Merchant Cash Advance is The Real Square IPO Story

Square’s debut on the New York Stock Exchange is being talked about as one of the more consequential IPOs of 2015. As a mobile payments company famous for both losing money and its founding by Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s CEO, the $2.9 billion valuation pales in comparison to its rival First Data that went public just a month before. First Data, which was founded in 1971, is worth five times more than Square with a market cap of $14.7 billion to Square’s $2.9 billion. But it’s Square that everyone’s talking about and not necessarily in a positive way. Cast as the poster child for runaway private market valuations in Fintech, Square’s Series E round just a year before had supposedly increased its worth to $6 billion.

Robert Greifeld, the CEO of Nasdaq, had warned people just weeks earlier about the validity of private market valuations. “A unicorn valuation in private markets could be from just two people,” he said. “Whereas public markets could be 200,000 people.”

And while Square’s IPO was relatively well-received, closing at 45% above its offered price, there’s an entire story beyond payments hidden in the company’s financial statements under the label of “software and data products.” That’s code for merchant cash advance, the working capital product they offer to customers that currently makes up 4% of the company’s revenue.

“Since Square Capital is not a loan, there is no interest rate,” states the company’s FAQ. That echoes what dozens of other merchant cash advance companies have been saying for a decade. “You sell a specific amount of your future receivables to Square, and in return you get a lump sum for the sale,” marketing materials explain.

Lenders that don’t approve of this receivable purchase model are lobbying politically against it, some of whom are well-known. Lending Club for example, is a signatory to the Responsible Business Lending Coalition’s Small Business Borrowers Bill of Rights (SBBOR), committing themselves to things like transparency and the disclosure of APRs even for non-loan products.

But disclosing an APR on a receivable purchase merchant cash advance transaction is not only impossible since there is no time variable, but would violate the spirit of the contract even if estimates were used to fill in the blanks. Nonetheless, Fundera CEO Jared Hecht, whose marketplace platform has also signed the SBBOR told Forbes in September that “small business owners have been sold by pushy salespeople, hiding terms, disguising rates and manipulating customers into taking products that aren’t good for them.”

Ironically, Fundera’s own merchant cash advance partners have not made any such pledge to disclose APRs. No one’s commitment is verified anyway. “Neither Small Business Majority nor any other coalition member independently verifies that any of these signatory companies or entities in fact abide by the SBBOR,” the group’s website states. This isn’t to say that their intent is misguided, there’s just very little substance to it below the surface.

For example, while the coalition has made some subtle and not so subtle digs about merchant cash advances over fairness and transparency, it’s the lending model used by some of the SBBOR’s signatories that is being challenged by the courts right now. Because of Madden v. Midland, Lending Club’s practice of using a chartered bank to originate loans could potentially be in jeopardy. The ruling was just appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. At the heart of the issue is the ability to usurp state usury caps through the National Bank Act. For a company that has pledged to offer non-abusive products, it’s ironic that their model relies on preemption of state interest rate caps all the while reassuring their shareholders that there’s no risk because of their Choice of Law fallback provision. In truth, Lending Club uses a state chartered bank and not a nationally chartered bank and thus would be somewhat shielded in an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling.

Those concerned in years past that receivable purchase merchant cash advances were full of regulatory uncertainty had shifted towards the model that Lending Club uses since it was perceived to have more nationally recognized legitimacy. However, with that model seriously challenged, old school merchant cash advances are once again looking pretty good. That’s probably why publicly traded Enova International Inc. (NYSE:ENVA) bought The Business Backer this past summer. And it’s why Square skated through their IPO without much resistance to their merchant cash advance activities.

The story of Square was either that it was overvalued, that CEO Jack Dorsey couldn’t handle running two companies, that they were losing money, or that their deal with Starbucks was a mistake. Meanwhile Square has processed $300 million worth of merchant cash advances, a product that doesn’t disclose an APR since it’s not a loan. “Nearly 90% of sellers who have been offered a second Square Capital advance cho[se] to accept a repeat advance,” their S-1 stated.

“If our Square Capital program shifts from an MCA model to a loan model, state and federal rules concerning lending could become applicable,” it adds. And right now partly due to Madden v. Midland, the loan model looks pretty shaky. Square proved many things when they went public on November 19th and one was that merchant cash advances are just the opposite of what critics have argued in the past.

Battery Ventures’ general partner Roger Lee told Business Insider, “the [Square Capital] product itself will have unique advantages in the market, and it’s a big market.”

FinSight Acquires Stake in Fundry, Yellowstone Capital’s Parent Company

Though neither company has made an announcement, AltFinanceDaily has learned that FinSight Ventures, a venture capital firm that was a late stage investor in Lending Club, has acquired a stake in NY-based Fundry. As reported last week, Fundry is the newly formed parent company of Yellowstone Capital and Green Capital. Combined, they have originated more than $1 billion in small business funding since inception.

It was a small piece of equity, a single digit percentage share of ownership, said a source with knowledge of the transaction. In return, Fundry reportedly got a big boost in their valuation, though we were unable to ascertain a figure.

FinSight participated in Lending Club’s $125 million equity round back in May of 2013 that gave the company a $1.55 billion valuation and put them on track for an IPO. They were part of another equity round with Lending Club in April, 2014.

The transaction with Fundry is a nod to the industry that merchant cash advances have a lot more room to grow and perhaps a signal that Fundry is also on some kind of track.

What The BFS Capital IPO Announcement Means for the Industry

Under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act, “an emerging growth company may confidentially submit to the Commission a draft registration statement for confidential, non-public review by the Commission staff prior to public filing.”

According to the New Yorker, this process “allows companies that are thinking about going public to test the waters—they can gauge investor reaction, get feedback from the S.E.C. on their filings, and so on—before deciding if they want to go ahead with an I.P.O. If a company goes through that process publicly, and then decides to abandon the offering, its reputation gets damaged, even though it often makes sense for a company not to go public. Do it privately, and no one gets hurt.”

That’s what makes BFS Capital’s announcement (formerly Business Financial Services) that they had filed a confidential draft registration so bold. Companies normally choose this method if they don’t want anyone to know what they’re up to. But BFS is a different funder than the ones that came before them. OnDeck submitted their original draft registration confidentially for example and actually tried to keep it a secret.

“The initial public offering is expected to commence after the SEC completes its review process, subject to market and other conditions,” states BFS’s September 25th release.

The intent to go public follows a recent rebrand and the announcement that they had crossed $1 billion in funding since inception.

The most shocking part about a BFS IPO is that it’s not a CAN Capital IPO. While CAN is both older and larger, the industry has heard no word about a CAN Capital IPO since rumors leaked in Bloomberg almost an entire year ago. Back on November 20th, 2014, it was reported that the “New York-based company could be worth as much as $2 billion in the share sale.”

There was kind of a universal expectation that CAN Capital would go public immediately after OnDeck and Lending Club. Some insiders have pointed to OnDeck’s disappointing reception and performance as the reason CAN has delayed moving forward. OnDeck is currently trading at less than 50% of its IPO price and is facing a lawsuit from its own shareholders over it.

Others have said that CAN Capital isn’t waiting for anything because the company doesn’t actually need to go public. Long reported to be profitable and self-sustaining, opening themselves up to the volatility and fickleness of the public markets may not be worth the additional capital.

And still more have pondered if CAN Capital has what it takes to excite investors. Unlike some of the brand new tech startups that dominate the headlines, CAN has been operating since 1998, a time when only 42.1% of American households had computers and only 26.2% had Internet access. Of course the company has evolved and these days is as tech-equipped as their young brethren but a 17-year old lender may not be as easy to sell in a market obsessed with companies such as Uber, Snapchat and Airbnb.

BFS Capital was founded 13 years ago in 2002 so they’re not exactly new either. And their CEO, Marc Glazer, has led the company since its beginning.

BFS has been expanding however both here in the U.S. and abroad. In the U.K., they operate under the name Boost Capital. Meanwhile, independent financial brokerage firms such as Entrust Merchant Solutions are being acquired and rolled up into their organization.

What makes BFS different from OnDeck and Lending Club is that BFS also does merchant cash advances, not just loans. The only other publicly traded company that is significantly involved in merchant cash advances is Enova International and that’s only due to their recent acquisition of The Business Backer. The investor uncertainty surrounding lenders and marketplace platforms might not carry over to a company that got its start by purchasing future credit card processing receivables 13 years ago.

It would be safe to say that there’s a whole group of industry insiders who feel that Lending Club is a poor representative sample of the tech-enabled business financing space and that OnDeck’s unique model prejudices investors into thinking all lenders are like them. A BFS Capital IPO could in effect set the record straight for the industry and revive the IPO plans of their peers and competitors.

It might actually take a BFS IPO for us to finally see a CAN IPO, not that there aren’t plenty of other quality candidates right behind them.

What would a BFS Capital IPO mean for the industry? Perhaps a chance at redemption. There’s a lot of great things happening in this industry and investors ought to know about them.