Industry News

What Happened to Bizfi?

July 1, 2017
Article by:

bizfi wall

Update 9/22: Select assets of Bizfi including the brand and marketplace were acquired by rival World Business Lenders

Update 8/30: Credibly was selected to service Bizfi’s $250 million portfolio

This past week, Bizfi gave their remaining employees a 90-day warning notice, according to sources familiar with the matter. It was the latest wave of layoffs to hit the company over the last few months. At its peak, Bizfi, which provided capital to small businesses, employed more than 200 people. Some of those riding out their potentially last 90 days are anxiously awaiting the outcome of nonpublic negotiations to salvage parts of the company’s legacy, if it can be done at all.

It’s a bittersweet moment, according to newly former employees I spoke with, some of whom are so young they vaguely recall Bizfi’s past as both Merchant Cash and Capital (MCC) and Next Level Funding (NLF). They characterized their experience as having worked in fintech.

MCC was founded in 2005 as a buyer of future credit card sales, way before the rise of modern fintech. They later spawned affiliate company NLF, which was eventually consolidated into the newly minted Bizfi brand in 2015. In 2016, they were one of the top three largest originators of merchant cash advances. Today, they are no longer funding new business.

Overall, the company grew too fast and missed the window of opportunity to sell, observers maintain. In a CNBC interview in 2015, a Bizfi representative said that they believed securing a major equity investment would allow them to go public by 2017. Such an investment never came. And with the market cooling last year, institutional interest in the space waned and several of the industry’s better-known players were forced into a precarious position.

Bizfi held on, until recently.

I myself was the third employee of MCC, or fourth depending on who actually walked through the door first on my first day that I shared with another new hire back in 2006 (who by the way was Jared Feldman, the eventual co-founder and CEO of Fora Financial, which sold for millions to Palladium Equity Partners LLC). I was at MCC until 2008 and then worked at NLF until 2010. That means I had been gone for five years before the companies ever merged to become Bizfi and seven years before the current dilemma. Therefore I’m not able to personally comment on what exactly went wrong because the company was nowhere near the same as when I left it.

I will report new developments as they become public.

Pave Stops Lending

June 29, 2017
Article by:

Pave, an online lender that came on the scene several years ago by marketing fair funding to millennials, is no longer lending, according to their website.

pave home page

American Banker reported that the company stopped making new loans earlier this month and was exploring strategic options.

Like many several online lenders of their time, Pave touted innovative underwriting beyond just FICO scores. “We start by reviewing the individual’s credit score and history, then incorporate additional factors like use of funds, work history, current employment, education and future earning potential,” Their website says. “This gives us plenty of opportunities to recognize how financially responsible a person can be, and it’s how we can give the lowest possible rate.”

To be eligible, applicants had to either have an income, a job offer, or plans to attend a school course.

In 2015, Pave announced that a consortium of lenders led by New York-based Seer Capital had agreed to invest up to $300 million in their loans.

Dubious Story On Strategic Funding Unfounded

June 22, 2017
Article by:

Strategic FundingA questionable story published by Allen Taylor of Lending Times pushed the boundaries of journalism earlier this week. Citing a single anonymous source, Taylor wrote that an alleged breakdown in negotiations between Strategic Funding Source (SFS) and CAN Capital (CAN) had compounded into more problems for SFS when a burst water main drenched their main office and server room at a time when they supposedly had no disaster backup plan in place.

“Unfortunately, in order to save money, they [SFS] did not have a disaster backup plan in place,” is the quote Lending Times ran with from their anonymous and only source.

Peculiar on its face, especially with no published response from SFS to confirm it, the story was nonetheless rebroadcast by a new blog calling itself SmallBusinessLending.io, who added their own little editorial flair to it in an email they sent out.

“Having cut a few corners to save money, the company [SFS] didn’t have a disaster backup plan in place. Owch,” the email said.

Eager to determine the accuracy of the story, I reached out to SFS personally for comment, whose executives responded with an astonished bewilderment. They invited me over to go see for myself, which I took them up on. deBanked had ranked SFS as one of the largest small business funders of 2016, and their demise (especially in a great flood of some kind) would indeed be newsworthy.

Strategic Funding Source office at 145 W 45th Street in New York, NY
At right, Senior Advisor David Sederholt walks an SFS floor at 145 West 45th Street in NYC

A water main was struck on the 5th floor of Tower 45 at 120 West 45th Street, only one of three buildings in Manhattan that SFS has offices in. Andy Reiser, the company’s CEO, and David Sederholt, a Senior Advisor, gave me a tour of several floors, including the 5th where the incident happened. There is some water damage on lower floors, prompting some employees and executives to reshuffle their workspaces, and necessitating the use of available office space up on the 19th floor. That much is true.

Little, if anything seemed to have been disrupted, however, least of all their servers, which Sederholt maintained is in Amazon’s cloud anyway. They have redundancy built in nonetheless for all types of disasters should something impede New York’s operations, they explained, with Virginia and Texas operations as their fallback.

Just to be sure, I visited their other Manhattan offices at 1501 Broadway and 145 West 45th street, each of which hummed with normal activity.

The company wouldn’t comment on matters regarding CAN. CAN, if you recall, suspended funding operations almost 7 months ago and rumors have surfaced from time to time on industry forums regarding a comeback, but none have been confirmed.

On June 13th, American Banker reported that CAN had laid off an estimated 55 employees in their Kennesaw, GA office.

A message left for Lending Times about their reporting on SFS had not been answered by the time this story went live.

Humans vs. Bank Statements – An Underwriting Journey

June 8, 2017
Article by:

This story appeared in deBanked’s May/June 2017 magazine issue. To receive copies in print, SUBSCRIBE FREE

bank statementsAutomation hasn’t replaced humans yet when it comes to reading bank statements in the alternative small-business finance industry. ISOs, brokers, funders and underwriters still fend off drowsiness and ignore the risk of eye strain as they pore over months of paper or electronic documents.

Many consider the drudgery a necessary part of the business. A merchant’s bank statements can reveal negative balances and commitments to previous loans or previous cash advances – any of which can indicate a bad risk, observers say. Moreover, detecting altered statements can expose fraudulent attempts to obtain credit, they add.

So why not dispense with the tedium and possible tampering of reading paper statements and pdfs? Instead, interested parties could simply obtain the login credentials for a credit or advance applicant’s bank accounts and explore their banking records firsthand. But a mixture of fear, fraud and expense often prevents that direct and relatively simple approach, multiple sources contend.

“Merchants simply don’t want to give up their username and password to enable someone to log into their bank account,” says Sam Bobley, CEO of Ocrolus, a company that specializes in automating the reading of paper statements and statements that have been converted to PDFs. Fear of somehow falling victim to an electronic robbery may be at the root of that reluctance, many in the industry agree.

online bankingWhatever the source of the hesitancy to share login information, the wariness usually seems more pronounced at the beginning of the underwriting process than toward the end, notes Arun Narayan, senior vice president of risk and analytics at Strategic Funding Source Inc., a New York City-based direct funder. “I don’t think that’s a problem after the commitment to fund,” he says, “but it is a problem before the commitment to fund.” Funders can try to leverage their market power to urge brokers to obtain a username and password from a merchant, Narayan suggests. But he admits that approach works only some of the time.

Merchants who have had a bad experience applying for loans or advances or are submitting their first application exhibit the most fear of surrendering login credentials, according to John Tucker, managing member at 1st Capital Loans, a broker with headquarters in Troy, Mich. “If they’ve been through the process before, they pretty much know what’s expected of them,” he says.

All too often, applicants balk at presenting their login information because they have something to hide, notes Cheryl Tibbs, owner of One Stop Commercial Capital, an Atlanta-based brokerage that handles deals for multiple ISOs. She says her detective work with bank statements uncovers an average of two fraudulent applications per week.

Attempts at fraud average more than five a day at Elevate Funding, a Gainesville, Fla.-based director funder, says CEO Heather Francis. Her company’s underwriters learn what to look for in bank statements that can indicate a merchant is trying to defraud a funder, she says.

First, an underwriter who’s manually checking bank statements knows that documents bearing the names of certain banks have a higher likelihood of being bogus, Francis says. Apparently, fraudsters find the statements from those banks easier to alter, or perhaps they have the templates for those banks and can plug in false information, sources speculate.

WHETHER PAPER OR PDF BANK STATEMENTS PROVIDE TO BE ON-THE-LEVEL OR NOT, READING THEM MANUALLY TAKES TIME

Besides, anyone hoping to bilk a funder can buy a customized “vanity statement” for $25 or $30 on craigslist, complete with whatever deposits, opening balances and closing balances they choose, Francis notes. That can tempt troubled merchants as well as outright criminals, observers agree.

And some of the more bizarre errors that appear in falsified statements can seem almost comical. Tibbs cites the example of a statement she saw that was supposedly for January but was populated with transactions dated in February. On altered statements the ending balance for one month might not match the beginning balance for the next month, several sources note.

Sometimes the fake numbers that wayward applicants choose to include in their fraudulent statements can send up red flags, Tibbs maintains. If a merchant is seeking $40,000 and presents account documents indicating $80,000 or $90,000 balances at the end of each month, something’s amiss “10 times out of 10,” she says.

Tibbs tells the story or a referral partner from a one-or two-person ISO calling her in a state of near-euphoria in the middle of the night, breathlessly describing a potential customer with monthly sales of $800,000 and a need for $500,000 in capital. Experience told her immediately that something wasn’t right. In the morning, she saw the statement’s ending balances of $300,000 to $400,000, which confirmed her suspicions.

Yet grafting such unlikely numbers to a forged bank statement isn’t as unsophisticated as some of the telltale signs that the industry sees when viewing bank statements manually, notes Francis. Some aspiring crooks doctor genuine statements with white-out correction fluid and then type in new numbers in a mismatched font, she says.

Anyone reading bank statements should also beware of applicants who “shotgun” applications to multiple ISOs, often on the same day, Tibbs warns. She often comes across that scam because numerous partners refer deals to her, she says.

Whether paper or pdf bank statements prove to be on-the-level or not, reading them manually takes time. An experienced underwriter who knows where to look for what he or she needs to find to verify a statement requires 15 to 20 minutes to approve one from a familiar financial institution, Francis says.

It seems that nearly every bank or credit union has its own way of designing statements, so the manual reading process slows down when an underwriter manually reads a document with an unfamiliar layout, Francis notes. Unfamiliar types of statements sometimes come from small, obscure credit unions or remote community banks, observers say.

Familiar or unfamiliar, statements represent a key part of the underwriting process, and some funders accept the time and expense of reading them manually as simply a cost of doing business, according to Francis. But that expense can become a significant portion of the cost of a credit evaluation, according to Narayan.

That’s why Narayan and his colleagues at Strategic Funding Source have been working with Ocrolus, a startup company that automates the reading of paper statements and pdf’s of statements. Ocrolus uses optical character recognition, or OCR, to automate the reading of those statements.

OCRSimply stated, OCR enables a machine to make sense of the characters it perceives in an image, says Bobley, the Ocrolus executive quoted earlier. When the platform can’t make out certain data points, they’re snipped and verified by humans in crowdsourced mini CAPTCHA tests, which stands for Completely Automated Public Turing.

They’re those tests that ask computer users to type what they see to prove they’re not robots, Bobley notes. When two of three crowd workers agree on what an image says in the CAPTCHA test, the Ocrolus platform accepts their verdict as correct, he says.

Ocrolus envisions a large market for its new platform among the many funders still reading bank statements manually in the early stages of underwriting, Bobley says. However, in the later stages of underwriting many of those funders already use bank sync companies to verify statements.

Bank sync companies include DecisionLogic, MicroBilt, Yodlee, Plaid and Finicity. They connect directly with some financial institutions to verify statements. Funders often mention the expense when they talk about bank sync companies, and they also note that bank sync companies have not yet established connections with some lesser-known financial institutions.

But late in the funding process, Elevate Funding requires merchants to cooperate with the bank sync company it uses unless extenuating circumstance dictate otherwise, says Francis. The bank sync company can gain direct access to statements using encrypted login information that does not reveal the true username or password to Elevate Funding or the bank sync company, she maintains.

Some of Elevate Funding’s brokers maintain portals that merchants can use to provide their login credentials to get the bank sync process underway, Francis notes. The portal takes merchants to a page with Elevate Funding branding through a white-label program the bank sync company provides.

“IT HAS SAVED US FROM MERCHANTS THAT WOULD HAVE DEFAULTED…IT IS A NECESSARY TOOL – ONE THAT WE HAVE TO USE”

In about 85 percent of Elevate deals, the bank sync company is connected with the merchant’s financial institution and therefore theoretically capable of gaining access to the accounts in question, Francis notes.

Over the past 30 days the Elevate Funding bank sync results included 3 percent bank error and 17 percent merchant error, while 73 percent of the statements were verified, Francis says. Bank error occurs when the bank sync company is connected to the bank but still can’t obtain the account information. Merchant error sometimes happens when the potential client provides an incorrect user name or password, probably after forgetting the right one. Merchant error can also mean that the applicant was plotting fraud and abandoned the bank sync process upon realizing he or she was about to get caught.

The upshot? Some 73 percent of the bank statements submitted are verified, meaning that the information the merchants submitted matches the numbers at the bank, Francis reports. That also means that for whatever reason 7 percent don’t even start the process they’ve requested, she says.

Meanwhile, the bank sync connection also provides real time data that would indicate to the funder whether the merchant has had a decline in sales, an increase in negative activity or the recent addition of a credit provider, Francis says.

The service can pay off. In an average month, the bank sync service detects about 10 or 15 bad deals that Elevate Funding underwriters had accepted, Francis says. “It has saved us from merchants that would have defaulted,” she says. “It is a necessary tool – one that we have to use.”

But what about those cases where the bank sync company can’t connect with the financial institution and the merchant still won’t give up the login for the account? At 1st Capital Loans, Tucker can sometimes handle the situation by getting a bank activity sheet that lists transactions. If that type of sheet’s not available, he arranges a phone call to with a representative of the bank to verify that nothing’s amiss with the applicant’s bank account.

It’s another example of how – even with today’s rampant automation – the human touch sometimes remains indispensable in assuring that merchants deserve the loans or advances they seek.

This article is from deBanked’s May/June 2017 magazine issue. To receive copies in print, SUBSCRIBE FREE

Goldman, Cohen Bet on Nav

May 19, 2017
Article by:
Levi King, Nav
CEO Levi King, Nav

Goldman Sachs. Steve Cohen. These are a couple of the high-profile investors that small business credit and finance startup Nav has attracted to line its coffers. Nav recently lifted the size of a Series B round by $13 million for lead investor Goldman Sachs Principal Strategic Investments as well as Cohen’s Point72 Ventures and others, bringing the tally for this round to $38 million.

Levi King, co-founder and CEO of Nav, told deBanked that Goldman Sachs was drawn to the startup’s robust vision, which is to decrease the death rate of small businesses in the United States. He said doing so would have a trickle up effect on Goldman and the capital markets.

“Goldman Sachs invested as a bank investment, not other people’s money. They believe with scale we will change how small business owners make financial decisions, and that will impact the capital markets. We will have a fundamental impact on the entire ecosystem, if we’re successful.”

Goldman clearly believes it’s a good bet, and Cohen’s Point72 Ventures agrees.

“We have the ability at scale to change what can happen in the capital markets based on our data, and that’s something [Point 72] wants to be a part of. They are a smart advisor for us from a data perspective – a quant hedge fund that’s best in class on data. We get free advice along the way. That’s part of the deal,” King said.

In fact, it was another major player in the credit scene that gave the nod to other investors to follow.

“It all started with Experian. That investment was a bigger landmark than any of the other ones. Experian is the biggest credit agency in the world and they had never done a venture investment until us. This sent a signal to other investors,” said King, referring to a partnership that was inked less than a year ago.

The Vision

King points out that bringing the startup’s vision to reality is a gamble. For instance, Nav’s current customer count is 215,000 and they aspire to have 28 million. “That’s the path that we’re on,” he said. The path includes the startup’s most recent expansion into business checking account data.

“We launched a loan reality check app on Android. We’re only testing it. Nothing like it exists. You put in a username, password and banking information, and we model that data and determine how likely it is that you will qualify for a loan based on that data set,” said King.

For instance, if a business has a history of bouncing checks, that’s a negative for scoring. Depository trends also count toward scoring.

“We’re sitting on personal credit, business credit and checking – three data sets. Now we have enough data for lenders to make full decisions on products like business credit cards,” said King, who makes a clear distinction between the various channels involved in the credit equation.

“To be clear, the small business owner is our customer. Lenders are our partners. Business owners win every time,” he said, pointing to the example of one lender partner.

While King wouldn’t disclose the lender he acknowledged that they are a top-10 financial institution that wanted to pay for a top result for its business credit cards among Nav’s product recommendations. This would have been a sponsored result, but it didn’t sit well with Nav. “It would have been a sweet check, but our product would lose integrity for the customer. We said no,” he said.

Also part of the vision is international expansion. “We have those ambitions. That’s why we’ve taken capital from foreign investors, to see how our model can apply in their markets. But that’s way out there,” he said, pointing to investments by CreditEase Fintech Investment Fund in this most recent round and Tencent in a previous round, both of which are based in China.

Meanwhile King said the fresh capital will be prioritized across three buckets. “We’re pretty disciplined at how we deploy capital. I will tell you what I have repeated thousands of times internally to our business. We spend money on acquiring new customers, improving our technology and UX and compensating our employees. We don’t waste money on in-office massages. At this stage a lot more of that capital goes toward customer acquisition,” he said.

Clocktower Technology Ventures also invested in the most recent Round B. Point72 Ventures and Goldman Sachs did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

Prosper Loaned $585M in Q1, Losses Continued

May 16, 2017
Article by:

Prosper had a net loss of $23.9 million in Q1 on only $30.8 million in revenue, according to the 10-Q they filed Monday. They originated $585.6 million in loans, 90% of which were funded through their Whole Loan Channel, the segment made up of accredited and institutional investors who buy entire loans.

Prosper had 371 full-time employees at the end of Q1 compared to 667 full-time employees at the end of Q1 2017.

The full report can viewed here.

—–
Note: The net loss figure was originally published with an incorrect digit. It has since been corrected

Federal Court Agrees, Merchant Cash Advances Not Loans or Usurious

May 13, 2017
Article by:

federal court rulingBy now, numerous judges in the New York Supreme Court have concurred that purchases of future receivables are not loans nor usurious, yet challenges to these contracts continue. In the latest landmark ruling, defendants/counterclaim plaintiffs Epazz, Inc., Cynergy Corporation, and Shaun Passley a/k/a Shaun A. Passley, moved to have the original action involving their merchant cash advance dispute transferred from state court to federal court, perhaps hoping for a different opinion on whether such agreements are usurious.

The law was not on their side. In the Southern District of New York, a federal court, the Honorable Louis L. Stanton echoed on May 9th, 2017, what state judges have been saying all along, that a purchase is not a loan because the purchased receipts are not payable absolutely.

In this case, the “receipts purchased amounts” are not payable absolutely. Payment depends upon a crucial contingency: the continued collection of receipts by Epazz from its customers. TVT [TVT Capital] is only entitled to recover 15% of Epazz’s daily receipts, and if Epazz’s sales decline or cease the receipts purchased amounts might never be paid in full. See counterclaims, Exhs. A-C at 1. The agreements specifically provide that “Payments made to FUNDER in respect to the full amount of the Receipts shall be conditioned upon Merchant’s sale of products and services and the payment therefore by Merchant’s customers in the manner provided in Section 1.1.” Id. at 3 § 1.9.

Defendants’ argument that the actual daily payments ensure that TVT will be paid the full receipts purchased amounts within approximately 61 to 180 business days, id. ¶¶ 33-47, is contradicted by the reconciliation provisions which provide if the daily payments are greater than 15% of Epazz’s daily receipts, TVT must credit the difference to Epazz, thus limiting Epazz’s obligation to 15% of daily receipts. No allegation is made that TVT ever denied Epazz’s request to reconcile the daily payments. TVT’s right to collect the receipts purchased amounts from Epazz is in fact contingent on Epazz’s continued collection of receipts. See Kardovich v. Pfizer, Inc., 97 F. Supp. 3d 131, 140 (E.D.N.Y. 2015), quoting Amidax Trading Grp. v. S.W.I.F.T. SCRL, 671 F.3d 140, 147 (2d Cir. 2011) (“Where a conclusory allegation in the complaint is contradicted by a document attached to the complaint, the document controls and the allegation is not accepted as true”).

None of the defendants’ arguments, Counterclaims ¶¶ 51-109, change the fact that whether the receipts purchased amounts will be paid in full, or when they will be paid, cannot be known because payment is contingent on Epazz generating sufficient receipts from its customers; and Epazz, rather than TVT, controls whether daily payments will be reconciled.

The decision relies heavily on the reconciliation clause common to merchant cash advance agreements, whereby merchants can adjust their daily ACH amounts to correlate with their actual sales activity. This concept is explained at length in the Merchant Cash Advance Basics training course.

Furthermore, the court was incredulous over the defendants’ claim that they actually wanted loans but were instead fraudulently induced into purchase agreements.

Defendants do not claim that they were misled with regard to the amount of their payment obligation, only that they were misled into believing that their repayment obligation would be absolute when it actually is contingent. Their injury from that is unclear.

In short, the judge suggests that entering into a loan would’ve been worse because it was absolutely repayable, whereas the purchase agreement was not. So how could they have been damaged?

The entire decision surrounding all the claims can be downloaded here.

The case is Colonial Funding Network, Inc. as servicing provider for TVT Capital, LLC v. Epazz, Inc. Cynergy Corporation, and Shaun Passley a/k/a Shaun A. Passley in the United States District Court’s Southern District of New York. Case: 1:16-cv-05948-LLS.

Defendants Shaun Passley and Epazz also lost challenges in another merchant cash advance case in the New York Supreme Court.

Are You a Loan Broker? You Need to Be Licensed in Vermont

May 12, 2017
Article by:

Welcome to VermontLoan broker licensing may have gotten stalled in New York, but in Vermont, it’s the law. Governor Phil Scott made H. 182 official on May 4th, regulating everyone engaged in loan solicitation with prospective Vermont borrowers. Specifically this applies to anyone that:

  • offers, solicits, brokers, directly or indirectly arranges, places, or finds a loan for a prospective Vermont borrower;
  • engages in any activity intended to assist a prospective Vermont borrower in obtaining a loan, including lead generation;
  • arranges, in whole or in part, a loan through a third party, regardless of whether approval, acceptance, or ratification by the third party is necessary to create a legal obligation for the third party, through any method, including mail, telephone, Internet, or any electronic means;
  • or advertises or causes to be advertised in Vermont a loan or any of the services described in (i) –(iii). This license does not include the authority to engage in the business of making loans.

The loan solicitation law is separate from a Commercial Lender License, which already requires licensing to solicit business loans under $1 million, as it covers:

  • Any company or person who engages solely in the business of making commercial loans of money, credit, goods, or things in action and charges, contracts for or receives on any such loan interest, a finance charge, discount, or consideration therefore. Commercial loans do not include a loan or extension of credit secured in whole or in part by an owner occupied one-to-four unit dwelling. [Note: The company’s main office must be licensed as a commercial lender prior to, or simultaneously with, the filing of a branch commercial lender license.]
  • Each location, whether located in Vermont or not, desiring to engage in the business of making commercial loans in Vermont must obtain a separate license by filing a Form MU3 through the NMLS.
  • A commercial loan solicited or made by mail, telephone or electronic means to a Vermont business is subject to licensing notwithstanding where the loan is legally made. No person may engage in the business of soliciting or making commercial loans by mail, telephone or electronic means in Vermont unless duly licensed.

Brokers and lead generators should take a good hard look at their marketing since it may not matter if the customer ultimately is referred to a non-lender such as an equipment lessor or a merchant cash advance company if loans are even an option among many.

According to the law, each loan solicitation licensee shall include clearly and conspicuously in all advertisements of loans and solicitations of leads, the following statement:

“THIS IS A LOAN SOLICITATION ONLY. [INSERT LICENSEE NAME] IS NOT THE LENDER. INFORMATION RECEIVED WILL BE SHARED WITH ONE OR MORE THIRD PARTIES IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR LOAN INQUIRY. THE LENDER MAY NOT BE SUBJECT TO ALL VERMONT LENDING LAWS. THE LENDER MAY BE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL LENDING LAWS.”

A loan solicitation license cost $1,100.00 (includes a $500.00 Licensing Fee, a $500.00 Investigation Fee; and the $100 NMLS processing fee), according to the government website.

If you’re sending mailers to Vermont businesses, calling them or even marketing to them on the Internet, you should speak with an attorney about both the loan solicitation license and commercial lenders license first.