Is The “Uber” Of Merchant Cash Advance Actually Uber?
August 15, 2016
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Uber is paying the alternative small-business finance industry a high compliment. The San Francisco based ride-sharing company is offering its drivers some programs that closely resemble merchant cash advances.
New drivers receive part of the advance before they pick up their first fare and the rest soon after that initial ride. Clearbanc, which bills itself as a financial services provider for “the self-employed, freelancers, independent contractors and entrepreneurs,” is putting up the money. As with a merchant cash advance, drivers can choose to pay back the Advance Pay funds by directing a portion of their weekly earnings to Clearbanc, according to a blog by Rachel Holt, an Uber regional manager. In the test the companies are limiting the automatic deductions to no more than 50% of the driver’s weekly paycheck, she said. Participating drivers can still work whatever hours they choose.
If $1,000 isn’t enough to put an aspiring Uber driver on the road, the company has another plan. Through the XChange Leasing program Uber automatically deducts car lease payments from drivers’ weekly income, a company spokesperson said. A number of financial institutions work with the ride-sharing company in the program, according to the Uber website.
Applicants have to agree to what the company calls “a routine screening.” If they’re approved they receive a list of participating local car dealers. The leases are up to three years for new cars valued at as much as $20,000 and used cars worth up to $18,500. Cars can’t be more than seven years old or have more than 75,000 miles. They have to have four doors and five seat belts. Drivers put up a $250 security deposit when they receive the leased car. Typically, they might have 156 payments of $115 each for a 2013 Toyota Corolla or 156 payments of $143 each for a 2016 Corolla. California requires rideshare insurance, and Uber provides it through Farmers Insurance or Mercury Insurance.
Unlike many standard automobile leases, XChange Leasing does not have mileage caps, and drivers can exit the program by giving two weeks notice and paying a $250 “disposition fee,” essentially forfeiting their security deposit, the Uber spokesperson said. For drivers who prefer to own their vehicles, Uber has negotiated fleet discounts with a long list of car manufacturers, the company said. The deals can reportedly bring drivers thousands of dollars in savings over the sticker price of a car. Meanwhile, Uber is testing another foray into financial services. Drivers can use “Instant Pay,” an Uber debit card from Green Dot’s GoBank division, to collect the cash immediately after finishing a ride, according to Holt. The cards don’t require a minimum bank balance and don’t carry any fees, she said.
The company seemed upbeat about its new offerings. “We look forward to seeing how these pilots progress and to making innovative payment solutions more widely available to drivers soon,” Holt said in her blog of Advance Pay and Instant Pay.
But some Uber drivers don’t share that optimistic view. In fact, Advance Pay and XChange Leasing have both come under fire for what critics view as disadvantages for drivers and for the economy as a whole. Some have gone so far as to label the lease terms practices as predatory.
Uber offers Advance Pay only to new drivers, and they could receive just about as much as a signup bonus, according to a blog on UberPeople.net, a website for drivers. The author of the blog speculated that the company is using Advance Pay to eliminate the signup bonus and also to do away with its bonus for referring new drivers.
Drivers have to pay off the advance in 15 weeks, according to the UberPeople blogger. At the rate of 30 cents per mile that drivers receive in Detroit, paying back the $1,000 would require logging 3,333 miles, approximately the distance from New York to California, the blogger lamented. However, Uber pays a lower rate in Detroit than in most cities, according to statements from other drivers.
And although Advance Pay carries no interest, Clearbanc charges drivers a fee of up to $50 if they fail to pay off the advance in 15 weeks, according to published reports.
Complaints also arise with XChange Leasing, according to a website called therideshareguy.com. Dealers sometimes refuse to provide used cars for the program because they can make more money with new cars, according to the site.
If the dealers are willing to provide used cars, problems sometimes surface because XChange Leasing prohibits leasing a used vehicle for more than 105% of its book value, the site said. Cars with a reputation for reliability, such as Toyotas and Hondas, often sell for more than book value, according to the site.
Drivers have reported elsewhere that they feel trapped by the leases, many of them continuing to work for Uber just to make the payments. However, the Uber spokesperson maintained that drivers can leave the program anytime after the first 30 days. Some critics bemoan the spread of subprime auto leases, which they have compared to the subprime mortgage debacle that contributed to the Great Recession that struck in 2008. Uber prefers comparisons to Amazon, a company that has expanded by continuing to enter new businesses.
In general, Uber has met resistance repeatedly from traditional taxi drivers who find their livelihood threatened by the ride-sharing service. Taxi drivers around the world have chided Uber for failing to pay taxes, obtain taxi licenses and uphold safety standards.
Complaints aside, Uber continues to grow prodigiously and now serves riders in more than 400 cities in 70 countries, according to metrics supplied by the Uber spokesperson. Seventy-five percent of Americans live in counties where Uber operates, the spokesperson added. Globally, Uber employs 7,000 workers and 1 million drivers, the company said.
The word “uber” is defined as “denoting an outstanding or supreme example of a particular kind of person or thing, according to a dictionary entry the company sometimes cites. In German, “uber” means “across” or “above.” Many potential riders know the word “uber” from the phrase “Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles,” a line from the German national anthem that translates as “Germany, Germany above all else.” The words to the song were written during Germany’s unification, and the lyrics refer to the idea that allegiance to the nation should trump loyalty to local kingdoms. Maybe Uber should stick with its own definition of “uber.”
California Finance Lenders Law Licensing Compliance for Merchant Cash Advance Financiers
August 2, 2016
Since the Richard B. Clark v. AdvanceMe Inc. class action case settlement was brought to the awareness of the Merchant Cash Advance (“MCA”) industry, many MCAs applied and obtained a California Finance Lenders Law License from the Department of Business Oversight. (“DBO”)
After your company obtains a California Finance Lenders Law license, it will then need to comply with the California Finance Lenders Law. (“CFLL”)
CFLL does not contain specific financial code sections and regulations to regulate MCAs. However, CFLL regulates consumer and commercial loans. So, MCAs licensed under the CFLL will need to comply with the code sections and regulations that apply to commercial loans, assuming that MCAs provide advances that are each “bona fide” $5,000 or more in principal amount and for commercial purposes.
The MCA contract you use when making advances in other states is likely not in compliance with CFLL. CFLL regulation includes without limitation, (either directly or by incorporation of other California and federal laws) the rates and charges, marketing and advertising, disclosures, contractual provisions, electronic transactions, collections, credit applications, default and repossession, brokers and finders, and general operations of main and branch offices.
The CFLL license application requires the MCA company’s principal (corporate officer or LLC manager) to acknowledge on behalf of the MCA company, that it read the contents of and is familiar with the CFLL, and that it agrees to comply with the CFLL.
Lack of compliance can be brought to the attention of DBO’s enforcement officials as a result of either, a customer or competitor complaint, a DBO audit, through the Annual Report that must be filed by CFLL licensees by March 15 of each year, or by other means.
It is important to not only obtain the CFLL license, but to also comply with the CFLL to keep the license. DBO publishes online enforcement actions, such as Desist and Refrain Orders and Accusations. A CFLL licensee has a right to request an administrative hearing to defend itself and present its case. Unfortunately, although the legality of this practice by DBO is questionable, DBO publishes online none-final (and also final) administrative enforcement actions such as Desist and Refrain Orders (“D&Rs”) and Accusations. (publishing of final administrative orders is specifically authorized by the Financial Code but not none-final orders) Potential customers and competitors who review none-final D&Rs, are under the mistaken belief that the D&R is a final order, and may therefore refuse to conduct business with the licensee.
MCAs who are either CFLL licensees or potential licensees should familiarize themselves with CFLL law to avoid administrative enforcement actions, court actions, loss of business, and other adverse repercussions.
Google Adwords Interruption May Be Coming for Business Lending and MCA This Week
July 12, 2016
Get ready for Google to probably misinterpret what you do come July 13th, the day that Google has decided to ban all consumer lenders that charge more than 36% APR or have terms less than 60 days, from paid search advertising. This is according to an announcement Google made back in May, as part of a campaign they’ve suddenly decided to undertake to stop profiting from payday lending.
Nevermind that Google is openly in the payday lending business themselves through their investment in LendUp, a short term lender they made a second massive investment in just a few months before they moved to ban everyone else. And nevermind of course that the CFPB has just extended their enforcement activity to middlemen, most notably by going after T3Leads and its owners for directing borrowers to questionable prospective lenders that pay top dollar, arguably in a similar banner to what Google does with its searchers and its paid payday search results.
Nevermind all that.
Here’s what you might mind. A Google Adwords specialist might have no idea what kind of financial activity you engage in and it could end up costing you. Eight months ago for example, the organic search results lumped merchant cash advance into cash advance, triggering a special box for merchant cash advance seekers that inadvertently (or maybe intentionally) referenced payday loans.
If your Google ads do get suspended this week, the semantics surrounding the term cash advance could create a challenge.
Google wrote that commercial loans are exempt from the ban and that should presumably mean all commercial finance products such as factoring and merchant cash advance. But if they screw up, and in all likelihood they probably will with some companies, be as clear as you can in explaining the commercial nature of your product and how it works.
Because if they don’t get it, you could be banned for life.
Fundry Secures $75 Million Credit Line, Confirming That This Niche Is Still Hot
July 5, 2016
Fundry has secured a new $75 million credit line, according to the company’s CEO Isaac Stern. The transaction was facilitated by Brean Capital and Pi Capital.
Fundry is commonly known by one of their subsidiary companies, Yellowstone Capital. According to a document obtained by deBanked, the company did more than $40 million in deals last month, with the vast majority funded in-house. The positive announcement follows their recent big move from NYC’s financial district to Jersey City, NJ, after being wooed to the state with tax incentives in return for creating jobs.
While confidence has retreated from online consumer lending after the scandals at Lending Club, specialty tech-enabled commercial finance companies, some of whom specialize in merchant cash advance, are still finding enthusiasm from institutional investors. Just over the last three weeks, Bizfi secured a $20 million investment from Metropolitan Equity Partners, Pearl Capital secured $20 million from Arena Investors, and Legend Funding secured a $3 million debt facility from Ango Worldwide. That’s $118 million invested into a very specific niche industry in less than a month.
Fundry alone, facilitated $422 million in funding to small businesses just last year.
Split-Funding MCA and Daily Debit Loans Are Spreading Across the World
July 4, 2016
When banks say no, merchants all over the world are getting funded via non-bank alternatives that resemble products here in the USA. In Hong Kong for example, a special administrative region of China, there are non-bank businesses that offer merchant cash advances and/or daily debit loans.
Having had the opportunity to visit with some of those funders there last week, I was surprised to learn that we spoke the same language. By that I mean that they price deals with factor rates, work with local finance brokers, underwrite files using recent bank statements, do site inspections and more. They even a have decision issued by the highest court in the land that declared merchant cash advances to be purchases, not loans.
Even the pitch is basically the same. “Banks aren’t lending to small businesses,” I heard time and time again in Hong Kong. And that’s probably not going to change any time soon. While the non-bank business financing scene is starting to take off, merchant cash advances in particular have been around there for about seven years already.
Hong Kong’s population is a little less than a third of the size of Australia, where many US-based funders have been expanding to over the last couple years.
Alternative Funders Continue to Look Down Under
June 29, 2016
Add CapRock Services to the growing list of US-based small business funders that have joined the scene in Australia.
CapRock has formed Sprout Funding as part of a joint venture with Sydney-based family office Huntwick Holdings. Together, they will provide small businesses with loans or revenue-based MCA products up to $100,000.
What’s truly unique is that CapRock will actually be underwriting the deals from their Dallas-based office. And they hope to fund $20 million in two key Australian markets in their first year. Luke Schmille, CapRock’s CEO, told the Dallas Business Journal that he believes the Australian market is very similar to the US. “70 percent of the population is employed by small to medium sized businesses,” he said.
Other funders in Australia that have US-backing include Capify, Prospa via Strategic Funding Source, Kikka Capital via Kabbage, and OnDeck.
Last Fall, John de Bree, the managing director of Capify’s Sydney-based office, told deBanked that he was surprised of the American interest in Australia. “The American market’s 15 times the size of ours,” he said.
One of his competitors, Lachlan Heussler, managing director of Spotcap Australia, was not so shocked. “This is a market that will evolve over time, and we think the opportunity is enormous,” he said.
In an email, CapRock’s Schmille, wrote that they were excited about the expansion abroad.
Bizfi Secures Additional $20 Million Financing
June 28, 2016Small business capital marketplace Bizfi has secured a $20 million investment from New York-based investment manager Metropolitan Equity Partners, supplementing the $65 million infusion in December last year.
Bizfi said this capital will be used to expand and optimize its funding programs and develop an effective marketing campaign to advertise those better.
“Our relationship has deepened over the past few months and when the opportunity to raise additional capital presented itself, MEP was the most logical partner,” said Stephen Sheinbaum, Bizfi founder.
Bizfi has so far crossed $1.7 billion in financing to more than 30,000 small businesses since 2005 with partners like OnDeck, Funding Circle and Kabbage.
Merchant Cash Advance is Not a Loan in Hong Kong
June 26, 2016
It’s not just the New York Supreme Court system upholding the sanctity of merchant cash advances where future receivables are sold for cash up front. In Hong Kong, Global Merchant Funding Limited was charged criminally by the Secretary for Justice for conducting business as a money lender without a license.
The Secretary argued that the Merchant Cash Advance contract was really just a loan in disguise. The court disagreed and dismissed the charges. Government prosecutors appealed the decision to the Court of First Instance, where the future of the product in Hong Kong hung in the balance.
The issue, according to the judiciary brief was one of categorization: whether the relevant transactions should be categorized as loans or as purchases of receivables under the Money Lenders Ordinance.
As a criminal case, the Court reviewed the matter seriously, acknowledging that there could be a chilling effect on commercial activity if the verdict were to be overturned and the defendant found guilty.
The prosecution argued that such receivables purchased did not actually exist:
“The Purchased Amount does not represent a debt due from any customer or other third party, including the credit card processor, but is an amount in respect of which the merchant is the only primary obligor and the guarantees given to GMF are guarantees of the merchant’s own liability and not are guarantees for the performance of any debt or obligation that has been sold.”
The court rejected this argument on the basis that such receivables were not defined by the agreement as the prosecution tried to define them:
The expression “Purchased Amount” is defined as “The total amount of the Future Receivables sold by the [merchant] to [GMF]” to be “collected by [GMF] through the deduction of a specified percentage of the [merchant’s] periodic batch settlements from the [Processor]”. […] The receivables consisting of credit card settlement payments to be made by the Processor, are assignable choses in action. In consideration of the Purchase Price received, the merchant bound itself irrevocably to instruct the Processor to pay to GMF directly the Split Settlement amounts upon processing each batch settlement until GMF had collected sums totaling the Purchased Amount. Such instruction was duly given by the merchant. This constituted an equitable assignment of the relevant sums which took effect as and when they came into existence.
Ultimately, the Court decided that even if the economic outcome of the transaction was not distinguishable from a loan with interest, it was not a loan in legal substance and effect and is therefore not covered by the Money Lenders Ordinance.
For these reasons the Secretary’s appeal was dismissed, but the prosecution appealed it even further.
In May 2016, in the Court of Final Appeal, Global Merchant Funding Limited’s contract was once again upheld as not a loan.
The Court held that the MLO’s definition of a “loan” to include “every agreement (whatever its terms or form may be) which is in substance or effect a loan of money” must be understood to be referring to an agreement which has the legal substance or effect of a loan and not an agreement with such an economic or commercial substance or effect. The Courts will only look beyond the agreement between the parties when the agreement is a sham, which was not the case in this appeal.
So decided, merchant cash advances structured in such a way as these contracts are not loans in Hong Kong.






























