Layoffs, Big Losses for OnDeck in Q4
February 16, 2017
OnDeck weathered a brutal fourth quarter driven largely by an increase in provision for loan losses which increased to $55.7 million, up from $20.0 million in the comparable prior year period. $18.7 million of this can be attributed to loans with original maturities of 15 months or longer whose performance has deviated or is expected to deviate, the company said. “As a result, the Provision Rate in the fourth quarter of 2016 was 10.2% compared to 5.6% in the comparable prior year period,” the company reported. For the full year of 2016, the Provision Rate was 7.4%, compared to 5.8% in 2015. CFO Howard Katzenberg said on the earnings call that it will likely continue to hover at around the 7% level.
The company lost $36.5 million in Q4 and $86.5 million for the year.
To try and turn things around, OnDeck is laying off up to 11% of their staff as part of a “cost rationalization plan.”
James Hobson, their COO, recently announced his resignation and March 15th is his last official day.
On the earnings call, Katzenberg wouldn’t say how many loans in their portfolio were 15 months or longer, but did say that it’s more than a third of their book. This is notable given that this segment is the one in which performance isn’t matching their models and led to the recalibration of loss expectations.
Meanwhile CEO Noah Breslow explained that losses did not stem from their partnership with Chase since Chase held all those loans on their own balance sheet. Breslow said their role in that relationship is servicing.
No origination channel was directly responsible for the loss provision increase. One analyst surmised if perhaps third party brokers or funding advisors, as OnDeck calls them, might be responsible, but the company said that origination channel wasn’t a factor.
Despite the fact that OnDeck is now using the 5th generation of their proprietary OnDeck Score, they were unable to predict performance on loans that now make up more than a third of their portfolio, yet the company said they remain very confident in their scoring model.
“Loans sold or designated as held for sale through OnDeck Marketplace represented 15.8% of term loan originations in the fourth quarter of 2016 compared to 39.8% of term loan originations in the comparable prior year period,” the company reported.
As NY Lending License Proposal Looms, Industry Trade Groups Mobilize
February 13, 2017
The alternative small-business finance community plans to lobby hard against a far-reaching proposed expansion of the New York state lending license. The proposal calls for any person or company that solicits, arranges or facilitates business and consumer loans – or other types of financing – to obtain a license. That could include MCA companies, business loan brokers and ISOs.
Critics claim the expansion, which Governor Andrew M. Cuomo included in his proposed state budget, could trigger a series of ominous and possibly unintended events in the courts and on Wall Street. “It could destroy the industry if the worst comes to fruition,” declared Robert Cook, a partner at Hudson Cook LLP.
Some opponents also contend that the public hasn’t had a reasonable opportunity to respond. “Sneaking a provision with significant impact like this into the budget and not going through regular order is really disturbing,” said Dan Gans, a Washington lobbyist who also serves as executive director of the the Commercial Finance Coalition. “They should allow all the stakeholders to have their voices heard.”
The industry’s trade groups have been quick to react. The Small Business Finance Association has been in contact with New York state legislators to help them understand the ramifications of the proposal, according to Stephen Denis, the trade group’s executive director. Meanwhile, Gans is recommending that the CFC’s board hire an Albany lobbying firm to help advance the industry’s interests.
New York’s current consumer licensing law is written broadly enough to cover any loan to an individual for less than $25,000, even if it’s made for commercial purposes, said Cook. That means the current law could cover loans to sole proprietorships but would not affect loans to corporations, limited liability companies, partnerships or limited liability partnerships, he noted.
Under the proposal in Governor Cuomo’s budget, any type of commercial loan of up to $50,000 would require a license, Cook said. Today, the state requires a license only if a loan carries a simple interest rate of more than 16 percent. Under the budget proposal, all lending would require a license, even if the interest rate is less than 16 percent. Loans made by alternative funders typically carry interest rates of 36 percent to 100 percent, he said.
New York already has a criminal usury rate of 25 percent, but lenders have two methods of avoiding that cap, according to Cook. Under one method, the parties to the loan can use a provision called the “choice of law clause” and thus agree that the contract is subject to the laws of a state that does not limit commercial usury rates, he said. Or, using the second method, the small-business finance company can solicit the loan and refer it to a bank in a state without a cap. The bank makes the loan but then sells the loan back to the small-business finance company or an affiliate, he noted.
But adopting the changes proposed in the New York budget could possibly stymie both methods of circumventing the state’s usury laws. Consider the choice of law clause, Cook suggested. The courts could interpret the proposed expansion as an effort by the state to gain more control of commercial lending. That could prompt the courts to refuse to enforce choice of law clauses involving New York state because doing so would violate a significant policy in New York, he maintained. The proposal could also gut the second way around the usury law – the bank model – by requiring employees of out-of-state banks to have a license in order to originate loans or by prohibiting rates in excess of New York’s cap, he said. Both outcomes are speculative but constitute distinct possibilities, he added.
Expanding the license would also grant additional regulatory authority to the New York State Department of Financial Services, Cook maintained. Besides requiring the license, the DFS would have the ability to regulate, supervise and examine commercial lenders, he said. In the past the department has imposed some significant regulations on licensees, including fair lending requirements and cyber security requirements, he said. “They’re a very active regulator,” he contended. “They could require commercial lenders to jump through a lot of hoops that aren’t there today.”
What’s more, time would pass while a company negotiates the initial hoops simply to obtain a license. Qualifying for the current New York license, for example, can take up to nine months, Cook said. “It’s a fairly intensive licensing process that requires a lot of information about the company, the officers and directors of the company,” he noted. “The licensing process is tough in New York.”
The expansion could also limit the industry’s access to capital, Cook warned. Some alternative funders raise money by selling loans or interests in loans on the secondary market. Requiring a license to buy those products could prompt Wall Street to look elsewhere for less-burdensome investment opportunities, he said.
The laundry list of potential bad effects has many in the industry wondering about the state’s intentions toward the industry. “It’s not clear whether the people up in Albany understand the potential effect this has,” Cook said.
To help bring about that understanding, the CFC intends to call upon its members and merchants who have benefitted from alternative finance to visit officials in the state capital, Gans said.
Gans finds reason for optimism as the associations coalesce around the issue. The state Senate in Albany tends to be pro-business, and I am confident we will find allies that will stand up to this, he said.
Denis also seems upbeat about the industry’s efforts to make itself heard in Albany. In Illinois, some legislators failed to differentiate between consumer loans and commercial loans when considering legislation last year, he noted. That might be the case in New York, too, and the SBFA might help them make the distinction, he said. As an example of the differences, he pointed out that business loans often carry high interest rates because of high risk. “We have talked to some folks in Albany, and everyone is receptive to the industry,” he said. Small business is a powerful constituency, he maintains.
Gans, Denis and Cook all said they’re not opposed to legislation or regulation that addresses problems caused by bad actors in the industry, but all three oppose government action that they believe unnecessarily limits members of the industry who are operating in good faith.
The proposed license in New York differs in at least one significant way from the California lending license that many alternative funders have obtained, Cook noted. The California license doesn’t impose a cap on interest rates, he said. If the New York proposal imposed licensing requirements but did not limit interest rates, the industry probably would reluctantly accept it, he suggested.
—-
Dan Gans at the CFC can be contacted at dgans@polariswdc.com
Stephen Denis at the SBFA can be contacted at sdenis@sbfassociation.org
Robert Cook at Hudson Cook can be contacted at rcook@hudco.com
Analysis: New York’s Lender/Broker Licensing Proposal
February 7, 2017
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s proposed budget includes a legislative proposal to “allow the Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) to better regulate the business practices of online lenders.”1 This legislation, which would amend Section 340 of the Banking Law, could have a dramatic impact on lending and brokering loans to New York businesses, as such lenders would have to obtain licenses to engage in business-purpose lending and could only charge rates and fees expressly permitted under New York law.2 It may impact the secondary market for merchant cash advances. If passed, the licensing requirements will take effect January 1, 2018.
The proposed law would amend NY Banking Law § 340 to require anyone “engaging in the business of making loans” of $50,000 or less for business or commercial purposes to obtain a license. The term “engaging in the business of making loans” means a person who solicits loans and, in connection with the solicitation, makes loans; purchases or otherwise acquires from others loans or other forms of financing; or arranges or facilitates the funding of loans to businesses located or doing business in New York.
Although the proposed law would require a license only for a person who “solicits” loans and makes, purchases or arranges loans, the DFS takes the position that the licensing law (as currently enacted) applies broadly and that “out-of-State entities making loans to New York consumers . . . are required to obtain a license from the Banking Department.”3 As a result, there is probably no exemption from licensing for a person who does not “solicit” loans in New York.
The potential impact of the legislation is significant.
Potential Impact on Lenders:
Licensing Required and Most Fees Prohibited. New York law already requires a lender to obtain a license to make a business or commercial loan to individuals (sole proprietors) of $50,000 or less if the interest rate on the loan exceeds 16% per year, inclusive of fees. The proposed law would require any person who makes a loan of $50,000 or less to any type of business entity and at any interest rate to obtain a license. And a licensed lender is governed by New York lending law that regulates refunds of interest upon prepayment;4 and significantly limits most fees that a lender can charge to a borrower, including prohibiting charging a borrower for broker fees or commissions and origination fees.5
Essentially, the DFS will regulate lenders who originate loans to businesses of $50,000 or less in the same manner as consumer loans of less than $25,000. The proposed law would exempt a lender that makes isolated or occasional loans to businesses located or doing business in New York.
Potential Effect on Choice-of-Law. The proposed law could lead courts to reject contractual choice-of-law provisions that select the law of another state when lending to New York businesses. With new licensing requirements and limits on loans to businesses, a court could reasonably find that New York has a fundamental public policy of protecting businesses from certain loans, and decline to enforce a choice-of-law clause designating the law of the other state as the law that governs a business-purpose loan agreement.
For example, the holding of Klein v. On Deck6 might have come out differently if New York licensed and regulated business loans at the time the court decided it. In the Klein case, a business borrower sued On Deck claiming that its loan was usurious under New York law. The loan contract included the following choice-of-law provision:
“[O]ur relationship including this Agreement and any claim, dispute or controversy (whether in contract, tort, or otherwise) at any time arising from or relating to this Agreement is governed by, and this Agreement will be construed in accordance with, applicable federal law and (to the extent not preempted by federal law) Virginia law without regard to internal principles of conflict of laws. The legality, enforceability and interpretation of this Agreement and the amounts contracted for, charged and reserved under this Agreement will be governed by such laws. Borrower understands and agrees that (i) Lender is located in Virginia, (ii) Lender makes all credit decisions from Lender's office in Virginia, (iii) the Loan is made in Virginia (that is, no binding contract will be formed until Lender receives and accepts Borrower's signed Agreement in Virginia) and (iv) Borrower's payments are not accepted until received by Lender in Virginia.”
The court concluded that this contract language showed that the parties intended Virginia law to apply. However, the court also considered whether the application of Virginia law offended New York public policy. The court compared Virginia law governing business loans against New York law governing business loans, and decided that the two states had relatively similar approaches. As a result, the court found that upholding the Virginia choice-of-law contract provision did not offend New York public policy.
The loan amount in the Klein case was above the $50,000 threshold for regulated loans in the proposed New York law, so this exact case would not have been affected. However, the court’s analysis in the Klein case would have been the same for loans of $50,000 or less. Accordingly, the new law could cause a New York court to reject a contractual choice-of-law provision.
Effect on Bank-Originated Loans. This proposed law apparently would not directly affect loans made by banks that are not subject to licensing under the statute.7 But, the law would require non-banks that offer business-purpose lending platforms that partner with FDIC-insured banks to obtain a license to “solicit” loans. And, it is possible, that the DFS could later, by regulation or examination, prohibit such licensees from soliciting loans at rates higher than permitted under New York law.
Potential Impact on Merchant Cash Advance Companies:
The proposed law imposes a license requirement if a person “purchases or otherwise acquires from others loans or other forms of financing.” New York law does not define the term “other forms of financing.” However, the DFS may consider merchant cash advance transactions to be a regulated transaction for which licensing is required.
As written, only purchasing or acquiring other forms of financing, such as a merchant cash advance, might require a license. As a result, the proposed law only has the potential for affecting the sale and syndication of merchant cash advances. It is unclear whether buying only a portion of a merchant cash advance, or “participation” could require a license, or if only purchasing the entire obligation could require a license.
Potential Impact on Brokers:
Because the new law would require a license to “arrange or facilitate” a business loan of $50,000 or less, ISOs and loan brokers would need a license. As mentioned above, a licensed lender is prohibited from charging broker fees or commissions. It is not clear at the moment whether an ISO or loan broker could contract directly with the borrower for a commission.8
1 See https://www.budget.ny.gov/pubs/executive/eBudget1718/fy18artVIIbills/TEDArticleVII.pdf, page 243. Although not discussed in this article, the proposal would also impose new licensing requirements on certain consumer lenders.
2 A licensed lender may impose a rate in excess of the 16% civil usury limit in New York, but is still subject to the 25% criminal usury limit. See, New York Banking Law § 351(1) and New York Penal Law § 190.40.
3 See http://www.dfs.ny.gov/legal/interpret/lo991206.htm The term “solicitation” of a loan includes any solicitation, request or inducement to enter into a loan made by means of or through a direct mailing, television or radio announcement or advertisement, advertisement in a newspaper, magazine, leaflet or pamphlet distributed within this state, or visual display within New York, whether or not such solicitation, request or inducement constitutes an offer to enter into a contract. NY Banking Law § 355.
4 NY Banking Law § 351(5).
5 NY Banking Law § 351(6).
6 Klein v. On Deck Capital, Inc., 2015 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2231 (June 24, 2015).
7 See NY Banking Law § 14-a; 3 NY ADC 4; NY Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-501.
8 See NY Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-531 that limits fees that brokers can charge on non-mortgage loans to not more than 50 cents per $100 loaned.
Katherine C. Fisher is a partner in the Hanover, MD office of Hudson Cook, LLP. Kate can be reached at 410-782-2356 or by email at kfisher@hudco.com.
Prosper Marketplace Appoints Usama Ashraf Chief Financial Officer
February 1, 2017
SAN FRANCISCO–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Prosper Marketplace announced today it has appointed Usama Ashraf as Chief Financial Officer. As CFO, Ashraf will oversee the company’s capital markets function, as well as all of the company’s finance activities. As head of the Capital Markets team, he will be responsible for expanding the company’s funding sources by bringing new investors onto the Prosper lending platform.
Ashraf brings more than 18 years of experience spanning corporate finance and global capital markets, including funding, securitization, financial reporting, planning, investor relations, balance sheet management, strategy, and mergers and acquisitions. He has held senior leadership positions at prominent financial services companies, most recently as Deputy Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer at Annaly Capital Management and Corporate Treasurer at USAA. Ashraf will start his new position at Prosper Marketplace on February 27.
“We’re thrilled to have someone with Usama’s experience and track record in finance and global capital markets join our team,” said David Kimball, CEO, Prosper Marketplace. “Usama will be instrumental in bringing new institutional investors onto the Prosper platform, including banks, as we continue to grow the platform in 2017.”
“I’ve watched the online lending industry with keen interest over the past year, and I have been impressed with Prosper’s resiliency and commitment to innovation,” said Ashraf. “I am a strong believer in Prosper’s mission to advance financial well-being, and I look forward to working closely with David and the Prosper team to take the business to the next level.”
Prior to joining USAA, Ashraf spent 13 years in the Treasury and Corporate M&A departments of CIT Group, most recently serving as Deputy Treasurer with responsibility for the firm’s Treasury activities in the U.S. Previously, he worked in the Investment Banking Division of Salomon Smith Barney/Citigroup focused on M&A. Ashraf received a BS in Economics with concentrations in Finance and Accounting from The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.
About Prosper
Prosper’s mission is to advance financial well-being. The company’s online lending platform connects people who want to borrow money with individuals and institutions that want to invest in consumer credit. Borrowers get access to affordable fixed-rate, fixed-term personal loans, and investors have the opportunity to earn attractive returns via the platform’s data-driven underwriting model. To date, Prosper has originated over $8 billion in personal loans for debt consolidation and large purchases such as home improvement projects, medical expenses and special occasions. The award-winning Prosper Daily app offers essential tools to help people manage their financial wellness every day.
Prosper launched in 2006 and is headquartered in San Francisco. The lending platform is owned by Prosper Funding LLC, and Prosper Daily is owned by BillGuard Inc., both subsidiaries of Prosper Marketplace. Visit www.prosper.com and follow @Prosperloans on Twitter to learn more.
Contacts
Prosper Marketplace
Sarah Cain, 415-593-5474
scain@prosper.com
The New Normal
January 24, 2017
In March 2014, I wrote the following for DailyFunder.com: I think we are either currently in, or are fast approaching a “market bubble” in MCA. Bubbles never end well…When I see some of the business practices, offers, terms and other aspects of our business today, I am worried…assets are being overpaid for through higher than economically justified commissions …and [funders are] stretch[ing] the repayment term of the MCA or loan even further. I went on to say that this felt to me an awful lot like the subprime mortgage meltdown of 2008.
Like all good bear market prognosticators, I was a touch early in my forecast. 2014 and 2015 were continued boom years for small business alternative lenders (or “small business Alt Lender.” I don’t agree with applying the moniker “online lender” for our industry. It might be sexy, but it’s not accurate.) Loan and MCA terms got longer, loan pricing to the client dropped further, companies grew 100% year over year. And then 2016 happened.
The most shocking event for me in 2016 was the disruption at CAN Capital. They had the most data, the most experience, market dominance, and the most in-depth institutional knowledge. The granddaddy of all of us. Not far behind is the fiasco that is On Deck, the only publicly traded small business Alt Lender. In the past 12 months alone, the stock price has declined by over 40%. And that is after a roughly 50% drop in stock price in 2015. The first 9 months of 2016, driven in part because of market required changes to their business model when they could no longer profitably sell a sufficient volume of loan originations, they have a GAAP net loss of almost $50 million. There have also been a number of other lesser but still high profile failures, shutdowns, and exits from the industry in the past several months alone.
So what is driving this abnormally high rate of failure in the Alt Lending industry? Is it the “New Normal?” And what do I think lies ahead in 2017 and beyond? Before revealing my personal crystal ball again, I will share an anecdote from earlier in my business career.
I was the CFO (and eventually CEO) of a profitable, long-tenured family owned construction company. We had a working capital credit line from a major bank secured by a first position lien on our accounts receivable. The credit line was also personally guaranteed. We borrowed from the credit line for three reasons. For cash flow, when our receivables paid more slowly than expected; we had tax payments due; or we purchased a large piece of equipment. We always paid back the draw on the credit line as quickly as we could, to keep interests costs low, to impose cash management discipline, and to create future availability on the line once repaid.
The credit line was for one year. It was always renewed. But I was frustrated to have to go through an annual underwrite process with our bank, despite the personal guarantee, consistent profitability, and that we always paid back our draw on the credit line. Our banker (patiently) explained to me that economic cycles changed, and medium sized businesses – we had about 200 employees – suffered ups and downs and sometimes became financially distressed and even went out of business. The bank wanted to protect their position and not overextend the term of the credit line.
When I started RapidAdvance in 2005, I drew on my personal knowledge and previous experience as a borrower. The products we offered made sense based on our customer profile which was main street small business. We needed to protect against economic cycles and the high rate of small business failure. The maximum term offered by any company in 2005 was 8 months, at that time only for an advance product (future purchase and sale of credit card receivables), not a loan. Payment was received daily through a credit card split, thus allowing for a future capital advance (renewal) within about five or six months as the open advance was paid down. Cash advances could be used for taxes, equipment purchases, or business expansion. The price of the product reflected the risk of the credit offered.
What many in the small business Alt Lending industry seem to have forgotten, or never learned, is that our business is fundamentally a subprime credit industry. We are either lending to subprime borrowers, because of either the personal credit of the owner or the balance sheet of the borrower, or if the credit is strong and the business is more substantial, the loan itself is a subprime risk because we are at the bottom of the capital stack – behind the bank loan, the business property mortgage loan, the other personal guarantees of the owner, the factoring company, etc. We are taking the most risk. To offer two and three year terms and to try to pretend to get to “bank like” rates is, in my opinion, committing lending suicide.
At Rapid, we were dragged kicking and screaming into slightly longer term and lower cost products in order to stay competitive with certain customers. But we have kept that pool of customers as a very small percentage of our overall receivables.
Going into 2017 and beyond, I see five major trends. First, terms will get shorter, prices will increase, and offers will become more rational. That is already happening. Second, capital to this industry will become less available. The best companies with proven data driven models, consistent underwriting, a strong balance sheet and predictable loss rates will get financed. The days of easy money chasing this space are over. Equity will be particularly hard to come by.
Third, there will be continued disruption of funding companies. Companies will consolidate and some will disappear. On Deck may be in for a big challenge. They had a tremendous cash burn converting their business model to more balance sheet financed instead of originating and selling loans. Their market cap today is approximately book value, i.e. if you could buy up all the shares of the company at today’s trading price that would be roughly equal to their cash on the balance sheet and the value of their net receivables. The next two quarters are crucial for them to show the market they have turned the corner to become a self-sustaining lender. I am not optimistic, but I am rooting for them to succeed as it is in the best interests of the industry.
Fourth, stacking will continue to be an issue. I believe that the legal system over the next few years will bring some semblance of order to this industry scourge. At Rapid we have taken an aggressive legal stance against stacking, with some success in the courts. The challenge is that each situation is fact specific, and to prevail in a claim of tortious interference, the first position lender has to prove damages. I think that an unrelated decision at the end of 2016, Merchant Funding Services, LLC vs. Volunteer Pharmacy in New York State, could be a game changer. Because of the form of contract and the business practices in Volunteer, the judge ruled that the transaction constituted criminal usury. Knowing the business practices of the stackers, specifically the practice of writing an agreement that pretends to be a sale and purchase of future receivables but is in fact a loan, which is the basis for the judge’s ruling in Volunteer, I can see lawyers seizing on this precedent to help overstressed small business owners attempt to void their stacked loan agreements. The small business would first block the stacker’s ACH, claim the contract is void because of criminal usury, and then sue the stacking company. There could also be class action lawsuits like we saw a few years ago in California – bundle together a number of these claimants and go after the deep pocketed investors and banks that finance the stacking companies. The State’s Attorney General in New York may take a public policy interest in these types of loans. Once the dominoes start to fall, the costs of stacking – litigation and unpaid loans, in addition to proactive claims for damages – could be enormous for both the stacking companies and their owners and investors.
Lastly, and to my great pleasure, I think we will stop hearing small business Alt Lenders calling themselves “Fintech.” I think we will see the beginning of the demise of fully automated, no manual touch funding. At Rapid we have data and risk and pricing algorithms but we have always had an underwriter at a minimum review every file. At conferences when I have presented or participated in Fintech panels I always referred to Rapid as a technology enabled, non-bank small business lender. Now even On Deck describes themselves in similar terms.
I titled this post “The New Normal.” In the classic Mel Brooks movie Young Frankenstein, Dr. Frankenstein sends his assistant Igor to steal a brain from a cadaver to implant into his monster. But Igor accidentally drops the genius brain he was supposed to steal, and brings the doctor a different brain without telling him. When the monster awakes and has the personality of a psychotic five year old, Igor tells him he brought him a brain that was labeled “normal” instead of the one he was supposed to steal. It was, as Igor read it, “Abby Normal.” Abnormal, I believe, is the “New Normal” we will be dealing with in 2017.
Ford Credit and AutoFi Debut Platform for Faster, Smoother, Simpler Digital Vehicle Buying and Financing
January 24, 2017- New platform allows customers to purchase and finance a new vehicle via the dealer website; platform introduced at Ohio dealership and will roll out over time to more U.S. Ford and Lincoln dealerships
- Platform makes it fast and convenient to finance a new Ford or Lincoln at a time when many U.S. adults say they want to spend less time at dealerships, while still going to their dealer to “sign and drive”
- Ford Credit makes equity investment in AutoFi as Ford Credit continues pursuing technology to make the financing experience better
There’s a new way for customers to purchase or finance a new Ford vehicle in minutes – right from a dealership website from anywhere, on any device – through a new platform from Ford Motor Credit Company and financial technology company AutoFi.
In addition, Ford Credit has made an investment in AutoFi as Ford Credit continues pursuing technological advances to make the financing experience better.
“By combining our fast and efficient credit-decision process with AutoFi’s online capability, we are making the customer experience faster, smoother and simpler,” said Lee Jelenic, Ford Credit director of mobility. “With its experience in used-vehicle online financing and well-developed platform, AutoFi makes it easier for us to adopt new technology quickly to meet evolving consumer expectations.”
The AutoFi platform can be used now at Ricart Ford in Groveport, Ohio, and will roll out over time to more Ford and Lincoln dealerships across the United States. The introduction comes as 83 percent of Americans say they would like to spend as little time at the dealership as possible when shopping for or buying a car, according to a new survey of more than 1,000 U.S. adults conducted online by Harris Poll on behalf of Ford Motor Company. Many of those same people, however, still want to touch and feel their new vehicle before signing on the dotted line. The new platform provides the best of both worlds.
Through the dealer website, customers have a transparent and seamless purchase and finance experience from anywhere on their mobile phone, tablet or computer. Once the online part of the transaction is complete, all customers need to do is sign the paperwork when they collect their new Ford.
Consumers may shop for a new Ford in the showroom or from anywhere via the Ricart Ford website. After selecting a vehicle, they can apply for credit and receive a decision, choose the financing terms that make sense for them, and then review and select optional vehicle protection products – completely online on their own time. Customers then can review a final summary of the financing terms and schedule time to complete the transaction and pick up the vehicle.
“AutoFi’s platform will help cut the time people spend arranging financing and improve the experience dealerships can deliver for their customers, no matter where they are in the car-buying journey,” said Kevin Singerman, CEO of San Francisco-based AutoFi. “We think this will be a game changer for both consumers and dealers, and we are thrilled to work with Ford Credit to make this happen.”
“Technology is transforming just about every type of financed consumer purchase, and this new digital capability will help make that change for automotive purchases and deliver great experiences,” said Rick Ricart, Sales and Marketing vice president at Ricart Ford. “We are excited to be the first Ford dealership in the pilot.”
# # #
About Ford Motor Credit Company
Ford Motor Credit Company is a leading automotive financial services company. It provides dealer and customer financing to support the sale of Ford Motor Company products around the world, including through Lincoln Automotive Financial Services in the United States, Canada and China. Ford Credit is a subsidiary of Ford established in 1959. For more information, visit www.fordcredit.com or www.lincolnafs.com.
About AutoFi
AutoFi is a technology company transforming the way cars are bought and sold. The company’s platform allows auto dealers to sell vehicles completely online by connecting buyers with lenders in a fast, easy and transparent process. AutoFi’s team includes industry leaders from enterprise software, finance, automobile and consumer sectors who previously worked at companies including Lending Club, PayPal, and SunGard. AutoFi’s investors include Ford Motor Credit Company, Crosslink Capital, Lerer Hippeau Ventures, Laconia Capital Group, Basset Investment Group, Eniac Ventures, 500 Startups and Silicon Valley Bank. For more information, visit www.autofi.com.
About the Survey
This study was conducted online within the United States by Harris Poll on behalf of Ford Motor Company between November 28 and December 5, 2016, among a nationally representative sample of 1,217 adults ages 18 years and older. This online survey is not based on a probability sample and therefore no estimate of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.
Contacts
Ford Credit
Margaret Mellott
313.322.5393
mmellott@ford.com
or
AutoFi
Justin Hamilton
202.630.5426
Media@autofi.com
New Industry Group Established to Support Consumers’ Right to Access their Financial Data
January 19, 2017The Consumer Financial Data Rights (CFDR) group defends consumers’ access to their data and fuels new innovation in fintech
REDWOOD CITY, Calif., Jan. 19, 2017 /PRNewswire/ — The Consumer Financial Data Rights (CFDR), a new industry group formed by some of the most recognized companies in the financial sector, officially launched today in support of the consumers’ right to innovative products and services that improve their financial well-being and are powered by unfettered access to their financial data. As fintech companies increasingly collaborate with banks around the world to provide innovative solutions through open application program interfaces (APIs), this right ensures a consumer can continue to give permission to third party companies to use that individual’s data for managing their personal finances, obtaining loans, making payments, and providing investment advice in addition to many other applications.
The CFDR brings together organizations from across the fintech ecosystem and includes some of the most influential and innovative companies in the financial sector, including the following founding members: Affirm, Betterment, Digit, Envestnet | Yodlee, Kabbage, Personal Capital, Ripple, and Varo Money among many other companies.
Section 1033 of Dodd-Frank codified the consumers’ right to access their personal financial data through technology-powered third party platforms. Together with promoting consumer choice and access to these consumer-first financial health tools, the CFDR is also committed to improving dialogue throughout the financial industry, actively engaging the government and working with banks, fintech innovators, and third party platforms. The CFDR aims to be a resource for policymakers, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as they determine how to best assist consumers in leveraging their own financial data.
“Each consumer’s right to their own financial data is vital in helping to understand their finances and make the best saving and spending decisions,” said Max Levchin, Founder and CEO of Affirm. “As a company we’re committed to helping customers make the best financial decisions and improve their financial lives through technology and improved flexibility, and having a complete picture of a customer’s financial picture is essential to achieving this. As a founding member of the CFDR, we’re committed to ensuring that all consumers have access to data which makes their financial lives better.”
“Consumers and small business owners need to be able to view their entire financial picture to make decisions that are truly in their best interests,” said Rob Frohwein, Co-Founder of Kabbage. “The ability to freely access financial data empowers customers to take actions to improve their financial lives, whether it’s accessing capital to grow a business or better understanding their income streams. Access to financial data is not just vital for customers wanting to enjoy financial health, but it also allows companies to provide better user experiences. Kabbage is thrilled to join other companies also committed to democratizing access to financial data.”
CFDR’s first action will be the submission of a joint comment letter in response to an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking on Enhanced Cyber Risk Management Standards issued by the Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The submission will encourage the regulators to establish a risk hierarchy with regard to cybersecurity risk in the fintech industry and will note the importance of continuing to allow consumers to access secure tools that enable their financial well-being.
“Consumers have the right to access financial solutions that allow them to improve their financial well-being,” said Anil Arora, CEO of Envestnet | Yodlee. “The CFDR is committed to initiatives that enable fintech innovation in the United States, much of which has transpired globally including recent open API initiatives in Europe, the Open Banking standard in the UK, and the commitment by the Monetary Authority of Singapore to create an open API economy and promote the secure use of cloud environments. The consumers’ right to unfettered access to their financial data will help enable the continued growth of innovative financial technologies and ultimately help consumers improve their financial health.”
About Consumer Financial Data Rights (CFDR)
The Consumer Financial Data Rights (CFDR) is a new industry group formed by some of the most recognized companies in the financial sector, launched to support the consumers’ right to unfettered access to their financial data. Open data acess is critical to enabling innovative tools that can help consumers improve their financial lives. CFDR members seek to: drive financial innovation in a collaborative ecosystem by bridging the needs of consumers, banks, fintech innovators, and regulators; partner with banks to support unfettered access to consumer and small business data through a secure and open financial system; and promote consumer rights to access and share their financial data with third party companies that provide tools to enable better financial outcomes.
SOURCE Envestnet | Yodlee
WEX and OnDeck Announce Strategic Partnership to Offer Financing to WEX Small Business Customers
January 17, 2017
SOUTH PORTLAND, Maine–(BUSINESS WIRE)–WEX Inc. (NYSE: WEX), a leading provider of corporate and small business payment solutions, and OnDeck® (NYSE: ONDK), a leader in online lending for small business, announced a partnership in which WEX will offer business financing from OnDeck to its small business customers.
WEX is a global, multi-channel provider of corporate payment solutions representing more than 10 million vehicles and offering exceptional payment security and control across a wide spectrum of business sectors. The company and its subsidiaries employ more than 2,500 associates who provide services in the Americas, Europe, Australia, and Asia.
“Our partnership with OnDeck will be a huge benefit to our small to mid-sized business customers who will now have access to new sources of financing,” said Brian Fournier, vice president, fleet channel partner, WEX. “The strategic partnership will enable these customers to take advantage of OnDeck’s leading portfolio of products and services.”
“OnDeck is 100 percent focused on helping small businesses seize opportunities, such as hiring employees, funding marketing, or buying inventory,” said Jerome Hersey, vice president, OnDeck. “Our partnership with WEX, an innovator in the payments marketplace, will enable us to offer more small businesses an unparalleled set of choices to meet their financing needs.”
For more information about WEX’s small business offerings, please visit: http://www.wexinc.com/fleet/small-business/.
About WEX Inc.
WEX Inc. (NYSE: WEX) is a leading provider of corporate payment solutions. From its roots in fleet card payments beginning in 1983, WEX has expanded the scope of its business into a multi-channel provider of corporate payment solutions representing approximately 10 million vehicles and offering exceptional payment security and control across a wide spectrum of business sectors. WEX serves a global set of customers and partners through its operations around the world, with offices in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Italy, France, Germany, Norway and Singapore. WEX and its subsidiaries employ more than 2,500 associates. The company has been publicly traded since 2005, and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol “WEX.” For more information, visit www.wexinc.com and follow WEX on Twitter at @WEXIncNews.
About OnDeck
OnDeck (NYSE: ONDK) is the leader in online small business lending. Since 2007, the Company has powered Main Street’s growth through advanced lending technology and a constant dedication to customer service. OnDeck’s proprietary credit scoring system – the OnDeck Score® – leverages advanced analytics, enabling OnDeck to make real-time lending decisions and deliver capital to small businesses in as little as 24 hours. OnDeck offers business owners a complete financing solution, including the online lending industry’s widest range of term loans and lines of credit. To date, the Company has deployed over $5 billion to more than 60,000 customers in 700 different industries across the United States, Canada and Australia. OnDeck has an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau and operates the educational small business financing website www.businessloans.com.
OnDeck, the OnDeck logo, OnDeck Score and OnDeck Marketplace are trademarks of On Deck Capital, Inc.
Contacts
WEX
Rob Gould, 207-523-7429
robert.gould@wexinc.com
or
OnDeck
Jim Larkin, 203-526-7457
jlarkin@ondeck.com
