations.gov/. Just click on the tab that says “Are you new to the site?”
You can also submit by mail:
To: Laura Temel,
Attention: Marketplace Lending RFI,
U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 1325
Washington, DC 20220
If you have questions, email marketplace_lending@treasury.gov or call 202-622-1083.
OnDeck (ONDK) Curiously Flips the Script
July 17, 2015
“The company is now reportedly losing tens of millions of dollars through defaults on its loans,” reads a release put out just hours ago by Robbins Arroyo LLP about OnDeck. Their announcement is a little late because OnDeck just announced a Q2 profit on July 15th.
After nearly eight straight years of losses, OnDeck issued a press release announcing that their Q2 earnings call on August 3rd would reveal GAAP net income of somewhere between $4 million and $5 million.
It’s a stark difference from the guidance issued in their Q1 earnings report which put projected Adjusted EBITDA for Q2 at between a loss of $3 million and a loss of $4 million. Projected GAAP losses were much worse.
2015 was supposed to be another year of carefully planned red ink for the business lender as they continued their unrelenting strategy of growth. So where did this profit come from? And were some of their business decisions in Q2 influenced by unhappy shareholders?
Unlike Lending Club who had some company insiders file notices with the SEC to announce they had sold stock, OnDeck did not experience a rush to the selling exits when the lockup period expired. No insider sales were reported.
I published my theories about the stock’s drop back on June 29th.
And now suddenly we have a profit, but the source of the cash is clearly identified in the release. OnDeck sold off a lot of their loans to institutional investors and booked the revenue.
“In the second quarter, 19% of the loans sold through Marketplace were loans originated prior to the second quarter that were previously designated as loans held for investment,” the release stated. That sale also allowed them to reduce their loan loss reserves, it said.
The downside is that the perceived risk of the loans themselves at least for now in the public’s mind has not changed. OnDeck is simply transferring the risk to someone else but they can only do that in the future so long as there are buyers. Therefore they need to consider creating an asset that they and their shareholders would be comfortable holding on to and plan for the economic doomsday where there are no buyers, which will inevitably come.
Compass Point analysts Michael Tarkan and Andrew Eskelsen were not impressed by the pre-announcement. In a note to clients, they wrote, “On the surface, results were stronger than expected due to significantly higher gain on sale revenue and lower expenses. However, if we exclude the one-time gains, core revenues came in well below our expectations, suggesting a meaningful deceleration in loan origination growth and/or another decline in yields.”
Notably, OnDeck’s sudden reliance on the OnDeck Marketplace to achieve profit coincides with a U.S. Treasury Department request for public comments on online marketplace lenders.
“Treasury seeks responses that will allow policymakers to study the various business models and products offered by online marketplace lenders, the potential for online marketplace lending to expand access to credit to historically underserved borrowers, and how the financial regulatory framework should evolve to support the safe growth of this industry.”
OnDeck experienced a surge in its stock price the morning following the Q2 forecast. It has since come down a little and closed at $13.45 on July 16th.
—
Note: I have never bought or sold OnDeck stock.
Do Bank Statements Matter in Lending? Business Lenders and Consumer Lenders Disagree
July 16, 2015Bank statements. Those in consumer lending argue they’re all but irrelevant because FICO and credit reports do the job of predicting risk just fine, but over in today’s small business lending environment, there’s an entirely different sentiment; Reveal your recent banking history or be declined.
After having bought nearly $60,000 worth of consumer notes on Lending Club and Prosper combined, there’s something I’ve seen a lot of, bounced ACHs.
Lending Club doesn’t reveal borrower bank data to their investors. Sure, anyone can see the credit report, the income level, zip code, and job title, but the borrower could have negative $10,000 in the bank and be living off overdraft protection on day 1 and an investor would never know it.
For all the fanfare surrounding online marketplace consumer lending, access to borrower banking history is oddly absent.
“Welcome to consumer lending, where the rules are different because the game is too,” replied a user to my comment on a peer-to-peer lending forum.
Veteran consumer lenders assumed I was a lost newbie who knew nothing about lending. “I have a feeling if you ask to crawl someone’s bank account, they’ll just go elsewhere,” one user said. “Seems that’d only work on subprime borrowers who have limited bargaining power.”
“I’m assuming you may be new to lending,” he continued. “Making a loan based on deposit balances is rarely a good idea.”
My initial question to them was that without bank statements, how could they ascertain if a borrower’s finances were actually in order at least at the time the loan was issued? It’s really easy to access someone’s banking history for the last 90 days by using common tools like Yodlee or Microbilt, I argued.
Some people sympathized with my logic but others believed requesting bank data would be suicide in today’s competitive environment. And still more wondered if there might be consumer protection laws that prevented lenders from seeing a loan applicant’s banking records (which sounded ridiculous).
A Credit Card Issuer’s Take
Those questions led me to interview an underwriting manager at one of the nation’s largest credit card issuers who would only speak on the condition of total anonymity, including the bank’s name. There, he oversees a department of people that manually assess credit card applicants. There is no algorithmic approval process. In his department, humans underwrite each application, conduct phone interviews with the prospective borrowers, and request additional documents if they feel it’s warranted.
Requesting bank statements is a regular part of the job, explained the manager. “We require proof of income for any line over 25k,” he added. “It’s the main thing we ask for along with proof of address.”
Requesting these documents keeps them compliant with the Bank Secrecy Act, he explained, but the bank statements in particular are their first choice in verifying somebody’s income, even more than pay stubs. And their underwriters aren’t oblivious zombies, he noted. If an applicant has no money in the bank, they’ll decline it.
“The Adverse Action reason [for that] would be ‘sufficiently obligated’,” he stated. “That’s when their bank account shows they can not take on any additional financial obligations.”
The manager shared however that he believed there is a very strong correlation between what’s on the credit report and what to expect in the bank statements. Generally speaking, good credit will show a healthy banking situation, he explained. They’re rarely taken by surprise. Overall, the credit reports and phone interviews are enough for them to feel comfortable and the bank statements are really just there to check off a compliance box.
Meanwhile, those that speculated requesting bank data would be a death knell competitively might want to talk to Kabbage’s sister company, Karrot. Karrot already crawls bank accounts as part of their consumer loan application program and competes with Lending Club, Prosper, and Avant. Considering Kabbage has funded more than half a billion dollars worth of business loans using this very methodology, it’s safe to say that applicants aren’t flocking to competitors in droves over the perceived injustice or inconvenience of filling out three additional fields on a web application to share their transaction history.
Bounced Payments
Kabbage CEO Rob Frohwein offered these comments last year about their underwriting, “A critical aspect of consumer lending is determining the appropriate amount of a payment to collect so that an account doesn’t become overdrawn. Our intelligence accurately predicts how much of a payment to request via ACH so consumers avoid the cost and headache associated with non-sufficient funds.”
I thought about those statements when I noticed that thirty-six of my Lending Club notes carried a Grace Period status the other day. These are borrowers whose payments just recently bounced. Some are only three or four months into a five-year loan. Worse, there are those that are saying they have no money whatsoever to make a payment. How can this be when they just practically got approved?
To the consumer crowd it’s business as usual. “If you got their bank account, you still wouldn’t be able to predict who will default. You can’t predict defaults on any individual borrower,” argued one veteran on a forum.
But it’s not all about the lender’s tolerance for risk. ACH rejects can have consequences that affect a lender’s ability to debit accounts in the future.
“Ultimately, regulatory thresholds set by NACHA will continue to become more and more critical of returns,” said Moe Abusaad of ACH Processing Co, an ACH processor based in Plano, TX. “I think it’s safe to say that there is a positive correlation in considering statements as a component of the underwriting process to the rate of returns incurred,” he added.
And while it’s true that bank data can’t make predictions perfectly on its own, nobody in small business lending or merchant cash advance would consider an approval without it.
Bank Statements or Bust
“There is no substitute for banking information when reviewing a client for approval,” said Andrew Hernandez, a co-founder of Central Diligence Group, a risk management firm that allows business lenders and merchant cash advance companies to outsource their underwriting.
“Money moves fast through these businesses and every business is unique, so a lot more variables come into play than just having to account for the timely monthly payments of credit cards, cars, and mortgages as you find in the consumer world,” he added. “A FICO score along with other information presented in a credit report provide a detailed, historical snapshot of a client’s creditworthiness in consumer lending, and while these are great complementary tools for us to use in our underwriting process, I believe that banking data paints us a picture of its own which is absolutely essential in assessing the risk of a B2B transaction in our space.”
Those underwriting business loan deals have reported seeing applicants with open personal loans from Lending Club, which shows that the exact same borrowers are being underwritten in two different ways.
But Julio Izaguirre, another co-founder of Central Diligence Group added that, “banking transactions are essential in gauging the cash flow of the business by looking at recent and up-to-date bank volume, but it is even more important with businesses that lack historical data and cannot provide financials or other documentation to show and prove their track record.”
Translation: A lack of credit history and formal financial statements can be overcome thanks to in-depth analysis of bank account data.
“When our underwriters look at a bank statement you can get a better understanding of the business cash flow, operational cost and how the owner manages his business,” said Heather Francis, CEO of Gainesville, FL-based Elevate Funding. “The credit score is like a person’s blood pressure reading,” she continued. “It indicates there may be an issue but until lab work is pulled and analyzed you don’t know what that issue is. The bank statement is that lab work and it can tell you more about the issues behind the scenes than a credit score can.”
Greg DeMinco, a Managing Partner of Americas Business Capital based in Cherry Hill, NJ would probably agree. “FICO isn’t everything,” he shared. “Bank statements can tell a great story especially if there is upward momentum month after month, and more importantly a high ratio of deposits to requests for the advance.”
Meanwhile, the manager of the credit card issuer was surprised to hear about the high value placed on bank statements in business lending. I offered him the example of an applicant with good credit that was consistently negative in the bank because of a reliance on overdraft protection as a way to make sure all the bills were being paid. “That’s the craziest thing I ever heard,” he commented.
But over in the peer-to-peer lending forum it didn’t sound so crazy at all. “Plenty of Americans are ‘broke’, in the sense that they have negative net worth, yet they’ll continue servicing their debts for… a long time… no matter what it takes,” shared one user.
The argument seems to come full circle, that business lending and consumer lending are just different.
But to Isaac Stern, the CEO of New York-based Yellowstone Capital, the bank statements are not just about financial health. “We are literally underwriting against fraud,” said Stern, who said his office regularly receives applications with doctored statements. “Logging in [to the banks] and verifying those statements are probably the most important part of the process,” he noted.
His logic goes that a consumer that is paid a salary has a predictable stream of income and so that information along with a credit report might be enough for a consumer lender, but business revenue is less predictable and can vary practically day-to-day.
“You can’t just look at a FICO score and say, ‘this is a good a business’,” Stern explained. “The story is in the bank statements.”
An OnDeck (ONDK) Technical Analysis
July 12, 2015For some of us working in the merchant cash advance industry, we saw the IPO of OnDeck (ONDK) as a major stepping stone in getting recognized by main street and receiving overall exposure. Unfortunately it has not been the best representative of us in the stock market. I started monitoring ONDK on the first day it started to trade and after 7 months, it clearly hasn’t looked positive.
I am a student in technical analysis. In layman’s terms, it is the study of price action of a traded financial instrument to make an informed investment decision. The following is my view.
The first thing that pops out when viewing the chart is that the single biggest day of volume (number of shares traded) was the IPO day. The stock has yet to trade in that kind of volume since then.
The other obvious thing that pops out is that the stock has been in downtrend, a series of lower lows and lower highs. As the old Wall Street adage says, “The trend is your friend.” Trying to call a bottom in this stock has been useless as it seems like those that have, are catching a falling knife.
Moving averages are used to determine whether the stock is trending or not. With very few trading days the longer term averages are not able to be rendered. In May the stock met resistance at the 20/50 EMA crossover. Coincidentally this was also the beginning of the latest down leg. It is also worth noting that the stock has not closed above the 20 day EMA since it was breached. There was one failed attempt that resulted in the continuation of the down trend in the middle of May. The stock is currently at the 20 EMA and is testing this level again. A close above this could be an indication of a possible change in trend.
The bottom of the chart has the RSI. This is a measurement of Overbought and Oversold conditions, which is telling us that the stock has been oversold for a couple of months. It recently started moving upward from the oversold condition.
The MACD is another technical indicator used. It measures the momentum of the stock. I like to think of momentum as the thrust/force of the move in a stock. This indicator points two things to me. As the stock has been going lower there hasn’t been a lower low in the indicator. It actually seems there is a slight uptrend in the indicator, which tells me as the stock has gone lower, there hasn’t been the same force/thrust to the move. This is a classic example of divergence, meaning the stock is doing one thing while the momentum indicator is doing another.
The information above points to two possibilities. The first is that the stock is currently taking a breather from its downtrend. This is normal in a stock cycle; after all, stocks do not go up or down in straight lines. The other is that the stock could be in the beginning stages of stabilizing. Stabilizing does not mean that the stock will begin a new uptrend. It means the stock could be range bound for a couple of months.
OnDeck Q2 Earnings Announcement
July 6, 2015Update: The news reports that said OnDeck was reporting earnings today on July 6th were false
An OnDeck representative said they have not yet scheduled a date.
OnDeck (ONDK) was reportedly going to release 2015’s Q2 earnings after the market closed on Monday, July 6th (That information was confirmed as false.) Analysts predict the company will show a loss of 7 cents a share.
The company has faced a fierce sell-off in recent weeks, moving the stock to all time lows and down more than 50% from its high. The trend began after the Q1 report in which company executives argued that a decrease in the interest rates charged to their customers was not a response to competitive pressure.
Bloomberg’s Zeke Faux ran the following headline anyway:
Since then, the stock has struggled to recover. I posted a summary of why that might be on June 29th, in a short piece tiled, What Happened to OnDeck.
Barron’s was particularly tough on them, labeling them a subprime lender in dot-com clothing. For now, the key to an OnDeck rebounds seems to be about shedding that toxic label and convincing investors that despite a crowded field, they are the clear standout choice.
An increase in the default rate this quarter however would probably evoke a further negative response.
Are You Robodialing? The TCPA and FCC Scoop You Need to Know
July 2, 2015
In 1991, when Congress began regulating autodialers via the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, our phones and our relationships with them were vastly different from what that equipment and those relationships look like today. At that time, Congress was regulating a world without text messages and ubiquitous cell phones and a world where autodialers were infuriating consumers nationwide for their ability to generate and dial telephone numbers indiscriminately without regard for who was on the receiving end of the call.
In the intervening years, Congress has made modest TCPA amendments to address unsolicited faxes and nefarious manipulation of caller ID information, but it has otherwise failed to adjust the law to reflect the way we communicate today. The FCC has tried harder than Congress to update its TCPA rules, but it too has failed in this regard. The result is a set of obsolete standards whose significance vastly outpaces their sense due to the TCPA’s private right of action and rigid statutory damages calculation. Companies hoping the FCC would pivot toward sanity in its recent announcement of TCPA guidance are surely disappointed today.
The TCPA has always defined a regulated “autodialer” as equipment with the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator and to dial such numbers. The FCC’s TCPA rules retain that formal definition, but the FCC has explained that predictive dialers and other equipment enhancing dialing efficiency are also regulated as autodialers because of their capacity to dial numbers without human intervention. The FCC has repeatedly confirmed that the focus of the “autodialer” standard is on the equipment’s capacity, not its actual use.
A number of courts have tried to make this “capacity” standard more concrete by limiting it to the equipment’s present capacity, that is, what the equipment was capable of doing when the calls at issue were replaced, without considering what the equipment could be reconfigured to do at some future time. These courts explained that a focus on present capacity was necessary to ensure that every person’s smartphone would not be regulated as an autodialer based on what it could be reprogrammed to do.
The FCC received a number of petitions seeking more formal, universal guidance on the TCPA’s “autodialer” standard. We are still waiting for the FCC to publish the guidance it has approved, but according to the FCC’s June 18, open meeting, that guidance will not make this issue any clearer. According to the FCC’s preview, that guidance will affirm that the TCPA’s “autodialer” standard focuses on the equipment’s capacity, ensuring that “robocallers cannot skirt consumer consent requirements through changes in calling technology design or by calling from a list of numbers.” If this is an accurate summary of the FCC’s guidance, it will do absolutely nothing to resolve the most pressing concerns on this issue. It will not address whether “click-to-dial” technology, which involves some human intervention but may have the capacity to operate without it, is regulated as an “autodialer.” It will not address whether the definition’s “capacity” element is limited to present capacity or also includes possible future capacity. The surge in private TCPA litigation makes these ambiguities treacherous.
Although the FCC discussion of its TCPA guidance touts the protections provided to consumers, the autodialer provisions apply equally to business-to-business calling. MCA companies must be aware of the TCPA’s autodialer requirements for B2B calling campaigns. They can be sued for improper calls placed to businesses, as well as errant B2B calls that are answered by individual consumers. The FCC’s TCPA rules establish that callers must have the call recipient’s “prior express written consent” for sales calls placed to cell phones using an autodialer or a prerecorded message. This form of consent requires a signed writing from the call recipient and requires certain “magic words” disclosures that must be provided when the consent is obtained. This consent requirement applies to B2B calls as well as B2C calls, and the existence of an established business relationship between the parties to the call does not provide any relief from this requirement. Non-sales calls to cell phones using an autodialer or a prerecorded message require “prior express consent.” This term is not defined, but the FCC has explained that a call recipient provides valid consent to a creditor by volunteering his or her cell phone number to the creditor, such as on a credit application. There are tricky details in this standard, so MCA companies should proceed with caution in order to establish valid TCPA consent.
Technology makes our lives easier, but it makes our TCPA compliance analysis more complicated. The TCPA should not impede technological developments that do no harm, but the law’s enforcement scheme encourages “professional plaintiffs” and greatly increases the likelihood that a TCPA violation will result in a lawsuit. The FCC is presently fumbling an opportunity to address this. It’s unclear when another such opportunity will arise or what it will take for the FCC to decide to align its TCPA rules with the real world.
The Rest of the Alternative Lending Industry’s Funding Numbers
July 1, 2015
Let’s be serious, the industry’s much bigger than we may have let on when we published the industry leaderboard (some mods have been made) in the May/June issue.
Right after deBanked sent the final file off to the printers in May, PayPal announced that the widely circulated $200 million lifetime funding figures were slightly outdated.
How off were they?
Oh, just by about $300 million or so. By May 7th, PayPal’s Working Capital program for small businesses had already exceeded $500 million. The industry leaderboard has been revised to reflect the news. PayPal says they are funding loans at the rate of $2 million per day, which puts them on pace for more than $700 million a year. Um, wow?
One name that’s missing from that list is Amazon, whose secretive short term business loan program is reported to have already generated hundreds of millions of dollars in loans. Given the $300 million discrepancy that PayPal let ruminate for months, we’re in no position to speculate on Amazon. Anyone could try to assess what they’ve been up to however, since they file UCCs on their clients under the secured party name “AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC.”
Of course if you’re craving specific numbers, an anonymous source inside Yellowstone Capital revealed that Yellowstone produced $35.5 Million worth of deals in the month of June alone. Yellowstone has a strategically diverse business model that allows them to either fund small businesses in-house (essentially on their own balance sheet) or broker them out to other funders. Yellowstone was listed on deBanked’s May/June industry leaderboard at $1.1 Billion in lifetime deals and $290 Million in 2014. June’s figures indicate that they are probably well on their way to surpassing last year’s numbers.
Curiously, platform/lender/broker/marketplace company Biz2Credit has been hanging on to the same stodgy old number for more than a year.
Funded over $1.2 billion. 200,000+ happy customers.http://t.co/3h64lI4cgG #smallbusiness #Funding
— Biz2Credit (@biz2credit) June 19, 2015
They were touting that same $1.2 Billion number exactly 1 year ago. Surely they have done more since then? Biz2Credit’s service covers a much wider scope however so a direct comparison with their peers may not be appropriate. A lot of their loans are arranged through traditional banks which are typically transacted in amounts larger than the average $25,000 deal alternative lenders do.
A source familiar with Biz2Credit’s breadth said he observed a deal where the company helped a businessman in Mexico obtain financing to purchase a new helicopter, a transaction which apparently necessitated a team to fly down there to sign paperwork. Definitely not a standard transaction!
When we published the industry leaderboard initially, it admittedly omitted some of the industry’s largest players. Many firms are fairly secretive about the numbers they release and we’re in no position to disclose numbers that aren’t supposed to be public. Below is data that we hadn’t published previously.
The industry’s unsung behemoths
The $300 million lifetime funding figure publicized by NYC-based Fora Financial can’t be that stale. It’s the number currently stated on their website and a late February 2015 company announcement revealed they were only at $295 million at the time. We feel comfortable enough to now have Fora Financial on the leaderboard.
In 2014, Delaware-based Swift Capital revealed that they had funded more than $500 million. It’s unclear how much that’s increased since then.
Credibly (formerly RetailCapital), has publicized that they’ve funded more than $140 million in their lifetime. Founded in Michigan, the company has opened offices in New York, Arizona, and Massachusetts. They’ve been added to the lifetime leaderboard.
New York City-based AmeriMerchant has a claim on their website that they have funded more than $500 million since inception. How much more exactly? We’re not sure.
Coral Springs, FL-based Business Financial Services keeps their figures mostly under wraps but a good guess would place their lifetime figures at somewhere between $700 million and $1.2 billion.
Miami, FL-based 1st Merchant Funding had reportedly funded close to $100 million in the Spring of 2014. It’s uncertain as to where they might be now.
Woodland Hills, CA-based ForwardLine surpassed $250 million in funding as far back as 2013.
Orange, CA-based Quick Bridge Funding disclosed more than $200 million in funding in late 2014.
Troy, MI-based Capital For Merchants has funded $220 million since inception. But there’s more to the story. Capital For Merchants is owned by North American Bancard, a merchant processing firm that acquired another merchant cash advance company, Miami, FL-based Rapid Capital Funding in late 2014. And coincidentally, Rapid Capital Funding had just acquired American Finance Solutions months earlier, which is an Anaheim, CA-based merchant cash advance company that had funded more than $250 million since inception. All told, North American Bancard owns at least three merchant cash advance companies: Capital For Merchants ($220 million), American Finance Solutions ($250 million+), and Rapid Capital Funding (undisclosed). There are rumors that they’re in talks to acquire at least one more company in the space, which, if true, would make North American Bancard one of the industry’s most powerful players.
Don’t bother counting up the above totals
These figures all barely scratch the surface as deBanked’s database indicates there are literally hundreds of genuine direct funders in the industry.
Thanks to the company representatives that took the time to confirm their funding numbers with us directly. Anyone interested in sharing their figures can email sean@debanked.com. If there is a gross inaccuracy somewhere as well, please report it to us.
This page might be updated in the future so check back!
Is Amazon Already a Top 10 Funder?
June 29, 2015
18 months ago I mentioned Amazon’s quiet entry into business lending but nobody’s really talked about it. But earlier today in a story that was supposed to highlight the company’s push into China, they revealed some interesting details that the rest of the alternative lending industry deserves to know about.
1. Amazon offers three to six-month loans of $1,000 to $600,000 to help merchants buy inventory.
2. Amazon has already funded hundreds of millions of dollars.
3. Sellers are reporting interest rates of 6% to 14% but it’s unclear if these are APRs or dollar for dollar costs since the loans are for much less than a year. I suspect the effective APRs are higher.
While Amazon is obviously doing these to grow Amazon merchants, the short maturities and stunning loan volume definitely earns them a spot on the list of the biggest funders in the industry.
Another fact worth repeating is this tidbit from PayNet:
“The default rate for small businesses with credit under a $1 million stood at 1 percent in 2014 but is seen rising to 1.6 percent in 2015, as new lenders with varying ability to assess risk increase lending, according to small business credit ratings provider PayNet.”
