There’s No Room for More Competition
June 2, 2015
In the next 6 months, (MANY) Broker Companies will start dying out. To the surprise of many, just when the Year of the Broker was in full bloom, chaos was forming on the horizon and the realization that there is no more room for “new” messes. Simply because we aren’t finished cleaning up and organizing the messes we have now!
There are basic facts that we can take from the “Broker Boom”
– Not enough beginning knowledge about this industry and how the Merchant Cash Advance process works.
– No time to make strong relationships: The concept of having “more” is usually more harmful than having a handful of trusting relationships.
– Overhead costs: the make-up costs from the spending on dead leads and the “start-up” costs of having an office, staff, draws – gave the wrong perception of what a “MCA” is when the rate mark ups pay for those expenses.
– Quick turnover when the top dog can’t fool the sales rep out of commissions any longer: Rep goes out into the world and starts their own company. This can lead to recycled bad practices or the few who want to do right.
– Co-Brokering: Everyone’s done it. I’ve done it. Edited agreements taken from other brokers/funders don’t always cover everything leading to many debacles that turn into “Jerry Springer” Forum threads. P.S. Don’t think merchants can’t see the forum either.
It’s absolutely exhausting to explain to someone from the mortgage industry or any industry that comes into the MCA space the “Rights” and “Wrongs” and the teachings. Most new Broker Company Owners and their sales come from those who don’t believe in “Best Practices” anyway.
Marketing and Leads in the Broker Space is affecting Brokers and Funders Alike – Are brokers ruining leads as well?
So, your questions about Marketing and Leads have the same answer- It does not matter what type of leads you get, it’s all about your presence, knowledge, and your “Handle”. These are the answers from actual merchants who get calls from UCCs. (This information came from old merchants that I had, I shortened the answers and stuck to the points).
- They don’t trust you because of your approach
- They tried before and was promised “X” and got a bunch of “Y” with excuses on how so many “Y’s” = “X”
- Backdoor calls- Sometimes the money isn’t the biggest savior- it’s the relationship that goes with it
- They don’t need it that bad to pay 30%. If they do need it- they want something structured to build their credit and keep their business afloat
When people think of getting money for their business- they used to think “Go to the Bank”. Professionalism, a structure that is always the same for each type of program, and knowledgeable staff they can rely on. They made the choice to come to your bank because of what is offered. Now, all but the “Capital” part is missing from this equation, but merchants still want to have that one consistent place to go to for their business needs.
I think we all lost sight of this Industry.
Brokers = Resellers and Marketers of Direct Funding programs. The Broker takes the programs from these Direct Funders and builds a portfolio of which each tier and industry and credit rating is satisfied by which funders he can qualify them to. The options are given to the merchant to satisfy their need for working capital.
You work for the Funder – Your Sales Target is the Merchant.
The Merchant has put everything into starting and maintaining their business. Most of them wanted the “American Dream” of owning a business since childhood. They have it now, and you come in and try to tell them what they need. Some believe you- some are money hungry and know the game. It’s all a numbers game no matter what kind or type of leads you buy.
All that am I saying is, the way this industry is looked at from a “Brokers” and “New-Age Funders” point of view vs. a “Veteran Broker” or “Veteran Funder” is two totally different aspects.
Unfortunately, there is no immediate solution for new “Brokers” and many solutions for the “New-Age Funders” to be on the path of “Best Practices” and less shenanigans.
There is no room for competition as we don’t know what we are competing for and rather than creating a solution so those leads can understand the growth and structure of what we are offering, we are too busy trying to find out how to get leads that won’t stick.
The Broker’s Future: Are The Good Times Over?
June 1, 2015
As we continue the Year Of The Broker discussion, we must take an honest look at The Future. Due to the low barrier to entry into our space, there isn’t a week that goes by that I don’t see another recruiting ad informing the reader that all they need is a heartbeat, a UCC list, and an industry list of SIC Codes to make big money in our space. But is everything really as rosey as promoted, or if you are a new broker, should you consider investing your capital (time, energy, money and mental health) in another industry?
The Past
To understand The Future, sometimes we have to look at The Past. Instead of a year of the broker, there was instead an actual era of the Broker, and that was from 2000 to about 2013:
(( 2000 – 2007 ))
Few firms offered a “Merchant Cash Advance” as either a direct sell or value add, and very few merchants were receiving telephone solicitations in regards to the having “working capital” other than those involved in the Equipment Leasing or A/R Factoring sectors. While the market was wide open, most merchants wouldn’t entertain an advance for 6 months with a 1.25 – 1.30 factor rate when banks were lending pretty well at much lower borrowing costs.
(( 2008 to 2013 ))
When the economy and markets took a downturn in 2008 creating The Great Recession, and banks halted most of their lending to small business applicants, the Merchant Cash Advance product was more aggressively sold by the pioneers of the industry through their Merchant Processing ISO relationships, direct selling, online advertisements, and more. The pioneers also introduced risk based pricing and premium priced products, allowing them to appeal to the higher credit graded merchants who were finally entertaining the product due to banks not lending as efficiently as previously. The pioneers also introduced multiple formats of repayment including through ACH, which allowed them to service merchants that they couldn’t tie the repayment to their merchant processing volume due to the merchant’s inability to switch or the merchant’s low monthly processing volume.
Awareness of the Merchant Cash Advance skyrocketed, hundreds of millions in equity capital began pouring in, major media outlets such as CNBC gave the product coverage, and annually the industry was funding over $1 Billion to small business applicants.
This boom period also started the trend of new lenders and brokers popping into the industry overnight using mainly the same marketing strategies such as UCC Lists, SEO, PPC, Bankcard Portfolio Marketing, and Cold Calling Various SIC Codes. These strategies worked in a decent fashion until the flood of new direct lenders and brokers coming into the industry continued, with these new entrants using mainly the same strategies. Profits were being driven down, new client acquisitions were being driven down, and because a funder’s UCC filings were being called so much, they decided to begin filing them under fake names or only filing them on riskier merchants, or never filing a UCC at all. Also most of the Online Marketing methods became too expensive, pricing the little guy out of the market.
The Future
Now we are in 2015 and new broker entrants are mainly using the exact same strategies from 2008 – 2013, discovering that UCC lists and Cold Calling SIC Codes just will not work efficiently going forward. The Future of profitability and new client acquisition in our space is going to be through Strategic Partnerships. There are three sections of your Strategic Partnerships and they are your Professional Network, Mom and Pop Network, and Online Network.
• Professional Network – The creation of a professional network from referrals such as Banks, Credit Unions, Accountants, Business Brokers, Merchant Processing ISOs, etc., to bring in a high amount of consistent leads of small business applicants who are currently seeking capital.
• Mom and Pop Network – The creation of an external independent broker channel that includes hundreds of random brokers that you sign up to resell your services. You would use the same tongue and cheek, everything is rosey, recruiting ads that I see every week just to get a rush of people on the telephone making cold calls to SIC codes, trying to compete in online marketing, or calling the remains of UCC lists, all with the dream of making a lucrative payday. The volume produced on an individualized basis will be so small it’s irrelevant, but as a collective, they will make up a major chunk of volume. This why I call these sources Mom and Pop.
• Online Network – This is your SEO, PPC, High Traffic Website Ads, and other online advertising methods. These methods will become more expensive going forward and only those with large marketing budgets will be able to truly capitalize in this area with positioning, listings, etc.
Summary
Our space is changing and new broker entrants might want to reconsider investing their capital (time, energy, money and mental health) into this venture. Only direct lenders with team members that were pioneers of this space as well as with the right networks and equity sources, are capable of truly seizing The Future. Those just now trying to come in and ride the wave will soon discover that just like with the Stock Market, the real money has already been made and most of the future returns are already capitalized. As a new broker, you more than likely will fall into that dreaded Mom and Pop category, which isn’t a good position to be in for The Future.
Mapping the Business Financing Industry (Sneak Peek)
May 27, 2015People often ask what the real presence of the merchant cash advance & business lending industry is like in New York City. Below is a map of Midtown Manhattan.
We apologize if we didn’t plot your company on here. Let us know you exist by signing up for our magazine.
In the May/June issue that’s being sent off to the printers at this very moment, we explore the industry scene in lower Manhattan. Midtown may have been a birthing place and permanent home for industry titans, but Wall Street, long believed to be a haven for stock brokers has been overrun by a new kind of broker.
You’ll just have to stay tuned to read more. If you’re not signed up to get our free print magazine, register now.
Also in the May/June issue:
- An examination of a new trend, consolidating loans and advances.
- Watching everyone else get rich off alternative lending? Whether you’re in underwriting, administration, operations, or sales and whether you have a lot of money to invest or just a little, there are opportunities available to “get in”. You might be in this industry but are you in this industry? We’ll run through the basics of what’s available out there. Become a player or just educate yourself.
- And more!
The Co-brokering Phenomenon: In Business Loans & Merchant Cash Advance
May 25, 2015
Meet the broker’s broker, the middleman serving the middleman. Some call this co-brokering since both parties will typically share in the commission.
Wait, what?
The broker’s broker might have relationships that the little broker does not. They could have leverage over their funding partners because of the amount of volume they can produce or the amount of professionalism they bring to the table. And they likely have a canny ability to close deals that otherwise would get tossed by the wayside.
Disintermediation is the war cry of today’s famous tech-based lenders but in the Year of the Broker, reintermediation has been the unforeseen byproduct. Big lenders such as OnDeck are shedding third party funding advisors but those advisors aren’t magically going away.
A number of them are still getting their deals funded at OnDeck, just indirectly. They have to go through a broker whom OnDeck has not cut off, a handful of salespeople have told me. Many brokers acknowledge that OnDeck’s rates and terms are not easily attainable elsewhere so they’d rather share a commission with an OnDeck approved broker than risk a dead deal with no commission.
And CAN Capital is known to offer comparable pricing to OnDeck but it’s been reported that new brokers must go through a rigorous audit before CAN will accept their business. It’s not something everybody wants to go through.
With the two largest funders in the industry imposing real barriers to doing business with them, sanctioned brokers play toll booth operator for the swarm of shops that can’t get their deals submitted without them.
Perhaps as a direct result of that, there is now an entire niche of brokers whose only business is brokering deals for other brokers. They have little to no interaction with merchants. They have no marketing budget. They might not even have a website. And they play an almost mystical role of gatekeeper and power broker.
Onesy-twosy woes
A strong focus within the industry has been growth. There’s a lot of time, resources, and salesmanship that goes into courting the lucrative partnerships. Large funders, especially those with VC backing, are typically not interested in mom and pop broker shops. “If they’re only going to send one or two deals per month, we don’t want them,” I’ve heard time and time again.
Even five to ten deals a month can draw yawns. It’s nothing particularly against the mom and pop brokers, but experience has apparently shown them that the same amount of resources are spent on the onesy-twosy brokers as the ones doing a hundred deals a month. The cost benefit analysis has to make sense, they say.
That’s left hundreds or perhaps even thousands of mom and pop brokers to fend for themselves. What outsiders might not seem to realize is that the commission on a $50,000 loan or advance can be $5,000. That’s potentially enough for a stay-at-home parent to pay for the rent, groceries, and all the other bills. A onesy-twosy broker might be completely insignificant to a funder doing a billion dollars worth of deals a year, but to a mom and pop broker, it only takes one deal to pay their bills and only a handful to make them rich, especially if they live in middle America where the cost of living is cheaper.
In From Lowes to Loans, superstar broker William Ramos said he made $66,000 on just one deal alone. While his shop produces more than a million dollars in deal flow a month, it’s easy to see what’s drawing the hoards of newbies in. A $66,000 commission might be the only commission someone needs for an entire year.
There is no licensing required so becoming a broker is as easy as imagining that you are one. And as the space invites the less knowledgeable, a more sinister element has found opportunity as well.
Shady
“There is no president/ruler of the MCA world that can help you with your commission debacles,” wrote PSC’s Amanda Kingsley on an industry forum. That was part of her reply to a thread titled, co-brokering scumbags. The thread might be new, but the circumstances aren’t. A broker sent their deal to another broker who got the deal closed with a funder. The original broker supposedly got screwed out of the commission.
It’s a case of stolen deals. “You just have to find the right people to work with. There are a lot of shady characters in this industry,” wrote another user.
1st Capital Loans Managing Member John Tucker, who recently authored, Broker Business Planning, wrote in reply to the thread, “Get everything in writing and research your lender/partner heavily before contracting with them. Talk to other brokers and ask them about their experience with said lender/partner in terms of paying on new deals, renewals and residuals. Get a ‘feel’ for them.”
Several faulted the aggrieved party for not taking the time to hammer out a contract that would allow them to rectify the situation easily through a lawsuit. But even with a contract, pursuing the offender legally could cost more than the commission lost. A stolen deal might cost a broker a few hundred or a few thousand dollars, figures worthy of small claims court.
“Under no circumstances would I ever co-broker a deal,” wrote Tucker. “There’s just no reason to unless you are a newbie and getting trained by said broker.”
But another user wrote, “Sometimes you don’t even know you are co-brokering until after the fact.”
Unscrupulous brokers will be purposely deceitful but for others walking the thin line between broker and funder, it’s difficult to judge what constitutes direct. There are brokers that wholeheartedly believe that if any portion of their own funds are invested in a deal, then they too are a direct funder. That means a broker that syndicates with a variety of funders could be so inclined to identify themselves as a direct funder by extension.
Kingsley wrote, “You have to understand what a ‘broker’ is in this space and understand that it is A LOT different than brokering in another industry.”
She also pointed out that it’s not always the little guy that’s susceptible to becoming a victim, as could be the case if an early deal default leads to a commission chargeback. When that happens, the funder will take back the full commission on the deal from the broker of record. It’s the responsibility of that broker to claw back whatever split of the commission they shared with the sub-broker.
“The broker you sub-brokered for, can vanish,” Kingsley wrote.
Ban the bad guys?
Several industry veterans have suggested creating an ISO/funder blacklist for those that steal commissions or deals. The challenge is that a stolen deal is not always a black and white situation. Often times there are expiration dates built into contracts that allow funders to claim deals if they have not been closed by the submitting broker within a specified period of time. Other times it’s a case of miscommunication, or the victim conveniently left out key details that would certainly add a degree of color to the situation.
Calling out an offender online can quickly devolve into a he said/she said schoolyard brawl. Unfortunately, this might be the only remedy a victim has, especially if they have limited financial resources to pursue legally, or the only evidence of their deal is a handshake or an email.
The bad guys, if they’re engaged in trickery on a large scale, tend to get identified rather quickly. There’s always a few that come in, burn a lot of bridges, and then find themselves completely ostracized from the industry. When the damage is done, they might never be heard from again or they might try to repeat the process by using a different name. Blacklisting a broker or funder wouldn’t be foolproof, especially if the company owner legally changes their name, which has actually happened before.
Trust
Through it all, Tucker offered this advice, “In a nutshell, the only true thing protecting your compensation is a very good relationship with an honest, credible and ethical lender.”
And if you have to go through a broker, make sure you choose the right one. Don’t blindly send your deal to somebody you met on a message board. An unscrupulous player will tell you exactly what you want to hear. Ask around for references. If nobody’s ever heard of them, chances are you’re talking to the wrong shop.
Even the author of that thread conceded that co-brokering offers benefits. “I’m all for co-brokering deals, especially if someone has a solution that may suit the client better than a traditional MCA or when an MCA wont work,” he wrote.
So there just may be a place for the broker’s broker, whether as a gatekeeper, power broker, or toll booth operator. And like it or not, reintermediation has ironically become a byproduct of disintermediation. There are sadly no algorithms that exist to vet how a broker might treat another broker. Co-brokering is a trade that relies on the most basic of basics, trust.
Nothing’s more valuable.
Get Paid More in Alternative Business Financing
May 5, 2015Maybe you’re happy with your current job now.
Maybe you’re making a lot of money.
Maybe you’re not.
Or maybe you’re at least curious to see what’s out there?
This is an exciting time to be in the alternative business financing industry. The OnDeck IPO made several senior-level people in the company instant multi-millionaires, many of whom are only in their 30s.
Now is the time
Back in 2007, payment processing professionals thought that the age of merchant cash advance was over. A Green Sheet writer in August of that year actually wrote a story about cash advance and said, “I think that boat has come and gone, and I missed it.”
And yet there were 20-somethings making between $200,000 to $1 Million a year. I knew a few of them and for their sakes, I won’t name names. The industry has treated those who are good at it very well.
Not everybody got rich though.
The industry got corporate really fast in 2008 and 2009 when it became apparent you couldn’t run a funding company like it was Delta Tau Chi in the movie Animal House. Commissions and salaries shrank and then leveled off for a time. But then the ACH payment methodology renewed the industry’s wild growth and made every business owner in the country a potential candidate for funding, rather than just those processing more than $5,000 a month in Visa/Mastercard sales.
Commissions shot up, way up. Opportunities exploded.
Today, having experience in the merchant cash advance or alternative business lending space is extremely valuable. It’s a buyer’s market. Demand for qualified and experienced professionals by funding companies and brokers far outpaces those looking for work. There are 20-somethings making well into the six figures again, particularly if they’re good at sales.
Other positions are in demand too: Operations, Underwriting, Administrative, Collections and more. If you have experience in these areas, there are employers very eager to talk to you.
But maybe you’re 100% happy.
Or maybe you’re not.
It’s a buyer’s market
Because the demand for experienced individuals is so overwhelmingly high, we’ve created the AltFinanceDaily Jobs network and put the ball fully in the court of the job candidates. That means you can fill out a blind profile that details your background, but keeps your identifying information away from employers. Employers can view the background but they won’t be able to see your name, email address, or username. If they like your profile, they can contact you through the site.
You’ll be able to see who the employer is and their message when you log on. Only if you choose to email them or call them to schedule an interview will they ever know who you are. If you don’t do either, they’ll never know who you were. Like I said, the ball is in your court. Why not see who comes knocking once they’ve seen a little bit about you?
Initially, we’re only allowing a handful of vetted employers on the network to prevent abuse and solicit feedback. As of now an employer can only send you one message.
We’re also not sending email notifications so if you’ve registered with your work email address, job notifications will not be sent there. They can only be viewed by logging on.
If you no longer want your profile to be discoverable by employers, just untick this checkbox and click save. It’s unticked by default so if you’ve already set up a profile but forgot to tick the box, you won’t be receiving any messages anytime soon.
Anyone can create a jobs profile so long as they have a AltFinanceDaily forum account. If you don’t have one, register here. Then just log on to create a profile on the network at ../../jobs/.
Have feedback? Notice a bug? Are you an employer looking to hire that wants access to this? Email sean@debanked.com.
The industry’s growth is on fire. Are you happy with your place in it???
Wasted Leads, a Plague in the Business Financing Industry
May 1, 2015Many people don’t know this, but a few years ago I dabbled in online lead generation for business lenders and MCA companies. I did online marketing, captured prospects, qualified them using a very simple algorithm, and then directed them to the appropriate companies for a fee. I don’t do this anymore.
One of the first features I added to boost conversion rates of the recipients was auto-phone connect. It worked like this:
- Prospect fills out a web form with their phone number
- Algorithm qualifies it
- Data is sent to appropriate lender/funder via API or email
- My phone system dials the recipient’s live sales line
- Sales rep picks up
- My phone system then dials the applicant’s phone number and if they answer, they’re immediately connected to the sales rep on the other end
The entire process was fully automated. An applicant could fill out a form and be called with a live sales rep on the other end in literally 3 seconds. Basing the idea on studies performed by experts like Dr. James Oldroyd, who believes the odds of reaching a lead declines exponentially after the first five minutes, I thought my system was pretty damn brilliant.
Not quite. Every single company that tried it hated it. There were problems on all sides. The receiving companies would be too busy on other calls to answer the auto-connects, they’d be out to lunch, or the calls would come after working hours. Some receiving companies felt they didn’t have time to digest the lead they were being auto-connected to since the call was being connected before their CRM or email was even processing the data. That meant right after the merchant had just filled out a web form with all the necessary information, the sales rep being auto-connected to them didn’t have it yet and thus the merchant had to frustratingly state it all again.
Even worse, sales reps would answer the call and wait to be auto-connected to the applying merchant, but many merchants wouldn’t answer the phone on their side even though they had just literally filled out a form seconds ago requesting somebody call them. That meant sales reps were often answering dead calls. Doh!
Technological flaws aside, some of the casual feedback I got was that seasoned sales reps preferred to contact leads at their own pace anyway, with the belief that it improved their closing percentages. Why go into a call completely unprepared in seconds or minutes when you could mentally digest the prospect’s application and possibly do a little research on them online before reaching out?
But Oldroyd’s research would argue that it was better to reach out as soon as possible because waiting a span of mere minutes exponentially increases the likelihood the prospect will not even pick up the phone when you call.
So what was the happy medium or best method? It’s hard to say since I didn’t continue to evolve it or test further. I bowed to the pressure of the lenders and funders, all whom wanted it gone and I disabled the automatic phone connects for good.
Meanwhile in 2015
An experiment conducted early this year by FinServ’s Steve Conner found that 100% of sampled business financing brokers/ISOs in the industry waited longer than five minutes to call an inbound web lead. That’s a long enough delay by Oldroyd’s standards to infer that many merchants will no longer be interested by then to even accept the call.
Conner pretended to be a merchant and completed web forms on the websites of 52 brokers and funders in the industry. The fastest broker called in 6 minutes, but the average (for those that actually called) was an astoundingly slow 742 minutes, MORE THAN 12 HOURS LATER! More than half never even called at all. What the heck?!
Back in September I said that lenders will pay as much as $200 for an exclusive inbound lead in this industry. The kicker? Conner’s experiment and Oldroyd’s data say that brokers are waiting until the lead is already pretty much dead by the time they finally attempt to make their first contact.
No wonder costs per acquisition are so high?
The numbers were better for direct funders even though more than half of them never called the prospect at all. For those that did call, the average time to make contact was 17.5 minutes, far better than the average of 12 hours for brokers.
While I do not know specifically which websites were sampled, Conner’s full report (which you can download online) says that they researched the companies beforehand.
One has to wonder what happened to the leads for which nobody called. Were they filtered out and rejected by an algorithm? And if so, shouldn’t the prospect deserve to know?
While receiving a phone call from a sales rep literally seconds after completing a web form may seem creepy or overly ambitious, there’s nothing more disconcerting than complete silence. Where exactly did your information go then?
In July 2011, I pretended to be a merchant (much like recently featured loan broker William Ramos did) and filled out a single MCA website form to find out who would call me and what they would say. I still remember the name of the make-believe business I used because I still get called and emailed regularly by that company to see if my delicatessen is ready to get funded. It is now four years later.
“I’m still shopping around,” I tell them.
The periodic emails don’t bother me. Many years ago, they paid for my contact information, possibly as high as $200 for it. They might as well keep trying.
1-call-close or bust
Ken Krogue, the CEO of InsideSales and a Forbes Contributor, discovered after his research that sales reps only make 1.3 call attempts on average to a lead before giving up. He tested over 10,000 companies in fifteen secret shopper studies. “We fill in a lead on their Web site with a real phone number and email address and track how fast they respond and how many calls or emails they make,” he wrote on Forbes.
35% to 64% of sales leads never get called at all according to Krogue, whose results mimic the numbers Conner experienced in the business financing industry.
In off-the-record conversations I’ve had with a handful of lead generators in this space (companies that are neither brokers or funders), a leading challenge they face with buyers obsessed with costs and closing ratios is that the buyers don’t always end up calling all the leads or they call them once and never call them again.
There’s pressure on lead generators to provide 1-call-close quality leads. If the merchant can’t be closed on the first call, some reps are just throwing them in the trash, never to be remarketed to ever again.
“Spoiled,” was the word used by one industry veteran to describe the newer generation of sales reps who have walked into an industry growing by leaps and bounds. So many leads are coming in, that they don’t even know what to do with them all.
Research argues however they should be calling them inside of five minutes and of course following up. And there’s no reason that so many are never called at all.
One issue Conner discovered in his experiment is that several companies in this industry had broken websites. The HTML or javascript wasn’t set up right and the forms couldn’t even be submitted. :::face palm:::
A lot of money might be pouring into this industry, but a lot of money may also be getting flushed down the tubes.
Do you know your Web form-to-call response times? You should…
Is Alternative Lending An Illusion? (LendIt 2015 Summary)
April 18, 2015More than 2,400 people packed into the LendIt conference last week in New York City and everywhere you turned, startups were boasting of their ability to lend billions of dollars to underserved consumers and businesses. Companies not even old enough to have attended last year’s LendIt conference had reportedly lent tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars already. Is it all an illusion?
Investors circled like hawks to try and grab an opportunity into this exploding market. Alternative lenders were practically being tackled by VCs, Private Equity firms, and specialty finance lenders:
Technological innovation is disrupting the status quo, attendees echoed. Surely banks can afford to develop new technology to compete, so why haven’t they? Lendio’s Brock Blake wasn’t afraid to challenge the Short Term Business Lending Panel on this. “Is there real innovation happening or is there regulatory arbitrage?” he asked.
The panelists mostly agreed that it was a combination of both. Stephen Sheinbaum, founder of Merchant Cash and Capital (MCC) and BizFi, said “regulation is not something that scares us in any way.” That’s not surprising considering MCC has survived more than ten years in business and fellow panelist CAN Capital has survived more than seventeen.
But for the newer players entirely reliant on third party brokers or dependent on a Reg D exemption to issue securities, their success may indeed be regulatory arbitrage. And time is on their side.
Karen Mills, the former head of the Small Business Administration asked several regulatory bodies who would stand up to oversee small business lending. “No one stood up,” she said.
It’s the brokers that worry some folks most, an issue that PayPal and Square Capital do not have to contend with at all. OnDeck CEO Noah Breslow stated, “there is always going to be a set of customers that want to shop and want to have help.”
Kabbage’s Kathryn Petralia explained that only 2% of their business comes from brokers and their fees are capped at 4%. CAN Capital’s Jason Rockman argued that it’s about working with brokers that share their values. MCC’s Sheinbaum said, “you have to be willing to not do business with some of the unscrupulous players out there.”
But while these industry captains minimized the role that brokers play, 2015 is already being dubbed the Year of the Broker.
The regulatory environment isn’t the only issue to be worried about, skeptics argued. There was cautious alarm about the market’s viability when interest rates rise or the economy takes a turn for the worse.
“I think there’s going to be a shakeout,” said Steve Allocca of PayPal. MCC’s Sheinbaum explained that when he sees other funders doing deals that don’t appear to make sense, to not feel pressured to do them as well. “Stick to your disciplines. Stick to your guns,” he preached.
Fundation CEO Sam Graziano argued that small business lending is already very risky. The lifetime default rate on 7(a) SBA Loans is 20%, he said. Graziano, who hates the term alternative lending prefers to refer to the industry as digitally enabled lending.
And digitally enabling is something that OnDeck has focused on. In Breslow’s presentation, he said that applying offline for a loan takes 33 hours of work on average. Banks are shuttering branches at a record rate, he added.
Banks are dead, said many in attendance. Kathryn Petralia of Kabbage disagreed. “The death of banks has been greatly exaggerated,” she argued on a panel.
Indeed, Mills’ report shows that total outstanding debt on business loans by banks dwarfs the alternatives by more than 50 to 1.
But former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers is convinced the tide is turning.”The conventional financial sector has, in important respects, let all of its main constituents down over the last generation, and technology-based businesses have the opportunity to transform finance over the next generation,” he said during the keynote speech.
With conference sessions looking and feeling like a cramped NYC subway during rush hour, the popularity of alternative lending is no illusion.
But healthy skepticism is at least creeping in while the industry marches forward. Changes in regulations, interest rates, and economic activity will separate those simply riding a wave from those that have created something real. Expect companies that exhibited at this year’s conference to be gone by 2016 or 2017, said several panelists.
The final count of LendIt attendees was 2,493 people. 150 people who tried to register at the last minute were turned away. More are expected to attend next year.
Objectively, alternative lending appears to be very real.
Good Recordkeeping Plays Important Role in Funding Success
April 17, 2015CPA Yoel Wagschal recently started working with a syndicator who relied on Excel spreadsheets to track all his deals. The syndicator thought he had everything in tip-top shape, but it turns out that his system was hard for an outsider to understand and the data didn’t reconcile with his bank statements.
Wagschal, who heads an accounting firm in Monroe, New York, comes across this problem frequently these days. It’s been exacerbated by the exponential growth of the alternative funding industry in recent years. There are a sizeable number of alternative funders that started out small and have grown by leaps and bounds, yet they are still using rudimentary systems to keep track of their business dealings. In most cases, funders want to do the right thing, but they don’t always know how or the extent of what’s involved. Unknowingly these funders may be setting themselves up for financial or legal troubles.
“Sooner rather than later you are going to find yourself swimming in the Atlantic Ocean without any plan on how to get out of there,” Wagschal says.
Although newbie funders may be able to get by with simple tools and minimal staff, more sophisticated efforts are required once they are doing multiple transactions a month. It’s one thing when you are tracking a few daily deals on a spreadsheet. It’s quite another when you’re trying to keep track of all the moving parts for hundreds of deals.
What’s more, there’s a lot of slicing and dicing of data that goes into properly understanding your existing business and growth possibilities. If you don’t use the right tools to help you keep precise records, it’s nearly impossible to understand the fundamentals of your business in order to grow. Excel, while a useful tool, has its limits, and funders who rely exclusively on spreadsheets don’t get the benefits of other more sophisticated options that have become available to them in the past few years. Manually entering data also increases the possibility of human error, which can lead to thousands upon thousands of lost revenue for a funder’s business.
The Pitfalls of Not Keeping Good Data
Keeping good data is especially important to funders who want to take on additional investors or who are considering a sale at some point. Kim Anderson, chief executive of Longitude Partners Inc., a strategic advisory firm in Tampa, Florida, works with a number of funders that are looking to facilitate additional growth by bringing on outside investors. Many of these companies find themselves scrambling because they don’t readily have access to the kind of information potential investors want.
Not keeping good books can also inhibit a funder’s ability to expand into additional markets. Say a funder wants to introduce a new product or migrate a product offering to a different vertical. Companies that don’t analyze their data effectively may have a hard time understanding what part of their existing portfolio would be the most appropriate or profitable segment to introduce the product to, Anderson says.
Potentially impeding growth is bad enough, but funders that don’t keep proper books can also find themselves embroiled in legal or tax troubles. Some MCA providers, for instance, have faced stiff penalties for treating transactions as loans on their books instead of the purchase and sale of future income.
“If they are showing the revenue recognition in the exact same way that loan industry companies are doing, then they are setting themselves up to be judged in the same way that a loan company would,” says Christina Joy Tharp, a staff accountant in Wagschal’s office. If you’re using the same accounting methods as lenders, you could be deemed a predatory lender by multiple enforcement agencies, even if that’s not your intent, she says.
The strength of your business can also be significantly impacted by how you classify performing and nonperforming loans or receivables. “There are thousands of pages of rules on how banks have to classify performing and non-performing loans. None of that exists for this industry, which is completely unregulated,” says Alex Gemici, managing director and head of M&A at World Business Lenders, an alternative lending company in Manhattan.
As a result, funders don’t have a universal way of keeping their books. Many funders believe that as long as they are collecting sporadic payments, a loan or receivable should be classified as performing. Gemici strongly disagrees, saying this approach sets up a funder for potential failure given that the default rate for loans/receivables is about one in five. “It’s one thing to show on your books that loans or receivables are performing, it’s another when you run out of cash,” Gemici says.
Choosing an Outside Provider
Recognizing that Excel spreadsheets can only carry a funder so far and that out-of-the-box software probably won’t be a complete solution for alternative funders, a small number of companies have stepped up to provide customized solutions for the industry. MCA funders—where the perceived need is greatest—are a particular focus for these providers.
Benchmark Merchant Solutions, a processor in Amherst, New York, is one such company honing in on the MCA funder space. In 2014 the company launched MCA Track, software that’s designed to help MCA funders with their recordkeeping needs. It also helps them keep track of their income for tax purposes.
Among other things, MCA Track allows funders to view their performance at a glance. It shows them, for example, how merchants are performing, how the funds are allocated according to syndicator, the status of a deal, open cash advances, closed cash advances and defaulted cash advances. Funders can also get profitability data and other types of big picture information about their business as well. The software costs about $2,000 a month depending on the user’s size.
Benny Silberstein, chief operating officer of Benchmark, says the software was created because the processing company found that funders were often asking Benchmark to get data for them, especially when there were discrepancies. It can be real headache for funders to wade through inconsistencies with merchants, syndicators and ISOs, Silberstein says. “I can’t begin to tell you how many times funders asked us for a list of all the payments they’d received.”
PSC of Port Washington, New York, is another company trying to help MCA funders keep better records and manage their business more effectively. For a monthly membership fee, the company offers a front-end to back-end relationship management solution that allows funders to track all their contacts, documents, deals and commissions. Daily reports provide detailed data and summary information about an MCA’s funding business. The data includes the actual advance amount, the right to receive amount, the factor rate, processing fees, daily debits and credits, commissions paid to outside brokers or their own people, other management fees, ACH fees, wiring fees, payments, missing payments, collections information and participation with other syndicates.
The product has been on the market for about two years and the monthly fee varies according to a funder’s size, says Tom Nix, director of sales for PSC. He declined to be more specific about cost.
“The companies that are small and just starting out—if they are just doing a few transactions a month—they could probably get by using a spreadsheet. But that’s only feasible if you have a few transactions that you’re doing per month. Once you’re growing, when you get up to 10, 20, 30, 100 deals, the management of data becomes truly uncontrollable,” says Nix, who has seen a number of funders struggling to stay afloat or exit the business entirely because of their inability to keep good records.
“If you don’t have the right information and understand it, you’re going to give money to someone and you won’t [necessarily] get it back,” Nix says.
It’s possible for funders to set up their own infrastructure, but it can be costly and some feel it detracts from their ability to generate new business. That’s why Anthony Mannino, president of Nulook Capital in Massapequa, New York, chose to work with PSC. He researched the idea of doing all the back office and data collection on his own, but he decided not to reinvent the wheel since it would have meant hiring additional staff and would divert the company’s attention away from its primary focus—bringing in new business.
“A service provider like PSC gives us the ability to grow our company controlled and in a much quicker manner than we ever could than if we had to build our back end on our own,” Mannino says. “It takes most of the responsibility off of my company so we are able to focus on just growing the business and growing the sales.”
CloudMyBiz Inc. in Los Angeles is another company trying to service the alternative funder market, providing customized CRM systems for both lenders and MCA providers.
The CloudMyBiz system relies on a platform called Salesforce and is customized to the funding industry. It helps funders with the various facets of origination, underwriting and loan servicing. It helps them generate and track leads, automate funding workflow, understand and manage their deal pipeline and daily funding activities, collect and schedule recurring ACH payments and track syndication partners.
You could buy the Salesforce software and use it out of the box, but it provides only the basic functionality that funders need to run their business properly, says Henry Abenaim, principal consultant at CloudMyBiz. That’s where CloudMyBiz comes in by customizing the software for a funder’s specific business requirements. The fee varies widely, depending on the funder’s specifications, he says, declining to be more specific.
About two and a half years ago, Creative Vision Studio LLC in Long Beach, Calif., which had focused on the merchant credit card processing industry for more than a decade, also started offering a CRM system to MCA providers. The software is called Bankcard Pros CRM and customers can use it for merchant credit card processing, MCA or both. The software automates the data entry, underwriting, approval, funding and payback process from start to finish, says Robert Hendrix, the company’s chief executive. Funders also have access to 17 different management reports so they can track the performance and profitability of their entire portfolio per month.
The company charges an upfront fee of $4,000 to $5,000 to use the software, which is customized to a particular client’s business. There’s a $399 monthly fee after that. While it may seem costly to some funders, Hendrix says the software pays for itself within a month because of the efficiencies created. Importantly, the software eliminates the possibility of costly human mistakes that can occur in manually updating daily payments on a spreadsheet. “One little mistake can cost funders $2,000 to $3,000, even up to $10,000. They can be very costly mistakes,” he says.
It is, of course, possible for funders to keep good books and records using homegrown systems and personnel, and funders need to carefully weigh their options, taking into account that doing it right will probably require a meaningful investment in infrastructure and personnel. Whether they do it alone or hire an outside vendor, the important thing for funders is to collect the data and be able to evaluate it and display it in a way that makes sense to them, their customers, tax preparers, potential investors and others who need access.
Funders also need to remember that being successful in the business over the long term requires them to do more than simply capture accurate data. Beyond that, funders need to be able to manipulate the information in a way that helps them understand the nuts and bolts of their specific business, says Anderson of Longitude Partners.
“They may be able to produce enough financial information to complete an accurate tax return, but when it comes to understanding their operating metrics, they may not have collected or evaluated all of the right information to answer questions about what really drives the growth or sustainable profitability of the business,” he says.
