Commission Chargebacks: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
August 10, 2015
Imagine you’re a 20-something-year-old broker who’s just, in good faith, referred a merchant to a funder. You walk away with a few thousand dollars in your pocket, and you promptly spend it on rent and a celebratory steak dinner. Then all of a sudden…BAM! Just like that the merchant goes belly up and the funder’s knocking on your door to clawback your hard-earned commission money, which, of course, you’ve already spent.
For many brokers, it’s a familiar-sounding story—with an ending they’d like to rewrite. Their thinking goes like this: underwriters, not brokers, are the ones who are supposed to dig into a company’s finances before approving a deal. Underwriters, not brokers, are the ones who make the financial decisions about whether or not a deal can go forward. Therefore, underwriters, not brokers, should be responsible when deals implode.
“There are a lot of people who think there should not be commission clawbacks—that they’re unfair,” says Archie Bengzon, who runs the New York sales office for Miami-based Rapid Capital Funding, a direct funder. Bengzon was previously the president of Merchant Cash Network, an ISO in New York.
While there’s a fair amount of closed-door grousing by brokers, most funders are standing their ground—with only a select few companies kicking these controversial policies to the curb. More commonly, funders claim clawbacks, despite being hated by brokers, are a necessary evil. These funders say that without them, they’d stand to lose too much on bad deals and that they need a way to protect themselves from rogue brokers.
“There is a group of people out there who are trying to game the system,” says industry attorney Paul Rianda, who heads a law firm in Irvine, California.
The Case for Scrapping Clawbacks
Brokers in favor of changing the status quo understand the need to prevent bad apples from smelling up the entire industry. But even so they believe that chargebacks are patently unfair to the honest majority of brokers who often make just enough to scrape by. In most cases, the brokers are typically young—18-to-26-year-olds trying to make money and learn the industry. They don’t have the financial resources that the funders do and the onus shouldn’t be on them if the deal they brought in—with good intentions—goes bust in a short time, according to the owner of a top-tier ISO/Hybrid in Staten Island, New York, who requested his name not be used.
This is especially true in cases where the underwriter took risks they shouldn’t have or decided to fund merchants in cases where they shouldn’t have. “It’s the underwriter’s job to protect the money that their company is lending out,” he says. “[Chargebacks] shouldn’t be going on in this industry.”
One solution might be for more ISOs to stand up to funders and refuse to send them future deals. That’s exactly what the Staten Island executive did a few years ago when a funder he repeatedly worked with tried to claw back his commission on a particular deal. He made a big stink and told them he’d never send them business again. It was enough of a threat to convince the funder to back off. “If more ISOs start saying that…then the funders will start sweating and change their contracts. Because it really isn’t fair,” he says.
For some brokers, however, taking such a strong position with funders is a risky strategy in a cottage industry where all the major players know each other and there’s no shortage of hungry young brokers willing to do business. So while these brokers don’t like losing money, they aren’t necessarily loudly crying foul either.
Matthew Ross, managing member of Go Ahead Funding, a broker and funder in Basalt, Colorado, has been in the business for nine years. He’s only had one commission clawed back once in this time period—it was a commission for $1,500 on a $25,000 deal that went sour within a month, he recalls. He was upset at the time and felt the underwriter should have done more to vet the merchant who went belly up. “Why didn’t the underwriters catch this?” he remembers asking at the time.
Nonetheless, Ross was a lot calmer than some brokers might have been under the circumstances. For instance, he says he never threatened to stop sending the funder business as many brokers might have done. “I don’t necessary like it, but I understand it. I’m not going to fight it,” he says.
Some brokers are making their displeasure with the practice known by declining to sign contracts that contain clawback clauses. Nathan Abadi, founder and president of Excel Capital Management, a New York-based funder and ISO, says he either refuses to do business outright or he comes to a verbal agreement with a funder that he’ll wait two weeks for payment to make sure the deal has legs. “I meet them in the middle,” he says.
The reason he likes this approach is that it’s more palpable for brokers to lose paper commissions versus actual money that they’ve already been given and possibly spent. Otherwise, as a business owner working with numerous agents, it’s bad for business. “It causes an internal conflict because now you have to penalize the person who’s working for you,” Abadi says.
The Flip Side of the Chargeback Coin
Meanwhile, there’s a whole other camp within alternative funding—including some brokers—who feel chargebacks are important as a fraud-deterrent. Given the fact that the industry is still largely unregulated, many believe that funders need some type of fire retardant to prevent being burned by unscrupulous brokers.
“We think that they serve an important role,” says Stephen Sheinbaum, founder of Merchant Cash and Capital, a New York-based funder. “Most of our stronger referral partners do not object to it. It’s a way of aligning our interests with the sales force.”
About 60 percent of the company’s funding business comes from third-parties including ISOs; its direct sales force accounts for the other 40 percent.
Even some brokers concede that clawbacks can serve a valuable purpose. Sure, it’s aggravating to lose money, but they feel that without clawbacks the industry would be even more of a free-for-all than it already is.
“I can see both sides,” says Bengzon, the funder and broker. Wearing his broker hat, Bengzon has felt the sting of losing a commission once or twice in the 100 or so deals he’s done. But he still understands why funders—who take a big monetary hit when deals go sour—would want to protect themselves and require brokers to have some skin in the game.
“If we’re going to reap the rewards of a nice commission, we should also understand that it can still be taken away if a deal goes bad,” he says.
When he sends leads to funders, Ross of Go Ahead Funding says he does his best to make sure he’s sending only high quality merchants. He tries to vet them upfront—to the limited extent he can—in order to avoid problems later on. Clawback provisions serve as “an incentive for [brokers] to keep their eyes open,” he says.
Know What You’re Signing
About 80 percent of the agreements that come across the desk of Rianda, the industry attorney, have a 30-day clawback provision. But he’s seen some agreements that have longer time frames—60, 90 or even 120 days. Those types of contracts aren’t as common, but they’re out there.
It’s important for brokers to carefully read the fine print of a contract before signing on the dotted line. “It sounds obvious, but a lot of people don’t do that,” says Bengzon.
The shorter the clawback time frame, the less brokers tend to balk. “People don’t want to be paid on a deal and three months later they lose that commission, which they’ve already spent,” he says.
Bengzon believes a clawback that extends any more than a month is excessive. “I would never sign something greater than 30 days,” he says.
According to Sheinbaum of Merchant Cash and Capital, 30 days is an appropriate time frame to help weed out fraud without putting unnecessary burden on brokers who are sending legitimate business. “The purpose of the provision is to try and stop people from committing fraud at the outset,” he says.
David Sederholt, executive vice president and chief operating officer at Strategic Funding Source Inc. in New York, says clawback provisions in the contracts Strategic uses range from 30 to 45 days depending on the contract. He says he understands brokers don’t like them, but that it’s nonetheless important to have the provision in order to protect the funders. “There’s got to be some partnership involved here,” he says.
Clawbacks Not A Free-For-All
Many funders recognize that there’s a fine line between protecting their business and cutting off potential revenue sources.
“You start clawing back commissions on every default, a broker will stop sending business,” says Ross of Go Ahead Funding.
Sheinbaum of Merchant Cash and Capital notes that clawbacks aren’t used as often as some brokers might think. He says out of 800 deals in a 30- or 31-day period, his company enforces its clawback policy only a handful of times each month.
He also points out that while the clawback policy is on the books, Merchant Cash and Capital looks at each situation individually. If it’s clear that the broker tried to defraud the funder, that’s one thing, he says. But, if for instance, a merchant has a heart attack and dies 20 days into a deal and can’t pay back the funds, Merchant Cash and Capital wouldn’t try to clawback the broker’s commission in that situation, he says.
Strategic Funding has only clawed back commissions once or twice in the past nine years, says Sederholt, the EVP.
The company works with a variety of brokers. Some have less than a 1 percent default rate and others have 12 percent to 14 percent default rates. As extra protection with brokers who have bad track records, Strategic Funding either declines to work with them at times, or has in place a stronger underwriting procedure with these deals.
Being more careful upfront is a better tactic than trying to go after commissions, which is extremely hard, Sederholt says.
Changing the Modus Operandi
While it’s not the industry norm, there are a few funders who have stopped using clawbacks, or are considering doing so, given all the headaches they can cause. Isaac D. Stern, chief executive of Yellowstone Capital LLC, a New York-based funder, says his company no longer tries to clawback commissions when deals go bust. The few times they tried to clawback commissions several years back, the brokers they went after were upset and threatened not to do business with them anymore. Yellowstone decided this approach was bad for business and that it would be more prudent to try something else.
“There’s too much competition, and if we were going to do clawbacks it would decimate our business,” he says. “It’s the broker’s job to bring in the deals. It’s our job to underwrite it. If something goes wrong on the deal, that’s on us. It’s not the broker’s fault.”
As protection, the contracts Yellowstone uses with brokers contain a provision allowing it to seek damages when fraud’s alleged. But in cases where brokers send what seems to be a legitimate deal that goes bad for something other than fraud, Yellowstone turns the other cheek. Yellowstone can afford to eat the $5,000 or $6,000 commission to ensure ongoing—and hopefully more positive leads—or so the thinking goes, according to Stern.
Overtime—if peer pressure continues to mount—it’s possible that more even more funders will decide chargebacks just aren’t worth the trouble. “I think the reason why some funders are moving away from [clawbacks] is because people are afraid of losing volume. Once one funder acquiesces, others will follow suit,” says Sheinbaum of Merchant Cash and Capital.
Capify Consolidates Four Companies Including AmeriMerchant Under One Umbrella
July 21, 2015
What do US-based AmeriMerchant, UK-based United Kapital, Australia-based AUSvance, and Canada-based True North Capital all have in common? They’re now all under the Capify Umbrella. According to a press release issued earlier today,”Capify will now operate under one unified name to serve as a global conglomerate provider of alternative finance solutions, including business loans and additional working capital products, to small and medium-sized businesses. Capiota, United Kapital’s business loan product provider, will also be included in the global rebrand as a part of Capify’s UK office.”
The consolidation of an Australia-based funding company is notable since that country’s commercial financing landscape is the subject of an upcoming magazine feature story of AltFinanceDaily’s July/August issue due to be distributed in a couple weeks. In that story, AUSvance’s John de Bree said of American interest over there, “I’m very surprised, the American market’s 15 times the size of ours.”
But as our readers will learn when the story is published, that market is just beginning to heat up.
David Goldin, the founder and CEO of AmeriMerchant will continue to be the consolidated company’s CEO and President. For those not familiar with his background, the release states:
Goldin created this business enterprise with no outside capital or funding and grew the company to more than 200 employees combined globally in all four offices. He entered the alternative lending space in 2002, after previously selling his startup company to Winstar Communications, a multi-billion dollar publicly-traded company at the time of the sale. Goldin has overcome many business obstacles including winning a ground-breaking patent lawsuit that threatened to end the U.S. alternative finance industry in its infancy stages. Via its proprietary underwriting technology platform, the company has demonstrated low default rates especially during the 2007-2009 global recession, a challenging time that resulted in the collapse of many alternative funding companies.
You can check out the full press release here.
Manual Underwriting Still Dominates in Tech-based Lending Environment
July 21, 2015For all the talk that technology is changing the way people lend and borrow, the commercial side appears stubbornly reluctant to relinquish control to algorithms. At the AltLend conference in NYC, business lenders and merchant cash advance companies alike were mostly united on the idea that somebody needs to be double checking the computers.
“I like eyes on a deal,” said Orion First Financial CEO David Schaefer. He discussed why an entirely manual underwriting process had weaknesses however through an experiment he conducted years ago when he sent the same deal to six underwriters. “Three said yes and three said no,” he explained.
Like most of the others that spoke on the topic, Schaefer was in favor of a scoring model and he believes an automated underwriting system creates consistency when assessing risk. He was steadfast in his assertion though that humans had to be the last line of defense in fraud detection.
“We’ve got guarantors that have nothing to do with the business,” he said, offering an example of an applicant that was more than 80-years old, yet was passing themselves off as a hands-on construction worker.
“I’m still a big believer in the review and subjectivity,” he concluded.
Funding Circle’s Rana Mookherje expressed similar views. “[Humans] pick up things that an algorithm really can’t do,” he told the crowd.
“We have an experienced underwriter sitting there and calling every borrower that we give money to,” he added.
Mookherje said that their borrower profile differs from those that tend to use merchant cash advances. For instance, their average client has been in business for 10 years, does $2.2 million in annual revenue, and has 700 FICO. They also offer 1-5 year loans, where as merchant cash advance transactions tend to be satisfied in under twelve months.
“If you need money in an hour, we’re not the right place for you,” Mookherje stated.
Funding Circle’s reliance on manual reviews may have to do with the loan terms being extended so long. Even Schaefer had said earlier, “I think it’s a lot easier to determine the behavior of a loan that’s less than twelve months as opposed to one that’s sixty months.”
But do other companies feel differently? Kabbage’s Alan Reeves said that 95% of their customers are 100% automated since there are merchants who get stuck trying to connect their bank account in the online application process.
When Kabbage was asked over a year ago how much of a role computers should play in the underwriting of a deal, COO Kathryn Petralia responded, “Huge.” She also went on to say then that, “it is not going to be like the “Matrix” where machines are making all the decisions. You won’t see an underwriting world without humans.”
It’s ironic however that while Alan Reeves was introduced at the conference as the Head of Risk Analytics, both the printed agenda and his LinkedIn profile cite his title as being the Head of Manual Underwriting. It’s a telling title for a company that is often heralded as the pinnacle of automation and computational decisioning.
But why can’t lenders simply give in entirely to the machines? Mookherje said at one point that, “those that live and die by their underwriting are going to be the ones that survive.” And if that’s the case, then relinquishing control to the computers perhaps risks the chance of death if things don’t work properly.
But humans, with all their natural flaws and imperfections pose the same risk. “Banks want to know that underwriting is consistent, that for any given customer, that you would underwrite them the same,” said Sam Graziano, CEO of Fundation. “And it’s not just having written policies and procedures,” he added. “But having programs in place to ensure these policies are upheld.”
The widespread dependence on humans to tie up loose ends in assessing risk may seem both practical and prudent, but to some traditional bankers, that system carries nightmarish implications.
Jim Salters, CEO of The Business Backer for example shared an experience his company went through years ago when trying to partner with a bank. Salters placed a high value on the manual review process, explaining that it was basically a strength of their core competency. The problem however, was that the bank said that would totally freak out their regulators.
The recurring message from the event’s panelists was that banks not only want, but may actually require a firm credit model to make decisions. They need to be able to explain to regulators why some loans got approved and others got declined in a perfectly uniform and consistent manner.
Schaefer and Reeves were aligned on the importance of consistency in underwriting. You basically can’t have a system where you arrive at three yeses and three nos on the same loan Schaefer explained.
But building an automated system and telling the humans to take a hike isn’t an easy process. There’s a high upfront cost associated with development and it can take years to generate statistically relevant conclusions. And a multivariate decline issued by an algorithm can potentially worsen the customer experience, especially if the customer asks for the specific reason they were declined. Reeves said it can be difficult to explain to the customer that their FICO score was too low relative to their sales volume but that their FICO score on its own was good enough.
And yet once an automated underwriting system is developed, the cost of underwriting should drop significantly according to panelists. With that comes a decision consistency that the company can rely on and a system that bankers can get comfortable with.
But despite it all, Credit Junction CEO Michael Finklestein bluntly stated, “We’re never going to approve a $2 million loan with an algorithm.”
The unifying concept that everyone seemed to agree on was that although credit models were undeniably important, human review would remain a complementary part of the process for the foreseeable future at least in the commercial finance space.
“At the end of the day, it all comes down to underwriting,” said Mookherjee.
Is Amazon Already a Top 10 Funder?
June 29, 2015
18 months ago I mentioned Amazon’s quiet entry into business lending but nobody’s really talked about it. But earlier today in a story that was supposed to highlight the company’s push into China, they revealed some interesting details that the rest of the alternative lending industry deserves to know about.
1. Amazon offers three to six-month loans of $1,000 to $600,000 to help merchants buy inventory.
2. Amazon has already funded hundreds of millions of dollars.
3. Sellers are reporting interest rates of 6% to 14% but it’s unclear if these are APRs or dollar for dollar costs since the loans are for much less than a year. I suspect the effective APRs are higher.
While Amazon is obviously doing these to grow Amazon merchants, the short maturities and stunning loan volume definitely earns them a spot on the list of the biggest funders in the industry.
Another fact worth repeating is this tidbit from PayNet:
“The default rate for small businesses with credit under a $1 million stood at 1 percent in 2014 but is seen rising to 1.6 percent in 2015, as new lenders with varying ability to assess risk increase lending, according to small business credit ratings provider PayNet.”
Investing in the Industry: Break Out of Your Bubble
June 29, 2015
Even if you’re already working in alternative lending and know a lot about your particular area, the industry is growing by leaps and bounds and you might be feeling a little overwhelmed by the multitude of investment opportunities. Amid all the options, finding the right place to invest your money can feel as challenging as picking out the proverbial needle in a haystack.
“Most people don’t know everything that’s out there. There are huge opportunities,” says Peter Renton, an investor and analyst who founded Lend Academy LLC of Denver, Colorado, a popular resource for the online lending industry.
Indeed, there are a growing number of online alternative lending sites that theoretically allow a person to invest in all shapes and sizes of loans. There are sites like Lending Club and Prosper that allow smaller investors to tap into the burgeoning P2P market. There are also a plethora of platforms that cater only to wealthier, more sophisticated investors in a host of areas like small business, real estate, student loans and consumer loans.
Even though there is a surplus of options, prudent investing is not quite as simple as depositing ample funds in an account and clicking the “go” button. Before you get started, you need to carefully consider factors such as your own finances and risk tolerance. You should also have a good handle on the specifics about the online platform—how it works, its history and track record, the types of investments it offers, the platform’s management team, technology and your ability to diversify based on available investment opportunities.
One of the first things you’ll have to think about as a potential investor is whether you have the financial wherewithal to be considered accredited by the SEC. If the answer’s yes, you’ll have a lot more choices of online marketplaces to choose from as well as types of investments. Basically, to meet the SEC’s threshold, you’ll need to have earned income that exceeded $200,000 (or $300,000 together with a spouse) in each of the prior two years, and reasonably expect to earn the same for the current year. Alternatively, you need to have a net worth over $1 million, either alone or together with a spouse (excluding the value of your home). (Check out the SEC’s website for more detailed info.)
If you don’t fit the definition of accredited investor, it’ll be more difficult for you to find out about all the investment possibilities that are on the market today. That’s because the platforms that cater to accredited investors aren’t allowed by SEC rules to solicit, so many online marketplaces are hesitant to say much of anything for fear their words will be misconstrued by regulators as an attempt to drum up new business. With limited exceptions, you won’t be able to get more than very basic information from and about these platforms’ unless you are accredited.
But smaller investors do have options. Two San Francisco-based online lending platforms, Lending Club and Prosper, cater to individual investors, and you can still make a pretty penny plunking down money with these venues. You’ll also find a wealth of information about investing with them by perusing their websites as well as by reading the blog posts of media-savvy financiers.
“Right now, Lending Club and Prosper provide a great entry point for people who want to get involved in investing in alternative lending,” says Renton of Lend Academy.
The caveat is that these platforms aren’t yet open to investors in every state, so if yours isn’t on the list you’re out of luck for now. However, with each marketplace you’ve got more than a 50 percent chance your state is on the approved list, so it’s worth digging deeper.
Assuming you meet their respective suitability requirements, you can choose to invest on one platform or both. To be sure, they are alike in many ways. Both allow you to invest with as little as $25 and fund one loan, however they recommend you buy at least 100 loans to be properly diversified, which you can do for as little as $2,500. You can manually choose which loans to buy, or enter your investment criteria so loan picking is automated. You can also invest retirement money in an IRA through Lending Club or Prosper.
There’s no fee to get started investing on either platform. For Lending Club, investors pay a service fee equal to 1 percent of the amount of payments received within 15 days of the payment due date. Prosper charges investors 1% per year on the outstanding balance of the loan. As the loan gets smaller, the servicing fee, which is charged monthly, gets smaller too.
To invest in Lending Club, in most cases you’ll need either $70,000 in income and a net worth of at least $70,000, or a net worth of at least $250,000. There may be other financial suitability requirements that vary slightly depending on the state you live in. For Prosper, individual investors must be United States residents who are 18 years of age or older and have a valid Social Security number.
At any given time, Lending Club has more than 1,000 loans visible on the platform and new ones get added every day, according to Scott Sanborn, chief operating officer and chief marketing officer. Prosper, meanwhile, on average has more than 200 loans for people to invest in, says Ron Suber, president.
Returns tend to be favorable compared with other fixed income investments—a major reason investing in online loans is becoming more desirable. Of course, actual returns will depend on what loans you invest in and the level of risk you take—typically the more risk you take on, the greater your potential return will be. At Lending Club, for instance, Grade-A loans have an adjusted net annualized return of 4.89%, compared with 9.11% for Grade-E loans, according to the company’s website.
To encourage more people to start investing, some savvy investors have started to self-publish online the quarterly returns they accumulate through the Lending Club and Prosper platforms. Renton, of Lend Academy, reported a balance of $476,769 on Dec. 31, 2014 and a real-world return for the trailing 12 months of 11.11 percent. Another well-known P2P investor and blogger, Simon Cunningham—the founder of LendingMemo Media in Seattle—reported a 12-month trailing return of 12.0 percent over the same time period, with a published account value of $41,496. Both investors say they expect returns to drop back somewhat over time, however, as the online marketplaces continue to lower interest rates to attract more borrowers.
Of course, if you’re an accredited investor, you will have access to even more online marketplaces. For instance, there’s SoFi of San Francisco for student loans, Realty Mogul of Los Angeles for real estate loans and Upstart of Palo Alto, California, that focuses on loans to people with thin or no credit history. The list of possibilities goes on and on.
Generally speaking, the more money you have to invest, the more options you have. “In this country today, you’ve got well over a hundred options if you’re willing to put seven figures in,” Renton says.
The minimums at venues that focus on accredited investors tend to be more than you’d find at Lending Club or Prosper. At SoFi, accredited investors need at least $10,000 to begin investing in the company’s unsecured corporate debt. SoFi’s been in the lending business for several years now and currently focuses on student loans, mortgages, personal loans and MBA loans. Investors, however, can’t currently invest in these loans, says Christina Kramlich, co-head of marketplace investments and investor relations at SoFi. The company plans to eventually offer investment opportunities in the areas of mortgages and personal loans, she says.
At Funding Circle USA in San Francisco, accredited investors can buy into a limited partnership fund for at least $250,000. Or they can buy pieces of small business loans for a minimum of $1,000 each, though the recommended minimum is $50,000, explains Albert Periu, head of capital markets. There may also be upper limits on your investment, based on your financials. If you’re part of the pick-and-choose marketplace, you’ll pay an annual servicing fee of 1%. With the fund, you’ll also pay an administration fee of 1%. Trailing 12-month net returns for investors are north of 10%, Periu says.
Because it’s still so new, it can be hard for investors to know how to compare marketplaces. For starters, consider the platform’s historical performance. There are a lot of new marketplaces popping up, but it takes time to develop a proven track record. This isn’t to say you shouldn’t dabble with the newer platforms, but if you do, you’ll want above-average returns to balance out the higher risk, says Sanborn of Lending Club. “About three years in, we started to build a track record. At five years in, it was very solid,” he says. “You need time to see how a basic batch of loans is going to perform.”
Before investing, you’ll want to get a sense of how committed senior management is to the company and try and get a sense of whether the company seems to have enough capital for the business to run well. Try to find out about the cash position of the company, how the loans are going to be serviced, what entity is doing the underwriting and how and where your cash will be held.
“It’s not just assessing the risk of the asset and the investment, it’s assessing the risk of the enterprise that is making it available to you,” Sanborn says.
It’s also important to ask questions about the loans themselves. Where do they come from and is the volume sustainable? Ideally, a platform should offer a variety of loans so investors can properly diversify, or you might need to consider investing with multiple platforms to achieve your desired balance.
Before you get started, you’ll also want to ask about the company’s compliance procedures and controls and how you can recover your money if you no longer want to invest. Data security is another area to explore. Not every company is as protective of customer data as perhaps they should be.
When you’re asking all these questions, try to get a sense of how receptive the platform is to the feelers you’re putting out. Investors should only work with companies that are willing to be open about how they are investing your money, their historical returns and other important data. “I can’t stress transparency enough,” says Periu of Funding Circle.
The technology the platform uses is another key element. Is the technology easy to use, or does the platform create stumbling blocks for investors? Are there ways to automate lending, or do you have to log on every day and manually invest in loans?
Suber of Prosper says investors should also consider whether platforms work with a back-up servicer in case there’s a disruption and whether they run regular tests to make sure everything works as expected. “It’s just like a backup generator and you have to test it every once in a while and make sure it goes on.”
Certainly it pays to do your homework before you invest your hard-earned cash with an online platform. Ask around, attend industry conferences and absorb all you can from publicly available data. The good news is that there will probably be even more information for you to tap into as the industry continues to grow.
“Two years ago [marketplace lending] was very esoteric. A year ago it was still esoteric,” says Funding Circle’s Periu. Now, more and more investors are hearing about marketplace lending and want to make it part of their broader fixed income bucket. Even so, more has to happen for it to become a mainstream investment. “Awareness and education need to continue,” he says.
Once more people understand the extent of what’s out there, Suber of Prosper expects investing in online marketplaces will take off even more than it already has. “A lot of people still don’t know this as an investment opportunity,” he says.
Still Reviewing Paper Bank Statements? Stop
June 26, 2015
Are the bank statements you received legitimate? Underwriters in the business financing industry are scouring paper documents for abnormalities hoping to catch fraud in the inducement. And word on the street is that small business owners are doctoring statements and engaging in trickery in record numbers.
Technology has made it easier to create authentic looking documents and the rise in online lending seems to be bringing out the worst in people. Somebody in a desperate situation might not have the guts to look a banker in the eye and hand him a stack of fraudulent documents but they might roll the dice with somebody over the Internet they’ll never have to meet.
The fakes aren’t obvious anymore. Anyone can go online and buy doctored documents from professionals. The business is booming on Craigslist for example where fraudulent documents can be made to order in under an hour.
In the Miami area, fraud hucksters are even beginning to offer deals such as buy 2 fake documents, get 1 free.
Industry-wide, funding companies are complaining that attempted fraud is out of control. One broker recently took to the dailyfunder forum to share her frustration. “I can spot them a mile away!!! 2 different deals submitted this week with fraudulent statements!!!,” she vented.
Other brokers chimed in, sharing their stories such as a merchant whose doctored statements were only noticed because ATM withdrawals were listed with odd amounts like $90.83.
Oddly, nobody seems to be reporting this fraud to the authorities. It all seems to get swept under the rug as business as usual. Orchard co-founder David Snitkoff for example, was asked just last month about the rate of marketplace lending fraud and he apparently said, “No worries, none to date.” He seemed to be implying that fraudulent applicants are getting screened out. But that doesn’t mean people aren’t trying.
Seven months ago, merchant cash advance underwriter Pierre Mena wrote in detail about the challenges he faces in detecting fraud. He said:
Some of the more well hidden fraud can usually be found by comparing the summary page and last page of the bank statement to other statements. Typically, most banks and some credit unions offer you a snapshot of the starting balance, which should generally match up with the ending balance of the previous month. If it doesn’t, you should look for any transactions from the previous month that did not settle until the current month. If there is none, this is usually a red flag indicating that the merchant forgot that statements are continual time series financial data whose totals carry on to the following month.
-Pierre Mena, Rapid Capital Funding
A lot of these issues can be easily overcome by simply disregarding paper statements altogether. Microbilt’s instant bank verification tool for example, will allow you to pull the most recent 90 days worth of transaction data directly from the banks themselves. Funders using these automated checks swear by their effectiveness and the capability is essential for any company that wants to scale.
But a recent conversation with the owners of a broker shop in NYC said this is easier said than done. Merchants are still using fax machines to send statements or claiming they don’t have access to computers or email accounts, they said. They added that their clients would suffer if approvals were completely contingent upon online verifications.
Cultural differences play a role in this according to Gil Zapata, the founder of Florida-based Lendinero. Zapata recently wrote that latino business owners over the age of 45 are not accustomed to doing business over the Internet, email, fax, or phone. “This group has a high level of distrust in doing business via the Internet,” he said.
So is there a middle ground? On the dailyfunder forum, Chad Otar, a managing partner of Excel Capital Management said that he tells merchants they can change their online banking passwords after a verification. And Andy McDonald of Yellowstone Capital wrote that verifying the bank data is beneficial for the merchants too. “It protects the merchant by allowing us to check their account to make sure our pulls aren’t going to bounce,” he wrote in a thread back in April. He also added that he comes across 2-3 applications PER DAY with altered statements.
Humans can only do so much. Pierre Mena actually wrote, “Some of these statements are doctored so well that you may have to zoom in upwards of 300% to find a comma that should actually be a period to separate dollars from cents.” At this point, an instant bank verification would probably work wonders.
Online business lender Kabbage might have the best model. On their website, applicants are instructed to enter their email address followed by their bank account username and password. Their system will analyze their bank transactions and if eligible, will then ask the applicant for their first and last name. It flies in the face of all the pushback that funders claim merchants give them over data privacy and security.
Four months ago Kabbage announced they were already up to funding $3 million per day. Obviously there is an entire segment of small business owners that are sucking up whatever concerns they had about bank verifications in order to get the capital they need.
The majority of the small business financing industry is still relying on paper statements and probably shouldn’t be. If you have to zoom in upwards of 300% to find a comma that should actually be a period and if con artists are offering discounts for bulk orders of fraudulent statements, it may be time to throw in the towel and join the rest of the world in using the Internet…
Coming to the Rescue: Consolidation Can Save Merchants
June 24, 2015
In the last 18 months, funders have begun offering consolidations that combine more than one advance. First, the funders buy out the merchant’s existing advances. Then funders lower the percentage collected from a merchant’s card receipts or debited by ACH. Sometimes, consolidation can even include an infusion of cash for the merchant.
“Consolidations are a way to help merchants avoid defaulting,” said Chad Otar, managing partner at New York-based Excel Capital. Consolidation works if the buyout price is low enough and the terms allow enough room to handle the obligation.
“It can free up some cash and give the merchant some room to breathe, sustain the business and avoid taking on more debt,” he noted.
It’s helpful to think of consolidation as the equivalent of refinancing a house, according to Stephen Halasnik, managing partner at Payroll Financing Solutions, a Ridgewood N.J.-based direct lender. Payroll has been offering the service for about six months, he said.
Brokers and funders can benefit from consolidation because it puts a merchant back on track towards long-term sustainability, said a broker who requested anonymity. Moreover, the broker said that one in three of the potential deals he sees have multiple advances outstanding, which means companies could lose an alarming chunk of market share by declining too many potential funding candidates. “That’s what I believe the catalyst was to opening the doors to consolidation,” he contended.
SECRET TO SUCCESS
Success in consolidation lies in finding merchants worthy of another chance, said Otar. Clients who have taken two or three advances but stick to the new plan and stop stacking advances from other brokers have a reasonably good chance of succeeding, he said. His company can work with a merchant that has as many as three advances outstanding if they have sufficient revenue.
Otar provided the example of a merchant who’s diverting 20% of his gross revenue to three advances. Together, the advances have led to a total of $50,000 in future revenues sold. If the merchant generates enough monthly revenue to qualify for $100,000, Excel can buy out the three advances, provide the merchant with $50,000 in cash, and lower the payment to 8% to 12% of gross revenue. “All of a sudden they have all this cash flow to play with that really wasn’t there,” he said of merchants in that situation. “They tend to do really well.”
Halasnik of Payroll Financing Solutions offered the example of a trucking company that had taken three advances and was delivering a total of $1,138 a day on average to the funders. Payroll bought out the three funders and is charging the trucker $615 a day.
One of Payroll’s clients needed to repair a commercial vehicle but already had too many advances and couldn’t get another, Halasnik said. Payroll consolidated the positions and lowered the payment, enabling the merchant to save enough money in two weeks to have the vehicle fixed.
To qualify for a consolidation, the merchant has to meet the “50% Rule” by netting 50% of what Excel is offering, Otar said. Between 40% and 50% of the distressed merchants that the company considers for consolidation meet that criterion, he said. An additional 30% of the merchants can meet that standard in the near future, once they’re further along on their agreements.
Under the 50% Rule, a merchant that is still obliged to deliver $70,000 and qualifies for $100,000 would not be a candidate for consolidation, Otar said. In that situation, a merchant can wait until he has delivered more of the sold revenues to the funders and then get a consolidation, he said. “In the meantime, don’t take on any more debt,” Otar tells the merchants. That too could impact their ability to sell additional revenue streams in return for cash upfront down the road.
Some merchants combine debt and advances, seeking advances only after maxing out their credit lines, said Otar. More commonly, however, it’s a matter of stacking advances, he said. “When we see there are three, four, five, six, seven cash advances out, that’s a merchant we tend to stay away from,” he noted.
Brokers should also bear in mind that every deal’s different, cautioned Steven Kamhi, who handles business development and ISO relationships at Nulook Capital, a Massapequa, N.Y.-based direct funder. “It has to be the right deal,” he advises.
Brokers can identify distressed merchants within the first two minutes of a phone conversation when they say things like, “I need the money right now,” Otar said. Looking at the paperwork, the broker can see within 10 minutes whether the potential client is hard-pressed.
Asking the right questions helps reveal distress quickly, sources said. That can include asking how many advances the merchant has outstanding, how much in future sales they still have to deliver and how much revenue they’re grossing monthly. Asking what company advanced them cash can reveal a lot if they’re working with less-reputable companies.
Listening’s under-rated, too. Merchants sometimes explain that they’re coming up with more ways of making money and are, therefore, making themselves a better bet for sustainability, Otar said.
OTHER WAYS OF HELPING
Brokers can make deals more palatable to some distressed merchants by deducting payments weekly instead of daily, Otar said. “It’s something I’m seeing a big migration toward,” he noted. “It’s a big selling point.” Manufacturers and contractors don’t have customers swiping cards every day and especially appreciate the change. More widely spaced payments can also fit better with some clients’ seasonal cash flow.
Besides consolidation, brokers can help distressed merchants by providing traditional accounts-receivable financing, which can prove particularly helpful for manufacturers and construction companies, Otar said.
Suppose Customer A owes a contractor $100, Otar said by way of example. The contractor can get $90 from the factor, and the factor collects the $100 from Customer A. The client pays the cost of the financing upfront but reduces the waiting time to receive the cash and avoids daily or monthly payments.
Accounts-receivable financing costs merchants much less than a cash advance, Otar noted. But putting the deal together takes longer than approving an advance, and merchants in immediate need of cash might not be able to wait.
In another example of helping merchants, Payroll had a client who was a bicycle shop owner with good credit and equity in a home, so it granted him an advance that gave him time to go to a bank and get a home equity loan. “I counseled him to do that and then buy us out,” Halasnik said.
PREVENTING DISTRESS
On the sales side of the business, brokers can help distressed merchants by preventing stacking from occurring in the first place, sources said. Otar recommended, “listening to the customer, understanding the business and offering a product that is going to benefit the customer in the long run.” That way, the broker positions himself to work with the client for years, not two or three months. “At the end of the day, they appreciate that,” he said.
Halasnik relies on his experience as a small-business owner who has operated a printing company, staffing company and nurse registry to help him understand aspects of a client’s business that people from a purely financial background might not fathom.
Brokers seeking long-term relationships should know a client’s business well enough to advise against taking on more financial obligations when the time isn’t right, agreed Payroll’s Halasnik. However, after the broker urges caution, the decision rests with the business owner, he maintained. “We are on the same page as the client,” Halasnik said. “We are looking out for their best interest because, ultimately, we have to get paid back.”
THE CASE AGAINST CONSOLIDATION
Some members of the industry prefer to avoid the consolidation trend. “The guy’s already shown that he’s going to go and take three or four advances,” said Isaac Stern, CEO of New York-based Yellowstone Capital. “Doesn’t history just show he’s going to do the same thing over again?”
When a merchant’s overextended, he should wait before taking another advance, Stern said. But when some merchants are denied another advance, they immediately seek out another funder, he maintained.
Yellowstone has put together a few consolidations but chooses not to create too many, Stern said. Some merchants find themselves a month or two away from going out of business unless they can find a source of cash, he observed. “They’ve been declined for that last credit card, and things are getting really rough,” he said.
Some members of the industry advocate coming together to improve standards and provide training. Wall Street’s testing and licensing could serve as an example, suggested one source. Background checks could also help root out unethical players, he noted.
But creating a training and certification infrastructure would prove a formidable task, according to Stern. The industry would have a hard time agreeing upon who should head a trade association to administer the standards, he said. He views the industry as a collection of Type A personalities – sometimes defined as ambitious, over-achieving workaholics – who would resist consensus. “It’s a nice idea, but I don’t see it working,” he said.
REASON TO BELIEVE
Though industry players are contending with some distressed merchants, Stern noted that the average credit score of his company’s clients is beginning to rise as the economy improves.
Though statistics on distressed merchants aren’t readily available, other industry veterans feel they’re not encountering as many now as a year ago. However, they said they may see fewer cases of distress because bigger players are beginning to offer consolidations.
“A year ago, nobody would consider doing it,” a broker said of consolidation. But as funders become more open to the product when they see competitors using it to gain market share. “It’s becoming more mainstream,” he said.
How brokers market their services can also determine how many distressed merchants they encounter, sources said. Using the same prospect lists that competitors use can lead to calling on overextended clients, they maintained.
Whatever the number of distressed merchants may be, stacking sometimes makes sense, said Halasnik. What if a client needs $30,000 to win a contract, and a funder is willing to provide only $15,000, he asked rhetorically. Perhaps another funder will put in $15,000, too.
Problems arise, however, if the two funders don’t know the merchant has made two deals because they happened the same day. It’s the kind of situation that sours some members of the alternative-funding community to consolidation. As Halasnik put it: “You’re dealing with somebody who’s in trouble. It’s the highest risk a lender could take.”
Bless You, Fund Me: What Words Predict About Loan Performance
June 7, 2015
Way back in 2006 when I was just a baby merchant cash advance* underwriter, I encountered a book store that was borderline qualified. The final phone interview would make or break their approval so I grabbed my pen and paper and dialed their number.
I went through the checklist of questions and they passed. But what really convinced me that it was a deal worth doing was the amount of times the owners made references to God. They were clearly religious people which indicated to me that they were probably also of high moral character. It didn’t matter what religion it was or if their beliefs aligned with mine, I was simply captivated by their values.
After approving the deal and funding them, they actually mailed me a handwritten letter to express their gratitude. It concluded with, “God Bless You!” and I hung it up on the wall of my cubicle to remind myself of the good I was doing for small businesses.
A few weeks later, the payments stopped. All of their contact numbers were disconnected and the owners of the store could not be located. They completely disappeared along with almost all of the money. Looking up at the note on my wall, a shiver went up my spine. Had I been duped? And did they use religion as a tool to influence my decision?
I thought that surely they must’ve encountered legitimate financial difficulty but I believed that even if so, people with their values would’ve been more forthcoming about it. Instead they just took the money and split and were never heard from again.
I learned a lesson about being emotionally influenced on a deal and it turns out there were clues this outcome might happen all along.
Bless you
In a study titled, When Words Sweat: Written Words Can Predict Loan Default, Columbia University professors Oded Netzer and Alain Lemaire, and University of Delaware professor Michal Herzenstein analyzed the text of more than 18,000 loan requests made on Prosper’s website. Applicants that used the word God were 2.2x more likely to default on their loans. And the phrase Bless you correlated higher on the default scale as well, though not as high as other non-religious words.
On the list of words more likely to be mentioned by defaulters are, I promise, please help, and give me a chance. Statistics actually show that someone promising to pay is less likely to pay than someone that doesn’t explicitly promise.
Among the other more common words likely to be mentioned by defaulters is hospital. This word holds special significance to me because in my last year as a sales rep, almost all of my underperforming accounts were supposedly due to the business owners or their family members being in the hospital.
And it wasn’t just me. It seemed like every deal that was going bad in the office involved the hospital. Any time one of us was due to contact an account with an issue, we made bets that a hospital would come up in the story. (Seb, if you’re reading this, apparently it’s not a coincidence.)
I express no opinion regarding whether or not their stories were true, but statistics show that borrowers that mention hospital are more likely to default.
In the study’s Abstract, the professors wrote:
Using a naïve Bayes analysis and the LIWC dictionary of writing styles we find that those who default write about financial hardship and tend to discuss outside sources such as family, god and chance in their loan request, while those who pay in full express high financial literacy in the words they use. Further, we find that writing styles associated with extraversion, agreeableness and deception are correlated with default.
While the study focused on Prosper, their almost identical competitor, Lending Club, may have realized this trend earlier. In March 2014, Lending Club announced that investors would no longer be able to view the free-form writing portion of the borrower loan application. Citing “privacy reasons,” investors lost a valuable clue into the repayment probability of their notes.
But would it really have helped? The researchers wrote:
Using an ensemble learning algorithm we show that leveraging the textual information in loan requests improves our ability to predict loan default by 4-5.7% over the traditionally used financial information.
Nothing to see here folks, move along and approve
Curiously, Lending Club doesn’t want its investors to have access to a data point with such significant importance. Perhaps it’s because of disasters like this, where one borrower used the free-form writing section to spew profanities. Ironically, the loan was approved and issued anyway.
For tech-based platforms like Lending Club however, they noticed the “story” aspect of a loan had become less relevant because of overwhelming investor demand. Investors weren’t evaluating the written portion of the loan application as much anymore. According to their blog post at the time of the announcement, “Fewer than 3% of investors currently ask questions and only 13% of posted loans have answers provided by borrowers. Furthermore, loans are currently funding in as little as a few hours – well before borrower answers and descriptions can be reviewed and posted.”
It had become all algorithms and APIs where loans were fully funded by investors before the written portions could even be published on the website. Had anyone actually taken the time to read the above loan application answers, they probably wouldn’t have allocated money towards it.
But while removing the storyline from the data might give investors fewer methods to detect a good loan, it could actually protect them from getting drawn into a bad loan.
One of the authors of the above referenced study, Professor Michal Herzenstein of University of Delaware, found in 2011 that borrowers could manipulate lenders into not only approving them, but giving them more favorable terms.
You can trust me 😉
In a story that appeared on UD’s website in 2011, titled Good Storytelling May Trump Bad Credit, Herzenstein’s research discovered that borrowers who constructed a trustworthy picture of themselves “could lower their costs by almost 30 percent and saved about $375 in interest charges by using a trustworthy identity.”
The study referred to six possible categories or identities that borrowers would try to impress upon lenders to describe themselves (trustworthy, successful, economic hardship, hardworking, moral, religious). The story explains:
The more identities the borrowers constructed, the more likely lenders were to fund the loan and reduce the interest rate but the less likely the borrowers were to repay the loan – 29 percent of borrowers with four identities defaulted, where 24 percent with two identities and 12 percent with no identities defaulted.
It’s a case of measurable borrower manipulation.
“By analyzing the accounts borrowers give and the identities they construct, we can predict whether borrowers will pay back the loan above and beyond more objective factors like their credit history,” said Herzenstein. “In a sense, our results offer a method of assessing borrowers in ways that hark back to the earlier days of community banking when lenders knew their customers.”
Today’s tech-based lenders that are dead set on removing this human aspect from the equation may be taking a shortsighted approach after all as they evidently still struggle to make predictions with their numbers-only approach.
For example, a poster on the Lend Academy forum recently wrote this to me about early defaults in today’s algorithmic environment, “It would be nice if LC could predict who is going to default in the first few months of the loan and deny them, but I don’t think that is entirely possible.”
It reminded me of a big merchant cash advance deal I approved years back that passed all of the qualifying criteria with flying colors and still defaulted on the very first day. The merchant’s response to why he defaulted on day one? He felt like screwing us over… “Come sue me,” he said.
In a later meeting to review the deal’s paperwork, a group of managers agreed that I had done all I could to make the approval decision except one. I failed to account for the asshole factor.
Far from satire, it is not uncommon for financial companies to refer to an asshole factor in some regard. It’s a very subjective variable but it can make all the difference between an applicant that’s going to pay and one that’s not. Suddenly none of the hard data matters.
Is the applicant an asshole?
In a recent blog post by loan broker Ami Kassar, titled The Single Most Important Rule in Our Company, Kassar wrote, “if a customer, employee, or partner acts like a jerk – we don’t want to do business with them. If you want to be less diplomatic, you can call the rule – the no ###hole rule.”
In many circumstances, the measure of someone being an asshole is relative to another person’s perception. There’s even an entire book on that subject if you’re interested. But what’s trickier, is that according to some studies, being an asshole is a positive thing in business. Would that also make them better borrowers statistically?
Referring back to the original cited study, one has to wonder if there might potentially be a list of words that more closely correlate with being an asshole. I don’t think anyone’s ever examined the Prosper data for that before.
You might not be able to quantify asshole-ishness from the text, but something as basic as a person’s pronouns can speak volumes about their personality or intentions. According to Professor James Pennebaker in the Harvard Business Review:
A person who’s lying tends to use “we” more or use sentences without a first-person pronoun at all. Instead of saying “I didn’t take your book,” a liar might say “That’s not the kind of thing that anyone with integrity would do.” People who are honest use exclusive words like “but” and “without” and negations such as “no,” “none,” and “never” much more frequently.
But saying “I” over “we” doesn’t necessarily make you less of a liar. Pennebaker discovered that depressed people use the word “I” much more often than emotionally stable people.
Being emotionally stable would probably make for a better borrower than a depressed one, but with all these influential and conflicting language clues, how can an underwriter possibly make the right choice?
For instance, if the following line appeared on the free-form writing portion of an application, how should it be interpreted?
Using all of the mentioned research as a guide, I’m inclined to consider the applicant a: trustworthy depressed lying asshole that’s not going to pay.
I = Depressed
We = Liar
God = 2.2x more likely to default
Have always been able to pay back = trustworthy
Hurry up and fund me = asshole
We could easily get caught up in the language here and ignore the obvious positives about this hypothetical applicant, such that they have an 800 FICO score and a solid six figure income. Shouldn’t that weigh more heavily? It’s easy to get distracted.
Perhaps Lending Club’s removal of the free-form writing section was for the investors’ own good. Even the borrower that repeatedly wrote, “None of your f**king business I thought this was a bank loan don’t waste my time with this sh**t!” is still current on all their payments after two and a half years.
To brokers like Kassar, the asshole factor is not so much about the likelihood of default anyway, but peace of mind. “Why invest emotional energy in putting up with shenanigan’s when there are so many good people who need our help,” he wrote.
Word is bond?
Regardless of what one study revealed about applicants that invoked God said about the likelihood of default, declining applicants on the basis of writing or talking about God could certainly be argued as religious discrimination. In many instances, religion is a protected class. Sometimes you have to ignore correlations because they can be deemed discriminatory.
One thing is for sure though, back in 2006 the upstanding characters I had created in my mind about the religious book store owners were upended when they disappeared into the night with all the money. Their words got in my head and I approved them perhaps because of it.
Years later, an asshole defaulted on the first day and not long after that, there would be a mysterious spate of accounts whose poor performance would be attributed to supposed hospital related events.
What’s buried in a person’s words? The answers allegedly. I promise…
