The Broker’s Future: Are The Good Times Over?

As we continue the Year Of The Broker discussion, we must take an honest look at The Future. Due to the low barrier to entry into our space, there isn’t a week that goes by that I don’t see another recruiting ad informing the reader that all they need is a heartbeat, a UCC list, and an industry list of SIC Codes to make big money in our space. But is everything really as rosey as promoted, or if you are a new broker, should you consider investing your capital (time, energy, money and mental health) in another industry?

The Past

To understand The Future, sometimes we have to look at The Past. Instead of a year of the broker, there was instead an actual era of the Broker, and that was from 2000 to about 2013:

(( 2000 – 2007 ))

Few firms offered a “Merchant Cash Advance” as either a direct sell or value add, and very few merchants were receiving telephone solicitations in regards to the having “working capital” other than those involved in the Equipment Leasing or A/R Factoring sectors. While the market was wide open, most merchants wouldn’t entertain an advance for 6 months with a 1.25 – 1.30 factor rate when banks were lending pretty well at much lower borrowing costs.

(( 2008 to 2013 ))

When the economy and markets took a downturn in 2008 creating The Great Recession, and banks halted most of their lending to small business applicants, the Merchant Cash Advance product was more aggressively sold by the pioneers of the industry through their Merchant Processing ISO relationships, direct selling, online advertisements, and more. The pioneers also introduced risk based pricing and premium priced products, allowing them to appeal to the higher credit graded merchants who were finally entertaining the product due to banks not lending as efficiently as previously. The pioneers also introduced multiple formats of repayment including through ACH, which allowed them to service merchants that they couldn’t tie the repayment to their merchant processing volume due to the merchant’s inability to switch or the merchant’s low monthly processing volume.

Awareness of the Merchant Cash Advance skyrocketed, hundreds of millions in equity capital began pouring in, major media outlets such as CNBC gave the product coverage, and annually the industry was funding over $1 Billion to small business applicants.

This boom period also started the trend of new lenders and brokers popping into the industry overnight using mainly the same marketing strategies such as UCC Lists, SEO, PPC, Bankcard Portfolio Marketing, and Cold Calling Various SIC Codes. These strategies worked in a decent fashion until the flood of new direct lenders and brokers coming into the industry continued, with these new entrants using mainly the same strategies. Profits were being driven down, new client acquisitions were being driven down, and because a funder’s UCC filings were being called so much, they decided to begin filing them under fake names or only filing them on riskier merchants, or never filing a UCC at all. Also most of the Online Marketing methods became too expensive, pricing the little guy out of the market.

The Future

Now we are in 2015 and new broker entrants are mainly using the exact same strategies from 2008 – 2013, discovering that UCC lists and Cold Calling SIC Codes just will not work efficiently going forward. The Future of profitability and new client acquisition in our space is going to be through Strategic Partnerships. There are three sections of your Strategic Partnerships and they are your Professional Network, Mom and Pop Network, and Online Network.

• Professional Network – The creation of a professional network from referrals such as Banks, Credit Unions, Accountants, Business Brokers, Merchant Processing ISOs, etc., to bring in a high amount of consistent leads of small business applicants who are currently seeking capital.

• Mom and Pop Network – The creation of an external independent broker channel that includes hundreds of random brokers that you sign up to resell your services. You would use the same tongue and cheek, everything is rosey, recruiting ads that I see every week just to get a rush of people on the telephone making cold calls to SIC codes, trying to compete in online marketing, or calling the remains of UCC lists, all with the dream of making a lucrative payday. The volume produced on an individualized basis will be so small it’s irrelevant, but as a collective, they will make up a major chunk of volume. This why I call these sources Mom and Pop.

• Online Network – This is your SEO, PPC, High Traffic Website Ads, and other online advertising methods. These methods will become more expensive going forward and only those with large marketing budgets will be able to truly capitalize in this area with positioning, listings, etc.

Summary

Our space is changing and new broker entrants might want to reconsider investing their capital (time, energy, money and mental health) into this venture. Only direct lenders with team members that were pioneers of this space as well as with the right networks and equity sources, are capable of truly seizing The Future. Those just now trying to come in and ride the wave will soon discover that just like with the Stock Market, the real money has already been made and most of the future returns are already capitalized. As a new broker, you more than likely will fall into that dreaded Mom and Pop category, which isn’t a good position to be in for The Future.

The Co-brokering Phenomenon: In Business Loans & Merchant Cash Advance

Meet the broker’s broker, the middleman serving the middleman. Some call this co-brokering since both parties will typically share in the commission.

Wait, what?

The broker’s broker might have relationships that the little broker does not. They could have leverage over their funding partners because of the amount of volume they can produce or the amount of professionalism they bring to the table. And they likely have a canny ability to close deals that otherwise would get tossed by the wayside.

Disintermediation is the war cry of today’s famous tech-based lenders but in the Year of the Broker, reintermediation has been the unforeseen byproduct. Big lenders such as OnDeck are shedding third party funding advisors but those advisors aren’t magically going away.

A number of them are still getting their deals funded at OnDeck, just indirectly. They have to go through a broker whom OnDeck has not cut off, a handful of salespeople have told me. Many brokers acknowledge that OnDeck’s rates and terms are not easily attainable elsewhere so they’d rather share a commission with an OnDeck approved broker than risk a dead deal with no commission.

And CAN Capital is known to offer comparable pricing to OnDeck but it’s been reported that new brokers must go through a rigorous audit before CAN will accept their business. It’s not something everybody wants to go through.

With the two largest funders in the industry imposing real barriers to doing business with them, sanctioned brokers play toll booth operator for the swarm of shops that can’t get their deals submitted without them.

Perhaps as a direct result of that, there is now an entire niche of brokers whose only business is brokering deals for other brokers. They have little to no interaction with merchants. They have no marketing budget. They might not even have a website. And they play an almost mystical role of gatekeeper and power broker.

Onesy-twosy woes

A strong focus within the industry has been growth. There’s a lot of time, resources, and salesmanship that goes into courting the lucrative partnerships. Large funders, especially those with VC backing, are typically not interested in mom and pop broker shops. “If they’re only going to send one or two deals per month, we don’t want them,” I’ve heard time and time again.

Even five to ten deals a month can draw yawns. It’s nothing particularly against the mom and pop brokers, but experience has apparently shown them that the same amount of resources are spent on the onesy-twosy brokers as the ones doing a hundred deals a month. The cost benefit analysis has to make sense, they say.

That’s left hundreds or perhaps even thousands of mom and pop brokers to fend for themselves. What outsiders might not seem to realize is that the commission on a $50,000 loan or advance can be $5,000. That’s potentially enough for a stay-at-home parent to pay for the rent, groceries, and all the other bills. A onesy-twosy broker might be completely insignificant to a funder doing a billion dollars worth of deals a year, but to a mom and pop broker, it only takes one deal to pay their bills and only a handful to make them rich, especially if they live in middle America where the cost of living is cheaper.

In From Lowes to Loans, superstar broker William Ramos said he made $66,000 on just one deal alone. While his shop produces more than a million dollars in deal flow a month, it’s easy to see what’s drawing the hoards of newbies in. A $66,000 commission might be the only commission someone needs for an entire year.

There is no licensing required so becoming a broker is as easy as imagining that you are one. And as the space invites the less knowledgeable, a more sinister element has found opportunity as well.

Shady

“There is no president/ruler of the MCA world that can help you with your commission debacles,” wrote PSC’s Amanda Kingsley on an industry forum. That was part of her reply to a thread titled, co-brokering scumbags. The thread might be new, but the circumstances aren’t. A broker sent their deal to another broker who got the deal closed with a funder. The original broker supposedly got screwed out of the commission.

It’s a case of stolen deals. “You just have to find the right people to work with. There are a lot of shady characters in this industry,” wrote another user.

1st Capital Loans Managing Member John Tucker, who recently authored, Broker Business Planning, wrote in reply to the thread, “Get everything in writing and research your lender/partner heavily before contracting with them. Talk to other brokers and ask them about their experience with said lender/partner in terms of paying on new deals, renewals and residuals. Get a ‘feel’ for them.”

Several faulted the aggrieved party for not taking the time to hammer out a contract that would allow them to rectify the situation easily through a lawsuit. But even with a contract, pursuing the offender legally could cost more than the commission lost. A stolen deal might cost a broker a few hundred or a few thousand dollars, figures worthy of small claims court.

“Under no circumstances would I ever co-broker a deal,” wrote Tucker. “There’s just no reason to unless you are a newbie and getting trained by said broker.”

But another user wrote, “Sometimes you don’t even know you are co-brokering until after the fact.”

Unscrupulous brokers will be purposely deceitful but for others walking the thin line between broker and funder, it’s difficult to judge what constitutes direct. There are brokers that wholeheartedly believe that if any portion of their own funds are invested in a deal, then they too are a direct funder. That means a broker that syndicates with a variety of funders could be so inclined to identify themselves as a direct funder by extension.

Kingsley wrote, “You have to understand what a ‘broker’ is in this space and understand that it is A LOT different than brokering in another industry.”

She also pointed out that it’s not always the little guy that’s susceptible to becoming a victim, as could be the case if an early deal default leads to a commission chargeback. When that happens, the funder will take back the full commission on the deal from the broker of record. It’s the responsibility of that broker to claw back whatever split of the commission they shared with the sub-broker.

“The broker you sub-brokered for, can vanish,” Kingsley wrote.

Ban the bad guys?

Several industry veterans have suggested creating an ISO/funder blacklist for those that steal commissions or deals. The challenge is that a stolen deal is not always a black and white situation. Often times there are expiration dates built into contracts that allow funders to claim deals if they have not been closed by the submitting broker within a specified period of time. Other times it’s a case of miscommunication, or the victim conveniently left out key details that would certainly add a degree of color to the situation.

Calling out an offender online can quickly devolve into a he said/she said schoolyard brawl. Unfortunately, this might be the only remedy a victim has, especially if they have limited financial resources to pursue legally, or the only evidence of their deal is a handshake or an email.

The bad guys, if they’re engaged in trickery on a large scale, tend to get identified rather quickly. There’s always a few that come in, burn a lot of bridges, and then find themselves completely ostracized from the industry. When the damage is done, they might never be heard from again or they might try to repeat the process by using a different name. Blacklisting a broker or funder wouldn’t be foolproof, especially if the company owner legally changes their name, which has actually happened before.

Trust

Through it all, Tucker offered this advice, “In a nutshell, the only true thing protecting your compensation is a very good relationship with an honest, credible and ethical lender.”

And if you have to go through a broker, make sure you choose the right one. Don’t blindly send your deal to somebody you met on a message board. An unscrupulous player will tell you exactly what you want to hear. Ask around for references. If nobody’s ever heard of them, chances are you’re talking to the wrong shop.

Even the author of that thread conceded that co-brokering offers benefits. “I’m all for co-brokering deals, especially if someone has a solution that may suit the client better than a traditional MCA or when an MCA wont work,” he wrote.

So there just may be a place for the broker’s broker, whether as a gatekeeper, power broker, or toll booth operator. And like it or not, reintermediation has ironically become a byproduct of disintermediation. There are sadly no algorithms that exist to vet how a broker might treat another broker. Co-brokering is a trade that relies on the most basic of basics, trust.

Nothing’s more valuable.

Write for deBanked

Missed your calling? deBanked is looking to hire a journalist to keep up with the industry’s explosive growth.

This is a paid work-from-home opportunity. Freelancers are welcome, but we’re open to an exclusive arrangement as well. You cannot be employed or contracted with a funder/lender or similar business however. You must have excellent writing skills, communication skills, and at least a fundamental understanding of the industry.

The role involves phone and email interviews with industry executives and writing for our blog, magazine, and newsletters. There may occasionally be face-to-face interviews.

Contact sean@debanked.com if interested.
—-
Established in 2010, deBanked covers the alternative finance ecosystem, with topics ranging from peer-to-peer lending to bitcoin to merchant cash advance financing.