SoFi Bank Puts ILC Charter in Spotlight
June 28, 2017
Online lender SoFi’s decision to apply for a bank charter has snagged the attention of alternative lenders, big and small banks and regulators alike. Market participants appear split between cheering the move and drawing a line in the sand. One thing they agree on is that the signs were there all along.
Christopher Cole, executive vice president and senior regulatory counsel at the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) said it was only a matter of time.
“We were expecting the application from a fintech company to come eventually and it came pretty rapidly,” Cole told AltFinanceDaily. “What was surprising to me was that they took the ILC route as opposed to the OCC special purpose national bank charter.”
As a Utah-chartered industrial bank SoFi would be subject to the regulation of the FDIC. There have not been any ILC applications for deposit insurance in years in part due to a temporary moratorium that Dodd Frank placed on the ILC loophole following the financial crisis, a roadblock that has since been removed.
Richard Hunt, president and CEO of the Consumer Bankers Association (CBA), said that SoFi’s application was certainly not a shock.
“The whole world is evolving, fintech is evolving. This was inevitable one way or another,” Hunt told AltFinanceDaily, adding that there will probably be more applications coming down the pike, which he welcomes. “We’re glad more people are getting into banking. SoFi at one time railed against banks and now it wants to get into banking. Welcome to the world of banks and overregulation.”
The CBA is comprised of the country’s largest financial institutions as well as regional banks.
“This is the first true test of the FDIC in a new fintech world,” said Hunt, adding that it’s the duty of the FDIC to ensure that SoFi Bank is well capitalized. “That is part of the application process.”
The ICBA is comprised of approximately 6,000 small banks across $5 trillion in assets.
“This would actually create a risk to the deposit insurance system. An ILC would have deposit insurance from the FDIC. If SoFi Bank fails because parent SoFi can’t maintain it, the rest of the banking system must pay for it. They’re putting the banking industry at risk here,” said Cole.
And while the rise of fintech startups has created more competition for banks, neither trade organization has a problem with this.
“We’re not trying to keep fintech from competing, that’s not the case,” said Cole.
Meanwhile Hunt told of his trip to Silicon Valley in which he visited SoFi as well as many other fintech startups.
“I’ve always been a big fan of SoFi, especially after visiting. I’m head over heels they chose banking as their industry. We’re gloating that they want to join the banking industry. This is good for consumers, to have choices. We are not going to be afraid of SoFi joining the banking world. We welcome them to the banking world,” said Hunt, adding that banks are ready to compete as long as it’s fair.
Fair is precisely what the ICBA is seeking.
Level Playing Field
There are about 30 existing ILCs in existence now and thousands of insured banks. And SoFi’s use of the ILC charter is the ICBA’s main objection.
“It’s the fact that they’re using this loophole so that SoFi, the parent company of SoFi Bank the subsidiary, will not be subject to the same kind of restrictions that the owner of a commercial bank would. And therefore, you don’t have a level playing field,” said Cole.
The ICBA is also concerned that a successful SoFi ILC charter would set a precedent for other fintech firms.
“Who’s next? I could see Amazon trying to do this and waiting for SoFi to do it first. Who knows? I could see maybe Google and PayPal pursuing this. I could see some big commercial companies exploiting this loophole, and that is why we think it should be closed,” said Cole.
Meanwhile CBA’s Hunt sees things somewhat differently. He said SoFi’s application represents an opportunity for bank regulators to review the ILC in a new world environment and possibly make changes.
“No one envisioned when they wrote the ILC charter that we would have fintech companies that finance mortgages and student loans from private equity capital and not deposits. It’s a new world. Like with all rules and regulations, federal regulators should periodically review longstanding policy,” Hunt said.
Either way the influence of the banking sector should not be overlooked.
“We have been fighting the ILC charter for over a decade. When Walmart tried to apply for an ILC charter in 2006 we objected at that point. And that resistance was part of the reason why they never got a charter,” said Cole.
SoFi Bank
The ICBA is preparing commentary for the FDIC, which is due by July 18. “Our comments will be focused mostly on the use of the ILC charter,” said Cole.
Once the comments are in, the ball is in the FDIC’s court. “We’re anticipating that a decision will be made in the next two to three months. We should know by the end of this year whether or not SoFi Bank gets its charter and deposit insurance,” said Cole.
If SoFi does become a bank, Hunt says he’s pleased that the fintech company has expanded its lending beyond only the elite universities though he’s still not sure they’ve gone far enough. “If they are granted the ILC charter, every student should have fair access to SoFi’s products just as they do with every other bank in this country,” said Hunt.
SoFi declined to comment for this story.
Does Fintech Have a Distinctively British Accent? – From Congressman McHenry’s Speech
April 1, 2017Regulation around technology-enabled lending has generally been a point of contention in the US. Even regulators are finding themselves at odds with other regulators, like the OCC vs. the NYDFS for example. Might relationships like these be contributing to America’s innovative decline?
At LendIt last month, Congressman Patrick McHenry (R-NC) said, “Is it any wonder that Fintech has a distinctively British accent these days? It’s good reason. We have regulatory competition around the globe, but we don’t have the right regulatory competition here in the United States. And while we have a patchwork of conflicting, and overlapping, and confusing regulations, in places like the U.K., they’re creating an entire ecosystem of financial innovation and allowing it to flourish. And they become the model for the rest of the world and the intellectual property center for the rest of the globe when it should be here in the United States.”
Forward-looking regulation has helped a nation like Kenya make the movement of money cheaper in their country than it costs to move money here, McHenry said. “They’ve moved generations ahead overnight,” he exclaimed.
If you haven’t seen the video, check it out below:
Or you can read the full text from our transcription of it:
“And thank you all for being here. This is a wonderful celebration on, you know, a stereotypical February or March day here in New York. Cold as can be. Good to be inside. But thank you for taking the time to gather. The work that you’re about improves the American economy, gives more options for my constituents and for the citizens across this great country of ours, and gives them better options and opportunities to make decisions for themselves and put power back into their hands in a very competitive environment.
In fact, it’s really liberating to be out of D.C. especially at moments like this. You don’t know what the latest news story is gonna be or the latest tweet, so good to talk about something meaningful over the long run. And the reason why I’m here is because my focus legislatively has been around utilizing technology for innovative forms of finance.
I came about this in a very simple way that’s relatable to other people. But you know, the idea of Fintech, in 10 years, in 20 years, the term “Fintech” will be scoffed at kind of the way that we scoff at how they described Amazon 20 years ago. They said it was an e-Commerce site, that it was a webpage. Right? And we laugh at people that would describe it that way today. Every company that’s in the retail space has an e-Commerce site. Everyone is competing in this new form that Amazon represented the new wave of 20 years ago. So, the term “Fintech” may be much like referring to something as not a website, but a webpage. And in time, the way people are interacting with the banking system is going to continue to change in fundamentally different ways.
It’s exciting to think about how consumers and small businesses across America are gonna find these new ways to access capital over the next generation. And you all are at the forefront of that. And at D.C., I’ve tried to lead the change of that change in mindset. And you know, this is not only about helping Fintech companies, but also about fundamentally altering how regulators interact with innovative companies. And so, the focus on lending, helping families access capital as I said in the beginning, I came to it in a very natural way.
I saw my father start a small business as a child. When I was a child, the youngest of 5 kids, I saw my father start a business in the backyard mowing grass. Very simple, relatable thing. Most of us have mowed grass at some point in our life. And my father started that small business in our backyard and he used the great financial innovation of his time to buy his second piece of equipment, which he put on a MasterCharge. Great financial innovation and that helped him start a small business.
Now, that small business didn’t change the world, but it changed my brother’s and sister’s lives and put the 5 of us through college. That’s a meaningful thing and that is the American dream as my father defined it and as I define it. Now, that’s not creating Facebook. It’s not this other sort of revolution of internet technology, but it certainly made a huge difference in our community and for our family.
So, how did we utilize technology and help those small businesses like my father access and grow? The plight of small business in America though right now is real. The next generation of small business owners are struggling to get off the ground. The facts are that small business loans used to make up a majority of bank balance sheets. Now, 20 years— Well, in 1995, they were majority of the bank balance sheets. Now, it’s 20% of bank balance sheets.
Now, you also see small town America, which used to lead the country in small business starts, small counties, small communities across the country have lagged. So, smaller counties used to lead the nation in new businesses even as late as the 1990s, mid `90s. But just in this decade alone, small counties have lost businesses. U.S. counties with 100,000 people or fewer residents lost more businesses than they created. We see stagnation among small business owners and small business starts. This is why Fintech is so vital and so important. Technology is the only way to ensure that we spread and democratize capital outside of Austin, Boston, Silicon Valley, and New York.
How do we get the rest of the country, small town America, and even the urban areas that don’t get the focus and attention? And so, I think the power of harnessing big data is gonna fundamentally change the way we look at debt. It’s already happening. And you’re the leaders of it. Instead of relying on the credit score, which was a great innovation in the 1970s, fixed the problem in the 1970s, today, companies are using big data to better understand who will and who should qualify for loans. And what we’re discovering is that the way we help people out of debt is by understanding the data behind the debt.
Look at the way technology is fundamentally changing lives and places like Kenya. Think of this. In Kenya, the phone, your smartphone, our smartphone is that way to financial inclusion in Kenya. The movement of money cheaper in Kenya than it is here because of this simple device. It’s more powerful in that jurisdiction than in ours because of regulation and forward-looking regulation. And instead of loading buses filled with luggage that’s filled with cash in moving money in Kenya, they’re now doing it through a fast transfer over their mobile device. They’ve moved generations ahead overnight. And in fact, in many ways, they’re leading the world in Fintech deployment. So, we’re living in a new and exciting era in financial services. It’s actually matched the best interest of consumer protection with the demands of global smartphone-led revolution that we, as consumers, are driving. Now, that’s what’s happening in the real world.
So, let me translate back to you what is happening in the analog world of Washington. D.C. The regulatory challenges of Fintech are real. It’s major in Washington. We have a diversity of regulators. That’s certainly part of our American system. And that’s not gonna change any time soon. So, what is the current landscape? If you are in Fintech and you wanna make sure you’re complying with financial laws and regulations, where do you go? Who do you ask? Who do you talk to? Is there an open door in Washington? Do you know who your regulator is? Do you know who your regulator should be? Do they meet with you? Are they willing to meet with you? What’s your legal and compliance cost before you even get a product hashed out? These are major things you have to wrestle with in starting your businesses or growing your businesses. So, believe it or not, the difficult question is who do you talk to in Washington? And there is no simple answer. And because there’s so little clarity on which regulator to go to, often there’s even less clarity of how the underlying laws or regulations are being enforced by that regulator in this new marketplace.
And so, this is the hidden secret of Washington. The regulators themselves are so behind when it comes to understanding technology that they themselves do not really know how to apply regulation to innovations in Fintech. They just simply do not know. And trust me, I realize this as a legislator. 5 years ago, I helped craft what is called the JOBS Act. I wrote a piece of the JOBS Act. It resulted in 14 pages of legislative text around investment crowdfunding. 14 pages of legislative text. 3 years later, the Securities and Exchange Commission wrote 700 pages of regulation around my 14 pages of law. And if you are all involved in investment crowdfunding under Title 3 of the JOBS Act,— three of you, right— there will be a lot more had they written good regulation and actually complied with the mindset of Congress when we passed the JOBS Act.
So, I see this when regulators don’t actually know how to meet the demands of innovation and what’s happening in this information revolution that we have. And so, as a result, America is actually falling further behind the rest of the world. And unlike other areas of the world, which have created regulatory sandboxes for banks and technology companies to innovate and find a light-touch regulation, here in Washington or there in Washington, regulators are struggling to adapt.
And is it any wonder that Fintech has a distinctively British accent these days? It’s good reason. We have regulatory competition around the globe, but we don’t have the right regulatory competition here in the United States. And while we have a patchwork of conflicting, and overlapping, and confusing regulations, in places like the U.K., they’re creating an entire ecosystem of financial innovation and allowing it to flourish. And they become the model for the rest of the world and the intellectual property center for the rest of the globe when it should be here in the United States.
Well, while we’re all trying to figure out whether or not virtual currencies are more like property or money here in the United States, top countries around the world are using digital currency to move payment platforms overnight, change payment platforms, make it cheaper, more affordable to move funds for the smallest and the biggest. So, while the world’s rapidly adopting new financial technology to expand the middle class, our country’s regulators have created capital deserts here in the United States in rural and in urban areas. We understand the notion of an urban food desert. If you can get good food that is close to your home in an urban area, you can actually feed your children wholesome meals. We understand that. That’s a big discussion. Well, likewise, we’re starving off small business innovators in urban areas and let’s say less desirable zip codes in urban areas and less desirable zip codes in rural areas. And so, we’re starving off opportunity and that has a result in small business starts and the rise from the turn in the economy from those that are living on the margins to those that move up to the upper middle class and upper class based off being starved from capital.
We have to fix that. Fintech is the solution, but the regulation has to change. And that is something that I’ve been focused on over the last 6 years. And I think we have a trilogy of good ideas that I would submit to you this morning. First is let me just tell you my mindset in regulating and legislating. And to borrow from startup culture, the bills that I try to focus on are minimal viable bill. It’s a simple idea.
One idea that focuses on solving a discrete problem. Something in the marketplace that needs a regulatory fix in order to flourish. And it will help the greatest number of people and have the greatest impact on tech companies, bank startups, and small business folks and families. So, looking at the headache test, one of the areas of interaction with the government that’s creating unnecessary delay is the IRS not having a piece of technology that will allow people to verify income data.
And so, as a result of that, I’ve — legislation that is called the IRS Data Verification Modernization Act, 45060 for those of you who are in the game on this, but it simply will do this. It will automate a bottleneck manual process that is utilized via e-mail and fax with the IRS in verifying basic information that you, as lenders, need to allow mortgages, student debt, refinancing, and small business loans. It’s the taxpayer’s information. You pay for the service to verify it. We should have better service rather than the shoddy service IRS is currently giving you. You should be able to get this in an instant with an API rather than getting something faxed to you in 7 to 10 days. It’s absurd that the IRS can’t update and we’re gonna force them to update.
Our second bill, it goes directly to returning consistent uniform systems for our capital markets, which I believe is a fundamental thing in our 50-state regime with a variety of regulators. We have to have some base level of understanding on what is valid. And the bill is simple. It codifies the Valid-When-Made Doctrine that we’ve had in this country for nearly 100 years. And that was an established legal precedent prior to the Second Circuit Court’s decision in the Madden case. Madden versus Midland. And our view is the Second Circuit’s opinion was unprecedented. It’s created uncertainty for Fintech companies, banks, and the credit markets; making credit less available and more expensive. So, the simple fix is returning to the Valid-When-Made Doctrine. Congress under our constitutional system has the right to make this very clear to the courts of our intention when we pass the original law and nothing has changed when it comes to this. And this is the second bill that I’ll be pushing this year.
And finally, a third piece of legislation that is broader in discussion and it’s the Financial Services Innovation Act. This bill creates a new paradigm for regulators in Washington. It says in a first of a kind way, it forces regulators to meet the demands of rapid innovation in financial services. Instead of the old analog version of command and control regulation that’s messy and rigid based off of opinion, not fact, my bill requires agencies of jurisdiction to create offices of innovation that will engage with entrepreneurs and provide a regulatory on-ramp for financial innovation. It basically forces all the regulators, all the financial regulators to create a new door for financial innovation. A welcoming door. Come in with your ideas. Let’s talk about regulations that can enable this technology to flourish. And in getting data in return, the agency would be in permanent beta testing mode, which would give them data to prove out consumer benefit or consumer harm. It will give them data to adopt the whole footprint of regulation in all these financial regulators.
Now, that is a major mindset shift for our financial regulators, a major mindset shift for any regulator in our American system of governance. But with thorough analysis, I believe that innovators will be better off in this regime when you have data that is driving the decision making of regulators and regulators driving decisions that are informed rather than opinion based.
Now, saying that we’re gonna base our politics off of fact these days is its own enormous political challenge, but I think it’s important that we all agree facts are important things and we should base our decision-making solely on that set of facts in order to do the right thing for our country, the right thing for our economy, right thing for families, right thing for small business starts. So, permanent beta testing involves continuously evolving, testing, and proving. It’s what you do everyday as innovators.
Now, those are 3 major pieces of legislation that can have an impact, but the mindset in Washington is much— Well, it’s much different than you might think. Legislators are eager for new ideas, for new information. They’re eager to hear what you are about and what you’re doing. And given the nature and the speed of innovation, you have an obligation to be engaged in Washington. If you’re not engaged in Washington, Washington is still gonna be engaged in what you do. You’re just gonna get worse rather than better. So, if you inform decision makers you have data to backup what you’re expressing, what you’re advocating for, we’re gonna be better off, but you all in your pitches, right, have to— The basic startup pitch, you’ve got to answer one question. Why now? Why now? I think American financial innovation is at an inflection point. I really do. We’ll either lead the world in the next few years or we’re gonna be left behind. It’s our choice. It’s our choice. And it’s time that regulators treat innovation no longer as a threat, but as an opportunity to consumers. It’s time to recognize that regulators need to recognize— I think it’s time that they recognize that consumer protection and innovation are not mutually exclusive. Now, that’s the reason why it’s now, but it’s not gonna happen unless you engage in Washington and make your voices heard. You’ve gotta make your voices heard in order to get the results we need so we can have innovation flourish in this country, that we can be the market leader for the world, that we can be an exporter of these ideas rather than having to export ourselves to different markets in order to take that data and that mindset and deploy those resources globally.
Let’s make sure that we can lead this market to better and greater things. With your engagement, we can. Without your engagement, we’re gonna be left behind. So please, please engage in Washington. Make your voices heard. And with your voices being heard, I think we can have change for the better. So, thank you for your leadership. Thank you for the opportunity to be here with you. God bless.”
Managing Risk in Small Business Lending
March 16, 2017
Two years ago, I left a promising career at PayPal, a major technology giant, for what some considered a risky move: I joined BlueVine, a young fintech startup. My title: vice president of risk.
This year, I took on an even bigger role when I was named chief risk officer of the Silicon Valley company, which offers working capital financing to small and medium-sized businesses.
My promotion comes at a time when risk is becoming a bigger concern in fintech, which is ushering in big changes in banking and financial services.
Fintech revolutionizes financial services
Data science technology has dramatically improved access to financing and the way we manage our money. The fintech wave that began with my former company, PayPal, and the world of payments, has spread to other aspects of personal finance, from mortgages to student and auto loans to investing.
This expansion was accompanied by growing concern that the fintech boom is fraught with risks that, if left unchecked, could lead to a major bust in the financial services industry that could in turn cause harm to the broader economy.
In a speech in January, Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, cited the need to “ensure that fintech develops in a way that maximises the opportunities and minimises the risks for society.” “After all, the history of financial innovation is littered with examples that led to early booms, growing unintended consequences, and eventual busts,” he said.
Risk management as key to success
Risk management certainly has been a focus area for BlueVine from the beginning.
BlueVine joined the revolution in small business financing in 2014 when it rolled out an innovative online invoice factoring platform.
Factoring is a 4,000-year old financing system that allows small businesses to get advances on their unpaid invoices by providing easy, convenient access to working capital. BlueVine transformed what had been a slow, clunky, paper-based solution into a flexible and convenient online financing system that enables entrepreneurs to plug cash flow gaps that often hamper business growth.
Because the BlueVine platform is based on cutting-edge data science technology that can process and analyze information to make quick funding decisions, managing risk inevitably became a major challenge in building our business. As Eyal Lifshiftz, our founder and CEO, recalled in a recent column, in BlueVine’s first month of operation, almost every other borrower defaulted.
In fact, that was partly the reason Eyal invited me to join his team. BlueVine serves small and medium-sized businesses seeking substantial working capital financing of up to $2 million. To succeed, we needed to build a robust data and risk infrastructure.
Small startup with big data needs
Joining BlueVine also posed a personal challenge.
At PayPal, where I started as a fraud analyst and then moved into the company’s data science division where I helped develop behavior-based risk models, I had enormous amounts of data to work with to do my job. Now, I was joining a young startup with very limited data history, but with big data needs.
This meant putting together exceptional and experienced teams of data scientists and underwriters and developing a technology that becomes progressively more precise and accurate as it draw lessons from our steadily expanding data and underwriting decisions. It was important for us to have a group of super smart, highly-motivated and technologically-strong people working closely with a team of experienced and sharp underwriters.
Here’s how the process works: Our underwriters develop a robust methodology which is then translated into detailed logic decision trees.
Each decision tree includes dozens, even hundreds of branches, made up of question sets on different underwriting situations.
For example, a decision tree could focus on approving new clients coming from a specific industry, such as transportation or construction, or on increasing the credit line for a client with a specific financial profile.
A typical decision tree would drill down on further financial questions: What’s the expected cash-flow of the business in three to six months? What’s the pace at which it has accumulated debt over the past year? Are the business sales seasonal in a material way?
The questions could also focus on non-financial areas: Does the company’s website look professional? How does it compare with major companies in its industry? Does the business actively maintain its Facebook and Twitter accounts?
The goal is to build a risk infrastructure that steadily becomes more efficient in answering questions in an automated, large-scale and highly accurate manner. Our data scientists leverage multiple external data sources and use dynamic advanced machine learning models to answer these questions pretty much in real-time and with a high degree of accuracy.
So it’s a combination of technology and human input. There will always be gray areas, questions and situations that cannot immediately be addressed by our computer models.
But as the models get better and more robust, the gray areas will shrink. Our models are constantly and automatically enhanced, re-trained and expanded by the most recent data and input from our underwriters.
Think of it as the fintech version of Deep Blue and AlphaGo, the powerful computer programs that famously outplayed topnotch chess grandmasters. Both programs were based on similar principles: the more they played, the more knowledge they absorbed and the more formidable they became at chess.
Technology and teamwork
An even better example is the self-driving car powered by Google’s artificial intelligence technology. Human input is still required, but the more driving the car does, the smarter and more autonomous it becomes.
Building our risk infrastructure is an ongoing process for BlueVine. But it already has helped us steadily expand our reach, making us stronger, smarter and even faster in financing small and medium-sized businesses.
In just a couple of years, the strides we’ve made in managing risk more effectively enabled us to increase our credit lines to $2 million for invoice factoring and $100,000 for business lines of credit, which means we’ve been able to serve bigger businesses with bigger financing needs.
While we initially focused mainly on small businesses with annual revenue of under $250,000, today we have an increasing number of clients with annual sales of more than $1 million and increasingly, we’ve been able to serve clients with revenue of more than $10 million a year.
By the end of 2016, BlueVine had funded roughly $200 million. We’re on track to fund half a billion dollars by the end of this year.
We’ve accomplished this in a time of heightened skepticism about fintech in general and alternative business lending in particular. But rather than scoff at this skepticism, I’d point out two things.
First, fear often accompanies the rise of a new technology. Second, in the wake of the 2009 financial crisis, it’s prudent to raise hard questions about the rapid emergence of new financial technologies.
While building technologies and companies that can provide financial services faster and easier is a laudable goal, It’s wise to move cautiously and with humility.
The BlueVine experience underscores this.
Risk is still a challenge we take on every day. But we have found ways to take it on confidently and effectively with a vigorous combination of technology and teamwork.
Ido Lustig is Chief Risk Officer of BlueVine.
What Shakeout? Breakout Capital Secures $25 Million Credit Facility
February 8, 2017
Put a tally up on the board for small business lenders in 2017. McClean, VA-based Breakout Capital, which just announced a move into a larger office last week, has also secured a $25 million credit facility with Drift Capital Partners. Drift is an alternative asset management company.
Breakout is young by today’s industry standards, founded only two years ago by former investment banker Carl Fairbank, who is the company’s CEO. And don’t count them out just because they’re not in New York or San Francisco. Washington DC’s Virginia suburbs have become somewhat of a hotspot for fintech lenders. OnDeck, Fundation, StreetShares and QuarterSpot all have offices there, Fairbank points out. “And Capital One is right up the street,” he adds while explaining that the community has a strong talent pool that is familiar with creative lending. Breakout has already grown to about 20 employees and they’re still growing, he says.
Fairbank considers Breakout to be a more upmarket lender, whose repertoire includes serving the near-prime, mid-prime customer. CAN Capital and Dealstruck had focused on this area and both companies stopped funding new business in 2016. As I point this out, I ask if that suggests that segment is perhaps too difficult to make work.
“Candidly, that’s the part of the market that I feel the best about,” he says matter of factly. The company tries to product-fit deals based on the borrower, and will even make monthly-payment based loans. “I think the subprime side with the stacking and the debt settlement companies is a very very difficult place to play right now,” he says, adding that they have worked with subprime borrowers using their original bridge program but that they’ve kind of pulled back from doing those. As with all programs regardless, their goal is to graduate merchants into better or less costly products later on. We have helped merchants move on to get SBA loans, he maintains.
That all sounds very hands on, and part of it is, Fairbank confirms while asserting that technology does indeed do a lot of the legwork. “There’s absolutely a human element to underwriting these deals,” he says. He also agrees with much of what RapidAdvance chairman Jeremy Brown wrote in a AltFinanceDaily op-ed titled, The New Normal. Both Breakout and RapidAdvance refer to themselves as technology-enabled lenders, an acknowledgement that tech is a component of the company, not the entire company itself.
“I think we will see the beginning of the demise of fully automated, no manual touch funding,” Brown wrote in his article.
Brown also predicted that the legal system will ultimately impose order on some industry practices like stacking or that a state like New York could take a public policy interest in products he believes have legal flaws. As he was writing that, Governor Cuomo’s office published a budget proposal that redefined what it means to make a loan in the state. And it leaves much to be desired, some sources contend. Two attorneys at Hudson Cook, LLP, for example, published an analysis that demonstrates how its wording is ambiguous and far-reaching.
“What they really need to do is take the time to think through the implications and basically do a full study of the market to ensure that what they’re pushing forward is going to have the desired consequences,” Breakout’s Fairbank offers on the matter.
This doesn’t mean he’s anti-regulation. The company already holds itself to high standards and customer suitability and is a founding member of the Coalition for Responsible Business Finance.
“I personally do believe that there’s bad forms of lending or cash advances in the market and I’m sure that’s what Cuomo thinks as well but at the same time, it’s getting pushed very quickly and they really really ought to step back and do the research to understand the broader implications and to understand what exactly they’re trying to accomplish,” he maintains.
His pragmatism extends to the OCC’s proposed limited fintech charter, which he finds intriguing, assuming it gets buttoned up. “I believe it’s a concept worth pursuing,” he says, explaining that regulators will need to get comfortable with unsecured lending.
In the meantime, he’s optimistic about Breakout’s prospects. “In a time when institutional appetite for alternative finance companies has dried up, we believe our ability to raise a credit facility in this market speaks volumes about what we have already accomplished, our position as a leading player in the space, and our prospects for strong, but measured, growth,” Fairbank is quoted as saying in a company announcement. The company was also invited and joined the Task Force for the PLUM Initiative, a collaboration between the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Milken Institute to more effectively provide capital to minority-owned businesses throughout the United States. The Task Force consists of a very select group of industry leaders, who are in positions to improve access to capital in underserved markets, according to the announcement.
While other companies are making adjustments or in his opinion, continuing to make questionable underwriting decisions, Fairbank thinks his formula for success works. “I think that we do look at deals differently than most folks because I intentionally built the core of my underwriting team with folks who are not from this space so they take a more traditional approach and mix it with some of the greatest aspects of alternative finance.”
Former CIO of the CFPB and FinTech Entrepreneur Joins FinMkt’s Advisory Board
January 31, 2017New York City-based FinMkt, a leading provider of marketplace technology solutions for the financial services industry, today announced the addition of Tim Duncan, a seasoned financial technology entrepreneur and innovative leader, to its Advisory Board. Tim brings an impressive roster of experience, including serving on the executive launch team for the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as its Head of Technology and CIO. Tim will advise FinMkt’s management team on strategy and product development
Tim’s expertise and experience combine technology, finance, and law. In the late 1990s, he founded a startup that pioneered the use of the Internet to deliver market data, research, and news to senior executives, analysts, and investment managers, and later sold the company to Thomson Reuters. He then served as President of Thomson Interactive, where he was responsible for leading the digital transformation of the $5 billion global data and information company and spearheaded the initial design and development of ThomsonOne, a digital platform that generated hundreds of millions in revenue.
Tim then served as a government and public policy advisor, working closely with then Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney. He also founded and led the American Business Leaders for Financial Reform in support of the Dodd–Frank Act and worked closely with Elizabeth Warren on strategic outreach and communication to the business community. Tim participated in the review, drafting, and negotiation sessions on the text of Dodd–Frank legislation and was present when President Obama signed the Dodd–Frank Act into law.
Tim was recruited by Elizabeth Warren, then Special Assistant to the President of the United States, to join the executive team tasked with launching the CFPB on time and on budget. As Head of Technology and CIO, Tim led technology strategy, planning, and implementation for this inaugural federal agency in the digital age with a budget of $500 million. Under his leadership, the agency implemented an agile, lean process to document, budget, approve, and prioritize technology projects and also became the first federal agency to utilize scalable commercial cloud services while increasing staff from 50 to 500 in an 18-month period.
Tim’s most recent endeavor has been as recipient of a Ford Foundation grant to develop and launch a national social impact project enabling low- and moderate-income families to practice better financial decision-making toward homeownership.
Commenting on Tim’s impressive record as an entrepreneur, technologist, and innovative leader, FinMkt CEO Luan Cox stated: “ We are thrilled to have Tim join the team. His deep passion and experience for fintech and the online lending space will help FinMkt continue our rapid growth .“
About FinMkt
With offices in New York City and Hyderabad, FinMkt provides best-in-class, customizable online marketplace technology for the global financial services industry. We help organizations rapidly deploy marketplace solutions in a timely, cost-efficient manner while ensuring the highest quality technology and client support. From customer acquisition to product matching to tracking and reporting, our secure, patent-pending technology solutions are the gold standard of the financial marketplace ecosystem. FinMkt’s industry-leading platform and applications drive innovation, accelerate processes, and expand opportunities for growth in the financial services arena. For more information, please visit us at http://finmkt.io/ or email us at info@finmkt.io.
The New Normal
January 24, 2017
In March 2014, I wrote the following for DailyFunder.com: I think we are either currently in, or are fast approaching a “market bubble” in MCA. Bubbles never end well…When I see some of the business practices, offers, terms and other aspects of our business today, I am worried…assets are being overpaid for through higher than economically justified commissions …and [funders are] stretch[ing] the repayment term of the MCA or loan even further. I went on to say that this felt to me an awful lot like the subprime mortgage meltdown of 2008.
Like all good bear market prognosticators, I was a touch early in my forecast. 2014 and 2015 were continued boom years for small business alternative lenders (or “small business Alt Lender.” I don’t agree with applying the moniker “online lender” for our industry. It might be sexy, but it’s not accurate.) Loan and MCA terms got longer, loan pricing to the client dropped further, companies grew 100% year over year. And then 2016 happened.
The most shocking event for me in 2016 was the disruption at CAN Capital. They had the most data, the most experience, market dominance, and the most in-depth institutional knowledge. The granddaddy of all of us. Not far behind is the fiasco that is On Deck, the only publicly traded small business Alt Lender. In the past 12 months alone, the stock price has declined by over 40%. And that is after a roughly 50% drop in stock price in 2015. The first 9 months of 2016, driven in part because of market required changes to their business model when they could no longer profitably sell a sufficient volume of loan originations, they have a GAAP net loss of almost $50 million. There have also been a number of other lesser but still high profile failures, shutdowns, and exits from the industry in the past several months alone.
So what is driving this abnormally high rate of failure in the Alt Lending industry? Is it the “New Normal?” And what do I think lies ahead in 2017 and beyond? Before revealing my personal crystal ball again, I will share an anecdote from earlier in my business career.
I was the CFO (and eventually CEO) of a profitable, long-tenured family owned construction company. We had a working capital credit line from a major bank secured by a first position lien on our accounts receivable. The credit line was also personally guaranteed. We borrowed from the credit line for three reasons. For cash flow, when our receivables paid more slowly than expected; we had tax payments due; or we purchased a large piece of equipment. We always paid back the draw on the credit line as quickly as we could, to keep interests costs low, to impose cash management discipline, and to create future availability on the line once repaid.
The credit line was for one year. It was always renewed. But I was frustrated to have to go through an annual underwrite process with our bank, despite the personal guarantee, consistent profitability, and that we always paid back our draw on the credit line. Our banker (patiently) explained to me that economic cycles changed, and medium sized businesses – we had about 200 employees – suffered ups and downs and sometimes became financially distressed and even went out of business. The bank wanted to protect their position and not overextend the term of the credit line.
When I started RapidAdvance in 2005, I drew on my personal knowledge and previous experience as a borrower. The products we offered made sense based on our customer profile which was main street small business. We needed to protect against economic cycles and the high rate of small business failure. The maximum term offered by any company in 2005 was 8 months, at that time only for an advance product (future purchase and sale of credit card receivables), not a loan. Payment was received daily through a credit card split, thus allowing for a future capital advance (renewal) within about five or six months as the open advance was paid down. Cash advances could be used for taxes, equipment purchases, or business expansion. The price of the product reflected the risk of the credit offered.
What many in the small business Alt Lending industry seem to have forgotten, or never learned, is that our business is fundamentally a subprime credit industry. We are either lending to subprime borrowers, because of either the personal credit of the owner or the balance sheet of the borrower, or if the credit is strong and the business is more substantial, the loan itself is a subprime risk because we are at the bottom of the capital stack – behind the bank loan, the business property mortgage loan, the other personal guarantees of the owner, the factoring company, etc. We are taking the most risk. To offer two and three year terms and to try to pretend to get to “bank like” rates is, in my opinion, committing lending suicide.
At Rapid, we were dragged kicking and screaming into slightly longer term and lower cost products in order to stay competitive with certain customers. But we have kept that pool of customers as a very small percentage of our overall receivables.
Going into 2017 and beyond, I see five major trends. First, terms will get shorter, prices will increase, and offers will become more rational. That is already happening. Second, capital to this industry will become less available. The best companies with proven data driven models, consistent underwriting, a strong balance sheet and predictable loss rates will get financed. The days of easy money chasing this space are over. Equity will be particularly hard to come by.
Third, there will be continued disruption of funding companies. Companies will consolidate and some will disappear. On Deck may be in for a big challenge. They had a tremendous cash burn converting their business model to more balance sheet financed instead of originating and selling loans. Their market cap today is approximately book value, i.e. if you could buy up all the shares of the company at today’s trading price that would be roughly equal to their cash on the balance sheet and the value of their net receivables. The next two quarters are crucial for them to show the market they have turned the corner to become a self-sustaining lender. I am not optimistic, but I am rooting for them to succeed as it is in the best interests of the industry.
Fourth, stacking will continue to be an issue. I believe that the legal system over the next few years will bring some semblance of order to this industry scourge. At Rapid we have taken an aggressive legal stance against stacking, with some success in the courts. The challenge is that each situation is fact specific, and to prevail in a claim of tortious interference, the first position lender has to prove damages. I think that an unrelated decision at the end of 2016, Merchant Funding Services, LLC vs. Volunteer Pharmacy in New York State, could be a game changer. Because of the form of contract and the business practices in Volunteer, the judge ruled that the transaction constituted criminal usury. Knowing the business practices of the stackers, specifically the practice of writing an agreement that pretends to be a sale and purchase of future receivables but is in fact a loan, which is the basis for the judge’s ruling in Volunteer, I can see lawyers seizing on this precedent to help overstressed small business owners attempt to void their stacked loan agreements. The small business would first block the stacker’s ACH, claim the contract is void because of criminal usury, and then sue the stacking company. There could also be class action lawsuits like we saw a few years ago in California – bundle together a number of these claimants and go after the deep pocketed investors and banks that finance the stacking companies. The State’s Attorney General in New York may take a public policy interest in these types of loans. Once the dominoes start to fall, the costs of stacking – litigation and unpaid loans, in addition to proactive claims for damages – could be enormous for both the stacking companies and their owners and investors.
Lastly, and to my great pleasure, I think we will stop hearing small business Alt Lenders calling themselves “Fintech.” I think we will see the beginning of the demise of fully automated, no manual touch funding. At Rapid we have data and risk and pricing algorithms but we have always had an underwriter at a minimum review every file. At conferences when I have presented or participated in Fintech panels I always referred to Rapid as a technology enabled, non-bank small business lender. Now even On Deck describes themselves in similar terms.
I titled this post “The New Normal.” In the classic Mel Brooks movie Young Frankenstein, Dr. Frankenstein sends his assistant Igor to steal a brain from a cadaver to implant into his monster. But Igor accidentally drops the genius brain he was supposed to steal, and brings the doctor a different brain without telling him. When the monster awakes and has the personality of a psychotic five year old, Igor tells him he brought him a brain that was labeled “normal” instead of the one he was supposed to steal. It was, as Igor read it, “Abby Normal.” Abnormal, I believe, is the “New Normal” we will be dealing with in 2017.
The Small Business Lender Rankings (A preliminary peek)
January 4, 2017
Here’s a peek at how some of the industry’s largest alternative small business lenders were doing for the year in originations as they headed into the last quarter of 2016. This data should be considered an estimate and is obviously not comprehensive. Still, this should give you a clue where some players will end up:
| Lender | Q1 – Q3 2016 | FY 2015 | FY 2014 |
| OnDeck | $1,772,000,000 | $1,900,000,000 | $1,200,000,000 |
| PayPal | $1,000,000,000 | $850,000,000 | |
| Square | $550,000,000 | $400,000,000 | $100,000,000 |
| IOU Financial | $87,500,000 | $146,400,000 | $100,000,000 |
Other small business finance companies do more than just loans, with many doing merchant cash advances. And some companies work to get customers funded through other platforms when prospective customers don’t fit their risk box. The numbers below are origination approximations regardless of whether the customer was ultimately placed on their balance sheet or someone else’s and whether or not the transaction was a loan or MCA.
| Funder | Q1 – Q3 2016 | FY 2015 | FY 2014 |
| Bizfi | $415,000,000 | $481,000,000 | $277,000,000 |
| Yellowstone Capital | $350,000,000 | $422,000,000 | $290,000,000 |
| Platinum Rapid Funding Group | $135,000,000 | $100,000,000 |
Alternative Funders Bid Adieu to 2016, Show Renewed Optimism for 2017
December 12, 2016
After getting pummeled in 2016, many alternative funders have licked their wounds and are flexing their muscles to go another round in 2017.
“The industry didn’t implode or go away after some fairly negative headlines earlier in the year,” says Bill Ullman, chief commercial officer of Orchard Platform, a New York-based provider of technology and data to the online lending industry. “While there were definitely some industry and company-specific challenges in the first half of the year, I believe the online lending industry as a whole is wiser and stronger as a result,” he says.
Certainly, 2016 saw a slowdown in the rapid rate of growth of online lenders. The year began with slight upticks in delinquency rates at some of the larger consumer originators. This was followed by the highly publicized Lending Club scandal over questionable lending practices and the ouster of its CEO. Consumers got spooked as share prices of industry bellwethers tumbled and institutional investors such as VCs, private equity firms and hedge funds curbed their enthusiasm. Originations slowed and job cuts at several prominent firms followed.
Despite the turmoil, most players managed to stay afloat, with limited exceptions, and brighter times seemed on the horizon toward the end of 2016. Institutional investors began to dip their toes back into the market with a handful of publicly announced capital-raising ventures. Loan volumes also began to tick up, giving rise to renewed optimism for 2017.
Notably, in the year ahead, market watchers say they anticipate modest growth, a shift in business models, consolidation, possible regulation and additional consumer-focused initiatives, among other things.
MARKETPLACE LENDERS REDEFINING THEMSELVES
Several industry participants expect to see marketplace lenders continue to refocus after a particularly rough 2016. Some had gone into other businesses, geographies and products that they thought would be profitable but didn’t turn out as expected. They got overextended and began getting back to their core in 2016. Others realized, the hard way, that having only one source of funding was a recipe for disaster.
“Business models are going to evolve quite substantially,” says Sam Graziano, chief executive officer and co-founder of Fundation Group, a New York-based company that makes online business loans through banks and other partners.
For instance, he predicts that marketplace lenders will move toward using their balance sheet or some kind of permanent capital to fund their loan originations. “I think that there will be a lot fewer pure play marketplace lenders,” he says.
Indeed, some marketplace lenders are starting to take note that it’s a bad idea to rely on a single source of financing and are shifting course. Some companies have set up 1940-Act funds for an ongoing capital source. Others have considered taking assets on balance sheet or securitizing assets.
“The trend will accelerate in 2017 as platforms and investors realize that it’s absolutely necessary for long-term viability,” says Glenn Goldman, chief executive of Credibly, an online lender that caters to small-and medium-sized businesses and is based in Troy, Michigan and New York.
BJ Lackland, chief executive of Lighter Capital, a Seattle-based alternative lender that provides revenue-based start-up funding for tech companies, believes that more online lenders will start to specialize in 2017. This will allow them to better understand and serve their customers, and it means they won’t have to rely so heavily on speed and volume—a combination that can lead to shady deals. “I don’t think that the big generalist online lenders will go away, just like payday lending is not going to go away. There’s still going to be a need, therefore there will be providers. But I think we’ll see the rise of online lending 2.0,” he says.
Despite the hiccups in 2016, Peter Renton, an avid P2P investor who founded Lend Academy to teach others about the sector, says he is expecting to see steady and predictable growth patterns from the major players in 2017. It won’t be the triple-digit growth of years past, but he predicts investors will set aside their concerns from 2016 and re-enter the market with renewed vigor. “I think 2017 we’ll go back to seeing more sustainable growth,” he says.
THE CONSOLIDATION EQUATION
Ron Suber, president of Prosper Marketplace, a privately held online lender in San Francisco, says victory will go to the platforms that were able to pivot in 2016 and make hard decisions about their businesses.
Prosper, for example, had a challenging year and has now started to refocus on hiring and growth in core areas. This rebound comes after the company said in May that it was trimming about a third of its workforce, and in October it closed down its secondary market for retail investors. Suber says business started to pick up again after a low point in July. “Business has grown in each of the subsequent months, so we are back to focused growth and quality loan production,” he says.
Not long after he said this, Prosper’s CEO, Aaron Vermut, stepped down. His father, Stephan Vermut, also relinquished his executive chairman post, a sign that attempts to recover have come at a cost.
Other platforms, meanwhile, that haven’t made necessary adjustments are likely to find that they don’t have enough equity and debt capital to support themselves, industry watchers say. This could lead to more firms consolidating or going out of business.
The industry has already seen some evidence of trouble brewing. For instance, online marketplace lender Vouch, a three-year-old company, said in June that it was permanently shuttering operations. In October, CircleBack Lending, a marketplace lending platform, disclosed that they were no longer originating loans and would transfer existing loans to another company if they couldn’t promptly find funding. And just before this story went to print, Peerform announced that they had been acquired by Versara Lending, a sign that consolidation in the industry has come.
“I think you will see the real start of consolidation in the space in 2017,” says Stephen Sheinbaum, founder of New York-based Bizfi, an online marketplace. While some deals will be able to breathe life into troubled companies, others will merge to produce stronger, more nimble industry players, he says. “With good operations, one plus one should at least equal three because of the benefits of the economies of scale,” he says.
Market participants will also be paying close attention in 2017 to new online lending entrants such as Goldman Sachs’ with its lending platform Marcus. Ullman of Orchard Platform says he also expects to see more partnerships and licensing deals. “For smaller, regional and community banks and credit unions—organizations that tend not to have large IT or development budgets—these kinds of arrangements can make a lot of sense,” he says.
A BLEAKER MCA OUTLOOK
Meanwhile, MCA funders are ripe for a pullback, industry participants say. MCA companies are now a dime a dozen, according to industry veteran Chad Otar, managing partner of Excel Capital Management in New York, who believes new entrants won’t be able to make as much money as they think they will.
Paul A. Rianda, whose Irvine, California-based law firm focuses on MCA companies, likens the situation to the Internet boom and subsequent bust. “There’s a lot of money flying around and fin-tech is the hot thing this time around. Sooner or later it always ends.”
In particular, Rianda is concerned about rising levels of stacking in the industry. According to TransUnion data, stacked loans are four times more likely to be the result of fraudulent activity. Moreover, a 2015 study of fintech lenders found that stacked loans represented $39 million of $497 million in charge-offs.
Although Rianda does not see the situation having far-reaching implications as say the Internet bubble or the mortgage crisis, he does predict a gradual drop off in business among MCA players and a wave of consolidation for these companies.
“I do not believe that the current state of some MCA companies taking stacked positions where there are multiple cash advances on a single merchant is sustainable. Sooner or later the losses will catch up with them,” he says.
Rianda also predicts that the decrease of outside funding to related industries could have a spillover effect on MCA companies, causing some to cut back operations or go out of business. “Some companies have already seen decreased funding in the lending space and subsequent lay off of employees that likely will also occur in the merchant cash advance industry,” he says.
THE REGULATORY QUESTION MARK
One major unknown for the broader funding industry is what regulation will come down the pike and from which entity. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency that regulates and supervises banks has raised the issue of fintech companies possibly getting a limited purpose charter for non-banks. The OCC also recently announced plans to set up a dedicated “fintech innovation office” early in 2017, with branches in New York, San Francisco and Washington.
There’s also a question of the CFPB’s future role in the alternative funding space. Some industry participants expect the regulator to continue bringing enforcement actions against companies. In September, for instance, it ordered San Francisco-based LendUp to pay $3.63 million for failing to deliver the promised benefits of its loan products. Ullman of Orchard Platform says he expects the agency to continue to play a role in the future of online lending, particularly for lenders targeting sub-prime borrowers.
Meanwhile, some states like California and New York are focusing more efforts on reining in online small business lenders, and it remains to be seen where this trend takes us in 2017.
MORE CONSUMER-FOCUSED INITIATIVES ON HORIZON
As the question of increased regulation looms, some industry watchers expect to see more industry led consumer-focused initiatives, an effort which gained momentum in 2016. A prime example of this is the agreement between OnDeck Capital Inc., Kabbage Inc. and CAN Capital Inc. on a new disclosure box that will display a small-business loan’s pricing in terms of total cost of capital, annual percentage rates, average monthly payment and other metrics. The initiative marked the first collaborative effort of the Innovative Lending Platform Association, a trade group the three firms formed to increase the transparency of the online lending process for small business owners.
Katherine C. Fisher, a partner with Hudson Cook LLP, a law firm based in Hanover, Maryland, that focuses on alternative funding, predicts that more financers will focus on transparency in 2017 for competitive and anticipated regulatory reasons. Particularly with MCA, many merchants don’t understand what it means, yet they are still interested in the product, resulting in a great deal of confusion. Clearing this up will benefit merchants and the providers themselves, Fisher notes. “It can be a competitive advantage to do a better job explaining what the product is,” she says.
CAPITAL-RAISING WILL CONTINUE TO POSE CHALLENGES
Although there have been notable examples of funders getting the financing they need to operate and expand, it’s decidedly harder than it once was. Renton of Lend Academy says that some institutional investors will remain hesitant to fund the industry, given its recent troubles. “It’s a valuation story. While valuations were increasing, it was relatively easy to get funding,” he says. However, industry bellwethers Lending Club and OnDeck are both down dramatically from their highs and concerns about their long-term viability remain.
“Until you get sustained increases in the valuation of those two companies, I think it’s going to be hard for others to raise money,” Renton says.
Several years ago, alternative funders were new to the game and gained a lot of traction, but it remains to be seen whether they can continue to grow profits amid greater competition and the high cost of obtaining capital to fund receivables, according to William Keenan, chief executive of Pango Financial LLC, an alternative funding company for entrepreneurs and small businesses in Wilmington, Delaware.
These companies continue to need investors or retained earnings and for some companies this is going to be increasingly difficult. “How they sustain growth going forward could be a challenge,” he says. Even so, Renton remains bullish on the industry—P2P players especially. “The industry’s confidence has been shaken. There have been a lot of challenges this year. I think many people in the industry are going to be glad to put 2016 to bed and will look with renewed optimism on 2017,” he says.
Prior to this story going to print, small business lender Dealstruck was reportedly not funding new loans and CAN Capital announced that three of the company’s most senior executives had stepped down.
