Business Lending
How A New Hampshire Teen Launched A Lending Company And Climbed Into The Inc. 500
March 17, 2018Josh Feinberg was not a complete newbie when he started in the lending business in 2009, but he also had a long way to go to find success. His dad had been in the business for 15 years and shortly after graduating high school, Josh started to work in equipment financing and leasing at Direct Capital in New Hampshire, his home state. He then had a brief stint working remotely for Balboa Capital, but he wasn’t sure that finance was for him.
He was 19, with a three year old daughter, and he took a low paying job working at a New Hampshire pawn shop owned by his brother and a guy named Will Murphy.
“I was making $267 a week at the pawn shop and I was having to ask friends to help me pay my rent for a room,” Feinberg said. “So at that point, I realized that something needed to change.”
One day, while working at the pawn shop, Feinberg saw a Facebook post from a restaurant owner in search of financing for equipment. With a background in financing, he said to himself: “I wonder if I could take an application and bring it to one of the sources I know and they could pay me a commission?’”
That question prompted Feinberg to present to his brother and Murphy the idea to start a finance company. Feinberg said he drew up a business plan in a day and a half and his brother and Murphy agreed to give him $3,000 to start the company. That was November of 2012.

“They gave me a spot down in the basement of their shop, which was anywhere from 47 to 52 degrees,” Feinberg said. “I had my jacket, my computer and I was making 400 calls a day.”
After three months of not funding any deals, Feinberg said he almost gave up. He was also focused mainly on the equipment finance market because that’s all he really knew.
“Then come to find out that I talked to somebody that had a need for working capital and I realized that I could find sources [for] capital,” Feinberg said.
So he worked with a few different sources to find capital for this client. The deal went through in 24 hours and it paid about $7,000 in commission.
“I didn’t have any money and I was like, ‘this is awesome,’” Feinberg said. “So I [kept] making 400 calls a day, knowing that this could potentially change my life.”
And it did. After a year, Feinberg’s company, Everlasting Capital, made $110,000 in commissions and $3.5 million in volume. Within that first year, he also hired three people and moved from the basement of the pawn shop in Rochester, NH to a 600 square foot office in the same town. (The current office is also in Rochester, but in a larger space.)

This lightning fast trajectory is by no means common. That’s why Everlasting Capital made it onto 2017’s Inc. 500 list, the iconic list of America’s fastest growing private companies. By year two, Everlasting Capital earned $640,000 in commissions, generating $14 million in volume, and by year three it earned $1.6 million in commissions with $18 million in volume. Ultimately, over a three year period ending in 2016, Everlasting Capital experienced 1,361 percent growth, placing them at No. 323 on the Inc. 500 list.
How did they do it? Feinberg said that creating a company and an office environment that employees enjoy is really critical, as is recognizing employees for their hard work.
“As long as we hit our goals which we have every year,” Feinberg said, “we take our company on a trip at the end of each year.” (Trips have included Las Vegas and Puerto Rico.)
More specifically, Feinberg said that the company’s success had a lot to do with building relationships with senior level people at top funding companies like Pearl Capital and BFS Capital. These relationships gave them higher [approved] volume, better buy rates and the ability to pay out good commissions to ISOs.
“This opened up a whole new aspect of our company,” Feinberg said. “Now, in addition to working with direct clients, we had an ISO division as well.”
But Feinberg said he wanted to create a reputable company to ensure that ISOs could feel comfortable working with them, knowing that Everlasting Capital was not backdooring their deals. So they created a portal for ISOs, called EverHub, which allows them to track their deals at every step along the way.
“We had to think outside the box to come up with a platform that was completely transparent and made it viable to work with another broker to get deals done,” Feinberg said.
There have definitely been hurdles along the way – most notably, employee retention.

“We hired and fired about 20 people in the second year,” Feinberg said. “We wanted to see if quantity would increase sales. Come to find out, it’s more quality than quantity.”
Partnership has been another challenge. The leadership team at Everlasting Capital is now Feinberg and Murphy. Feinberg’s brother, who was Murphy’s initial partner at the pawn shop (which has since been sold), is no longer involved in it.
Feinberg said that what makes for a good partnership is communication, early and often. And being able to hold partners accountable for different responsibilities.
“Partnerships are tough in business – they tend to get a little hairy, a little crazy at times,” Murphy said.
“Like myself and Josh, we have some different views on a lot of different things, but we take our different views and we meld them together to provide the best outcome for our employees and all the people we work with. Some may see that as a downside, but it’s actually a real strength.”
2017 Small Business Financing Leaderboard
March 14, 2018Thanks to several companies filing their annual earnings statements and Funding Circle disclosing their USA origination figures for 2017, we’ve been able to put together a leaderboard in the small business financing space. This list is not comprehensive and omits key players like PayPal Working Capital and Amazon Lending.
| Company Name | 2017 Originations | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 |
| OnDeck | $2,114,663,000 | $2,400,000,000 | $1,900,000,000 | $1,200,000,000 |
| Kabbage | $1,500,000,000 | $1,220,000,000 | $900,000,000 | $350,000,000 |
| Square Capital | $1,177,000,000 | $798,000,000 | $400,000,000 | $100,000,000 |
| Yellowstone Capital | $553,000,000 | $460,000,000 | $422,000,000 | $290,000,000 |
| Funding Circle (USA only) | $500,000,000 | |||
| BlueVine | $500,000,000* | $200,000,000* | ||
| National Funding | $427,000,000 | $350,000,000 | $293,000,000 | |
| Strategic Funding | $393,000,000 | $375,000,000 | $375,000,000 | $280,000,000 |
| BFS Capital | $300,000,000 | $300,000,000 | ||
| RapidAdvance | $260,000,000 | $280,000,000 | $195,000,000 | |
| Credibly | $180,000,000 | $150,000,000 | $95,000,000 | $55,000,000 |
| Shopify | $140,000,000 | |||
| Forward Financing | $125,000,000 | |||
| IOU Financial | $91,300,000 | $107,600,000 | $146,400,000 | $100,000,000 |
*Asterisks signify that the figure is the editor’s estimate
Thinking Capital Acquired by Canadian Finance Firm Purpose Financial
March 12, 2018
Thinking Capital, a leader in the fintech lending industry in Canada, was acquired last week by Canadian finance company, Purpose Financial, based in Toronto.
“Under the Purpose Financial umbrella, our time to market on product innovation and funding capacity will be greatly amplified,” said Jeff Mitelman, CEO and co-founder of Thinking Capital.
Mitelman, who co-founded Thinking Capital in 2006, has long been an advocate for improving the way small business credit is evaluated and communicated in Canada.
“The challenge in Canada is that our lending institutions historically either don’t lend to small business or don’t lend to enough of our small businesses,” Mitelman told deBanked. “And that’s driven by the fact that so many of the measures of small business credit worthiness simply don’t exist. Our credit bureaus don’t report on it, there aren’t metrics or scores unique to small business, and most significantly, small business credit has never been attached to retail or institutional conduits for funding.”
This is where Purpose Financial comes in. Mitelman believes that Purpose Financial’s investment arm and its relationship with Omers, a large Canadian pension fund, will provide small businesses with “access to conduits that historically small businesses have never been able to access.”
Thinking Capital provides an MCA product, which it calls Flexible, as well as a term product, which it calls Fixed. It also helps power loans provided by large companies like Staples.
Purpose Financial has three verticals: Investment Management (retail and institutional), Digital Technology, and Capital / Funding.
“Thinking Capital is a clear leader in the small to medium-sized business lending space…” said Som Seif, CEO of Purpose Financial. “[And] this acquisition brings together leading origination, asset management, and technology platforms as a unified entity, and enables us to bolster our product capabilities and optimize the technology, distribution, and funding model of our combined business.”
I Got Funded, Again
March 1, 2018
One year after I received a 12-month loan from Square on fixed monthly ACH, I logged onto my dashboard to renew. I was pre-approved to do it all over again, the screen indicated, but the monthly ACH payment option had disappeared. In its place, Square offered to withhold a fixed percentage of my credit card sales going forward until the balance was paid in full.
Known as a “split,” diverting a percentage of the card payment proceeds to a financial company is straight out of the merchant cash advance playbook. Square, however, structures their transactions as loans. That means that regardless of how my sales ebb and flow, I must pay off my balance in full in 18 months.
I was okay with that. I had to be. It was that time of year when working capital is very important, the holidays. Not to mention, deBanked was in the process of moving, again. If you recall in December of 2016, we moved to a slightly larger office in the same building on Wall Street. In December of 2017, however, we moved from Manhattan to Brooklyn, a process that was a little more involved.

But this loan had no monthly payment, just a 15.75% split. Others may refer to this as the holdback, withhold, or specified percentage. Square’s application process this time around was slightly more rigorous than a year ago, a few more buttons, a couple more disclosures, and even a notice that a review could take between 1-3 days. I was still approved the same day, however, and had funds the next. There were no hidden fees or closing costs.
Six days after being funded, I ran a charge, Square took their split, and I netted the different minus the interchange fees. I noticed, but in a way I didn’t. I didn’t have to worry about how much the monthly payment would be and when. The loan was being repaid all by itself. That was how I processed it psychologically anyway, as I imagine many other small business owners have as well.
And the feeling of relief from impending monthly payments is not entirely mental. Seven weeks later, I was already 17% paid off. That’s real progress, especially with a 65-week window remaining to pay off in full.
Had the same transaction been structured as a merchant cash advance, the timeframe would’ve been unlimited. But hey, I guess sometimes you can’t have it all. It was a 1.10 factor rate, decent by industry standards, certainly not the most expensive, but not the least expensive either. It was fast, it was helpful, and best of all, it was free from the burden of fixed monthly payments.
I got funded again and loved it. What are you still waiting for?
Editors Note: deBanked did not collaborate with Square in the writing of this editorial. Square did not even contact us after I published my first experience with their product one year ago. It is unclear if they are even aware that I wrote anything at all. Square is not an advertiser nor have they sponsored any of our events. I did not attempt to interview them for this write-up or tip them off that I would be writing anything. To my knowledge, we did not receive any special benefit or pricing. deBanked chose Square for funding in part to avoid the conflict of writing a review about a paying advertiser or sponsor.

OnDeck Shows A Path Forward
February 15, 2018
OnDeck announced this week very positive fourth quarter and full year 2017 financial results, including a fourth quarter GAAP net income of $5 million and an expectation for continued margin and profit growth in 2018.
“We worked hard in 2017, not just to achieve profitability, but to strengthen the key fundamentals of our business that drive our success,” OnDeck CFO Howard Katzenberg told deBanked.
This was a very significant milestone for the New York-based online lender who has been challenged by critics in the past on their trajectory. The company also grew in revenue. Net revenue was $152.6 million in 2017, up from $108.9 million the previous year.
Founded in 2007, OnDeck is considered one of the original alternative online lending companies. In 2014, the company went public on the New York Stock Exchange and has made more than $8 billion in loans to small businesses.
“[Last year] was a transformative year for OnDeck, marked by our strategic decision to strengthen our financial profile and accelerate our path to profitability,” said CEO Noah Breslow. “Looking ahead to 2018, we expect to drive double digit loan growth due to our strong customer demand, disciplined risk management and focus on scaling responsibly.”
For the fourth quarter of 2017, OnDeck’s loan originations were $546 million, up three percent from the prior quarter. And the credit quality of new originations, measured by both OnDeck Score and personal credit scores improved.
“Since Q2 2017, we have cut out the riskiest parts of our customer base,” Katzenberg told deBanked.
SmartBiz Becomes the Number One Provider of SBA Loans Under $350,000
February 14, 2018
SmartBiz Loans announced today that it was the number one facilitator of SBA 7(a) loans under $350,000 for the 2017 calendar year, surpassing JP Morgan Chase.
“I think the biggest factor [in hitting this milestone] is that we have been laser focused on meeting the needs of small business customers in the U.S.,” SmartBiz CEO Evan Singer told deBanked.
SmartBiz facilitated $329 million in funded SBA 7(a) loans for $350,000 or less for the 2017 calendar year while JP Morgan Chase generated $322 million, putting it in second place. SBA loans (the acronym stands for Small Business Administration) are guaranteed by the U.S. government. Traditional SBA 7(a) loans, which SmartBiz focuses on, are backed by the government 75 to 80 percent, according to Singer, while 7(a) Express loans are only backed 50 percent, making the interest on those loans higher. Previously, SmartBiz was number one in funding SBA 7(a) loans, excluding Express loans. Now it leads in both categories.
The San Francisco-based company was incubated by PayPal and launched in 2010. Originally, it was a consumer credit platform, but then pivoted to the small business space in 2012 and started facilitating SBA loans in 2013, Singer said. The company sold off its consumer business and is now exclusively devoted to facilitating SBA loans, which typically have a repayment term of 10 years for a loan of $350,000 or less.
SmartBiz has made obtaining SBA loans easier for small businesses by making loan underwriting and origination easier for banks. The key has been technology. For instance, Singer said that many banks will not make small business loans for less than $250,000 because it isn’t profitable for them. Banks tell Singer that it takes the same amount of time to underwrite and originate a $200,000 loan as it does for a $2 million loan.
“So what we are focused on is [making] software to help automate the underwriting and origination process for banks so that smaller loans become profitable for them,” Singer said.
So far, this has been working. Singer said the company’s partner banks tell them that they are able to reduce 90 percent of the costs on the retail side when looking at smaller loans. Some of SmartBiz’s partner banks include Celtic Bank in Salt Lake City, UT, First Home Bank in St. Petersburg, FL, and Five Star Bank in Sacramento, CA.
SmartBiz also has an office in Austin, TX and employs a little over 100 people.
Banks, Alt Funders Continue to Compete for Small Business
February 13, 2018
The alternative small-business finance industry owes its very existence to banks’ reluctance to lend money to mom-and-pop shopkeepers, tradespeople and restauranteurs, but bankers’ tight fists may be loosening. Small-business owners are reporting better results when they apply for bank loans.
In fact, small entrepreneurs succeeded in landing bank loans 37 percent of the time in the fourth quarter of 2017, up from 29 percent a year earlier, according to the 1,341 merchants surveyed for the most recent quarterly Private Capital Access Index report provided by Dun & Bradstreet and Pepperdine University’s Graziadio School of Business and Management.
“That’s a big change. It’s outside the margin of error and outside normal statistical variation,” Craig R. Everett, assistant professor of finance at Pepperdine and director of the Graziadio and Dun & Bradstreet Private Capital Markets Project, tells deBanked. He’s comparing the shift to patterns established in the nearly six years the quarterly index has pegged small-business trends.
But the effects of bankers’ increased willingness to lend to small businesses may prove a bit muted in the alternative funding industry. That’s partly because Pepperdine and Dun & Bradstreet define small businesses as having up to $5 million in annual revenue. Alt funders often deal with much smaller enterprises that could still fail to capture the attention of bank loan officers, says Noah Grayson, managing director of South End Capital in Encino, Calif. “If you’re making $5 million in gross revenue, that’s a pretty robust business,” he says of his clients.
Then there are the borrowers whose companies seem small in that they employ just a few people but might rake in $5 million on a single contract – like contractors who specialize in heavy construction equipment or have a presence in the aviation business – but aren’t profitable enough to qualify for bank loans, says Gene Ayzenberg, CEO of PledgeCap, a company with offices on Long Island and in Manhattan that specializes in business and personal loans secured by collateral.
Besides, lots of alternative lenders don’t regard gross revenue as the measure of a business. “I would look at what kind of resources and infrastructure the business has to define what is small and medium-sized,” says David Obstfeld, CEO of New York-based SOS Capital. Many alt lenders cite the importance of net over gross.
The size of prospective borrowers aside, banks are probably lending to small merchants more often these days because small businesses are becoming more profitable in today’s relatively healthy business climate and thus stand a better chance of qualifying for credit, Everett says. The recent reduction in corporate taxes will also improve profits and make small businesses more credit-worthy, he says.
The change in bank lending volume seems tied to those financial gains and doesn’t appear to be linked to any shift in policy among bankers, Everett notes. But new policies at the Small Business Administration could prompt the banking community to view small-business loans more favorably, according to Grayson. The SBA is increasing the percentage it guarantees for some loans and reducing the amount required for a down payment on some loans, he notes. That could make life more difficult for some alternative lenders because most of the small-business loans made by major banks, like Wells Fargo and Chase, are SBA loans, he says. The SBA did not provide details regarding the changes by press time.
Regardless of what’s making banks loosen their grip on the purse strings, merchants are feeling more optimistic – or at least less gloomy – about obtaining bank loans in the near term, the study by Pepperdine and Dunn & Bradstreet indicates. In the fourth quarter of last year, 55 percent of small-business owners predicted difficulty in raising financing in the next six months, down from 61 percent a year earlier, the survey shows.
“That’s an improvement, but I still think it’s an alarmingly high number,” Ayzenberg says of those findings. “Before they even start worrying about how their operations are going and how good their product is, one in two businesses is already worrying that their bank is not going to be able to fulfill their needs. They shouldn’t have to have those fears.”
So, banks are becoming a bit more likely to loan to small businesses but still aren’t throwing open the flood gates to create a flood of funding. That’s true of banks that qualify as large and those classified as small.
American banks tend to be either small community institutions or huge national concerns that are swallowing up the remaining mid-sized regional banks, observers agree. Between 80 and 90 banks control assets of $10 billion or more and thus qualify as large, while thousands of small banks have more limited resources, says David O’Connell, an Aite Group senior analyst.
Large and small banks exhibit about the same degree of ambivalence toward small-business loans. Banks can mitigate the downside of the loans because they have funds to hire staffs and buy technology to analyze risk, O’Connell says. Executives at small banks can avoid potential problems with small-business loans because they’re often dealing with prospective borrowers who were their high school or college classmates, he notes.
Whether banks are large or small, they have their reasons to deny loans to small businesses. Perhaps foremost among the rationales for denying loans to small businesses is the cost of underwriting, says O’Connell. Banks simply can’t make enough money on the loans to pay the cost of processing them, he says, adding that, “It’s a long-standing problem.” For example, a bank can make a profit by loaning $2 million at prime plus 2 percent, but can’t cover the underwriting costs of an $80,000 loan that also earns prime plus 2 percent. The underwriting costs would be the same in both cases, he notes.
Banks became even more ambivalent about loaning to small businesses after the Great Recession struck in 2008, O-Connell continues. They didn’t want to repeat the mistakes of the freewheeling period that preceded the economic catastrophe. About the same time, private equity and hedge funds began madding more capital available to alternative lenders, he says. Meanwhile, technology and alternative data sets helped the alternative industry understand risk and reduce underwriting costs, he maintains.
Banks also find it more expensive to loan to small businesses these days because the Dodd-Frank Act has increased compliance costs, Everett points out. “Red tape and reserve requirements for the banks have all increased under Dodd-Frank, so making loans to small businesses is less cost-effective than it was before.” Banks now need upwards of $1 billion in assets under management to remain viable, and they feel compelled to expand their staffs to follow all the new rules for lending, he says.
What’s more, bankers still exercise extreme caution when it comes to extending credit to small businesses because stores or restaurants often fail and then the business or the owner defaults on the loan, Everett says. That’s why banks often require business-loan applicants to demonstrate two years of profitability to qualify for credit, he notes. Higher interest that can mitigate that risk, but state usury laws often capping rates at 36 percent or less, Everett notes. New York, for example, limits banks to 16 percent, he says.
State usury laws don’t apply to factoring or merchant cash advances, and that enables alternative funders to charge more for the use of funds, Everett says. “If it’s not called a loan and what the customer is paying is not called interest, then it’s not subject to state usury laws,” he says.
Obstfeld puts it this way: “In would be great to be in a business where nobody defaults. The rates we charge at SOS Capital are necessary to cover our losses and be profitable at the same time.”
The high cost of obtaining funds in the alternative market could eventually prompt the federal government to intervene with regulation but that probably won’t happen anytime soon, Everett predicts. O’Connell agrees, noting that in the current political climate the government has little appetite for new restrictions on a major source of capital for thousands of small businesses.
Because alternative funders have greater flexibility than banks in how much they can charge for access to credit, banks have sometimes formed referral relationships with alt funders to hand off small-business borrowers. “That looks good on paper and makes great headlines, but it’s harder to do in real life,” O’Connell maintains, because the bank loses control of the customer experience. If the alt funder doesn’t manage customers’ expectations effectively, the bank might have to take the blame – at least in some consumers’ minds, he contends. He’s surveyed bankers and found them feeling “really mixed” about such partnerships.
The impact of such partnerships hasn’t been as great as some anticipated. “We were quite nervous when we heard that JPMorgan would be using OnDeck’s platform,” recalls Obstfeld. “However, it’s been quite some time that they’ve been doing that and it hasn’t seemed to make a dent – at all – in alternative lending.”
But alternative funders can provide borrowers with advantages that banks can’t match. Some alternative lenders can approve a client’s application in a few hours and wire funds to the recipient the same day, Grayson says. Steve Hauptman, chief operating officer at SOS Capital, notes that banks can require weeks or even months to respond to an application.
That’s why SOS Capital customers sometimes obtains funding from the company as a bridge to keep operating while they’re waiting for an SBA bank loan or to take advantage of an opportunity that requires a quick response, Obstfeld says.
The advantages of the alternative funding industry don’t end there. SBA bank loans require more paperwork than is needed for a merchant cash advance, which can slow the process even further as the client assembles the documentation, Obstfeld notes.
In addition, banks can simply seem slow to respond to the needs of the market. “Banks are banks – they’re never going to be able to do the things we can do,” says Obstfeld. “If one product becomes an issue, we can pivot and create new product tomorrow. It takes banks years to get approval for something new.”
Then there are cards. Besides an increase in banks’ willingness to lend to small businesses, merchants are finding it easier to obtain business credit cards, the index provided by Pepperdine and Dun & Bradstreet finds. In the fourth quarter of last year, 65 percent of survey respondents applied successfully for cards, compared with 51 percent in the corresponding period a year earlier.
Easier access to credit cards might not make merchants less likely to apply for loans, Everett says. “Usually, credit cards are a backup plan,” he notes. “They’re the poor man’s line of credit. It’s a very high interest rate.” Most businesses would prefer to open a line of credit from a bank with a lower interest rate. Many cardholders use cards only for travel expenses or to ease short-term cash-flow issues, he says.
Finding the right credit card poses a challenge, even for those who are adept at online searches, says Grayson of South End Capital. In addition, many business credit cards carry a low spending limit. A business might qualify for a $5,000 credit limit on the card but could receive a $50,000 loan, he adds. “A card generally doesn’t fill their needs,” he declares.
Others have a slightly different view of business cards. “Once you get approved, it’s easy money,” Obstfeld says of business credit cards. However, cards can’t finance some of the actions that cash from merchant cash advances can cover, such as buying out a partner or opening a second location, he notes.
Moreover, the fact that competitors exist – whether they’re banks, card issuers or other alternative lenders – doesn’t necessarily threaten existing alt funders, according to Hauptman. Remember that banks and alternative lenders aren’t offering the same products, he says. Those products, such as bank loans, factoring and merchant cash advances, each have advantages and disadvantages, which prompt merchants to pursue the vehicles that are right for them, he says.
Having banks and nonbanks in the mix can even prove complementary, too. Pumping more funds into the small-business economy from any source can result in a healthier environment that offers more opportunities for all, Ayzenberg says.
The real danger resides not so much from direct competition but rather from failing to keep pace with the alternative lending industry’s introduction of new products, falling behind in the quest to speed up the decision-making process granting funding or neglecting to obtain technology that eases the application process, Grayson says.
In one recent development, some alternative lenders aren’t reviewing credit histories, he notes. Instead they look just at deposits and can extend credit based just on that, Grayson notes. That’s somewhat like a merchant cash advance, but it’s offered at single-digit rates and on favorable terms, he says. “A lot of lenders are making it very simple for borrowers to get money now,” he continues, concluding that alt funding firms that can’t afford to make such improvements probably can’t remain in business.
Though some players will inevitably disappear, the alternative small-business funding industry in general seems likely to survive so long as banks remain reticent about lending to small businesses – the situation that gave rise to the alternative industry in the first place.
Behalf Secures $150 Million in Debt Capital
February 8, 2018
Behalf, the New York City-based alternative business loan company, obtained $150 million in debt financing this week from a private investment fund managed by Soros Fund Management LLC. Viola Credit also participated in the debt financing.
“This is a significant step forward for Behalf. This funding allows us to expand our fast-growing e-commerce B2B financing platform and enhance our ability to provide the best business terms to customers, in a fraction of the time of a traditional business lender,” said founder and CEO of Behalf, Benjy Feinberg.
The company, founded in 2012, initially started doing MCA only and is now transitioning to offer loans, according to Feinberg.

Behalf’s business model works in the same way as a credit card. The small business customer doesn’t receive money from Behalf. Instead, Behalf pays the vendor of its small business customer directly, and then the customer pays Behalf. Customers pay different rates depending on their risk profile.
As an analogy for the business model, Feinberg told deBanked: “If you give a kid $50,000, he could go to Vegas. If you give the college $50,000, the kid goes and gets an education.”
With Behalf’s transition into loans, the company partnered with FinWise Bank, a Utah-chartered bank, in August of last year. Behalf, which also has an office in Tel Aviv, has a virtual MasterCard feature that allows its customers to use their Behalf credit line to fund purchases across the MasterCard network.
The company has a total headcount of about 90 between its two offices, according to Feinberg.





























