AUSTRALIA

This is a search result page



OnDeck Appoints Former GE Exec to Board

June 6, 2016

OnDeck appointed Daniel Henson to its board, the company said on Monday.

Henson spent 30 years at General Electric, holding positions at GE Capital and ran the company’s commercial lending business globally in addition to managing GE Capital’s lending and leasing business through the 2008 financial crisis.

“Dan ran one of the largest commercial lending operations in the U.S. and his deep experience in strategic growth initiatives, process excellence and risk management will be a tremendous asset for OnDeck as we continue providing small businesses in the U.S., Canada and Australia with the capital they need to succeed,” said CEO Noah Breslow.

New York-based OnDeck netted a loss of $12 million in Q1 this year and also predicted a full-year adjusted EBITDA loss of between $41 million and $49 million. Online lenders have been battling turbulent times with increased scrutiny on business practices, portfolio performance and rising delinquencies.

OnDeck Regains Their Swagger in Q4 Earnings Call – Lends $1.9 Billion in 2015

February 23, 2016
Article by:

ondeck capitalOnDeck’s chief executive Noah Breslow and chief financial officer Howard Katzenberg brimmed with confidence in their Q4 earnings call, assuring investors that it’s full steam ahead. After two previous quarters of profitability and getting no love from the market for it, they’re back to doing what they know best, growing.

OnDeck loaned a record $557 million in Q4, an increase of 51% year-over-year. Despite market fears of an impending economic downturn, the company is just not seeing signs of the alleged doom in the performance of their loans. “We are not seeing weakness in our portfolio at this time,” Breslow said.

Later in the call they reemphasized that their early warning systems are not setting off any alarms. In fact, they said, origination growth is their main goal in 2016. “We currently believe we can grow annual originations by 45% to 50% in 2016,” Katzenberg said.

OnDeck reminded investors that their unique model is specifically built for economic downturns. Among their strengths are their short duration, pricing spreads and daily payments, they said. Those attributes (which are sometimes criticized by consumer groups today) will serve as the backbone of sustainability if the economy goes south.

Also coming back into the fold are outside brokers, which they refer to as “Funding Advisors.” OnDeck spent a lot of time recertifying those relationships in 2015 and the bulk of the effort associated with that is over, they said. The percentage of loans generated from brokers rose from 18.6% in Q3 to 20.1% in Q4.

They also rebuffed speculation that they were giving up their business model in favor of becoming a bank technology service. While they admitted finding value in the partnerships they’ve formed, particularly with JPMorgan Chase, their core business is and will continue to be lending to small businesses. According to Katzenberg, 2016 will have two key objectives however, “One, launching and refining our pilot program with Chase, and two, continuing to build out our infrastructure to add and support additional partners that understand the small business capital assets problem and are willing to invest in a great customer experience.” They expect to see bank service revenues really begin to scale in 2017 and 2018.

Breslow said in regards to the Chase deal, “Chase will be able to offer almost real-time approvals in the same or next day funding a dramatic improvement over a traditional loan process that might take weeks. Chase will hold the loans, which will be priced like bank products on their balance sheet and OnDeck will earn servicing and platform fees based on volume.”

Their 15+ Day Delinquency ratio was down.

Their partnerships with Minor League Baseball and Barbara Corcoran have been very successful.

They lent $1.9 billion in 2015 across the U.S., Canada, and Australia.

OnDeck Loans Record $557 million in Q4, But Reports $4.6 Million Loss

February 22, 2016
Article by:

OnDeck CapitalOnDeck funded a record $557 million in Q4 2015, generating $67.6 million in revenue. That came at a cost because they reported a $4.6 million GAAP net loss.

All told however, they loaned $1.9 billion to small businesses in the U.S., Canada and Australia for the full year of 2015.

A record $201.9 million of loans were sold through OnDeck Marketplace® in Q4.

Provision for loan losses during the fourth quarter of 2015 decreased to $20.0 million, down from $20.4 million in the comparable prior year period. The Provision Rate in the fourth quarter of 2015 was 5.6% compared to 6.7% in the comparable prior year period.

OnDeck was up nearly 5% for the day in the hours before earnings were reported. The company has regained some public favor after a partnership with JPMorgan Chase was announced in December. Still, critics have pointed out that the company’s last few positive quarters were dependent on their ability to sell existing loans off their balance sheet to book the necessary revenue to show a profit.

OnDeck has seemingly now returned to their original plan, growth over profits.

In Q3, origination growth had slowed. They reported a profit of $3.7 million on $482 million worth of loans originated. During that quarter, reliance on third party brokers slowed, dipping to 18.6% of their deal flow, but OnDeck CEO Noah Breslow hinted that they may have reached a floor in that ratio. That channel could stabilize and even grow a little bit, he said.

Q4 indeed saw a resurgence to 20.1% from the brokers.

The effectiveness of direct mail marketing was hotly debated in the 2015 Q2 Q&A, but seemed to have relaxed in Q3.

OnDeck’s share price was still down by more than 50% from their IPO, a factor that has potentially contributed to the postponement of other online lending IPOs.

The Bitcoin Mining IPO Didn’t Go So Well

February 3, 2016
Article by:

Bitcoin MiningMuch ado about nothing?

Despite the long drawn endeavor, the world’s first bitcoin mining IPO was lackluster. Australia’s The Bitcoin Group, a bitcoin mining company raised $4.2 million (5.9 million Australian dollars) falling short of the targeted $14 million (20 million Australian dollars)

The Melbourne-based company was founded in September 2014 with plans to pursue an IPO a month later. The founders Sam Lee, Allan Guo and Ryan Xu started Bitcoin Group as a cryptocurrency arbitrage service, but soon turned their attention to mining bitcoins as the main business.

However, the IPO plans did not pan out as expected after the Australian Securities and Investments Commission banned the company for trying to garner investor interest on social media before filing the prospectus and placing two more stop orders on the IPO in July.

The Bitcoin Group was finally cleared to list on the Australian Securities Exchange in January this year after a third unsuccessful attempt of listing in November last year. The stock ‘BCG’ was scheduled to begin trading on February 2nd and received an underwhelming response from the market. As of now, it still hasn’t actually been listed.

All the setbacks however did not dampen the founders’ spirit — CEO Sam Lee called the IPO a “solid result” and told CNBC that it was sufficient for the company to focus on expansion by acquiring new mining equipment.

Business Lending in Mexico – From the Front Lines

January 20, 2016

Business Loans in MexicoIt’s no secret that the financial technology (FinTech) industry has exploded and its effects are being felt around the world. With its epicenter in the US (arguably the UK), it quickly caught on in other major markets like Europe, Australia and Canada. The main narrative for the FinTech industry plays as follows: First, a huge local market has incumbents (local banks), which make it hard for the local population to move or obtain capital (payments and loans, respectively). Then, a bunch of clever people arm themselves with tech, tools and capital to come up with a better solution than the incumbents in their markets; and as people in the US are looking west, east and north to see how this tune plays out in different markets, I have seen how the FinTech phenomenon is growing strongly down south, here, in Mexico.

Mexico’s FinTech market is made up of the same parts as in the rest of the world. It has huge potential, but surprisingly only few people know about it. With roughly a third of the population of the US (123 million people), and an economic value similar to that of Australia and Canada, Mexico´s local market is in dire need of financial services. In our company’s market, domestic credit represents a meager 31% of GDP[1]! It’s 69% in Brazil by contrast. The USA has a startling 194%. This means that the Mexican private sector is not receiving enough capital in the form of financial products from local financial institutions. The same phenomenon exists in the payments space. For example, in the point of sale (POS) industry, there are currently 8 POS per 1,000 people in Mexico. The US has more than double that at 21 POS per 1,000 people, and Brazil has 3x at 24 POS per 1,000!

Regarding the incumbents, the banks, Mexico is known as the land of monopolies. While in the US there are literally thousands of banks, in Mexico, there are just over 40 banks, with the top 20% holding close to 80% of the market and its profits. Furthermore, Citibank’s and BBVA´s Mexican operations are some of their most profitable worldwide. Large banks like these enjoy extraordinary profits, and have been slow to adapt to new technological trends, service niche markets and provide services which could cannibalize bank revenues. After all, why would a monopoly innovate if it holds most of the market in its hands?

And then there are the people trying to solve this problem. Many Mexicans travel to study in the world´s top graduate programs and return to Mexico to act on what they learned. Domestically, Mexico churns out 3 times as many engineers per capita than US universities do. So currently there is a boom in the number of start-ups in Mexico[2]. And as start-ups tend to do, they are targeting one of the largest and hairiest problems this country has to offer: Financial Services. As a result, the likes of “500 Startups”, “Tech Stars”, “Village Capital” and “Y-Combinator”, and several Silicon Valley VC funds have turned their attention south. Several Mexican start-ups have been raising increasingly larger rounds from local and US investors to quickly tackle the opportunities in the loans and payments spaces.

These Mexican companies are developing solutions for the national problems and they know how to do it with the local culture in mind. Even though the US and Mexico share one of the longest borders and a huge migrant flow, they have developed at different speeds, which present different challenges. Two examples of this divergence: The FICO credit score, created in 1970s in the US, barely made its way down to Mexico some 4 years ago. However in terms of regulation, Mexican banks have been quicker to meet regulatory compliance (Basel I/II) than most of their US counterparts[3]. So the new players up to bat here at home, the online lenders, merchant lenders, mobile POS, remittances, bitcoin exchanges, peer-to-peer market places and the like, are raising capital both locally and abroad to create the technology to service the large Mexican financial services market. And in many cases, they are trying to get the formula right to create a beachhead to jump into a larger and broader international Latino market.


Footnotes
[1] – In other words, how much capital is being provided by all the private financial institutions in the country to all the private interests (consumers and companies) in comparison to the GDP. A lower number means that the private sector is not providing enough capital to match the countries production. A higher means the private sector is matching or exceeding the capital needs of the private interests.

[2] – A few months ago “The Economist” made a small homage on the Mexican start up scene – http://www.economist.com/news/business/21647624-nascent-tech-hub-may-succeed-solving-local-problems-techs-mex

[3] – The high compliance of the Mexican Banks has been a byproduct of the boom and bust cycle that the country has had. So more than a voluntarily action, the central bank forced the local players to meet the international requirements.

Me-Too Lenders Reject The Opportunity to be Unique

January 15, 2016
Article by:

copycatIMITATION IS THE BEST FORM OF FLATTERY

You know they say that the imitation is the best form of flattery, the only problem is that flattery is insincere praise, or praise only given to further one’s own selfish interests.

Surely new funders and lenders in our space are looking to further their own selfish interests by stealing away market share from existing players, which is perfectly fine seeing as though we operate in a free market society. However, what doesn’t make sense to me is thinking that you can steal away a competitor’s clientele by looking, sounding, and behaving exactly like he does.

THEY ALL SOUND THE SAME

I have no idea how many direct funders are present in our space today, but from what I’ve heard it’s well into the hundreds, and I receive recruiting emails along with invites on LinkedIn from these new players all of the time. What’s strange about just about all of these new players is that they all sound, specialize in, and operate the same as my current funders, leaving me scratching my head wondering why in the hell should I bring my volume over to you, if you do nothing different? I can hear them now:

– “John, we can consolidate your merchant’s balances as long as they net 50%!” (This isn’t anything new, the 50% net rule has been around for 17 years.)

– “John, we can approve some of your merchants for as low as a 1.12!” (This isn’t anything new, A+ and A Paper merchants have been receiving proper risk based pricing for years now.)

– “John, you will receive a dedicated account manager!” (This isn’t anything new, funders and lenders have been providing their broker houses with dedicated ISO Managers for around 17 years.)

– “John, we can fund just about every deal if the deal makes sense!” (This could be a new concept, the problem is that I have heard this before, only to submit a “restricted industry” merchant and it be declined just like it’s declined everywhere else.)

– “John, we fund deals as small as $5,000 to as high as $5 million!” (This isn’t anything new, this has been the standard funding range for years now. Plus, it’s rare that a broker in our space would get a merchant that needs $5 million, as those merchants would usually rely on the traditional lending system.)

– “John, we get deals done fast!” (Everybody says this, the reality is that unless a lender has automated the majority of their closing process as well as eliminated many portions of said closing process, then that means they are still doing a good chunk of it “manually”, which means it will always take 2 – 10 business days to complete everything.)

NOT EVERY “DIRECT FUNDER” IS A “DIRECT FUNDER”

There are a number of small firms that might market themselves as a direct funder, but the reality is that all they do is fund their deals through some type of syndication platform. My definition of a direct funder or lender is one that has built their own underwriting platforms and produced their own formulas to complete merchant cash advance transactions or alternative business loans. Thus, to be a direct funder (based on my definition), it’s going to “cost you something” in terms of real investment in your infrastructure, your people, as well as needing to raise millions of dollars in lending capital.

OUR TRUE PURPOSE IS DISRUPTION

Understand that our true purpose here on the alternative side of the debt financing space is to innovate how financing is underwritten, approved and delivered, seeking to steal market share away from traditional lending systems. The media calls this process “disruption.” Our system is so efficient, that with one of our industry’s most popular platforms, a small business owner can go online at 11:30 a.m. to apply for a loan, get an approval by 12:15 p.m., then complete their entire closing process online by 12:25 p.m. Within 60 minutes, a small business can start, sign for, and close their small business loan application for amounts including $25k, $75k, $150k, $200k, etc., and receive the funds in their bank accounts the next morning. The traditional lending system cannot underwrite, approve and deliver financing with this amount of efficiency, speed and proficiency.

IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE A DIRECT FUNDER, WHY NOT CONTRIBUTE TO CHANGING THE GAME?

Various reports on marketplace lending have estimated that the global lending size of our space is near $60 billion per the end of 2015, but it’s also estimated that by 2020 we will be near $300 billion of the total global lending market (includes lending on the consumer and commercial sides). Understanding this, what baffles me with new funders and lenders, is why in the hell are you going through the hassles of setting up your own platform, raising millions of dollars in lending capital, and setting up an experienced underwriting team, only to come into the market and do absolutely nothing different?

That makes absolutely no sense. You have the technology, the people, the capital and the formula behind you, so please add a unique contribution to our space to assist our industry as a whole (consumer and commercial side) in growing to this $300 billion in global lending metric by around 2020.

SPECIALIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS

When you enter the market and send brokers information on your program, it should be clear what separates you from everybody else and what your unique role will be going forward in helping our space achieve this $300 billion in global lending metric. Here are a couple of recommendations off the top of my head that you could utilize for specialization:

#1.) A True High Risk Funder/Lender

How about actually funding industries that nobody else will fund? I’ve seen this promoted before but I’m talking about going all the way by taking a look at our market’s standard underwriting practices across the board, then asking the question of, “What merchants are being pushed out and why? How can we start saying YES to these merchants rather than saying NO like everybody else is doing?” You could begin by putting together a list of industries on just about every funder or lender’s restricted list, then trying to figure out how to fund these categories with risk based pricing.

#2.) Bring Efficiency To Global Lending

How about funding in countries that other funders aren’t funding in? Basically, bringing the efficiency of the US market to the global markets in a way that currently is lacking? It’s hot over here in the US market with many players and competitors, but what about in the UK, Australia, China, etc.?

#3.) A Completely New Product

How about creating a new alternative working capital product that we’ve never heard of before?

#4.) Further Lowering Of Pricing

How about find a way to continue bringing down your cost of operations, administration and lending, so that brokers are able to have lower base pricing to increase profitability on lending to merchants, even those in A+ and A Paper categories? This can also help open up the market to attract higher credit grade merchants due to the lower pricing available, but still with “liberal” underwriting procedures.

#5.) A More Efficient Alternative Asset Based Lending Product

How about creating a more efficient alternative asset based lending product, that competes with the current crop of alternative asset based lenders? The current crop that we have today has a lot of inefficiencies within their product, such as having the merchant put up luxury items or even their house to obtain approval, but still charging the merchant rates that resemble traditional merchant cash advance factor rates or even higher. Shouldn’t the fact that a merchant is putting up tangible collateral lower the risk on the deal, which should also lower the pricing and extend the term? So I say, how about some innovation be done in this area so more of these products could be sold?

#6.) Innovation in Factoring, Purchase Order Financing and Equipment Leasing

How about providing accounts receivable factoring, purchasing order financing and equipment leasing, but finding a way to provide such services in an innovative fashion that’s different than the current crop of funders or lenders offering said services?

#7.) A Real Alternative Based Line Of Credit

There are certainly alternative line of credit programs out in our market today, but they are not as efficient as they should be. How about you create a real alternative based line of credit that would resemble something similar to a credit card line of credit, where the merchant can take it out and have it on the side, without it interfering with that of other financing programs such as a merchant cash advance or an alternative business loan?

#8.) Innovation In Consumer Lending

I know that regulations are much higher on this side, but could it be possible for you to find a way to create some innovative consumer lending products as well?

THE FINAL WORD

You have the technology, the people, the capital and the formula, so why in the world do you want to copy a current player instead of doing something different?

While I’m not saying that you shouldn’t also offer said programs of the current players to steal market share away from them, it’s just my opinion that the biggest opportunity today for new funders and lenders is to specialize in other niche areas that aren’t being catered to by our current market players.

Doing so should allow you to come in, specialize, make a name for yourself, and brand your organization as the “go to” funder/lender for (insert innovative concept here) for years to come. It might take you some time to “perfect” your unique brand and approach, but as long as you have investors that believe in your concept, you should be able to survive through the growing pains. To quote Herman Melville, always remember the following: It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation.

Alternative Business Funding’s Decade Club

October 22, 2015
Article by:

This story appeared in AltFinanceDaily’s Sept/Oct 2015 magazine issue. To receive copies in print, SUBSCRIBE FREE

10 years of fundingThe working capital business is a very different animal now than it was a decade or so ago when many of today’s established players were just starting out.

“At that time, the industry was a bunch of cowboys. It was an opportunistic industry of very small players,” says Andy Reiser, chairman and chief executive of Strategic Funding Source Inc., a New York-based alternative funder that’s been in business since 2006. “The industry has gone from this cottage industry to a professionally managed industry.”

Indeed, the alternative funding industry for small businesses has grown by leaps and bounds over the past decade. To put it in perspective, more than $11 billion out of a total $150 billion in profits is at risk to leave the banking system over the next five plus years to marketplace lenders, according to a March research report by Goldman Sachs. The proliferation of non-bank funders has taken such a huge toll on traditional lenders that in his annual letter to shareholders, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. chief executive officer Jamie Dimon warned that “Silicon Valley is coming” and that online lenders in particular “are very good at reducing the ‘pain points’ in that they can make loans in minutes, which might take banks weeks.”

The burgeoning growth of alternative providers is certainly driving banks to rethink how they do business. But increased competition is also having a profound effect on more seasoned alternative funders as well. One of the latest threats to their livelihood is from fintech companies, like Lendio and Fundera,for example, that are using technology to drive efficiency and gaining market share with small businesses in the process.

“Established lenders who want to effectively compete against the new entrants will need to automate as much decisioning as possible, diversify acquisition sources and ensure sufficient growth capital as a means to capture as much market share as possible over the next 12 to 18 months,” says Kim Anderson, chief executive of Longitude Partners, a Tampa-based strategy consulting firm for specialty finance firms.

Of course, there is truth to the adage that age breeds wisdom. Established players understand the market, have a proven track record and have years of data to back up their underwriting decisions. At the same time, however, experience isn’t the only factor that can ensure a company will continue to thrive over the long haul.

WORKING TOWARD THE FUTURE

Indeed, established players have a strong understanding of what they are up against—that they can’t afford to live in the glory of the past if they want to survive far into the future.

“With every business you have to reinvent yourself all the time. That’s what a successful business is about,” says Reiser of Strategic Funding. “You see so many businesses over the years that didn’t reinvent themselves, and that’s why they’re not around.”

“IF YOU’RE NOT CONSTANTLY INNOVATING YOU’RE IN TROUBLE,” SAID GOLDIN, CEO OF CAPIFY

Strategic Funding has gone through a number of changes since Reiser, a former investment banker, founded it with six employees. The company, which has grown to around 165 employees, now has regional offices in Virginia, Washington and Florida and has funded roughly $1 billion in loans and cash advances for small to mid-sized businesses since its inception.

One of the ways Strategic Funding has tried to distinguish itself is through its Colonial Funding Network, which was launched in early 2009. CFN is Strategic Funding’s secure servicing platform which enables other companies who provide merchant cash advances, business loans and factoring to “white label” Strategic Funding’s technology and reporting systems to operate their businesses.

“When you’re in a commodity-driven business, you have to find something to differentiate yourself,” Reiser says.

FINDING WAYS TO BE DIFFERENT

That’s exactly what Stephen Sheinbaum, founder of Bizfi (formerly Merchant Cash and Capital) in New York, has tried to do over the years. When the company was founded in 2005, it was solely a funding business. But over the years, it has grown to around 170 employees and has become multi-faceted, adding a greater amount of technology and a direct sales force. Since inception, the Bizfi family of companies has originated more than $1.2 billion in funding to about 24,000 business owners.

Adapt or DieEarlier this year, the company launched Bizfi, a connected online marketplace designed specifically to help small businesses compare funding options from different sources of capital and get funded within days. Current lenders on the platform include Fundation, OnDeck, Funding Circle, CAN Capital, SBA lender SmartBiz, as well as financing from Bizfi itself. Financing options on the platform include short-term funding, equipment financing, A/R financing, SBA loans and medium term loans.

Sheinbaum credits newer entrants for continually coming up with new technology that’s better and faster and keeping more established funders on their toes.

“If you don’t adapt, you die,” he says. “Change is the one constant that you face as a business owner.”

David Goldin, chief executive of Capify, a New York-based funder, has a similar outlook, noting that the moment his company comes out with a new idea, it has to come up with another one. “If you’re not constantly innovating you’re in trouble,” he says. “It’s a 24/7 global job.”

Capify, which was known as AmeriMerchant until July, was founded by Goldin in 2002 as a credit card processing ISO. In 2003, the company began focusing all of its efforts on merchant cash advances. Four years later, the company made its first international foray by opening an office in Toronto. The company continued to expand its international presence by opening up offices in the United Kingdom and Australia in 2008. The company now has more than 200 employees globally and hopes to be around 300 or more in the next 12 months, Goldin says. The company has funded about $500 million in business loans and MCAs to date, adjusted for currency rates.

THE CULTURE OF CHANGE

Five or six years ago, Capify’s main competitors were other MCA companies. Now the competition primarily comes from fintech players, and to keep pace Capify has made certain changes in the way it operates. From a human resources standpoint, for instance, Capify switched from business casual attire to casual dress in the office. The company has also been doing more employee-bonding events to make sure morale remains high as new people join the ranks. “We’ve been in hyper-growth mode,” he says.

CAN Capital in New York, another player in the alternative small business finance space with many years of experience under its belt, has also grown significantly (and changed its name several times) since its inception in 1998. The company which began with a handful of employees now has about 450 and has offices in NYC, Georgia, Salt Lake City and Costa Rica. For the first 13 years, the company focused mostly on MCA. Now its business loan product accounts for a larger chunk of its origination dollars.

This year, the company reached the significant milestone of providing small businesses with access to more than $5 billion of working capital, more than any other company in the space. To date, CAN Capital has facilitated the funding of more than 160,000 small businesses in more than 540 unique industries.

Throughout its metamorphosis to what it is today, the company has put into place more formalized processes and procedures. At the same time, the company has tried very hard to maintain its entrepreneurial spirit, says Daniel DeMeo, chief executive of CAN Capital.

One of the challenges established companies face as they grow is to not become so rule-driven that they lose their ability to be flexible. After all, you still need to take calculated risk in order to realize your full potential, he explains. “It’s about accepting failure and stretching and testing enough that there are more wins than there are losses,” says DeMeo who joined the company in March 2010.

ADVICE FOR NEWCOMERS

As the industry continues to grow and new alternative funders enter the marketplace, experience provides a comfort level for many established players.

“The benefit we have that newcomers don’t have is 10 years of data and an understanding of what works and what doesn’t work,” says Reiser of Strategic Funding. With the benefit of experience, Reiser says his company is in a better position to make smarter underwriting decisions. “There are many industries we funded years back that we wouldn’t touch today for a variety of reasons,” he says.

Experienced players like to see themselves as role models for new entrants and say newcomers can learn a lot from their collective experiences, both good and bad. Noting the power of hindsight, Reiser of Strategic Funding strongly advises newcomers to look at what made others in the business successful and internalize these best practices.

One of the dangers he sees is with new companies who think their technology is the key to long-term survival. “Technology alone won’t do it because that too will become a commodity in time,” he says.

Over the years Strategic Funding has learned that as important as technology is, the human touch is also a crucial element in the underwriting process. For example, the last but critical step of the underwriting process at Strategic Funding is a recorded funding call. All of the data may point to the idea that a particular would-be borrower should be financed. But on the call, Strategic Funding’s underwriting team may get a bad vibe and therefore decide not to go forward.

“We look at the data as a tool to help us make decisions. But it’s not the absolute answer,” Reiser says. “We are a combination of human insight and technology. I think in business you need human insight.”

Seasoned alternative funding companies also say that newbies need to implement strong underwritingcontrols that will enable them to weather both up and down markets.

The vast majority of newcomers have never experienced a downturn like the 2008 Financial Crisis, which is where seasoned alternative financing companies say they have a leg up. Until you’ve lived through down cycles, you’re not as focused as protecting against the next one, notes Sheinbaum of Bizfi. “Every 10 years or 15 years or so, there seems to be a systemic crisis. It passes. You just have to be ready for it,” he says.

Goldin of Capify believes that many of today’s start-ups don’t understand underwriting and are throwing money at every business that comes their way instead of taking a more cautious approach. As a funder that has lived through a down market cycle, he’s more circumspect about long-term risk.

money is out at seaOne of the biggest problems he sees is funders who write paper that goes two or three years out. His company is only willing to go out a maximum of 15 months for its loan product, which he believes is s a more prudent approach. He questions what will happen when the economy turns south—as it eventually will—and funders are stuck with long dated receivables. “You’re done. You’re dead. You can’t save those boats. They are too far out to sea,” Goldin says.

Having a solid capital base is also a key to long-term success, according to veteran funders. Many of the upstarts don’t have an established track record and need to raise equity capital just to stay afloat—an obstacle many long-time funders have already overcome.

Goldin of Capify believes that over time consolidation will swallow up many of the newbies who don’t have a good handle on their business. Hethinks these companies will eventually be shuttered by margin compression and defaults. “It can’t last like this forever,” he says.

In the meantime, competition for small business customers continues to be fierce, which in turn helps keep seasoned players focused on being at the top of their game. Getting too comfortable or complacent isn’t the answer, notes DeMeo of CAN Capital. Instead, established funders should seek to better understand the competition and hopefully surpass it. “Competition should make you stronger if you react to it properly,” he says.

This article is from AltFinanceDaily’s September/October magazine issue. To receive copies in print, SUBSCRIBE FREE

Alternative Funding: Over The Top Down Under

September 2, 2015
Article by:

This story appeared in AltFinanceDaily’s Jul/Aug 2015 magazine issue. To receive copies in print, SUBSCRIBE FREE

deBanked Down UnderSan Francisco had its gold rush, Oklahoma had its land rush and now Australia is experiencing a rush of alternative funding. After a slow start a few years ago, foreign and domestic companies have been flocking to the market down under in the last 18 months.

As many as 20 new alt-funders are doing business in Australia, but that number could swell to a hundred, said Beau Bertoli, joint CEO of Prospa, a Sydney-based alternative funder. “The market in Australia has been very ripe for alternative finance,” Bertoli, said. “We see an opportunity for the alternative finance segment to be more dominant in Australia than it is in America.”

Recent entrants to the embryotic Australian market include Spotcap, a Berlin-based company partly funded by Germany’s Rocket Internet; Australia’s Kikka Capital, which gets tech backing from U.S.-based Kabbage; America’s Ondeck, which is working with MYOB, a software company; Moula, which began offering funding this year but considers itself ahead of the curve because it formed two years ago; and PayPal, the giant American payments company.

The new entrants are joining ‘pioneers’ that have been around a few years, like Prospa, which has been working for three years with New York-based Strategic Funding Source, and Capify (formerly AUSvance until it was consolidated into the international brand Capify), which came to market in 2008 with merchant cash advances and started offering small-business loans in 2012.

Some don’t take the newcomers that seriously. “There are small players I’ve never heard of,” said John de Bree, managing director of Capify’s Sydney-based office, in a reference to local Australian funders. “The big ones like OnDeck and Kabbage don’t have the local experience.”

But many players view the influx as a good sign. “I think it’s an endorsement of the market,” Bertoli said. “There’s more publicity and more credibility for what we’re doing here in terms of alternative finance.” It’s like the merchant who gets more business when a competing store opens across the street.

“SOME VIEW THE AUSTRALIAN RUSH TO ALTERNATIVE FINANCE NOT SO MUCH AS A SOLITARY PHENOMENON BUT INSTEAD AS PART OF A WORLDWIDE EXPLOSION OF INTEREST IN THE SEGMENT.”

Besides, the market remains far from crowded. “I’m not concerned about the arrival of OnDeck and Kabbage because it really does validate our model,” maintained Aris Allegos, who serves as Moula CEO and cofounded the company with Andrew Watt.

The market’s relatively small size – at least compared to the U.S. – doesn’t seem to bother players accustomed to the heavily populated U.S., a development some observers didn’t expect. “I’m very surprised,” de Bree said of the American interest in Australia. “The American market’s 15 times the size of ours.”

Others see nothing but potential in Australia. “This is a market that will evolve over time, and we think the opportunity is enormous,” said Lachlan Heussler, managing director of Spotcap Australia.

Some view the Australian rush to alternative finance not so much as a solitary phenomenon but instead as part of a worldwide explosion of interest in the segment, driven by banks’ reluctance to provide loans since the financial crisis, de Bree said.

Viewed independently or in a larger context, the flurry of activity in Australia is new. “The boom is probably only getting started,” Bertoli maintained in a reference to the Australian market. “Right now, it’s about getting the foundation of the market established.”

To get the business underway in Australia, alternative funders are alerting small-business owners and the media to the fact that alternative funding is becoming available and teaching them how it works, de Bree said. “Half of our job is educating the market,” noted Heussler.

New players are building the track record they need to bring down the cost of funds, according to Allegos. “Our base rate is 2 percent or 3 percent higher than yours,” he said, adding that the cost of funds is more challenging than gearing up the tech side of the business.

Although the alternative-lending business started later in Australia than in the United States and lags behind America in in exposure, it’s maturing rapidly, said de Bree. Aussie funders are benefitting from the lessons their counterparts have learned in the U.S., he said.

deBanked AustraliaBut the exchange of information flows both ways. Kabbage, for example, chose to enter the Australian market with a local partner, Kikka. Kabbage learned from its earlier foray into the United Kingdom that it makes sense to work with colleagues who understand the local regulatory system and culture, said Pete Steger, head of business development for Atlanta-based Kabbage.

Such differences mean that risk-assessment platforms that work in the United States or Europe require localization before they can perform effectively in Australia, sources said.

Sydney-based Prospa, for example, got its start three years ago and has been working ever since with New York-based Strategic Funding Source to localize the SFS American risk-assessment platform for Australia, said Bertoli, who shares the company CEO title with Greg Moshal.

Moula, which has headquarters in Melbourne, sees so many differences among markets that it decided to build its own local platform from scratch, according to Allegos.

One key difference between the two markets is that Australia does not have positive credit reporting. “We have nothing that even comes close to a FICO score,” said Allegos. The only credit reporting centers on negative events, he said.

Without credit scores from credit bureaus, funders base their assessments of credit worthiness largely on transaction history. “It’s cash-flow analytics,” said Allegos. “It’s no different from the analysis you’re doing in your part of the world, but it becomes more significant” in the absence of positive credit reporting, he said.

Australia lacks credit scores at least partly because the country’s four main banks control most of the financial sector and choose not to release credit information, sources said. The banks have warded off attacks from all over the world because the regulatory environment supports them and because their management understands how to communicate with and sell to Australian customers, sources said.

The big banks – Commonwealth Bank, Westpac, Australia and New Zealand Banking Group, and National Australia Bank – set their own rules and have kept money tight by requiring secured loans and long waiting periods, Bertoli said. It’s difficult for merchants who don’t fit into a “particular box” to procure funding, he maintained. “It’s almost like an oligarchy,” Allegos said of the banks’ grip on the financial system.

“TAKE AN AMERICAN SCORECARD AND APPLY IT TO AUSTRALIA? YOU JUST CAN’T.”

Eventually, the banks may form partnerships with alternative lenders, but that day won’t come soon, in Allegos’ estimation. It could be 12 months or more away, he said.

Even as the financial system evolves, deep-seated differences will remain between Australia and the U.S. Most Americans and Australians speak English and share many views and values, but the cultures of the two countries differ greatly in ways that affect marketing, Bertoli said. “In your face” advertising that can work well with “loud, confident” Americans can offend the more “laid-back” Australian consumers and business owners, he said.

Australians have become tech-savvy and comfortable with online banking, but they guard their privacy and often hesitate to reveal their banking information to a funding company, Allegos said. The entrance of OnDeck and Kabbage should help familiarize potential customers with the practice of sharing data, he predicted.

Cost structures for businesses differ in Australia from the U.S., Bertoli noted. Australian companies pay higher rent and have to pay minimum wages set much higher than in the United States, he said. Published reports set the Australian minimum wage at $13.66 U.S. dollars. The higher costs down under can take a toll on cash flow. “Take an American scorecard and apply it to Australia?” Bertoli asked rhetorically. “You just can’t.”

Australian FundingDistribution’s not the same for commercial enterprises in the two countries, Bertoli maintained. Despite having about the same geographic area as America’s 48 contiguous states, Australia has a population of 23 million, compared with America’s 322 million.

No matter how many people are involved, changing their habits takes time. Australian merchants prefer fixed-term loans or lines of credits instead of merchant cash advances, Bertoli said. In many cases Australian merchants simply aren’t as familiar as Americans are with advances, Allegos said.

Besides, the four big banks in Australia tend to solicit merchants for credit and debit card transactions without the help of the independent sales organizations and sales agents. In the U.S., ISOs and agents play an important role in explaining and promoting advances to merchants, Bertoli said. Advances make sense for merchants because advances adjust to cash flow, and they help funders control risk, but just haven’t caught on in Australia, Bertoli said. Australians resist advances if too many fees are attached, said Allegos.

Pledging a portion of daily card receipts might seem too frequent, too, he said. Besides, advances are limited to merchants who accept debit and credit cards, while any business could conceivably choose to take out a loan, said de Bree.

Advances have to compete with inventory factoring, which has become a massive business in Australia, according to Heussler. The business can become intrusive because funders may have to examine balance sheets and talk to customers, he said.

“AUSTRALIANS RESIST ADVANCES IF TOO MANY FEES ARE ATTACHED”

Australia’s reluctance to turn to advances, leaves most alternative funders promoting loans and lines of credit. Prospa, for example, uses some brokers to that end but also relies on online connections, direct contact with customers, and referrals from companies that buy and sell with small and medium-sized businesses.

“Anyone that touches a small business is a potential partner,” said Heussler, including finance brokers, accountants, lawyers and even credit unions, which have the distribution but not the product.

Moula finds that most of its business comes from well-established companies and that loans average just over $27,000 in U.S. currency and they offer loans of up to more than $77,000 U.S. The company offers straight-line, six- to 12-month amortizing loans.

Using a model that differs from what’s common in the U.S., Moula charges 1 percent every two weeks, collects payments every two weeks and charges no additional fees, Allegos said. A $10,000 (Australian) loan for six months would accrue $714 (Australian) in interest, he noted.

deBanked AustraliaSpotcap Australia offers a three-month unsecured line of credit and doesn’t charge customers for setting it up, Heussler said. If the business owner decided to draw down, it turns into a six-month amortizing business loan for up to $100,000 Australian. Rates vary according to risk, starting at half a percent per month but averaging 1.5% per month.

If companies have all of the necessary information at hand, they can complete an application in 10 minutes, Allegos said. Moula has to research some applications offline if the company’s structure deviates too greatly from the usual examples – much the same as in the U.S., he maintained. The latter requires strong customer-service departments, he said.

Kikka uses a platform based on the Kabbage model, which gives 95 percent of customers a 100-percent automated experience, Steger said. “It goes to show the power of our automation, our algorithms and our platform,” he maintained.

Spotcap prefers to deal with businesses that have been operating for at least six months, Heusler said. The funder examines records for Australia’s value-added tax and other financials, and it likes to connect with the merchant’s bank account. Spotcap can usually gain access to the account information through cloud-based accounting systems and thus doesn’t require most companies to download a lot of financial documents, he noted.

Despite the differences between the two countries, banking regulations bear similarities in Australia and the United States, sources said. In both nations the government tries harder to protect consumers than businesses because they assume business owners are more financially savvy. For consumers, regulators scrutinize length of term and pricing, sources said, and on the commercial side the government is concerned about money laundering and privacy.

Regulation of commercial funding will probably intensify, however, to ward off predatory lending, Bertoli said. Government will consult with businesses before imposing rules, he said. A couple of alternative business funders aren’t transparent with their pricing and they charge several fees – that sort of behavior will encourage regulation, Allegos said.

“I know they’re watching us – and watching us very closely,” he added.

In general, however, the Australian government supports alternative finance, Bertoli said, because they want there to be options other than the four big banks and wants small business to have access to capital. Small businesses account for 46 percent of economic activity in Australia and employ 70 percent of the workforce, he noted, saying that “if small businesses are doing badly, the economy is doing badly.”

Hence the need, many in the industry would say, for more alternative funding options in Australia.

This article is from AltFinanceDaily’s July/August magazine issue. To receive copies in print, SUBSCRIBE FREE