Fears of Possible Recession Don’t Phase CRE Lenders
December 16, 2019
Depending on your vantage point, a slowdown is either already in progress, just around the bend or several years away. But some alternative commercial real estate professionals are trying to filter out the noise.
Instead, they are more aggressively forging ahead with growth plans, including trying to grab market share from banks.
The commercial real estate lending market remains highly competitive and alternative lenders say they remain focused on looking for opportunities to expand their business, even as the possibility of recession looms. At present, a number of professionals don’t see an imminent threat of recession, and even if there is one, they say they stand to benefit from picking up business banks don’t want to take on—or can’t—because of increased regulatory controls imposed on them since the last recession.
There are plenty of opportunities for alternative commercial real estate lenders to get ahead, even in this environment, says Chris Hurn, founder and chief executive of Fountainhead Commercial Capital, a Lake Mary FL-based, non-bank direct small business lender in the commercial real estate lending space.
To be sure, alternative commercial real estate lenders say that for the most part, there hasn’t been a major pullback in their space. But due in part to mounting economic concerns and changing business priorities, banks—which had already scaled back from their pre- Great Recession exuberance—have been taking an even more cautious approach to lending. This is especially true in certain regions of the country, or in sectors deemed higher-risk such as hospitality and retail, alternative lenders say. While the pullback hasn’t been broad-based, it’s been enough in some cases to create strategic pockets of opportunity for opportunistic non-bank lenders such as private equity funds, debt funds, crowdfunding portals and others.
For many of these commercial real estate professionals, whether or not a recession is on the horizon is not a guessing game that’s worth playing. And with good reason, given how much disagreement there is among market watchers, investment management professionals and others about where the economy is headed.
Certain economic data continues to be strong, for instance, but political and geopolitical factors such as trade wars continue to raise red flags. Then there’s the fatalistic notion that the economy has been on a tear for so long that it’s due for a pullback at some point. This all translates into a hodgepodge of speculation and indecision about the economy’s direction. The dichotomy is evident from the difference in sentiment expressed in two fund manager surveys from Bank of America Merrill Lynch taken a month apart. October’s survey was decidedly bearish; by November, the bulls were back, muddying the waters even more.
Instead of wavering in indecision, however, some alternative commercial real estate players are hunkering down and highly focused on building their business in a cautiously optimistic and strategic manner.
Hurn of Fountainhead Commercial Capital predicts a number of increased opportunities for alternative commercial real estate lenders due to pullback from banks and a growing need for capital. He cautions alternative lenders against being too pessimistic and losing out on potentially lucrative market opportunities as a result.
“I think we might be going into a period of slightly slower growth, but none of the indicators suggest we’re remotely close to where things were 10 years ago,” Hurn says. “If we’re not careful, we’re going to talk our way into recession. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.”
Indeed, even as perplexing questions about the economy’s long-term health persist, some alternative commercial lenders anticipate growth in the coming year. Evan Gentry, chief executive and founder of Money360, a tech-enabled direct lender specializing in commercial real estate, says the company’s loan origination business is on track to close between $650 million and $700 million in 2019. That’s expected to increase to about $1 billion in 2020, fueled by growth in some strategic markets, including Washington DC, Atlanta, Miami and Charlotte, N.C., where the company is seeking to add loan origination personnel. Gentry says the company also continues to experience strength in many of the western markets, including the intermountain west markets of Colorado, Utah and Idaho, where growth is expected to continue.
CommLoan, a commercial real-estate lending marketplace in Scottsdale, Ariz., also sees strategic opportunities to grow in this environment. Mitch Ginsberg, the company’s co-founder and chief executive, predicts 2020 will be a strong growth year for his company, after a several-year beta period. CommLoan has plans, for example, to start hiring account executives to build relationships in additional states. Initially, the focus will be on institutions in the Southwestern U.S., with plans to add lenders in Texas, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico in the early part of 2020, Ginsberg says.
Though certain regions or business lines within commercial real estate may be experiencing some pullback, he says his overall outlook for the economy and commercial real estate remains strong. “There is still an enormous amount of activity,” he says. “If and when a correction does happen, it’s going to be a lot softer and not that deep and not that long because of the fundamentals in the economy.”
FINDING WAYS TO COMPETE MORE EFFECTIVELY WITH BANKS AND OTHERS
Some commercial real estate professionals say they are focusing more attention on sectors, regions and concentrations that the banks aren’t going after so readily.
If an alternative lender can offer more money than a bank on a particular deal or offer more flexible terms, or do deals that traditional lenders simply won’t do, for example, then it’s a boon for them. For a slightly higher price, alternative lenders—especially those whose business model relies heavily on technology—are able to take on slightly riskier deals than a bank might be able to stomach, says Jacob Goldsmith, managing partner of Goldwolf Ventures LLC, a privately held alternative investment and asset management company with offices in Miami and Austin.
“Alternative lenders are a lot more nimble,” says Goldsmith, who keeps close tabs on the commercial real estate lending industry.
Especially given the ambiguous economic climate, there are several areas that could be prime opportunities for savvy alternative commercial real estate lenders to gain a leg up. For instance, some banks of late have shied away from certain special purchase property types like hotels, day care facilities and free-standing restaurants, says Hurn of Fountainhead Commercial Capital. These types of properties are traditionally seen as riskier in the latter part of an economic cycle.
Nonetheless, “there’s opportunity here for non-traditional lenders to step in and fill that gap,” he says. Retail loans are another category where banks have been pulling back. One reason banks are being more cautious is the sentiment that as online shopping becomes more pervasive, there’s less of a need for brick-and-mortar shops. This trend is underscored by the recent announcement of Transform Holdco—the company formed to buy the remaining assets of bankrupt retailer Sears Holdings Corp.—that it would close 96 Sears and Kmart stores by the end of February. Still, some industry watchers aren’t ready to concede retail’s demise.
While these types of announcements fan fears, concern over the death of retail is largely overblown, according to Troy Merkel, a partner and real estate senior analyst at RSM, which provides audit, tax and consulting services. “The banks are being too overly cautious,” he opines.
The opportunity for alternative lenders, he says, is not in funding loans that add to the supply, but rather in funding loans that change the existing supply. While the need for new development may not be as great, there is a growing demand for repurposed properties, he says. This includes upscaling an older mall or turning an existing retail building into a mixed use property, namely a mix of retail stores and multi-family apartment complexes. There is still a real need for these types of developments, Merkel says, and with banks shying away, the door is open for alternative lenders to “make a play,” he says.
Real estate professionals say they also see opportunities for alternative commercial real estate lenders to make loans in areas outside major metro cities, where the competition isn’t as strong.
“There will always be opportunities in the ups and downs, the ebbs and flows of the cycle. You just have to be a lot smarter in this part of the cycle,” says Goldsmith of Goldwolf Ventures.
BECOMING RECESSION-PROOF
Pockets of opportunity notwithstanding, alternative commercial real estate lenders have to play it smart, professionals say. For instance, they should not be overly bullish on a particular sector or throw caution to the wind when it comes to their underwriting practices.
That’s because when the market turns—as it inevitably will at some point—there will likely be more defaults and lenders that haven’t dotted their I’s and crossed their T’s will understandably face stronger headwinds. They need to keep their close eye on expenses as well, which may have ticked upward over the past several years. “People get complacent when times are good. This is probably not the time to be complacent anymore,” says Hurn of Fountainhead Commercial Capital.
Another protective measure against an eventual downturn is to diversify sales channels and property types. “If you put too many eggs in one basket, it’s a problem,” Hurn says.
It’s also important for lenders to have their guards up since higher risk deals can lead to losses if a recession hits. Lenders have to be smart when it comes to taking on risk, says Tim Milazzo, co-founder and chief executive of StackSource, an online marketplace for commercial real estate loans. “They have to have a certain expertise in underwriting these transactions correctly and assessing risk,” Milazzo says.
In light of significant ambiguity about where the economy is heading, Gentry of Money360 says his company is protecting itself by taking an ultra- conservative approach. This means, for instance, only making first-lien position loans secured against income producing properties at a loan-to-value ratio on average of 65 percent, he says. Some alternative lenders are making these loans at a loan-to-value ratio of 80 percent or 85 percent, but Gentry says this is too high a rate for his taste. Also, Money360’s loans are also generally short- term—in the two-to-three-year range, which reduces some of the risk and seems especially prudent at this point in the cycle, he says.
When the market turns—as it inevitably will at some point—there will be more loan defaults, and those that are on the more aggressive end of lending will bear most of the challenges, he says.
He cautions other alternative lenders to avoid taking on excessive risk. “You’ve got to be thinking ahead and planning and lending as if the downturn is right around the corner—because it could be,” he says. Even taking a conservative approach, there are still significant business opportunities, he says.
BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR RECESSIONARY OPPORTUNITIES
Meanwhile, if a recession does hit, alternative commercial real estate lenders say they will have even more opportunities to gain market share, participate in workout financing and hire key personnel. Alternative lenders that are more steeped in technology may potentially have even more of an upper hand since this can enable them to close deals much more efficiently and quickly and at a lower cost, while at the same time giving borrowers broader access.
“In a tighter market, every reduction in rate and cost will make more of a significant difference to borrowers than it does at the moment,” says Ginsberg of CommLoan, the commercial real-estate lending marketplace.
Although there are a growing number of alternative commercial real estate lenders who are relying more heavily on technology than they did in the past, commercial real estate lending still hasn’t flourished online to the extent personal and small business lending has. One reason is that the loans are larger and human intervention is often seen as beneficial, says Gentry of Money360.
However, online lending within the commercial real estate lending space is still on the horizon, according to Ginsberg of CommLoan. “It’s slow-go, but it’s inevitable,” he says.
Canadian Lender’s Association Awards Leading Executives and Companies
November 11, 2019
Today the CLA announced the winners for its 2019 Leaders in Lending Awards. Highlighting the efforts of exceptional players within the fintech and alternative finance fields, the awards seek to “celebrate the industry and celebrate all the cool fintech things happening in Canada,” according to the CLA’s Strategic Partnerships Director Tal Schwartz.
Now in its second year, the Leaders in Lending Awards are split into two categories, with one focusing on the efforts of companies in the industry and the other on individual executives. 2019 will be the first year that the latter of these categories is incorporated. The awards will be imparted to their new owners at the Canadian Lenders Summit later this month, where a special prize will also be given to one winner from each category.
Among the winners in the first category are Borrowell, IOU Financial, and Michele Romanow’s Clearbanc. While making an appearance in the second category are David Gens of Merchant Growth, Paul Pitcher from SharpShooter Funding, Smarter Loans’ Vlad Sherbatov, and Kevin Clark from Lendified.
The criteria for the awards were based upon three tenets, these being a commitment to the “use of advanced fintech solutions” to solve challenges in the lending process, the “implementation of new or innovating lending strategies or business models,” and evidence of successful outcomes following the implementation of new fintech or a new business model.
When asked about possible expansions to the awards in the future, Schwartz was receptive to the idea of covering more ground with the prizes, saying “I definitely think we’ll expand the categories.” Mentioning that there’s a host of niches that are worth highlighting, such as blockchain, psychographic credit scoring, and credit rebuilding, which deserve their day in the sun.
“We have a mandate as a trade group to celebrate the industry,” emphasized Schwartz. And that celebration will be taking place on November 20th at the Canadian Lenders Summit in Toronto.
David Goldin is BACK – The Scoop Behind His Return
November 7, 2019
“When I started, the term merchant cash advance didn’t even exist. There really were no business loans back then, the word ‘fintech’ didn’t exist, ‘alternative lender’ didn’t exist … Back in the day it was all about getting a credit facility, and that was like the iPhone 5, and now we’re the iPhone 11. There’s more ways to be a lot less stressful, a lot more productive, and a lot less time consuming. There’s other financial instruments to really help companies excel.”
This is how David Goldin speaks of the difference between the early days of the alternative funding industry, a marketplace which he helped form in the pre-crash years of the noughties, and now, a moment which sees the CEO’s return to the market after years abroad.
Having founded Capify, an alternative finance company, in 2002, Goldin had worked in the space for over a decade before he exited the US market in January of 2017, choosing to instead focus his efforts on the UK and Australia.
Over two years later, Goldin is back in the States with Lender Capital Partners, offering capital to commercial finance companies, with a priority given to those who deal in MCAs and business loans. “It’s very exciting, I’m coming in from a different perspective,” noted Goldin. “It’s still a great industry. I’m just coming at it from a different angle which I think could be a lot more productive and scale a lot faster.”
And as well as funding the funders, this new angle includes forward flow programs, a commitment to participate in deals up to $1 million, credit facilities in the range of $20-100 million, a system by which point of sale providers are able to provide merchant financing via their software, and the Broker Graduate Program. The last of these being LCP’s in-house channel open to brokers who originate a minimum of $500,000 a month, and who want to receive capital and advice from LCP in order to become a direct funder.
When asked why he chose to return via this more top-down approach to the industry, Goldin explained that “there’s enough good players here that are trying to originate on the merchant side, so rather than try to reinvent the wheel I thought I’d come in with my years of experience running a MCA alternative lending platform in the US, knowing what the pain points are.”
Made possible through a partnership with Basepoint Capital, LCP is there to help MCA and business loans companies through both the good times and the bad, according to its founder, saying that what was a lesson for him partly informs LCP’s model.
“The time to raise money is when you don’t need it. If you run into trouble where your lender gets spooked or either has their own financial issues, or it’s a regulatory or macroeconomic condition, you just can’t bring in a new lender within 30 or 60 days, and if you do it’s not going to be on favorable economic terms. It’s really going to be a desperate attempt to get it … It’s almost like having more than one internet connection in your office, if one goes down you have a backup with no downtime.”
Is The Definition Of Accredited Investor Ripe For Change?
October 26, 2019
The definition of accredited investor, which the SEC is tackling this year, is causing a fair amount of debate.
At issue is the fact that under federal securities laws only persons who are accredited investors may participate in certain types of securities offerings.
As it now stands, to be deemed an accredited investor, a person needs to earn income of more than $200,000 ($300,000 with a spouse) in each of the prior two years and reasonably expect to earn the same for the current year. Alternatively, the person needs to have a net worth of $1 million or more (alone or with a spouse), excluding the value of a primary residence.
The goal of these rules, of course, is investor protection. In theory, the rules are supposed to ensure investors are sophisticated enough to invest in riskier investments and, on top of that, have adequate cushioning against the risk of financial loss.
The trouble, critics say, is that the rules aren’t doing a very good job of achieving these objectives. There’s widespread agreement that the current definition is flawed. Where it gets trickier is in deciding how it should be fixed.
There are some who say the current bar is too high, others who say it’s too low. Some contend that the wealth-based test should be scrapped altogether in favor of a sophistication test. Others promote a sliding scale approach to investing in riskier offerings. This would allow all investors to participate, but in increments that are proportional to their wealth—similar to what happens in the crowdfunding arena today. Some industry players support a combination of measures, a sophistication test in connection with a sliding scale, to maximize investor protection and still open the playing field for others who can’t participate today based on their income or net worth.
The varying opinions are likely to be debated by the SEC as it reviews the accredited investor definition, which it’s required to do every four years by a provision in the Dodd-Frank Act. The SEC is taking the opportunity to do a broad-based review of the regulatory framework for investing in alternative assets; the accredited investor definition is just one of the areas on its docket to examine. The comment period for this review ended on August 30th.
At this point, what the SEC actually decides to do about the accredited investor definition is anybody’s guess. The thrust of these conversations is likely to focus on what constitutes an appropriate degree of protection, which is where many of the disagreements—and alternative suggestions on how to best accomplish this— come into play.
VETTING THE VARIOUS OPINIONS
On one hand, consumer advocates want to maintain the highest degree of investor protection possible. The concern is that consumers generally don’t have enough prowess or information to safely invest in unregistered offerings, which can carry more risk than registered investments.
“We don’t want the definition to be any weaker than it is now because that would do the vast majority of consumers a disservice,” says Brian Young, public policy manager at the National Consumers League. “With these exempt products, there are a lot of unknown variables and there’s a lot more vulnerability,” he says.
One suggestion that’s being proposed is to raise the wealth and income levels to adjust for inflation. It’s a step in the right direction because it would further limit who is eligible to be considered an accredited investor, says Barbara Roper, director of investor protection for the Consumer Federation of America. “The levels haven’t kept pace with inflation since they were set,” she says.
This alone, however, wouldn’t be sufficient to protect investors, consumer advocates say, since there are plenty of wealthy people who have little to no investment prowess.
“Just changing it to correct for inflation doesn’t change it to correct for sophistication and still places investors at risk,” says Ed Mierzwinski, who oversees U.S. PIRG’s federal consumer program, helping to lead national efforts to improve consumer credit reporting laws, identity theft protections, product safety regulations and more.
On this point consumer advocates and industry professionals seem to agree: that limits based on income or net worth aren’t all that useful.
Roper of the Consumer Federation of America gives the example of a 64-year-old who has $200k in income or $1 million of assets in his or her retirement accounts. This doesn’t mean he or she is financially literate, let alone sophisticated enough to take part in certain types of riskier alternative investments, she says. “That would be an inappropriate investment recommendation if it were made by your broker or investment advisor,” she says.
Some industry professionals also find fault with the wealth test, but, unlike consumer advocates, they’d like to see more investors allowed to participate, not fewer. It’s not right, they contend, that a wide range of highly educated people are prevented from investing in certain offerings because of arbitrary limits on net worth and income.
Many promising investment opportunities are not even being offered to a huge majority of American investors, based on the standards that exist today, according to Nat Hoopes, executive director of the Marketplace Lending Association, an industry trade organization.
“By harmonizing and simplifying complex rules and adjusting the current accredited investor standards, my hope is that the SEC will find that they can permit many more Americans to gain access to a wider range of well regulated investment opportunities, without leaving those citizens exposed to fraud or abuse. Done right, changes from the SEC in this area will help to promote more equality of opportunity in our economy, without adding new red tape,” he says.
Brew Johnson, co-founder and chief executive of PeerStreet, an online platform for investing in real estate debt, says it’s “crazy” that people who are highly educated—such as MBAs, accountants, attorneys and other businesspersons can’t invest in certain offerings simply because they don’t have the income or wealth levels. He takes issue with the fact that he didn’t qualify to invest on his own platform when it was first getting off the ground. Some of his employees today also don’t qualify to invest in the platform they are helping to build, which is troubling, he says.
“You don’t want people to make terrible decisions. But the idea that the average person is too dumb to make decisions with their money…is offensive,” Johnson says. Today, there’s much more readily available information and transparency—a significant change from when the rules were first put in place—when only the largest investors had access to the types of information necessary to make critical investment decisions, he says.
Johnson doesn’t take issue with the goal of protecting investors from getting into things they don’t understand. Rather, he says, “I don’t believe wealth is a determiner of sophistication.”
ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS TO A WEALTH-BASED TEST
That’s where another idea being floated by members of the Marketplace Lending Association and others may come in. The thought is to create a new way to measure an investor’s level of sophistication and ability to withstand loss. An example of this could be some kind of test to identify investors who are deemed to have sufficient investment prowess, despite falling below the SEC’s threshold based on wealth or net worth, to participate in certain types of offerings.
It’s an option that, if adopted, could open up the playing field to additional investors—while still trying to accomplish the SEC’s goal of investor protection, industry participants say.
Ryan Metcalf, head of U.S. Regulatory Affairs at Funding Circle, says the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. (FINRA) could develop a test to be administered online when an investor who doesn’t meet the wealth or income bar wants to invest. This would allow quick-decisions to be made. People who want to invest a few thousand dollars shouldn’t have to do it in person; this would be too onerous, he says.
There could even be different tests based on what investors are seeking to invest in, says Mark Atalla, owner and managing director at private lending firm Carlyle Capital.
For a private placement in a mortgage fund, there could be questions related to the risks involved there, whereas for a private placement in a start-up technology company, there could be other types of questions pertaining to risk. The goal would be to ensure the investor has a sufficient level of understanding about the particular products they are considering.
Otherwise, Atalla says, there’s too much room for people to lose on a large scale. “These are people’s livelihoods you’re responsible for at the end of the day,” he says. “I think it’s important for investors to understand what they are really doing.”
Some industry professionals say there may be too many practical limitations for this type of an assessment to work. Certainly details would have to be worked out including what the scope of the test or tests should be. Decisions would also have to be made about who would be in charge of creating and administering a test or tests and how and where they would be administrated, among other things.
In theory, if someone can pass a test to show he or she is knowledgeable about investing, the person should be able to invest, says PeerStreet’s Johnson, adding that there’s something to be said about people accepting personal responsibility for their decisions, provided they have been given adequate information from which to make informed, knowledgeable decisions. “The devil is in the details of what [this type of test] would look like,” he says.
Another idea being floated—that could stand on its own or be implemented together with a sophistication test—is to allow all investors to invest on a scale that’s similar to the crowdfunding exemption. Under rules adopted by the SEC in 2015, the general public now has the opportunity to participate in the early capital raising activities of start-up and early-stage companies and businesses by way of crowdfunding. Because of the risks involved with this type of investing, however, investors are limited in how they can invest during any 12-month period in these transactions. The limitation depends on the person’s net worth and annual income.
Some industry watchers say the sliding scale idea is a viable one because it would allow more investors a chance to participate in more risky offerings, while providing a safety net for loss.
This type of model has the potential to offer investors a reasonable amount of protection, says Vincent Petrescu, chief executive of truCrowd, Inc., an equity crowdfunding portal that connects startups and emerging businesses with non-accredited and accredited investors. “If you have less money, you are allowed to invest less, but you still can play your hand,” he says.
Johnson of PeerStreet also supports this approach because it allows investors who otherwise wouldn’t have access a chance to broaden their exposure to areas that could potentially allow them to increase their wealth.
Certainly, questions about this approach persist as well. What should the investment limits be? Would it depend on the type of investment? Would investors need to self-certify as they do in crowdfunding, or would their information need to be verified by a third party? These questions and more are also likely to be probed more deeply during an SEC review.
The Marketplace Lending Association would also like employees of private funds to qualify as accredited investors for investments in their employers funds. The trade group contends that a private fund’s employees likely have sufficient access to the information necessary to make informed decisions about investments in their employer’s funds.
The suggestion would be for the SEC to consider adding a new category of the definition to include “knowledgeable employees” of “covered companies” as those terms are defined in Rule 3c-5 of the Investment Company Act.
Industry watchers are hopeful to have some clarity on these issues within the coming months, so stay tuned.
“The SEC’s mandate is to protect investors, which sometimes is needed,” says Petrescu of truCrowd, the equity crowdfunding portal. “There needs to be checks and balances,” he says.
Stripe Ventures Into Merchant Cash Advance Financing
September 6, 2019
Stripe, a payments firm lauded as the world’s most valuable private fintech company (at $22.5B), has officially launched a merchant cash advance product.
Dozens of news outlets have announced that the company is providing loans, but that’s not all, AltFinanceDaily has learned. Both loans and merchant cash advances are available.
The company’s FAQ page originally explained the “Capital” product as a merchant cash advance but it’s since been updated to reflect that they offer access to both merchant cash advances and loans. An official Stripe spokesperson also clarified that an offer could be an MCA or a loan. The updated FAQ says that funding terms would be available in the customer dashboard, in the funding contract, and that which one a customer qualifies for depends on the specifics of their business.
Stripe merchant account customers can find out if they’re eligible for funding in their dashboard. If they’re not, they can still send Stripe a note through the dashboard to signal that they’re interested, say how much they’re looking for, and select what they plan to do with the funds. Stripe says they will not review your credit report and that all offers are based solely on Stripe transaction history.
The new product will not disrupt the separate integration with Funding Circle, according to a statement provided to Digital Transactions. Stripe customers can still apply to Funding Circle by connecting their Stripe account. Funding Circle offers term loans that range from six months to five years.
Stripe’s MCA product is currently only available in the US, but the company’s founders, Patrick and John Collison, brothers, hail from an unlikely place, rural Ireland. The company handles tens of billions of dollars in payments a year across 34 countries.
Like other recent entrants into the small business funding space, Stripe’s advantage is its ability to tap into its existing customer base. Other payments companies such as PayPal and Square, for example, were among the top four largest originators (for which public data is available) of alternative small business funding in 2018.
Note: This article has been updated to reflect the changes made on Stripe’s website as well as an additional clarification from the company.
Snapshot On Australia: Growth In The Making
August 30, 2019
The Australian alternative lending market continues to gain momentum, bolstered in part by increased awareness, heightened competition and growing dissatisfaction with the status quo.
Indeed, there’s been significant growth in the few years since AltFinanceDaily first wrote about the nascent alternative lending business down under. Notably, Australia’s alternative funding volume surpassed $1.14 billion in 2017, up 88 percent from $609.59 million in 2016, according to the latest data available from KPMG research. It’s the largest country in terms of total alternative finance market volume in the Asia Pacific region, excluding China, according to KPMG.
To be sure, the Australian market is still relatively small—at least compared with the U.S. Digging deeper, the largest share of market volume in 2017—the latest data available—came from balance sheet business lending, accounting for more than $574 million, according to KPMG. P2P marketplace consumer lending had the second largest market volume at $256 million. Invoice trading was the next largest segment of the Australian alternative finance market, accounting for $142.65 million, according to the KPMG report.
Its small size notwithstanding, what makes the Australian market particularly interesting is the potential promise it holds for the companies already established there and the opportunities it may offer to new entrants that find ways to successfully compete in the market.
Certainly alternative lending opportunities in Australia are growing, as awareness increases and the desire by consumers and businesses for favorable rates and faster service intensifies. The Australian alternative lending market is similar to Canada in that a small number of large banks dominate the market both in terms of consumer lending and small business lending. But, like in Canada, alternative lenders are gaining ground amid a changing customer mindset that values speed, favorable rates and a digital experience.
Equifax estimates that alternative finance volume in Australia is now growing at about 10 percent to 15 percent per year; that compares to a decline of approximately 20 percent for some major traditional lenders in terms of credit growth, says Moses Samaha, executive general manager for Equifax in Sydney. This presents an opportunity for alternative lenders to serve parts of the market the banks don’t want and those that are more attuned to a digital experience.
Even so, challenges persist. For instance, digital disruptors are still working on gaining brand awareness, and the market is only so big to be able to accommodate a certain number of alternative players. Time will time whether there will be consolidation among alternative lenders and more bank partnerships, which haven’t been so successful to date. “It doesn’t feel like they are as active as they were announced to be,” Samaha says.
At present, the Australian market consists of a few dozen alternative lenders pitted against four major banks. RateSetter, SocietyOne and Wisr are among the largest alternative players in the consumer lending space. On the small business side, Capify, GetCapital, Moula, OnDeck, Prospa and Spotcap are some of the leading companies. PayPal Working Capital also has a growing presence in the Australian small business lending market.
New lenders continue to eye the Australian market for entry, but it’s not an easy market to crack, according to industry participants. The market consists of mostly home-grown players and that’s not expected to change drastically. (Capify, OnDeck and Berlin-based Spotcap are notable exceptions. Another U.S. major player, Kabbage, previously provided its technology to Australia’s Kikka Capital, but that agreement is no longer in force.)
There can be a steep learning curve when it comes to outsiders doing business in Australia. What’s more, there’s no longer the first-to-market advantage that existed a decade or so ago. It’s also a relatively limited market in terms of size, which can be off-putting. Australia has a population of around 25 million, making it less populated than the state of California, with an estimated 39.9 million residents.
Still, for alternative players that are able to successfully navigate the challenges the Australian market presents, there’s ample opportunity to grab market share away from traditional players—similar to the pattern that’s emerged elsewhere around the globe.
Take consumer lending, for example. The unsecured consumer lending market in Australia sits at about $70 billion, with the large banks occupying maybe a 90 percent share of that, says Mathew Lu, chief operating officer of Wisr (previously known as DirectMoney Limited). Compared with other markets such as U.K. and the U.S., who went through a similar journey around a decade ago, “Australia is probably three or four years into that same journey of growth. It’s shifting and changing,” he says.
Alternative lenders have made strides in undercutting the large banks by offering generally lower rates and typically faster loan times. Unfavorable press related to bank lending practices has also benefited alternative lenders. Lu refers to these conditions as “a perfect storm” for growth.
Wisr, for instance, saw loan origination volume spike 409 percent in fiscal year 2018. The company secured $75 million in loan funding agreements last year and boasts more than 80,000 customers, according to a company presentation.
Marketplace lender, SocietyOne, which in March reached $600 million in loan originations, is another example of an alternative lender that has benefited from the momentum. The company— celebrating its 7th anniversary this summer—is hoping to reach $1 billion in loans by 2020, according to its website.
RateSetter—another major player in this space—has also experienced significant growth since launching in Australia in 2014, and is now funding over $20 million in loans each month, according to its website. In April, the company soared past $500 million in loans funded and in May it saw a record number of new investors register. The company has more than 15,000 registered investors by its own account.
One question for the future is whether the consumer alternative lending space in Australia will ultimately be too crowded amid a spate of new entrants. Wisr’s Lu says “there’s a big question mark” regarding how many alternative lenders the market can sustain. “Will there be a level of consolidation or amalgamation? These are questions ahead of us,” he says.
For its part, alternative lending to small businesses is also a growing force within Australia. As a testament to the development of this market, in June 2018, a group of Australia’s leading online small business lenders released a Code of Lending Practice, a voluntary code designed to promote fair terms and customer protections. Currently, the Code only covers unsecured loans to small businesses. Signatories include Capify, GetCapital, Moula, OnDeck, Prospa and Spotcap.
Capify—an early entrant to Australia—has been pursuing businesses there since 2008. The company, which integrated its U.S. business in 2017 to Strategic Funding Source (now called Kapitus) is now operating only in Australia and the U.K. In Australia, it has executed more than 7,500 business financing transactions for Australian businesses and has more than 50 staff members in its Australian offices.
The company recently closed a deal with Goldman Sachs for a $95 million line of credit for growth in Australia and the U.K., which includes building out its broker program to increase distribution and technology investment.
David Goldin, the company’s chief executive, says Capify is hoping to grow its Australian business between 25 percent and 30 percent in 2019. The company is looking at M&A activity as well as organic growth.
Since Capify has been in the market, he has seen a number of new entrants—some more successful than others. One concern Goldin has is the lack of experience by some of these competitors. Many aren’t pricing the risk properly and not underwriting prudently to be able to weather a downturn, he says. They are so new, he questions whether they have the expertise to be able to survive a downturn given what he characterizes as pricing and underwriting missteps.
“You can’t go out 24 months on a 1.25 factor rate – that’s crazy,” he says, referring to some contracts he’s seen. “I’ve seen this movie in the U.S. before and it doesn’t end well.”
Meanwhile, competition has driven down prices and made moving quickly on potential leads more of a necessity. When leads come in today, if you’re not on the phone in 30 minutes, you could lose it to a competitor, he says.
While the small business market is an enticing one for alternative lenders, raising awareness of their offerings continues to be a challenge.
“The small business market is fragmented and raising awareness is expensive,” says Beau Bertoli, co-founder and co-chief executive of Prospa, another prominent small business lender in Australia. “There hasn’t been much innovation in small business banking, but many Australians still don’t think of switching from banks and traditional lenders,” he says.
That said, more small businesses are turning to alternative lenders and these companies say they expect growth to increase over time. Recent research commissioned by OnDeck found that 22 percent of small and medium-sized businesses would consider an online lender, up from 11 percent in the past. This could be buoyed further by the introduction of Open Banking in Australia, which was set to be introduced in Australia in 2019, but this was pushed back to early 2020.
“We look forward to the introduction of Open Banking in Australia as it should allow lenders to use incremental data points to improve risk modeling, and increase competition in the SME lending space, ultimately providing SMEs with improved access to cashflow solutions to grow and run their businesses,” says Cameron Poolman, chief executive of OnDeck in Australia.
Bertoli of Prospa, which recently listed on the Australian Stock Exchange, says the Australian alternative lending market will also benefit from strong support from industry and government to increase competition and improve consumer and small business outcomes. The government recently established a $2 billion Australian Business Securitisation Fund, which is a huge win for small business, he says, that will ultimately make the finance available to small business owners more affordable by lowering the wholesale cost of funds for alternative lenders. “We expect this will boost credibility and consideration of alternative lenders among small business owners,” he says.
Declining property values is another factor helping alternative lending. “In November 2018 we saw the largest annual fall in property prices in Australia since the global financial crisis in 2009,” says Simon Keast, managing director of Spotcap Australia and New Zealand.
“As property prices decline, business owners find it more difficult to use their home as loan security and as such, turn to alternative lenders such as Spotcap that can provide them with unsecured loans for their business,” he says. What’s more, the SME Growth Index in March showed for the first time that business owners are almost as likely to turn to an alternative lender as they are to their main bank to fund growth, says.
Overall, the market opportunity for alternative lending to small businesses is compelling, says Bertoli of Prospa. “We estimate the potential market for small business lending in Australia is more than $20 billion per annum and we’ve penetrated only about 2 percent of the market so far. There are 2.3 million small businesses in Australia, and they’re crying out for capital,” he says.
Keast of Spotcap says he expects to see more banks and non-financial enterprises looking to leverage the technology fintech lenders have built to provide swift and digital lending products to small businesses. He offers the example of a partnership Spotcap, a German-based company, has with an Austrian Bank to provide same-day finance to SMEs in Austria as an example of the types of partnerships the company could also seek in Australia. “We have already partnered with an Austrian Bank that is leveraging our lending platform to provide same-day finance to SMEs in Austria, and there is plenty of interest for similar partnerships on the ground here,” he says.
OnDeck, meanwhile, expects to see a shake-out within the alternative finance sector, which will result in a smaller number of bigger players, with the ability to scale and serve multiple customers with a variety of products, according to Poolman, the company’s chief executive.
For his part, Goldin of Capify is bullish on the Australian small business market, but he cautions others that it’s not a gold rush type of place where everyone who comes in can make money.
“The state of California has more opportunity than the entire continent of Australia,” he says.
Born To Borrow
August 26, 2019
Consumer debt has surpassed $4 trillion for the first time, and it’s continuing its ascent into the stratosphere. It’s getting big enough to trigger the next recession, and financial education isn’t changing the underlying consumer behavior.
Personal loan balances shot up $21 billion last year to close 2018 at a record high of $138 billion, according to a TransUnion Industry Insights Report. The average unsecured personal loan debt per borrower was $8,402 as of the end of last year, TransUnion says.
Much of the increase in consumer debt has emerged with the rise of fintechs— such as Personal Capital, Lending Club, Kabbage and Wealthfront—notes Rutger van Faassen, vice president of consumer lending at a U.S. office of London-based Informa Financial Intelligence, a company that advises financial institutions and operates offices in 43 countries.
In fact, Fintech loans now comprise 38% of all unsecured personal loan balances, a larger market share than any of the more traditional institutions, the TransUnion report notes. Banks’ market share has decreased from 40% in 2013 to 28% today, while credit unions’ share has declined from 31% to 21% during the same time period, TransUnion says.
Fintechs are also gaining at the expense of the home- equity market, van Faassen maintains. “They’re eating away at some of the balance that maybe historically was in home-equity loans,” he says. While total debt is increasing, the amount that’s in home equity loans is actually shrinking, he notes.
What’s more, fintechs are changing the way Americans think about credit, van Faassen continues. Until recently, consumers experienced a two step process. First, they identified a need or desire, like a washer and dryer or home renovation. Realizing they didn’t have the cash to fund those dreams, they took the second step by approaching a financial institution for a loan.
If consumers chose a home equity line of credit to procure the cash, they had to wait for something like 40 days from the beginning of the application process to the time they got the money, van Faassen says. “You really had to be sure you wanted something,” or the process wasn’t worth the effort, he says.
Fintechs have removed a lot of the “pain” from that process, van Faassen says. With algorithms helping to assess the risk that an applicant can’t or won’t repay a debt and digitization easing access to financial records, fintechs can quickly evaluate and make a decision on an application. Tech also helps assess applicants with thin or nonexistent credit files, which broadens the clientele while also contributing to total consumer debt.
Meanwhile, mimicking an age old process in the car business, merchants are beginning to make credit available at the point of sale. Walmart, for example, recently signed a deal with Affirm, a Silicon Valley lender, to provide point-of-sale loans of three, six or 12 months to finance purchases ranging from $150 to $2,000. Shoppers apply for the loans by providing basic information on their mobile phones and don’t have to talk to anyone in person about their finances. Affirm’s CEO Max Levchin has called the underwriting process ‘basically instant.”
If that convenience comes at too high a cost, it doesn’t matter much because borrowers can later find another finance vehicle with better terms, van Faassen says. “So if I get the money at the point of sale, which might have been zero for six months and then it steps up to 20-plus percent, there is no problem with refinancing that debt,” he says.
But there’s a downside to the ease of borrowing, van Faassen cautions. It could trigger the next recession, even though unemployment remains low. Despite modest recent gains, wages have remained nearly stagnant for years. That means an increase in interest rates could lessen consumers’ ability to pay off their debts, he says.
Meanwhile, at least some large mortgage lenders have begun running into problems, a situation that bears an eerie resemblance to the beginning of the Great Recession that struck near the end of 2007, notes a report in luckbox magazine, a publication for investors. Stearns Holding, the parent of Sterns Lending, the nation’s 20th largest mortgage lender, filed for bankruptcy protection just after the July 4 holiday, the luckbox article says.
Another worrisome sign with regard to the possibility of recession is emerging as institutional investors buy into the peer to peer lending market. Institutional investors bought batches of sliced and diced home mortgage securities that helped bring about the Great Depression.
Then there’s the nagging notion that the country and the world are becoming ripe for recession simply because no downturns have occurred for a while. Talk to that effect was circulating at the recent LendIt Conference, van Faassen observes. Fintech executives often come from the banking world and thus still find themselves haunted by the specter of the Great Recession. That’s why they’re already beginning to tighten underwriting for consumer credit van Faassen says.
One difference this time around lies in the fact that nothing about the increase in consumer debt appears to be hidden from public view, van Faassen says. Before, investors fell victim to the mistaken impression that risky mortgage-backed securities were rated AAA when they weren’t.
Plus, the increase in peer-to-peer lending could keep the economy going even if big financial institutions freeze the way they did during the Great Recession, van Faassen notes. “Hopefully, with the new structures that are out there, we can keep liquidity going,” he says. That raises key questions for the alternative small- business funding community. The industry came into being partly as a response to banks’ tightened lending policies during the Great Recession, so perhaps a downturn isn’t such a bad thing for the sector. But a downturn for the economy in general could cripple merchants’ ability to pay off debt.
But all bets are off during hard times. In the last recession the conventional wisdom that consumers make their mortgage payment before paying other bills was turned on its head. Instead of making the house payment—because foreclosure would take several months—people were choosing to make their car payments so they could get to work. Nobody really knows ahead of time what will happen in a recession, van Faassen notes.
After all, economics relies to at least some degree upon the often-irrational financial decisions of the general public. And science demonstrates that it’s no easy task to convince consumers to handle their cash, credit and debt responsibly, says Mariel Beasley, principal at the Center for Advanced Hindsight at Duke University and Co-Director of the Common Cents Lab (CCL), which works to improve the financial behavior of low- to moderate-income households.
“For the last 30 years in the U.S. there has been a huge emphasis on increasing financial education, financial literacy,” says Beasley. But it hasn’t really worked. “Content-based financial education classes only accounted for .1 percent variation in financial behavior,” she continues. “We like to joke that it’s not zero but it’s very, very close.” And that’s the average. Online and classroom financial education influenced lower-income people even less.
Lots of other factors influence financial behavior, Beasley notes. How much a person saves, for example, depends upon how much they make, what their bank tells them and what practices they encountered at home as children, she says. The CCL has been finding out some other things, too.
In one example of its findings, it discovered that putting an amount for a minimum payment on a credit card decreases how much consumers pay. That happens because listing a minimum payment amount creates an anchor, and borrowers adjust their payment upward from there, Beasley says. If the card carrier doesn’t specify a minimum, consumers tend to adjust downward from the full amount they owe. “It turns out to be incredibly powerful,” she contends.
It’s the kind of problem that shows financial institutions haven’t devised many systems to reduce consumer debt by speeding up repayment, Beasley maintains. In this example, suggesting higher payments would prompt some consumers to pay off their debt more quickly.
In an exception to standard practice, a credit card company called Petal does exactly that by placing a slider on its website to help borrowers determine the amount of their payment, she notes.
Meanwhile, people tend to base financial decisions on the examples they see other people set, Beasley says. Problems arise with that tendency because they may see one neighbor spending money freely to dine in restaurants but don’t see any of the many neighbors eating at home to save money. They see a neighbor driving a new car but don’t know how much that neighbor is setting aside for retirement.
That’s why most people overestimate how much others spend to dine out in restaurants, Beasley says. When shown the error, most reduce their own spending in restaurants, she notes, but within two weeks their behavior returns to its original level, their newfound knowledge “drowned out by the noise in the world,” she says.
That’s not good for consumers or small businesses, but help is on the way, according to John Thompson, chief program officer of the Financial Health Network, a national nonprofit research and consulting firm that works with financial institutions and other companies to improve consumer financial health.
As part of that mission, the Network has formulated procedures to assess the financial health of individuals and small businesses, Thompson says. It’s too early to say whether the tool will help with loan underwriting, he notes, but financial wellness determines the ability to pay back debt, he notes.
The Network also publishes the U.S. Financial Health Pulse, which recently pronounced just 28% of Americans financially healthy, meaning that they have sufficient income, savings and planning to handle an unexpected expense and act on the decisions they make. About 55% are relegated to various stages of coping, and 17% find themselves in a vulnerable state.
So Americans aren’t feeling financially secure, and they’ve borrowed $4 trillion to reach that unenviable state. They’re borrowing more and learning virtually nothing useful about their financial errors. Thompson has a way of summing up the situation. “It’s crazy,” he says.
Gold Rush: Merchant Cash Advances Are Still Hot
August 18, 2019
Last year, when Kevin Frederick struck out on his own to form his own catering company in Annapolis, the veteran caterer knew that he’d need a food trailer for his business to succeed.
He reckoned that he had a good case for a $50,000 small-business loan. The Annapolis-based entrepreneur boasted stellar personal credit, $30,000 in the bank, and a track record that included 35 years of experience in his chosen profession. More impressively, his newly minted company—Chesapeake Celebrations Catering—was on a trajectory to haul in $350,000 in revenues over just eight months of operations in 2018. And, after paying himself a salary, he cleared $60,000 in pre-tax profit.
But Frederick’s business-credit profile was so thin that no bank or business funder would talk to him. So woeful was his lack of business credit, Frederick reports, that his only financing option was paying a broker a $2,000 finder’s fee for a high-interest loan.
Luckily, he says, everything changed when he discovered Nav, an online, credit-data aggregator and financial matchmaker.
Based in Utah, Nav had him spiff up his business credit with Dun & Bradstreet, a top rating agency and a Nav business partner. This was accomplished with a bankcard issued to Frederick’s business by megabank J.P. Morgan Chase. Soon afterward, he says, Nav steered him to Kapitus (formerly Strategic Funding Source), a New York-based lender and merchant cash advance firm that provided some $23,000 in funding.
“They led me in the right direction,” Frederick says of Nav. “A lady there (at Nav) helped me with my credit, warning me that the credit card I’d been using had an effect on my personal credit. Then she led me to Kapitus, all probably within a week.”
Now, Frederick has his food trailer. He reports that its total cost—$14,000 for the trailer, which came “with a concession window, mill-finished walls, and flooring” plus $43,000 in renovations—amounted to $57,000. Equipped with a full kitchen—including refrigeration, sinks, ovens, and a stove—the food trailer can be towed to weddings, reunions, and the myriad parties he caters in the Delmarva Peninsula. In addition, Frederick can also park the trailer at fairgrounds and serve seafood, barbeque, and other viands to the lucrative festival market.
Meanwhile, the caterer’s funders are happy to have him as their new customer. The people at Kapitus, to whom he is making daily payments (not counting weekends and holidays), are especially grateful. “Nav provides a valuable service,” says Seth Broman, vice-president of business development at Kapitus. “They know how to turn coal into diamonds,”
Nav does not charge small businesses for its services. As it gathers data from credit reporting services with which it has partnerships—Experian, TransUnion, Dun and Bradstreet, Equifax—and employs additional metrics, such as cashflow gleaned from an entrepreneur’s bank accounts, Nav earns fees from credit card issuers, lenders and MCA firms.
The company has close ties to financial technology companies that include Kabbage and OnDeck, and also collaborates with MCA funders such as National Funding, Rapid Finance, FundBox, and Kapitus. “We give lenders and funders better-qualified merchants at a lower cost of client acquisition,” says Caton Hanson, Nav’s general counsel and co-founder, adding: “They don’t have to spend as much money on leads.”
As banks have increasingly shunned small-business lending in the decade since the financial crisis, and as the economy has snapped back with a prolonged recovery, alternative funders—particularly unlicensed companies offering lightly regulated, high-cost merchant cash advances (MCAs)—have been piling into the business.
And service companies like Nav—which is funded by nearly $100 million in venture capital and which reports aiding more than 500,000 small businesses since it was founded in 2012—are thriving alongside the booming alternative-funding industry.
Over the past five years, the MCA industry’s financings have been growing by 20% annually, according to 2016 projections by Bryant Park Capital, a Manhattan-based, boutique investment bank. BPC’s specialty finance division handles mergers and acquisitions as well as debt-and-equity capital raising across multiple industries and is one of the few Wall Street firms with an MCA-industry practice. By BPC’s estimates, the MCA industry will have more than doubled its small business funding to $19.2 billion by year- end 2019, up from $8.6 billion in 2014.
Bankrolled by a broad assortment of hedge funds, private equity firms, family offices, and assorted multimillionaire and billionaire investors on the qui vive for outsized returns on their liquid assets, the MCA industry promises a 20%-80% profit rate, reports David Roitblat, president of Better Accounting Solutions, a New York accountancy specializing in the MCA industry. Based on doing the books for some 30 MCA firms, Roitblat reports that the range in profit margins depends on the terms of contracts and a funder’s underwriting skills.
The numerical size and growth of the MCA industry is hard to ascertain, reports Sean Murray, editor of AltFinanceDaily (this publication), which tracks trends in the industry and sponsors several major conferences. “So much is anecdotal,” Murray says.
Even so, the evidence that MCA companies are proliferating—and prospering—is undeniable. Over the past two years, AltFinanceDaily’s events, which experience substantial attendance from the MCA industry, have consistently sold out, requiring the events to be moved to larger venues. In Miami, attendance in January this year topped 400-plus attendees, Murray reports, roughly double the crowd that packed the Gale Hotel in 2018.
Similarly, the May, 2019, Broker Fair in New York at the Roosevelt Hotel drew more than 700 participants compared with the sellout crowd of roughly 400 last year in Brooklyn. (Despite ample notice that this year’s Broker Fair at the Roosevelt was sold out and advance tickets were required, as many as 40-50 latecomers sought entry and, unfortunately, had to be turned away.)
The upsurge of capital and the swelling number of entrants into the MCA business has all the earmarks of a gold rush. “Everybody and his brother is trying to get a piece of the action,” asserts Roitblat, the New York accountant.
And there are two ways to hit paydirt in a gold rush. One way is to prospect for gold. But another way is to sell picks and shovels, tents, food, and supplies to the prospectors. “If you can find a way to service the gold rush, you can make a lot of money,” says Kathryn Rudie Harrigan, a management professor and business-strategy expert at the Columbia University Graduate School of Business. “It’s like profiteering in wartime.”
As Professor Harrigan suggests, cashing in on the gold rush by servicing it has parallels across multiple industries. Consider the case of Charles River Laboratories, which has capitalized on the rapid development of the biotechnology industry over the past few decades.
As scientists searched for biologics to battle diseases like cancer and AIDS, the Boston-area company began producing experimental animals known as “transgenic mice.” Informally known as “smart mice,” Charles River’s test animals are specially designed to carry human genes, aiding investigators in their understanding of gene function and genetic responses to diseases and therapeutic interventions. (The smart mouse’s antibodies can also be harvested. “Seven out of the eleven monoclonal antibody drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 2006 and 2011,” according to biotechnology.com, “were derived from transgenic mice.”)
In the MCA version of the gold rush, a bevy of law and accounting firms, debt-collection agencies and credit-approval firms, among other service providers, have either sprung to life to undergird the new breed of alternative funder or added expertise to suit the industry’s wants and needs. (This cohort has been joined, moreover, by a superstructure of Washington, D.C.-based trade associations and lobbyists that have been growing like expansion teams in a professional sports league. But their story will have to wait for another day.)
Rather than being exploitative, supporting companies serve as a vital mainstay in an industry’s ecosystem, notes Alfred Watkins, a former World Bank economist and Washington, D.C.-based consultant: “A gold miner can’t mine,” he says, “unless he has a tent and a pickaxe.”
And in the high-risk, high-reward MCA industry, which can have significant default rates depending on the risk model, many funders can’t fund if they don’t have reliable debt collection. Many of the bigger companies, says Paul Boxer, who works on the funding side of the industry, have the capability of collecting on their own. But for many others—particularly the smaller players in the industry—it’s necessary to hire an outside firm.
One of the more widely known collectors for the MCA industry is Kearns, Brinen & Monaghan where Mark LeFevre is president and chief executive. The Dover (Del.)- based firm, LeFevre says, first added MCA funders to its client roster in 2012; but it has only been since 2014 that “business really took off.”
LeFevre won’t say just how many MCA firms have contracted with him, but he estimates that his firm has scaled up its staff 35%-40% over the past five years to meet the additional MCA workload. The industry, LeFevre adds, “is one of the top-growth industries I’ve seen in the 36 years that I’ve been in business.”
He also says, “People in the MCA industry know a lot about where to put money, but collections are not one of their strong points. They need to get a professional. It gives them the free time to make more money while we go in behind them and collect.”
If repeated dunning fails to elicit a satisfactory response, KBM has several collection strategies that strengthen its hand. The big three, LeFevre says, are “negotiation, identifying assets, and litigation.” He adds: “We have a huge database of attorneys who do nothing but file suit on commercial debt internationally. Then we can enforce a judgment. You don’t want someone who just makes a few phone calls.”
Because business has become so competitive, LeFevre says, he won’t discuss his fee schedule. As to KBM’s success rate, he says no tidy figure is available either, but asserts: “Our checks sent to our clients are more than most agencies because of our proprietary collection process.”
Jordan Fein, chief executive at Greenbox Capital in Miami and a KBM client told AltFinanceDaily: “We work with them. They’re organized and communicate well and they know to collect. They’re on the expensive side, though. I’ve got other agencies that I use that are cheaper.”
Debt-collection firm Merel Corp, a spinoff from the Tamir Law Group in New York, might be a lower-cost alternative. Formed in just the past 18 months to service the growing MCA industry, Merel typically takes 15%-25% of whatever “obligation” it can collect, says Levi Ainsworth, co-chief operating officer.
A successful collection, Ainsworth asserts, really begins with the underwriting process and attention to detail by the funders. “Instead of coming in at the end,” he says, “we try to prevent problems at the start of the process.”
For an MCA firm dealing with an excessive number of defaults, Merel sometimes places one of its employees with the funder to handle “pre-defaults,” for which it charges a lower fee. The collections firm has also built a reputation for not relying on a “confession of judgment.” Now that COJs have been outlawed for out-of-state collections in New York State, Merel’s skills could be more in demand.
Better Accounting Solutions, which has its offices on Wall Street, is another service-provider promising to lighten the workload of MCA firms by providing back-office support. The company is headed by Roitblat, a 36-year- old former rabbinical student turned tax-and-accounting entrepreneur. Since he founded the company with two part-time employees in 2011, it’s ballooned to some 70 employees.
Roitblat does not have all of his firm’s eggs in one MCA basket. His firm handles tax, accounting and bookkeeping work for law firms, the fashion industry, restaurants and architectural firms. Even so, he says, thirty MCA clients— or more than half his clientele—rely on the firm’s expertise, three of whom were just added in June. His best month was January, 2018, when six funders contracted for his services. “Growth in the MCA industry has been explosive,” he says.
MCA accounting work has its own vagaries and oddities. For example, because of the industry’s high default rate, Roitblat notes, a 10%-slice of every merchant’s payment is funneled into a “default reserve account.” And when an actual default occurs, credits are moved from the receivables account to the default reserve account.
Roitblat takes pride that his firm’s MCA work has passed audits from respected accounting firms like Friedman, Cohen, Taubman and Marcum LLP. Moreover, he has helped clients uncover internal fraud and, in one instance, spotted costly flaws in a business model. An early MCA client, Roitblat says, had no idea that “he was losing close to $100,000 a month by spending on Google ads.”
Better Accounting also keeps its rates low. The firm typically assigns a junior accountant to handle clients’ accounts while a senior manager oversees his or her work. “He (Roitblat) does a fantastic job,” says David Lax, managing partner of Orange Advance, a Lakewood (N.J.)-based MCA firm. “They understand the MCA business. And even if your business is small, they can set up the infrastructure and do the work more economically and efficiently than you can. You’d have to create the position of comptroller or senior-level accountant,” Lax adds, “to equal their work.”
Top-notch competence and low rates, Lax says, are not the only reasons he often refers Roitblat’s firm to fellow MCA companies. “The only thing better than their work,” he says, “is the people themselves.”
Whether it’s oil and gas, banking and real estate, construction, health care or high-technology—you name it—lawyers have an important role across nearly every industry. So too with the MCA industry where, as has been shown, there is an especially high demand for attorneys skilled at winning debt-collection cases.
To hear Greenbox’s Fein tell it, a skilled lawyer handling debt collection can write his or her own ticket. A talented attorney, he says, not only retrieves lost money and prevents losses, but enables the funder to “offer the product cheaper than the competition.
“We use a ton of attorneys in 35 states in the U.S. and in Canada,” Fein adds, “and you have no idea how many attorneys we go through until we find a good one.”
Until recently, much of the MCA industry’s success has resulted from a hands-off, laissez faire legal and regulatory environment—particularly the legal interpretation that a merchant cash advance is not a loan. The industry has also benefited from the fact that most credit regulation focused on consumer credit and not on business and commercial financings.
But now, as the MCA industry is maturing and showing up on the radar screens of state legislatures, Congress, regulatory agencies, and the courts, there is heightening demand for legal counsel. In just the past 12 months, California passed a truth-in-lending statute requiring MCA firms not only to clearly state their terms, but to translate the short-term funding costs of MCAs into an annual percentage rate. The state of New York, as has been noted, passed legislation restricting the use of COJs.
Moreover, notes Mark Dabertin, special counsel at Pepper Hamilton, a top national law firm based in Philadelphia, the state of New Jersey is contemplating licensing MCA practitioners. The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently determined in Anderson v. Koch that, because of a “call provision” in a funding contract, a merchant cash advance was actually a loan.
And, Dabertin warns, the Federal Trade Commission, which has the authority to treat a merchant cash advance as a consumer transaction—replete with the full panoply of consumer disclosures and protections—is training its gunsights on the industry. “On May 23,” Dabertin reports in a memo to clients, “the FTC launched an investigation into potentially unfair or deceptive practices in the small business financing industry, including by merchant cash advance providers.”
These pressures from government and the courts will only make doing business more costly and drive up the industry’s barriers to entry. Failing to stay legal, moreover, could not only result in punitive court judgments, but render an MCA firm vulnerable to legal action by their investors.
“It’s inevitable that the industry will evolve,” Dabertin says, and firms in the industry will have to self-police. “They will need to hire counsel and a compliance staff,” he adds. “You can’t just do it by the seat of your pants.”
