Deal Flow in the Heartland — From Mississippi and Beyond
February 23, 2019
The political, cultural and economic abyss that separates the heartland from the coasts seems to grow deeper and wider with each passing day, and trying to reconcile the disparities can feel nearly hopeless. But differences among geographic locations aren’t nearly so well-defined or as troubling in the alternative small-business funding industry. What’s more, business opportunities can arise when localities differ.
First the lay of the land: Members of the alt finance community agree that funders and brokers are concentrated in just a few geographic locales—Greater New York City, Southern California and South Florida. Those three areas probably generate more than 75 percent of the industry’s volume, according to Jared Weitz, CEO of United Capital Source and one of three co-chairs of the broker council recently formed by the Small Business Finance Association (SBFA).
Sorting out how the industry differs in various regions can prove challenging. The Internet is erasing regional quirks and alleviating the need for physical proximity, says Steve Denis, SBFA executive director. What’s more, every ISO and funder develops a slightly different way of doing business regardless of location, he notes.
However, to a great degree it’s a matter of tweaking a single general outline for navigating the industry no matter where the office or client is based. That’s partially because many members of the industry conduct business in every state or nearly every state.
That said, old-fashioned, small-town ethics can sometimes seem closer to the surface in shops operating far from the coasts. “We’re focused on the values of our organization—like doing what we say we’re going to do, maintains Tim Mages, chief financial officer at Expansion Capital Group, a funder and broker based in Sioux Falls, S.D. “Some of that maybe comes from the Midwest culture or upbringing.”
Outside the major population centers, the industry occasionally seems a little more “laid-back.” In a light-hearted example of a relaxed heartland approach to the alt funding business, Lance Stevens, an attorney who’s a co-founder of Brandon, Miss.-based TransMark Funding, claims he can underwrite a deal while driving his golf cart and listening to Bon Jovi—all while maintaining his under 5 handicap.
Everything can seem a little more slow in the heartland, where people have time to stop and say hello to strangers, says Weitz. “Some folks are like, ‘Hey, my mailbox is three miles from my house, I check my mail once a week. I do not email. I do not fax,’ ” he observes. “It’s a nice change.”
Interactions are often more informal between the coasts. “Being in the Midwest we don’t use a lot of the lingo and terminology from this space, such as ‘stacking,’” says Austin Moss, a managing partner at Strategic Capital in Overland Park, Kan. That lack of jargon may be good or bad, he admits, but instead the staff speaks in a more general, even “holistic,” financial language.
Then there’s the occasional need for the human touch in the heartland. Deals there are sometimes sealed in person, with an office-park conference room substituting for the community bank building on the town square where merchant used to take out loans. “It’s not a widespread trend, but a handful of the ISOs we do business with actually do face-to-face solicitation,” says Mike Ballases, CEO of Houston-based Accord Business Funding.
In line with that mini-trend, an ISO based in Southern California operates a Texas office that specializes in face-to-face encounters, according to Aldo Castro, Accord’s former vice president of sales and marketing. “It’s rather meaningful here,” he says of using the practice in Texas. “You get on the road and shake a hand. They put a face to a name.”
The process can work in reverse, too. A few of the larger local companies seeking funding from Strategic Capital make the journey to the broker-funder’s Overland Park, Kan., offices, Moss says. Bankers who serve as referral partners also like the opportunity to meet in person, he observes.
The personal encounters often strike Moss as “refreshing,” he admits. That’s because the vast majority of the company’s deals occur online and by phone and fax—all without ever seeing the client in person.
Although the desire for personal contact arises from time to time, most heartland deals don’t hinge upon it. “It’s not a big number, but we see it,” Ballases says of face-to-face meetings. “Could it be the wave of the future? Absolutely not.”
Moreover, for some in the industry, the need for face-to-face discussions barely registers. It’s just not about meeting in person, according to Mages. Instead, he cites the importance of other factors. “Speed, convenience and service are the key differentiators, and that’s all driven by data and analytics,” he declares. Partnerships also drive the company’s business, he notes.
Luck outweighs geography, too, in Mages’ view. “It’s more an issue of right place, right time,” he contends. Deals occur primarily when funders manage to attract business owners’ attention at exactly the time when capital’s needed, he contends.
Besides, lots of people tend to think in wide-ranging ways these days instead of in narrow, provincial modes, Mages continues. At Expansion Capital Group, he notes, executives have differing points of view because they come from commercial banking, investment banking, the Small Business Administration lending program and the credit card industry.
At the same time, people tend to take an increasingly cosmopolitan approach to their jobs, according to Mages. He notes that executives at his company maintain contacts across the continent, often forged in earlier chapters of their careers.
Meanwhile, well-trained employees can use a phone call to gather the details they need and establish a consultative relationship without a thought for geography or the need for face-to-face meetings, Mages says.
However, geography can indeed play a role at least once in a while. In a few cases merchants prefer a funder with an address across town or at least in the home state. Sometimes business owners and referral partners choose local brokers or funders simply because their names sound familiar.
Strategic Capital, for example, does more business at home than anywhere else, Moss says. The company’s headquarters is in the portion of greater Kansas City that spills over from Missouri into the state of Kansas, making the location convenient to a major population center.
But despite the massive size of greater Kansas City, Strategic Capital remains the only alternative small-business funding option in the area—there just aren’t any other local providers, Moss says. It’s not like New York, where banks and merchants can choose from among many brokers and funders, he says.
That trend toward being the only game in town or one of just a few can hold true for most companies in the heartland, Moss maintains. A broker or funder based in Denver, for example, would probably have higher volume there than anywhere else, he notes.
Several reasons explain that geographic bias, Moss continues. “The employees live there and have contacts, and we’re part of the local associations and chambers,” he notes. “We work with just about all the banks in the area, and everyone knows who we are.” The company also handles local government bonds and local construction projects, he says.
Mages offers a different perspective. Only a few small-business owners in South Dakota choose Expansion Capital Group because they prefer dealing with a Midwestern company or because they’ve seen local press coverage or heard Expansion’s recruiting ads on the radio, he maintains.
Hometown, home state or regional preferences aside, executives at Accord emphasize the importance of the small-town approach of knowing their customers as well possible. For Ballases—the Accord chairman who started the company with Adam Beebe, who now serves as CEO—that means combining personal and impersonal approaches to underwriting.
Ballases views funders and brokers as falling into three categories. Some choose a personal, hands-on approach and don’t rely upon algorithms. A second category emphasizes automation. A third blends the personal and the automated. His organization falls into the latter, he says
For Accord, the personal comes into play because of what Ballases has learned in his decades in the banking business. He knows margins and growth rates in his applicants’ industries, and those factors aren’t often incorporated into algorithms, he says.
In fact, commercial banks have failed to learn to evaluate small businesses on their true merits, Ballases continues. Banks tend to underwrite small businesses, which he defines as those in need of $100,000 or less, by using a “skinnyed-down” version of how they underwrite big companies, which they base on general financial information. Instead, he counts on discipline, data and his 50 years of experience in commercial banking to evaluate a merchant on an individual basis.
At another company, TransMark Funding, Stevens and his partner draw upon legal and small-business experience to evaluate potential customers’ creditworthiness. “That causes us to focus on an applicant’s business model and their sustainability, which may boil down to personalities,” Stevens says. Transmark combines those factors with “a little bit of credit metrics” to come to decisions on applications.
The company’s mix of objective and subjective reasoning differs starkly from the thought process at most coastal funders, Stevens says. While his company gives most of the weight to the subjective and just a bit to the objective, big-city competitors tend to do the exact opposite, he says.
Of the last five MCA deals that Transmark funded, the merchants averaged 12 checks returned for insufficient funds per month, Stevens says, noting that he can make that statement “with a straight face.” Sometimes it’s been as high as 35 NSF checks per month for successful applicants. “Those people would not even get into the parking lot of a bank and would not get through the door of any MCA funder who’s using any sort of reasonable metrics,” he adds.
An anecdote helps explain the thinking. Suppose a restaurant has been operating for several years in a town of 50,000 and has amassed 2,200 “likes” on its Facebook page, Stevens suggests. “I’m in,” he exclaims, noting that it would take compellingly negative numbers to convince him that the business won’t survive if he helps it obtains capital to improve its positioning in its market.
The vignette illustrates that a business can do well in the community despite the merchant’s financial difficulties, Stevens says. However, the story doesn’t mean Facebook becomes the only determining factor, he continues. Positive factors for success include good location and marketing, he notes.
The principals at many companies funded by TransMark have credit scores in the low 500’s, Stevens continues. “That’s tough,” he says, “because they’re going to have a lot of history of not living up to their financial obligations.” But if someone with that credit score has personally guaranteed a lease on a storefront for the next two years, they may be unlikely to abandon the business. A big bank might look upon that merchant as insufficiently nimble because of the lease, but TransMark takes the opposite view, he says.
Even if a store, restaurant or contractor is “circling the drain” and about to shut down, TransMark may simply believe the owner has the character to make the business work. “Given our minute default rate, we’re right most of the time,” Stevens maintains, adding that banks see applicants as customers, and TransMark sees them as partners.
The business model requires peering into the future to see how the merchants will look after using perhaps $25,000 in capital to make improvements and while dealing with 18 percent holdback for the next six months, Stevens observes. “If they look strong, I need to fund them,” he says of the company’s prognostications.
To find ISOs who appreciate the TransMark model, the company seeks out purveyors of credit card merchant services, Stevens says. They encounter those merchant-services providers at trade shows and through “some general poking around,” he notes.
The merchant-services people often have long-standing relationships with merchants and thus can feed information into the TransMark way of viewing deals. “Tell me what it looks like when you walk into their store at 11 a.m.,” Stevens says to illustrate the kind of conversation he has with ISOs. “How is their signage?”
Besides understanding clients, it also pays to understand markets, and proximity can help with the latter, according to Ballases and Castro in Houston. “We have an affinity for Texas,” Castro says.
Many of the businesses based in Texas are vendors to people—like mechanics who fix cars or restaurants that feed people—not vendors to businesses, Ballases notes. Vendors who cater to people are better candidates for merchant cash advances than business-to-business companies are, he maintains.
“It’s just a huge state,” Castro declares. “We’ve got a thousand new residents moving to Texas every day.” Nearly 10 percent of the nation’s small businesses operate in The Lone Star State, he notes.
“There’s a convergence of the population growth, a low tax rate, low regulations, low cost of running a small business relative to national levels, and a great small-business environment,” Castro says of the Texas scene. “In addition, the healthcare industry is exploding here, and there are the ancillary businesses to healthcare.”
Meanwhile, the state’s Hispanic entrepreneurs remain under-served by alt funding ISOs, which presents a great untapped opportunity, Castro maintains. Funders who cater to those Hispanic merchants will find them loyal, he predicts. In Texas alone, Hispanic consumers spend half a billion dollars annually, he says.
To capitalize on that burgeoning market, Accord has assembled a team that can help Anglo ISOs bridge the cultural and linguistic gap, Castro says. “We do that every day,” he maintains. “We’re jumping on the phone with merchants and helping them get the funding they need to support the growth of their operations.” Those conversations with merchants do not put Accord in competition with ISOs, Castro notes. Accord does not maintain an inside sales staff and does all of its business through ISOs, he says.
Only a few of those ISOs are based in Texas, according to Ballases. Most of Accord’s ISOs operate from offices in the Northeast, with many in the other common geographic spots of South Florida and Southern California, he says. So that makes Accord a national company despite its emphasis on Texas, Ballases says.
Accord’s experience at home, combined with nationwide contacts in the industry, have convinced the company’s leadership that too many brokers remain unaware of the opportunities in Texas.
That’s why Accord is producing ads, videos, infographics, blogs and social media posts to alert those coastal ISOs to opportunities in Texas. The company even offers a tab called “FundTEX” on its website. “We’re getting the word out,” Castro says of the company’s effort to publicize his state.
Besides operating in areas sometimes overlooked on the coasts, heartland brokers and funders sometimes have to reinvent the industry almost from scratch. Brokers can find themselves teaching the business to potential investors outside the Big Three geographic locations, Moss says. In New York, investors already know the industry and use that familiarity to evaluate brokers, he says.
Brokers and funders also have to deal with the heartland’s lack of workers with industry experience. As the lone company in the market, Strategic Capital, for example, can’t find many prospective employees with previous jobs in the business, Moss notes. “There is no OnDeck or Yellowstone or RapidAdvance down the street to provide a talent pool for hiring,” he says.
That’s good and bad, Moss maintains. New hires don’t require re-training to lose habits that don’t fit the Strategic Capital way of working. But it’s difficult to find underwriters, accountants and other prospective employees with the right background. It doesn’t work to put new salespeople on straight commission because the “ramp-up” period takes longer with employees unfamiliar with the industry, he says.
The lack of local experience sometimes prompts brokers in the heartland to tap the Big Three areas for talent. Expansion Capital Group, for example, has a business development director in New York who came from another ISO, Mages says. Besides cultivating relationships in NYC, the business development expert makes frequent trips to Southern California and South Florida.
Meanwhile, members of the industry who tire of the rapid pace on the coasts might want to consider moving inland to fill the vacant jobs, sources suggest. After all, the heartland has its advantages, according to Moss. “Most people here have houses, and the cost of living is lower than in places like New York,” he says. A spacious five-bedroom house in Kansas City might cost less than a cramped apartment in New York, he notes.
To commute to the company’s suburban office, his typical employee jumps into a car in a climate controlled attached garage, cruises for half an hour or so on roads relatively free of traffic and parks in the lot a few steps outside his office building. It’s less stressful than crowding into a subway car, he notes.
The hinterland’s not as culturally barren as some might believe, Moss continues. The public hears “Kansas City” and they think of tornadoes, cows and the Wizard of Oz, he says. But the reality includes a downtown replete with skyscrapers and pro sports, not to mention lots of tech, healthcare and aerospace companies. “It’s like a mini-Chicago,” he notes.
But a retreat from the coasts may not be in the offing. Ballases expects that the majority of ISOs will continue to concentrate on the East Coast and West Coast because that’s where population growth remains strongest and thus provides the most opportunities. “It’s a numbers game,” he observes.
Get The Affidavit or Waive It? Examining Confessions of Judgment
February 1, 2019
Caton Hanson, the chief legal officer and co-founder of the online credit-reporting and business-to-business matchmaker Nav, says that his Salt Lake City-based company would not associate with a small-business financier that included “confessions of judgment” in its credit contracts.
“If we understood that any of our merchant cash advance partners were using confessions of judgment as a means to enforce contracts,” Hanson told AltFinanceDaily, “we would view that as abusive and distance ourselves from those partners. As a venture-backed company,” Hanson adds, “we have some significant investors, including Goldman Sachs, and I’m sure they would support us.”
Steve Denis, executive director of the Small Business Finance Association, which represents companies in the merchant cash advance (MCA) industry, says that, as an organization, “We’ve taken a strong stance against confessions of judgment.”
He reports that his Washington, D.C.-based trade group is prepared to work with legislators and policy-makers of any political party, regulators, business groups and the news media “to ban that type of practice.
“We’re fighting against the image that we’re payday lenders for business,” Denis says of the merchant cash advance industry. “We’re trying to figure out internally what we can do to stop that from happening and we have been speaking to members of Congress and their staff.”
“Confessions of judgment,” says Cornelius Hurley, a law professor at Boston University and executive director of the Online Lending Policy Institute, “are to the merchant cash advance industry what mandatory arbitration is to banks. Neither enforcement device reflects well on the firms that use them.”
These are just some of the reactions from members of the alternative lending and financial technology community to a blistering series of articles published by Bloomberg News on the use—and alleged misuse—of confessions of judgment (COJs) by merchant cash advance companies. The series charges the MCA industry with gulling unwary small businesses by not only charging high interest rates for quick cash but of using confession-laden contracts to seize their assets without due process.
The Bloomberg articles also reported that it doesn’t matter in which state the small business debtors reside. By bringing legal action in New York State courts, MCA companies have been able to use enforcement powers granted by the confessions to collect an estimated $1.5 billion from some 25,000 businesses since 2012.
“I don’t think anyone can read that series of articles and honestly say what went on were good practices and in the best interest of small business,” says SBFA’s Denis, noting that none of the companies cited in the Bloomberg series belonged to his trade group. “It’s shocking to see some companies in our space doing things we’d classify as predatory,” he adds. “As an industry we’re becoming more sophisticated, but there are still some bad actors out there.”
A confession of judgment is a hand-me-down to U.S. jurisprudence from old English law. The term’s quaint, almost religious phrasing evokes images of drafty buildings, bleak London fog, and dowdy barristers in powdered wigs and solemn black gowns. (And perhaps debtor prisons as well.)
Yet while the legal provision’s wings have been clipped—the Federal Trade Commission banned the use of confessions of judgment in consumer credit transactions in 1985 and many states prohibit their use outright or in such cases as residential real estate contracts—COJs remain alive and well in many U.S. jurisdictions for commercial credit transactions.
Even so, most states where COJs are in use, such as California and Pennsylvania, have adopted safeguards. Here’s how the San Francisco law firm Stimmel, Stimmel and Smith describes a COJ.
“A confession of judgment is a private admission by the defendant to liability for a debt without having a trial. It is essentially a contract—or a clause with such a provision—in which the defendant agrees to let the plaintiff enter a judgment against him or her. The courts have held that such a process constitutes the defendant’s waiving vital constitutional rights, such as the right to due process, thus (the courts) have imposed strict requirements in order to have the confession of judgment enforceable.”
In California, those “strict requirements” include not only that a written statement be “signed and verified by the defendant under oath,” but that it must be accompanied by an independent attorney’s “declaration.” If no independent attorney signs the declaration or—worse still—the plaintiff’s attorney signs the document, the confession is invalid.
But if the confession is “properly executed,” the plaintiff is entitled to use the full panoply of tools for collection of the judgment, including “writs of execution” and “attachment of wages and assets.”
In Pennsylvania, confessions of judgment are nearly as commonplace as Philadelphia Eagles’ and Pittsburgh Steelers’ fans, particularly in commercial real estate transactions. Says attorney Michael G. Louis, a partner at Philadelphia-area law firm Macelree Harvey, “They may go back to old English law, but if you get a business loan or commercial lease in Pennsylvania, a confession of judgment will be in there. It’s illegal in Pennsylvania for a consumer loan or residential real estate. But unless it’s a national tenant with a ton of bargaining power—a big anchor store and the owner of the shopping center really wants them—95% of commercial leasing contracts have them.
“And any commercial bank in Pennsylvania worth its salt includes them in their commercial loan documents,” Louis adds.
Pennsylvania’s laws governing COJs contain a number of additional safeguards. For example, the confession of judgment is part of the note, guaranty or lease agreement—not a separate document—but must be written in capital letters and highlighted. One of the defenses that used to be raised against COJs, Louis says, was that a contractual document was written in fine print “but we haven’t seen fine print for years.”
Other reforms in Pennsylvania have come about, moreover, as a result of a 1994 case known as “Jordan v. Fox Rothschild.” Says Louis: “It used to be lot worse. You used to be able to file a confession of judgment and levy on a defendant’s bank account before he knew what happened. It was brutal. But after the Fox Rothschild case, they changed the law to prevent taking away a defendant’s right of notice and the opportunity to be heard.”
Because of that case, which takes its name from the Fox Rothschild law firm and involved a dispute between a Philadelphia landlord renting commercial space to Jordan, a tenant, the law governing COJs in Pennsylvania requires, among other things, a 30-day notice before a creditor or landlord can execute on the confession. During that period the defendant has the opportunity to stay the execution or re-open the case for trial.
Defenses against the execution of a COJ can entail arguments that creditors failed to comply with the proper language or procedures in drafting the document. But the most successful argument, Louis says, is a “factual defense.” Louis cites the case of a retail clothing store renting space in a shopping center that has a leaky roof. In the 30-day notice period after the landlord invoked the confession of judgment, the tenant was able to demonstrate to the court that he had asked the landlord “ten times” to fix the roof before spending the rent money on roof repairs. In such a case, the courts will grant the defendant a new trial but, Louis says, the parties typically reach a settlement. “Banks generally will waive a jury trial,” he notes, “because they don’t want to take a chance of getting hammered by a jury.”
A number of states, including Florida and Massachusetts ban the use of confessions of judgment. That’s one big reason that Miami attorney Roger Slade, a partner at Haber Law, advises clients that “there’s no place like home.” In other words: commercial contracts should specify that any legal disputes will be adjudicated in Florida. “It’s like having home field advantage in the NFL playoffs,” Slade remarked to AltFinanceDaily. “You don’t want to play on someone else’s turf.”
He has also been warning Floridians for several years against the way that COJs were treated by New York courts. Writing in the blog, “The Florida Litigator,” Slade—a native New Yorker who is certified to practice law there as well as in Florida counseled in 2012: “If you live in New York, a creditor can have your client sign a confession of judgment and, in the event of a default on a loan, can march directly to the courthouse and have a final judgment entered by the clerk. That’s right—no complaint, no summons, no time to answer, no two-page motion to dismiss. The creditor gets to go right for the jugular.”
In addition, because of the “full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution,” Slade notes in an interview, a contract that’s enforced by the New York courts must be honored in Florida. “Courts in Florida have no choice,” Slade says. “It’s a brutal system and it’s unfortunate.”
In December, two U.S. senators from opposing parties—Ohio Democrat Sherrod Brown and Florida Republican Marco Rubio—introduced bipartisan legislation to amend both the Federal Trade Commission Act and Truth in Lending Act to do away with COJs. Their legislative proposal reads:
“(N)o creditor may directly or indirectly take or receive from a borrower an obligation that constitutes or contains a congnovit or confession of judgment (for purposes other than executory process in the State of Louisiana), warrant of attorney, or other waiver of the right to notice and the opportunity to be heard in the event of suit or process theron.”
But with a dysfunctional and divided federal government, warring power factions in Washington, and an influential financial industry, there’s no telling how the legislation will fare. Meantime, the New York State attorney general’s office announced in December that it will investigate the use of COJs following the Bloomberg series. And New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has declared support for legislation that will, among other things, prohibit the use of confessions in judgment for small business credit contracts under $250,000 and restrict judgments by New York courts to in-state parties.
But if New York State or Congressional legislation are adopted it can have “unintended consequences” to merchant cash advance firms in the Empire State—and to their small business customers as well—asserts the general counsel for one MCA firm. “Losing the confession of judgment will be removing what little safety net there is in a risky industry,” the attorney says, noting that the industry has roughly a 15% default rate.
“It is not as powerful a tool as the Bloomberg news stories would have you believe,” this attorney, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told AltFinanceDaily. “The suggestion seems to be that the MCAs can use the confession of judgment to get back the total amount of money due—and then some—while leaving a trail of dead bodies behind. But that’s not the case.
“What is much more likely to be the case,” he adds, “is that MCA companies try to get the defaulting merchant back on track. And—probably more than we should and only after we’ve tried to reach out to them and failed—do we then reluctantly use the COJ as a last resort. At which point we hope we can recover some part of our exposure. The numbers vary, but the losses are always in the thousands of dollars. These are not micro-transactions.
“What’s going to happen,” he concludes, “is that It will not make sense for us to work with those merchants most in need of working capital. The unfortunate reality is that businesses who don’t have collateral and can’t get a Small Business Administration product will be left out in the cold.”
All of which prompts BU professor Hurley to argue that the “Swiss cheese” system of financial regulation among the 50 states continues to be a root cause of regulatory confusion. Echoing Miami attorney Slade’s concern about New York courts’ dictating to Florida citizens, Hurley likens the situation governing COJs with the disorderly array of state laws governing usury regulations.
In the 1978 “Marquette” decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Nebraska bank, First of Omaha, could issue credit cards in Minnesota and charge interest rates that exceeded the usury rate ceiling in the Gopher State. Since then, usury rates enacted by state legislatures have become virtually unenforceable.
“The problem we’re seeing with confessions of judgment is a subset of the usury situation,” Hurley says. “One state’s disharmony becomes a cancer on the whole system. It’s a throwback to Colonial times with 50 states each having their own jurisdictions—and it doesn’t work.”
Hurley’s Online Lending Policy Institute has joined with the Electronic Transactions Association and recruited a phalanx of “academics, non-banks, law firms and other trade associations as members or affiliates” to form the Fintech Harmonization Task Force. It is monitoring the efforts by the 50 states to align their regulatory oversight of the booming financial technology industry which was recently recommended by a U.S. Treasury report.
Tom Ajamie, who practices law in New York and Houston and has won multimillion-dollar, blockbuster judgments against “dozens of financial institutions” including Wall Street investment firms, also argues for greater regulatory oversight. He urges greater funding and expansion of the powers of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to rein in “the anticipatory use” of confessions of judgment in commercial transactions.
However, notes Catherine Brennan, a partner at Hudson Cook in Baltimore, the job of protecting small businesses is outside the agency’s mandate. “The CFPB doesn’t have authority over commercial products as a general rule,” she explained in an interview. “Consumers are viewed as a vulnerable population in need of protections since the 1960’s.” As a society “we want protection for households because the consequences are high. A family could become homeless if they lose a house. Or (they) could lose employment if they lose a car and can’t drive. And there is also unequal bargaining power between lenders and consumers.
“Large institutions have lawyers to draft contracts and consumers have to agree on a take it or leave it basis. So there’s not a lot of negotiation and government has decided that consumers need protections, including a (Federal Trade Commission) ban on confessions of judgment.”
But Christopher Odinet, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma and a member of Hurley’s harmonization task force, sees the efforts of the federal government and the states to grapple with confessions of judgment as further recognition that small businesses have more in common with consumers than with big business. The COJ controversy follows on the recent passage of a commercial truth-in-lending bill by the State of California which, for the first time, stipulated that consumer-style disclosures should be included in business loans and financings under $500,000 made by non-bank financial organizations.
He cites the close-to-home example of an accomplished professional who got in over his head in financial dealings. “I recently observed a situation where a family member who is a very successful and affluent medical professional was relying on his own untrained business skills,” Odinet says. “He was about to enter into a sophisticated and complex business partnership relying on his intuition and general sense of confidence in the other party.”
Odinet says that he recommended that his relative hire a lawyer. Which, Odinet says, he did.
Less Than Perfect — New State Regulations
December 21, 2018
You could call California’s new disclosure law the “Son-in-Law Act.” It’s not what you’d hoped for—but it’ll have to do.
That’s pretty much the reaction of many in the alternative lending community to the recently enacted legislation, known as SB-1235, which Governor Jerry Brown signed into law in October. Aimed squarely at nonbank, commercial-finance companies, the law—which passed the California Legislature, 28-6 in the Senate and 72-3 in the Assembly, with bipartisan support—made the Golden State the first in the nation to adopt a consumer style, truth-in-lending act for commercial loans.
The law, which takes effect on Jan. 1, 2019, requires the providers of financial products to disclose fully the terms of small-business loans as well as other types of funding products, including equipment leasing, factoring, and merchant cash advances, or MCAs.
The financial disclosure law exempts depository institutions—such as banks and credit unions—as well as loans above $500,000. It also names the Department of Business Oversight (DBO) as the rulemaking and enforcement authority. Before a commercial financing can be concluded, the new law requires the following disclosures:
(1) An amount financed.
(2) The total dollar cost.
(3) The term or estimated term.
(4) The method, frequency, and amount of payments.
(5) A description of prepayment policies.
(6) The total cost of the financing expressed as an annualized rate.
The law is being hailed as a breakthrough by a broad range of interested parties in California—including nonprofits, consumer groups, and small-business organizations such as the National Federation of Independent Business. “SB-1235 takes our membership in the direction towards fairness, transparency, and predictability when making financial decisions,” says John Kabateck, state director for NFIB, which represents some 20,000 privately held California businesses.
“What our members want,” Kabateck adds, “is to create jobs, support their communities, and pursue entrepreneurial dreams without getting mired in a loan or financial structure they know nothing about.”
Backers of the law, reports Bloomberg Law, also included such financial technology companies as consumer lenders Funding Circle, LendingClub, Prosper, and SoFi.
But a significant segment of the nonbank commercial lending community has reservations about the California law, particularly the requirement that financings be expressed by an annualized interest rate (which is different from an annual percentage rate, or APR). “Taking consumer disclosure and annualized metrics and plopping them on top of commercial lending products is bad public policy,” argues P.J. Hoffman, director of regulatory affairs at the Electronic Transactions Association.
The ETA is a Washington, D.C.-based trade group representing nearly 500 payments technology companies worldwide, including such recognizable names as American Express, Visa and MasterCard, PayPal and Capital One. “If you took out the annualized rate,” says ETA’s Hoffman, “we think the bill could have been a real victory for transparency.”
California’s legislation is taking place against a backdrop of a balkanized and fragmented regulatory system governing alternative commercial lenders and the fintech industry. This was recognized recently by the U.S. Treasury Department in a recently issued report entitled, “A Financial System That Creates Economic Opportunities: Nonbank Financials, Fintech, and Innovation.” In a key recommendation, the Treasury report called on the states to harmonize their regulatory systems.
As laudable as California’s effort to ensure greater transparency in commercial lending might be, it’s adding to the patchwork quilt of regulation at the state level, says Cornelius Hurley, a Boston University law professor and executive director of the Online Lending Policy Institute. “Now it’s every regulator for himself or herself,” he says.
Hurley is collaborating with Jason Oxman, executive director of ETA, Oklahoma University law professor Christopher Odinet, and others from the online-lending industry, the legal profession, and academia to form a task force to monitor the progress of regulatory harmonization.
For now, though, all eyes are on California to see what finally emerges as that state’s new disclosure law undergoes a rulemaking process at the DBO. Hoffman and others from industry contend that short-term, commercial financings are a completely different animal from consumer loans and are hoping the DBO won’t squeeze both into the same box.
Steve Denis, executive director of the Small Business Finance Association, which represents such alternative financial firms as Rapid Advance, Strategic Funding and Fora Financial, is not a big fan of SB-1235 but gives kudos to California solons—especially state Sen. Steve Glazer, a Democrat representing the Bay Area who sponsored the disclosure bill—for listening to all sides in the controversy. “Now, the DBO will have a comment period and our industry will be able to weigh in,” he notes.
While an annualized rate is a good measuring tool for longer-term, fixed-rate borrowings such as mortgages, credit cards and auto loans, many in the small-business financing community say, it’s not a great fit for commercial products. Rather than being used for purchasing consumer goods, travel and entertainment, the major function of business loans are to generate revenue.
A September, 2017, study of 750 small-business owners by Edelman Intelligence, which was commissioned by several trade groups including ETA and SBFA, found that the top three reasons businesses sought out loans were “location expansion” (50%), “managing cash flow” (45%) and “equipment purchases” (43%).
The proper metric to be employed for such expenditures, Hoffman says, should be the “total cost of capital.” In a broadsheet, Hoffman’s trade group makes this comparison between the total cost of capital of two loans, both for $10,000.
Loan A for $10,000 is modeled on a typical consumer borrowing. It’s a five-year note carrying an annual percentage rate of 19%—about the same interest rate as many credit cards—with a fixed monthly payment of $259.41. At the end of five years, the debtor will have repaid the $10,000 loan plus $5,564 in borrowing costs. The latter figure is the total cost of capital.
Compare that with Loan B. Also for $10,000, it’s a six month loan paid down in monthly payments of $1,915.67. The APR is 59%, slightly more than three times the APR of Loan A. Yet the total cost of capital is $1,500, a total cost of capital which is $4,064.33 less than that of Loan A.
Meanwhile, Hoffman notes, the business opting for Loan B is putting the money to work. He proposes the example of an Irish pub in San Francisco where the owner is expecting outsized demand over the upcoming St. Patrick’s Day. In the run-up to the bibulous, March 17 holiday, the pub’s owner contracts for a $10,000 merchant cash advance, agreeing to a $1,000 fee.
Once secured, the money is spent stocking up on Guinness, Harp and Jameson’s Irish whiskey, among other potent potables. To handle the anticipated crush, the proprietor might also hire temporary bartenders.
When St. Patrick’s Day finally rolls around—thanks to the bulked-up inventory and extra help—the barkeep rakes in $100,000 and, soon afterwards, forwards the funding provider a grand total of $11,000 in receivables. The example of the pub-owner’s ability to parlay a short-term financing into a big payday illustrates that “commercial products—where the borrower is looking for a return on investment—are significantly different from consumer loans,” Hoffman says.
SBFA’s Denis observes that financial products like merchant cash advances are structured so that the provider of capital receives a percentage of the business’s daily or weekly receivables. Not only does that not lend itself easily to an annualized rate but, if the food truck, beautician, or apothecary has a bad day at the office, so does the funding provider. “It’s almost like the funding provider is taking a ride” with the customer, says Denis.
Consider a cash advance made to a restaurant, for instance, that needs to remodel in order to retain customers. “An MCA is the purchase of future receivables,” Denis remarks, “and if the restaurant goes out of business— and there are no receivables—you’re out of luck.”
Still, the alternative commercial-lending industry is not speaking with one voice. The Innovative Lending Platform Association—which counts commercial lenders OnDeck, Kabbage and Lendio, among other leading fintech lenders, as members—initially opposed the bill, but then turned “neutral,” reports Scott Stewart, chief executive of ILPA. “We felt there were some problems with the language but are in favor of disclosure,” Stewart says.
The organization would like to see DBO’s final rules resemble the company’s model disclosure initiative, a “capital comparison tool” known as “SMART Box.” SMART is an acronym for Straightforward Metrics Around Rate and Total Cost—which is explained in detail on the organization’s website, onlinelending.org.
But Kabbage, a member of ILPA, appears to have gone its own way. Sam Taussig, head of global policy at Atlanta-based financial technology company Kabbage told AltFinanceDaily that the company “is happy with the result (of the California law) and is working with DBO on defining the specific terms.”
Others like National Funding, a San Diego-based alternative lender and the sixth-largest alternative-funding provider to small businesses in the U.S., sat out the legislative battle in Sacramento. David Gilbert, founder and president of the company, which boasted $94.5 million in revenues in 2017, says he had no real objection to the legislation. Like everyone else, he is waiting to see what DBO’s rules look like.
“It’s always good to give more rather than less information,” he told AltFinanceDaily in a telephone interview. “We still don’t know all the details or the format that (DBO officials) want. All we can do is wait. But it doesn’t change this business. After the car business was required to disclose the full cost of motor vehicles,” Gilbert adds, “people still bought cars. There’s nothing here that will hinder us.”
With its panoply of disclosure requirements on business lenders and other providers of financial services, California has broken new legal ground, notes Odinet, the OU law professor, who’s an expert on alternative lending and financial technology. “Not many states or the federal government have gotten involved in the area of small business credit,” he says. “In the past, truth-in-lending laws addressing predatory activities were aimed primarily at consumers.”
The financial-disclosure legislation grew out of a confluence of events: Allegations in the press and from consumer activists of predatory lending, increasing contraction both in the ranks of independent and community banks as well as their growing reluctance to make small-business loans of less than $250,000, and the rise of alternative lenders doing business on the Internet.
In addition, there emerged a consensus that many small businesses have more in common with consumers than with Corporate America. Rather than being managed by savvy and sophisticated entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley with a Stanford pedigree, many small businesses consist of “a man or a woman working out of their van, at a Starbucks, or behind a little desk in their kitchen,” law professor Odinet says. “They may know their business really well, but they’re not really in a position to understand complicated financial terms.”
The average small-business owner belonging to NFIB in California, reports Kabateck, has $350,000 in annual sales and manages from five to nine employees. For this cohort—many of whom are subject to myriad marketing efforts by Internet-based lenders offering products with wildly different terms—the added transparency should prove beneficial. “Unlike big businesses, many of them don’t have the resources to fully understand their financial standing,” Kabateck says. “The last thing they want is to get steeped in more red ink or—even worse—have the wool pulled over their eyes.”
California’s disclosure law is also shaping up as a harbinger—and perhaps even a template—for more states to adopt truth-in-lending laws for small-business borrowers. “California is the 800-lb. gorilla and it could be a model for the rest of the country,” says law professor Hurley. “Just as it has taken the lead on the control of auto emissions and combating climate change, California is taking the lead for the better on financial regulation. Other states may or may not follow.”
Reflecting the Golden State’s influence, a truth-in-lending bill with similarities to California’s, known as SB-2262, recently cleared the state senate in the New Jersey Legislature and is on its way to the lower chamber. SBFA’s Denis says that the states of New York and Illinois are also considering versions of a commercial truth-in-lending act.
But the fact that these disclosure laws are emanating out of Democratic states like California, New Jersey, Illinois and New York has more to do with their size and the structure of the states’ Legislatures than whether they are politically liberal or conservative. “The bigger states have fulltime legislators,” Denis notes, “and they also have bigger staffs. That’s what makes them the breeding ground for these things.”
Buried in Appendix B of Treasury’s report on nonbank financials, fintechs and innovation is the recommendation that, to build a 21st century economy, the 50 states should harmonize and modernize their regulatory systems within three years. If the states fail to act, Treasury’s report calls on Congress to take action.
The triumvirate of Hurley, Oxman and Odinet report, meanwhile, that they are forming a task force and, with the tentative blessing of Treasury officials, are volunteering to monitor the states’ progress. “I think we have an opportunity as independent representatives to help state regulators and legislators understand what they can do to promote innovation in financial services,” ETA’s Oxman asserts.
The ETA is a lobbying organization, Oxman acknowledges, but he sees his role—and the task force’s role—as one of reporting and education. He expects to be meeting soon with representatives of the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS), the Washington, D.C.-based organization representing regulators of state chartered banks. It is also the No. 1 regulator of nonbanks and fintechs. “They are the voice of state financial regulators,” Oxman says, “and they would be an important partner in anything we do.”
Margaret Liu, general counsel at CSBS, had high praise for Treasury’s hard work and seriousness of purpose in compiling its 200-plus page report and lauded the quality of its research and analysis. But Liu noted that the conference was already deeply engaged in a program of its own, which predates Treasury’s report.
Known as “Vision 2020,” the program’s goals, as articulated by Texas Banking Commissioner Charles Cooper, are for state banking regulators to “transform the licensing process, harmonize supervision, engage fintech companies, assist state banking departments, make it easier for banks to provide services to non-banks, and make supervision more efficient for third parties.”
While CSBS has signaled its willingness to cooperate with Treasury, the conference nonetheless remains hostile to the agency’s recommendation, also found in the fintech report, that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issue a “special purpose national bank charter” for fintechs. So vehemently opposed are state bank regulators to the idea that in late October the conference joined the New York State Banking Department in re-filing a suit in federal court to enjoin the OCC, which is a division of Treasury, from issuing such a charter.
Among other things, CSBS’s lawsuit charges that “Congress has not granted the OCC authority to award bank charters to nonbanks.”
Previously, a similar lawsuit was tossed out of court because, a judge ruled, the case was not yet “ripe.” Since no special purpose charters had actually been issued, the judge ruled, the legal action was deemed premature. That the conference would again file suit when no fintech has yet applied for a special purpose national bank charter— much less had one approved—is baffling to many in the legal community.
“I suspect the lawsuit won’t go anywhere” because ripeness remains a sticking point, reckons law professor Odinet. “And there’s no charter pending,” he adds, in large part because of the lawsuit. “A lot of people are signing up to go second,” he adds, “but nobody wants to go first.”
Treasury’s recommendation that states harmonize their regulatory systems overseeing fintechs in three years or face Congressional action also seems less than jolting, says Ross K. Baker, a distinguished professor of political science at Rutgers University and an expert on Congress. He told AltFinanceDaily that the language in Treasury’s document sounded aspirational but lacked any real force.
“Usually,” he says, such as a statement “would be accompanied by incentives to do something. This is a kind of a hopeful urging. But I don’t see any club behind the back,” he went on. “It seems to be a gentle nudging, which of course they (the states) are perfectly able to ignore. It’s desirable and probably good public policy that states should have a nationwide system, but it doesn’t say Congress should provide funds for states to harmonize their laws.
“When the Feds issue a mandate to the states,” Baker added, “they usually accompany it with some kind of sweetener or sanction. For example, in the first energy crisis back in 1973, Congress tied highway funds to the requirement (for states) to lower the speed limit to 55 miles per hour. But in this case, they don’t do either.”
United Capital Source Selected to Service BizBloom’s Portfolio
August 19, 2018
Great Neck, NY, August 20, 2018 – United Capital Source has been selected to service the BizBloom portfolio. BizBloom, a NY-based small business financing brokerage that launched in 2015, recently underwent a management change. The company’s president, Thomas Costa, has stepped down.
Costa is also no longer involved with a related business, Accredited Business Solutions, LLC (ABS), which does merchant processing.
“We are happy to use our resources to manage BizBloom’s book,” United Capital Source CEO Jared Weitz said. “It’s something our team is really good at. Our in-house CRM and technology enables us to take on the additional work seamlessly, Our employees are all industry veterans and best of breed.”
Weitz was also recently selected to co-chair the Broker Council of the Small Business Finance Association.
ABOUT UNITED CAPITAL SOURCE:
United Capital Source is a leading small business funding organization headquartered in New York. Thousands of small businesses throughout America rely on the small business loans, business lines of credit, merchant cash advances, working capital loans, credit card factoring, accounts receivable loans, SBA loans, and Equipment financing placed by United Capital Source. Companies with credit challenges unsuitable for traditional bank lending work with United Capital Source for faster funding approvals, reducing financing costs and increasing business funding choices. Our delighted customers are across industries from aviation, construction, dentistry, franchises, healthcare, manufacturing, communications, real estate, retail, and wholesalers. For more information, visitUnitedCapitalSource.com or call 855.933.8638. Visit the United Capital blog on our website and follow United Capital Source on Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook.
CA Bill to Revise Definition of Broker: 6/27/18 Hearing Transcript & Video (AB 3207)
July 29, 2018AB 3207 – CA Bill to Revise the definition of broker (6/27/18)
[0:00:02]
Bradford: We started as a subcommittee. We've already heard Assembly Member Arambula’s Bill AB 1289. Do we have a quorum? We’re gonna ask the secretary to call the roll and establish the quorum.
Speaker: Senator Bradford.
Bradford: Here.
Speaker: Bradford here. Vidak.
Vidak: Present.
Speaker: Vidak here. Gaines. Galgiani.
Galgiani: Here.
Speaker: Galgiani here. Hueso.
Hueso: Here.
Speaker: Hueso here. Lara.
Lara: Here.
Speaker: Lara here. Portantino.
Bradford: Quorum is established. So, we have only one other vehicle that will be heard today. That’s AB 3207 by Assembly Woman Limon and she is here present. And when you’re ready, Ms. Limon, you can make your presentation.
Limon: Great. Thank you, Chair. I wanna start off by taking the committee amendments and committing to work on any concerns addressed in the committee analysis. AB 3207 will provide important consumer protections for the thousands of consumers and small business owners who are served by finance lenders and brokers licensed under the California Financing Law. Under existing law, the definition of broker is vague and circular, leading to the confusion from lenders about which entities they can partner with when arranging loans. Further, the definition of broker in existing law was formulated long before the rise of the internet and the evolution of online lead generation. So, our laws need to be updated with this online activity in mind. Lead generators provide valuable marketing services to a wide range of industries and this bill contains a specific exemption clarifying that distribution of marketing materials or factual information about a lender is not a broker brokering activity. However, many online lender generators that serve the lending industry provide more than just marketing services. These entities act as brokers when they bring borrowers and lenders together to arrange a loan based on confidential data provided by a consumer or small business owner. This bill will allow online lead generators to continue to operate in California. Simply, this bill requires 3 basic things from these companies. One, get a business license from the State Department of Business Oversight; two, provide transparent disclosures to the customers; and three, obtain your customer’s consent before selling and transmitting their confidential data. Arguments from the opposition that this bill will cause lead generators to leave the state raise an important question. Why would a bill focused on licensure and transparency cause a small business to leave a very lucrative California market? Over the past 5 months, I have worked extensively with lenders and lead generators to ensure that this bill appropriately addresses the consumer protection concerns in our lending markets without placing unnecessary burdens on the businesses that work in this area. None of these companies have threatened to leave the state. In fact, many of them have applauded the efforts to bring clarity to existing law and bring bad actors out of the shadows and into the light. This bill has the support of consumer and commercial lenders, the Department of Business Oversight, and a coalition of consumer advocates who are here today to voice their support. With me, I have Adam Wright, senior counsel in the enforcement division in the Department of Business Oversight, to answer any questions from the committee.
Bradford: Witnesses and support, please come forward. State your name, organization.
Martindale: Chair Member, Suzanne Martindale with Consumers Union. We do support this measure and really appreciate the author's leadership in seeking to ensure that our laws stay up to date in terms of evolving technologies. Of course, a lot of lending now happens online and the business models have shifted, but that does not mean that consumers are not, you know, any less entitled to receiving protections when third parties acting on behalf of lenders are marketing to them and helping facilitate the origination of loans and also in particular handling sensitive information and the kinds of things that we wanna always ensure are protected. So, we understand that there’s potentially more discussion to be had about finding the sweet spot here, but I really, really think that the time is now to move forward and ensure that the DBO has the enforcement tools that it needs to properly regulate the space so that consumers who receive online loans are no less protected than those who get them in brick and mortar stores. So, for these reasons, we support and request an aye vote.
Bradford: Thank you. Additional witnesses and support.
Coleman: Good afternoon. Ronald Coleman here on behalf of the California Low Income Consumer Coalition (CLICC). Also here in strong support.
Bradford: Thank you.
Aponte-Diaz: Hi. Graciela Aponte-Diaz, Center for Responsible Lending. Also in strong support.
Bradford: Thank you.
Joyce: Hello. Pat Joyce on behalf of Credit Karma. Credit Karma actually has a neutral position on the bill and wanted the opportunity to thank the author and sponsors of the bill for working with us to address our concerns and allow us to remove our opposition. So, thank you.
Bradford: Thank you very much. Next witness.
Preity: Sumanta Preity on behalf of OnDeck Capital. In support of the bill.
Bradford: Thank you.
Glad: Margaret Glad on behalf of NerdWallet.
[0:05:01]
We’re also in that tweener category. We’d been working very productively with the author's office and particularly Mr. Burdock. We appreciate their amendments that they’ve made to date to address NerdWallet’s concerns. We have a couple of more issues related to disclosures as the bill currently stands. They are mandated disclosures that don't represent our business model. We’d have to tell consumers we’re doing things we aren't doing. So, we're continuing to work with the author and his and her staff to resolve those issues. We appreciate the committee's thorough analysis and all the work and hope to come to resolution of our remaining issues.
Bradford: Great. Thank you.
Pappas: Emily Pappas on behalf of Lending Tree. Similar position to what Margaret just said. Our client has generally supported the framework on this bill. We virtually had an opposed and less amended position due to some of the disclosure requirements. However, we learn from the author's office today that they'd be willing to take the amendments that relieve us of our concerns. Therefore, we’ll switch to a neutral position.
Bradford: Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support? Witnesses in opposition.
Quinton: Hi. David Quinton on behalf of the Online Lenders Alliance. I do have a clarifying question. We are in strong opposition as the bill was in print. We've heard discussion about amendments. If all of the amendments that were in the analysis were accepted, I think that moves us to neutral, but we're not clear on that at this point. So, I’m not sure how to proceed.
Bradford: Those are the amendments that we’re referring to that weren’t announced as well as we’re addressing the concerns that we’re raised as well in the bill.
Quinton: Would that be possible so we can—
Bradford: I’m sorry?
Quinton: Oh, she was— I’m sorry. I was listening.
Bradford: Ms. Galgiani.
Bradford: Yeah. Yeah. If you want to, Ms.—
Quinton: Okay. Thank you.
Galgiani: I would just like to clarify with the author the amendments that have been agreed to and looking through the analysis and then trying to complete which all of those are. I wanna make sure that we're on the same page; the author, the members, the opposition. And there are two concerns that I’ll start with that we don't have expressed amendments for, but we're hoping that you'll work with the opposition and your stakeholders over the July break and we can come back and address those. And one is dealing with lead generators being designated assets as opposed to being referred to as brokers and that those lead generators hold the generator licenses. That's a concern. And the other concern is imposing the same standard of liability on lead generators for the acts of those from whom they buy leads as the bill imposes on lenders for the acts of lead generators from whom they buy leads.
Limon: So, I can say that we continue the conversations. it's definitely not a problem. I think that, you know, this bill has gone through 6 rounds of amendments. And so, I think that's reflective of the fact that we continue to have the conversation. On the two separate license definitions, what we know is that creating two separate license licenses for brokers and lead generators would require many companies to attain two separate licenses from the DBO. Additionally, drafting a separate regulatory framework for lead generators would also add confusion for the businesses that would need to decide whether they need a lead generator or a broker license. The bill does require to have one license right now. And the bill provides specific disclosure requirements that makes sense in terms of the online generation world. So, that's kind of where we've been thinking about it in terms of that. In terms of the lender liability, the bill and existing law hold licensees accountable for their own actions. So, both the lenders and the brokers are liable for violations of the law that occur within their companies. For licensed brokers who choose to obtain referrals from unlicensed third party, the bill requires those brokers to establish policies and procedures intended to ensure that those unlicensed parties uphold the consumer protections provided by the law. The issue of the lender liability raised in the analysis is a red herring. Just as existing current law, the bill would continue to practice the practice of holding licensees accountable for their own violations. And I just wanna again say that that's current law.
Galgiani: Okay. So, am I hearing—
Limon: You are hearing that we are happy to continue those conversations. You brought up the two concerns and I wanted to share the feedback on those two concerns.
Bradford: But we're still open to move forward in having— resolve our differences as it relates to the two— those two concerns. We’re not gonna split the baby here today, but we’re gonna try to figure out how to move forward on those concerns.
[0:10:03]
So, we have that commitment as we move forward to address it in a way that we all come together. Am I correct?
Limon: You have the commitment to continue the conversation to try to figure out a way to address it.
Bradford: Yes, sir.
Quinton: So, on the issue of the two remaining issues, so we thank the author for taking the amendments as presented by your consultant in the analysis. But of the two remaining issues, I believe the broker issue is one that we can work with. That's fine. The devil is in the details. The problem is with this issue, as you know, the details have details. It’s a very, very complex issue. So, that’s our one concern, but we can work with the broker issue. I think we’re okay with that. That's fine as it is. However, being held for strict liability for the actions of a third party affiliate is a very far reaching legal standard and we have really serious concerns with that. So, we just wanna clarify if it is still that we are held with strict liability for the actions of a third party affiliate like we would still have to oppose the bill with that. So, I just want clarification on that, Mr. Chairman.
Bradford: Well, as far as that concern, I'm hoping we're gonna sit down at the table again during the break and whittle that out and figure out how we come to consensus. And I understand your concerns and that's why they're still listed as concerns. They haven't been amended in the bill. But hopefully, going forward, we will find some solution or amendment to address that for you.
Quinton: So, I think at this point— to finish my statement and I’ll hand it over very briefly to Jason— at this point, I would say that we would still be opposed until we can see that amendment because that is a very, very serious issue that could hold us liable over issues we have no authority over. And I’d like to introduce Mr. Jason Romrell who is with Lead Smart, one of the leading lead generators in the State of California.
Romrell: Thank you. Chairman and committee members, thank you for allowing me to speak on AB 3207. The thing that I want to make clear, we’re a California-based lead generator. We have a sister company that has a DTL and CFL license. We’ve had those for the last 5 years. Our interest in this bill is not to oppose to bill. It’s to make sure that the good lead generators, the lead generators who function ethically are still allowed to function in fintech environment that is becoming the movement. If we don't do that, we are putting consumers at a huge disadvantage. In fact, we’re putting them at more risk than they’re at now. We have been involved in this discussion with the DBO, with members of the legislature, and even on the federal level for many years. So, the role that we play as a good ethical lead generator is a very important consumer protection role. We have the same objective as Assembly Member Limon. We have the same objective as the DBO. It's to protect consumers. So, the issues that we were facing prior to the amendments being put forward were in the details. There is no opposition to the concept. We want to be here to protect consumers, but it is the details. So, the one thing I do want to mention is lead generation is complex. There a lot of layers to it. It is not a one size fits all activity. And that is one of the challenges in crafting good legislation. So, I'm not going to go into the details that we had issues with because I think, in light of these potential amendments, everything has changed. But what I do wanna point out is the distinction between the good lead generators and the bad lead generators. The good lead generators already do a lot of what is in AB 3207. We get consent. We vet our lenders. We make sure the marketing message that goes to the consumer is accurate, truthful, and proper. We do a lot of that work, and it's time consuming, and it takes a lot of money and energy. The bad lead generators do not care. So, the risk we run with legislation is if we over legislate the good guys. We will. And Assembly Members Limon asked the question “Why would a small business leave California?” If we can't function without the threat of class action lawsuits, if we literally cannot comply with the details of a bill, we’ll move to other markets. If we do that, consumers are injured severely. So, my plea to this committee and to Assembly Member Limon is we are here. We are invested in the process. We want to get it right. We don't want to oppose the bill. We want to make it work for us and for California consumers.
[0:15:02]
And that is our position, is to protect the people that we live and work with everyday.
Bradford: Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition?
Bauer: Paul Bauer on behalf of Elevate. I’m kind of in that tweener category that other people have step forward in. I just wanted to lend our voice to those of Mr. Quinton and Mr. Romrell who presented. And we also wanna see the bill be perfected as we move forward. So, I look forward to that work.
Bradford: Thank you. I appreciate it.
Sunley: Alex Sunley on behalf of the Small Business Finance Association. In opposition.
Bradford: Thank you.
Damar: Hi, Dominic Damar here on behalf of Innova. I share Mr. Bauer’s and [0:15:49][Inaudible] position relative to the amendments and look forward to working and hearing from the author on changes to be made. Thank you.
Bradford: Thank you.
Conaway: Good afternoon. This is Jerry Conaway on behalf of Lead Flash. And we're currently in opposition, but looking forward to seeing the amendments. And I'm working with the bill's author to make a great bill. Thank you.
Bradford: Thank you.
Smeltzer: Thank you, Mister Chair and members. Jason Smeltzer here on behalf of the California Financial Service Providers. Also the same position as Mr. Quinton. I would love to see the assembly member and work this out and remove our opposition then.
Bradford: Thank you.
Schriver: Rachel Schriver with the TMX Finance Family of Companies. We’re opposed to the bill in print, but certainly optimistic about finding a path forward.
Bradford: I appreciate it. Any additional witnesses? Any tweeners? All right. We’ll bring it back to the committee. Any questions by the committee members? Mr. Ric Lara. No. Oh. Oh okay. Ms.—
Lara: I just wanna move the bill, but I know Ms. Galgiani—
Galgiani: I wanted to finish and—
Bradford: Yes. Oh, go ahead, Ms. Galgiani.
Galgiani: We’ve done a lot of work on this bill—
Bradford: Yes, we have.
Galgiani: …today and I’ve been in two other committees today since 9 o’clock this morning. So, I wanna make sure we’re on the same page. So, the second item amendment that would provide exemptions from lead generator definition for administrative and clerical tasks, credit bureaus, internet search engines, and social media platforms, has that amendment been agreed to? That's on Page 14B in the analysis. Page 14B addresses the concern. And so, the amendment would be to provide an exemption for those clerical staff, etc.
Wright: And this is Adam Wright on behalf of the DBO. When it comes to that request, we do not believe it's necessary because of the way that the activities are already drafted. We do not believe that it covers search engines or social media advertisements because those two mediums of advertisements do not send actual consumer data to lenders and they are not paid on a per successful loan basis. Thus, they would not be caught up on the activities under a broker.
Galgiani: Okay. Okay. So, what is the amendment that you're taking then because it sounds like no? Am I right or— Maybe we should start with the author sharing with us the amendments that she’s taking because—
Bradford: You know, we’ve spent a whole lot of time in all due respect to the author and to those who are opposing this bill, but a lot of time have been invested here. And we wanna have a vehicle that first protects consumers, but also allows the industry to thrive and survive here in California. And I think the amendments that we've put forth I thought we had understanding and a commitment that we're gonna continue to move forward and keep this vehicle alive and understanding that we have some kind of agreement, but—
Limon: So, here's the deal, right? So, if you look on Page 13 and it says amendments and it describes some of the issues, but there's not specific amendments. So, according to the author’s office, the use of the word “expresses” intends to [0:18:54][Inaudible] consent. Right? We can go on. And so, I think that that’s what we have to continue talking about. Because in the areas where there is very specific things, it’s easier to say yes or no. In the areas where it talks about a concern, but it doesn't give you actual language, that's where we're trying to figure out how.
Bradford: And we’re not gonna find that extra language here today. What we're trying to get clarity on is what has been put forth in analysis those concerns that were raised as well as those amendments that we suggested that we get agreement on that today and we’ll work out the details moving forward with the understanding that we come to agreement, we’ll pull this bill back to the committee.
Limon: Yes. We can provide clarity for all of these amendments. We are just looking for actual language.
Galgiani: Are we drafting those amendments in committee? Committee staff will draft those amendments.
Bradford: Yes.
Limon: Can we draft the amendments and provide them to you?
Bradford: No. I think this committee will work in concert with you in drafting those amendments. That's our understanding of finding common ground on what we have already in analysis.
[0:20:01]
Limon: As long as our office and as the author I’m able to also be part of that, I—
Bradford: That’s our understanding that we’re gonna work in collaboration as we move forward on this thing.
Galgiani: Okay.
Bradford: Galgiani.
Galgiani: Okay. Next, item #4 on my list of concerns in amendments, define term “express consent” and provide the express consent provided by a prospective borrower to one entity satisfies the requirement for all other entities that purchase a consumer's confidential data to obtain express consent and that is addressing the concern outlined on Page 13A of the analysis.
Limon: So, back to the concerns, we’re happy to have a conversation. I’m trying to go to the amendments. So, we are happy to clarify it. So, here’s the confusion, right, that you have some amendments and we've agreed to take those and to work together and then you have the concerns. And the concerns I think need a discussion. We weren't prepared to go back and forth on the concerns here.
Bradford: We’re not trying to do that. So, we're trying to get clarity on those amendments that have been identified, but also address those concerns moving forward as well the two areas of concerns that are being raised so we can keep this vehicle alive and continue our discussion. So, we're—
Limon: We’re I think on the same page that the concerns we need to keep talking about the amendments, we are agreeing to work together on language.
Bradford: I understand that. We have specific amendments that we’re trying to get agreement on today. The concerns, we can work out. You know, that's going forward, but the amendments that we have before, today, we’re trying to get clarity on it. Senator Lara.
Lara: Without skipping over Senator Galgiani, my understanding is that she's already agreed to the amendments.
Galgiani: And we're trying to clarify what those amendments are—
Lara: Okay.
Galgiani: …specifically so that we don't just leave it to the fact that there's going to be a discussion—
Lara: Understood. Understood.
Galgiani: …in July. We want clarity on very specific amendments.
Limon: I started by saying I agree to the amendments. And so, if there are, you know, clear amendments, that's easy because there's language. If there's not language, we have to have a discussion. And what I heard was that we were simultaneously gonna draft those, that language.
Galgiani: And I'm trying to go through those amendments item by item so that we're on the same page and the two that I outlined—
Bradford: Ms. Galgiani, I think what we’re gonna have discussion on and negotiations is on the concerns, but the amendments or the amendments that we’re trying to get commitment on today, the amendments that we have that we're in an analysis that were clearly spelled out in analysis, you're taking those.
Limon: Yes.
Bradford: Great.
Galgiani: And the committee staff is drafting this.
Bradford: Yes. Yes.
Limon: With collaboration from our office so we—
Bradford: That’s right.
Limon: …can draft them together.
Galgiani: Okay. Okay. So, I’ll continue to the fifth one. Requiring that the entity that collects a prospective borrower’s confidential data to provide that borrower with the disclosure described in section 22348. So, in essence, the original point person who collected the personal information is the person who is required to provide the disclosure.
Limon: Uh-huh.
Galgiani: Okay. Number 6, add two additional statements to the disclosure described in section 22348 (A) lenders to whom the prospective borrower is referred may separately contact the prospective borrower and (B) lenders to whom the prospective borrower is referred may separately contact the prospective borrower.
Limon: Yup.
Galgiani: Okay. Number 7, delete the disclosure required under Section 22338.5.
Limon: So, wait—
Galgiani: Okay. And that’s on Page 23—
Limon: You know, I have agreed to the amendments whether it’s clear language. And so, yeah.
Bradford: Okay.
Limon: I think that this feels like it’s leading into a conversation and I just— We wanna have that conversation.
Bradford: Well, I’m gonna go on record right now. The amendments that we have before that was in analysis, I wanna be clear those are the ones you’re agreeing to and we’ll continue to work out the concerns. Am I correct?
Limon: Yes.
Bradford: And if we deviate from that, we will pull the bill back to this committee.
Limon: Right. And we will work together on drafting the language so that it's not just— Right?
Bradford: Drafting the language as it relates to the concerns. Yes. If we all have agreement on that—
Lara: [0:24:51][Inaudible]
Bradford: Exactly. So, we’re taking the amendments that are in the committee’s analysis.
[0:25:00]
That’s the motion you're putting forth, Ms. Galgiani.
Galgiani: Yes.
Bradford: Yes. Yes. Okay. Great. Any additional questions or comments by committee?
Speaker: As amended.
Bradford: As amended. Ms. Limon, would you like to close?
Limon: Unlicensed brokering activity poses a risk to consumer’s financial well-being and this bill will ensure that California's financial regulator can enforce the consumer protections under the California Financing Law. For this reason, today, I ask you for an aye vote.
Bradford: So, we have a motion and it’s do pass as amended to appropriations based on committee analysis. And we will move forward in addressing the concerns as we move forward. Am I correct? So, that’s the understanding then, Secretary, of our amendment. Madam chief consultant, that’s our understanding? Great. All right. Do pass as amended and committee analysis. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker: Assembly Bill 3207, motion is do pass as amended to appropriation. Senator Bradford.
Bradford: Aye.
Speaker: Bradford Aye. Vidak.
Vidak: No.
Speaker: Vidak no. Gaines. Galgiani.
Galgiani: Aye.
Speaker: Galgiani aye. Hueso.
Hueso: Aye.
Speaker: Hueso aye. Lara.
Lara: Aye.
Speaker: Lara aye. Portantino.
Portantino: Aye.
Speaker: Portantino aye. We have 5 to 1.
Bradford: All right. Your bill is out.
Limon: Thank you.
Bradford: Thank you. And we look forward to our continued discussion and work on this issue.
[0:26:28] End of Audio
Commercial Financing Disclosures Bill – June 25 CA Assembly Debate, Video, and Transcript
July 21, 2018Commercial Financing Disclosures Bill – Assembly Banking and Finance Committee
[0:00:03]
Limon: We didn’t put any time limits on it, but I will ask for brevity in comments that are made. So, with that, I will have you begin, Senator.
Glazer: Thank you, Chair Limon. Senate Bill 1235 would give to small business owners many of the same protections that our country’s truth in lending laws have given consumer borrowers for more than half a century. This bill would require lenders and finance companies to provide clear and consistent disclosure to small business owners when they offer them financing and when they close a deal. This information would help small business owners understand the cost and the consequences of the financing options available to them in the rapidly evolving commercial lending market. Until now, our truth in lending laws have applied only to consumer finance. Business owners were left to fend for themselves on the theory that they were sophisticated merchants who understood the world of finance. Increasingly, however, that is no longer true. Today’s small business owners are often immigrant entrepreneurs struggling to get their enterprises off the ground with little knowledge of the finance industry. Traditional banks, meanwhile, are no longer interested in making smaller loans. Instead, that space is being filled by innovative lenders offering an array of financial options. This new online lending industry is bringing capital to people who badly need it, but there are abuses. This bill offers a modest measure, disclosure to help level the playing field for small business owners. It would make California a leader in placing the interests of small business owners on par with the big players in the financial industry. Now, if you borrowed money for a house or a car or simply taken out a personal loan or used a credit card, you’ve seen the kind of disclosures that this bill would require. They tell you how much you’re borrowing, all the fees you’ll be paying, how long it will take you to repay the loan, and the annual annualized interest rate. The lenders know all this information already. Some of them even disclose it in the financial markets when they package their small business loans and sell them as securities. All we’re asking is that they disclose the same information to their customers. What’s good for Wall Street should be good enough for Main Street. How this bill has undergone extensive changes since I first introduced it in February, we’ve taken suggestions from many of the players in this industry and for most of the opponents, but will never satisfy everyone. Many of the companies that lend to small business simply do not want to disclose the terms of their loans to their customers. And many consumer finance advocates want this bill to precisely mirror the laws that govern consumer lending even if that might not be practical for the business lending market. Let me finish up. I think we’ve struck the right balance in this bill. It requires clear consistent disclosure, but does not restrict the kind of financing that lenders can offer and will not lead to any loss of access to capital in the small business world. With me today are Robyn Black representing the California Small Business Association and Caton Hanson who is a cofounder of nav.com, a company that helps small business owners navigate the tricky new online lending marketplace.
Hanson: Thank you, Chair Limon and members of the committee, for allowing me to share my support of this bill. My name is Caton Hanson, cofounder and chief legal compliance officer at nav.com. Now, as a small business credit and finance platform used by more than 370,000 business owners in the United States including 35,000 in the State of California, I’m speaking to you today because I believe this bill is an important step towards helping small business borrowers more easily compare sources of capital, which ultimately means more successful business in California. Consider the impact this legislation can have. Small business employs nearly half of all of California State’s employees. But according to the U.S. Department of Labor, 100,000 California small businesses close each year. And the data show a top reason these businesses fail is due to poor credit arrangements. I cofounded Nav for the very reason of bringing transparency and efficiency to business financing credit. I come from a small business family. My grandfather started a pool plastering company in Southern California 1948. My cousin runs the same business today. Growing up, I watched my father work a full-time job and run a small business on the side. As a small business owner of 2 businesses prior to Nav, I’m intimately aware of the help this bill would provide small business owners. I’ve seen their struggle on a daily basis and have been in their shoes. I know what it’s like to feel like the success of your business hang on whether you have the right financing or not. Transparency and efficiency are essential in the business lending world. If you haven’t experienced it, it’s easy to say the borrower will figure it out.
[0:05:00]
They know what they’re doing. The reality is that small business owners are not financial experts. These are not Fortune 500 companies we are talking about. In fact, 75 percent% of all small businesses employ one or fewer people. These are businesses without a finance department. running a business and having to perform finance, HR, sales, product development is extremely taxing. Business owners can’t spend hours and hours trying to decipher loan disclosures. That’s why an annualized cost of capital needs to be a part of this legislation. It’s the best method we have to create a quick applies to apples cost comparison. We’ve had this protection for consumers for years. It’s already settled law. The bill’s opposition claim an annualized cost of capital will confuse borrowers. The fact is that an annualized rate, which includes all costs, will simply reveal how expensive some of these products can be. If this forces them to explain the difference between short term versus long-term capital and the effect that has on an annualized rate, then so be it. It’s better than the current system that puts all the burden on the small business owner. We’ve already agreed that using an annualized rate is the best way for consumers to compare loans. Why should it be different for small business owners? Most reputable business lenders already provide an annualized rate because they know it’s the best way for a borrower to compare loans and terms. Alternative lenders such as Kabbage, OnDeck, and SmartBiz Loans are using tools such as a SMART box to provide necessary disclosures. They know it’s the right thing to do. This bill is just a way to standardize and require this across the industry so that the few bad apples can’t continue to deceive business owners. This bill isn’t about regulating the cost of business loans or trying to harm business lenders, which we wouldn’t support. There are legitimate times when a triple digit annualized rate is a smart decision for a business owner, but the business owner deserves to have a clear way of comparing products and knowing how much it’s going to cost them. If the terms are transparent and the business owner makes a bad decision, then it’s on them. To claim educating a small business owner on the true cost of capital is a harm to them is simply ridiculous. Unlike the opponents, we have nothing to gain by passing this bill. We just know it’s the right thing to do. We also believe it can become a model for the entire country and will positively impact millions of business owners, their families and communities. On behalf of the 100 team members at Nav along with our 35,000 small business customers in the State of California, I urge you to pass the bill. Thank you.
Limon: I will ask for a quorum. Before we finish up, if we can just call a quorum.
Speaker: Limon.
Limon: Here.
Speaker: Limon here. Chen. Acosta.
Acosta: Here.
Speaker: Acosta here. Burke. Gabriel.
Gabriel: Here.
Speaker: Gabriel here. Gloria. Gonzalez Fletcher.
Gonzalez Fletcher: Here.
Speaker: Gonzalez Fletcher here. Grayson.
Grayson: Here.
Speaker: Grayson here. Steinorth.
Steinorth: Here.
Speaker: Steinorth here. Stone. Weber.
Weber: Here.
Speaker: Weber here.
Limon: Thank you. We’ll have you proceed.
Black: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Robyn Black on behalf of the California Small Business Association. We are a nonpartisan nonprofit organization representing small business in California. Many of you were at our luncheon last week with your honorees. We love small business. We celebrate small business. And we really wanna thank the Senator for bringing this bill forward. As all of you know, access to capital is the most important challenge facing small business in California and startup businesses in particular in California as has already been stated. That transparency that this bill would provide for small businesses looking for that kind of capital specially in the new markets online is something that’s really important. I won’t repeat everything that’s already been said, but informing the consumers, giving them the transparency that is already there for consumer loans in California, providing it for small businesses, many of whom are not as sophisticated in the finance laws and the understanding what the true cost of a loan or borrowing money can be. This will go a long way to help those individuals. So, on behalf of the California Small Business Association, we thank you for your time and we urge your aye vote.
Speaker: Thanks, Robyn. Thank you.
Limon: Any opposition? Or support. Sorry. We’ll start with support. If you could please state your name and association.
Speaker: [0:09:31][Inaudible] On behalf of the Small Business Finance Association, support of the bill.
Limon: Any additional support? All right. Those in opposition.
[Talk Out of Context]
[0:09:59]
Patterson: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Ann Patterson. I’m a partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, an outside council for the Innovative Lending Platform Association. I feel like I’m in theater at the round here. [Laughter]. We’re here regretfully in opposition to SB-1235 because of the inclusion of the untested new metric, the ACC, that is in the bill. The ILPA is the leading trade association for small business lending and service companies and our members include OnDeck Capital, Kabbage, and The Business Backer. I wanna start by making it clear that we do not oppose SB-1235 subjective here and its attempts to create disclosures. We absolutely support transparency. And actually, as the witness from Nav mentioned, all members of the ILPA already provide borrowers with a comprehensive disclosure. It’s called the SMART box. It looks a little bit like the Schumer box. Or for those of you more familiar with Cheerios, the nutritional label on the back of that. We spent about 18 months developing the SMART box and worked in consultation with small businesses to identify the metrics that were most meaningful to them when they were trying to compare between financial products and then you can see those metrics reflected here. We have total cost of capital at the top, which is usually ranked as one of the highest and most meaningful for folks. We disclosed APR (annual percentage rate), average monthly payments, cents and dollar, and whether there are any prepayment penalties. So, I’m sure you probably can’t see this from here. I’m happy to provide— I brought copies if people would like to see it more closely. So, we did make these disclosures voluntarily because we want our small business customers to be informed so that they can pick the right financing product for their use cases and we do believe I think, as the author and the other witnesses, that transparency is critical to that. But we strongly SB-1235’s inclusion of this untested new metric, the ACC or EACC, because we believe that it will frustrate rather than facilitate an apples to apples comparison across products. And here is why. Let me find my little card. [Laughter]. As you can see, APR and ACC look a lot alike. They’re both percentages, which is gonna cause confusion for borrowers. And these two here, APR and ACC, are for the exact same loan. One 6-month 50,000-dollar loan with the exact same interest and fees. As you can see, APR 33.6, ACC 22.63. One’s looking a lot higher than the other for the exact same loan with the same costs. So, this is basically ACC is APR, but smaller. That to us is sort of like introducing a new food measurement for example where I can look at Cinnabon and say, “Oh, it doesn’t have 900 calories anymore. It has 600 calories.” And I think just like that would drive people to make bad food decisions. This ACC is gonna potentially mislead borrowers into choosing potentially more expensive products because they’re gonna conflate APR and ACC. And the danger is gonna occur here because borrowers are gonna be comparing different products. One quoted with APR and one ACC. Lots of things are still gonna be quoted in APR. The Schumer box in your credit card is still gonna have APR. And I can tell you the credit that small business customers are gonna confuse them when they’re looking at one that says APR 33 and one that says this. And it’s just lower. It’s like buying the Cinnabon. Right? Suddenly, you’re gonna pack the one that looks lower even though in fact it’s not the actually less expensive product. It’s just a different metric entirely. So, the problem is going to I think not go away over time with this because we are gonna continue to live in an ecosystem where APR remains, you know, the prominent metric. So, people are going to be really doing apples to oranges comparisons between APR and ACC. And for us, this isn’t actually just speculation. I think I mentioned we did a lot of homework when we developed SMART box over 18 months. And one of things we did is actually considered putting a second percentage metric, the AIR, into the SMART box. So, it would have had one more percentage here. And when we shared that with small business customers, it immediately caused confusion. They’re like “Which one is the real one? Which one is the right one?” And so, it just led to a ton of questions. And so, we ultimately said only one percentage-based metric on this because it’s just gonna confuse people. And so, I think the concern for us is that we’re either now in a position as the ILPA of having to drop APR entirely and replace it with this new metric, which is untested from our perspective. I don’t know anyone who’s ever used it. I don’t know if there had been any studies on whether or not it actually kind of works over time. So, we either are going to replace it or we can go back to a situation where we are gonna have to have 2 percentages on the SMART box again, which we know based on our own back information does cause confusion for people.
[0:15:07]
So, in closing, we support the concept here. We believe in transparency and disclosure, but we are very concerned that this metric will be confusing for people. I’m happy to answer any questions.
Limon: Thank you.
Fisher: Thank you. Chair Limon and committee members, thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today regarding SB-1235. My name is Kate Fisher. And I am here today on behalf of the Commercial Finance Coalition, a group of responsible finance companies that provide capital to small and medium sized businesses through innovative methods. We support California’s efforts to provide business financing disclosures. CFC members already disclose the cost of financing and welcome all of the disclosure requirements of SB-1235 except for one. That is the estimated annualized cost of capital disclosure. For clarity, we do not oppose disclosure. Instead, we’re advocating for an effective and accurate disclosure. Our concern is that requiring any annualized percentage for financing that is not alone will mischaracterize the underlying transaction. Senator Glazer’s bill recognizes that requiring an estimated annualized cost of capital disclosure does not make sense for other non-loan products such as commercial leasing or invoice factoring. Commercial leasing is completely exempt from SB-1235. And invoice factoring is exempt from the annualized cost of capital disclosure. That is because commercial leasing and invoice factoring are not loans, but SB-1235 proposes to require an annualized cost of capital disclosure for future receivables factoring, also not loan. This is illogical. Future receivables factoring is fundamentally different from a loan. The business pays only a percentage of its receivables. For example, when wildfires swept across California last fall, a business that was damaged and could not operate would owe nothing. Because the transaction is not a loan, any APR or annualized cost of capital disclosure would only confuse and mislead small business owners. I’m very optimistic that California can lead the way in providing businesses with disclosures that are helpful and not misleading. For example, the disclosure in SB-1235 that would require the disclosure of total dollar cost of financing, which is currently in the bill in Section 22802 (b) (3). Thank you.
Limon: Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Please state your name and association. All right. Hearing or seeing none, members, we will turn it over to you. Any questions or thought Assembly Member Grayson?
Grayson: Thank you, Madam Chair. I was hearing the testimony about APR versus ACC and it was almost like you— It sounded like it was apples and oranges, right, compared between the two. So, as long as the consumer or in this particular case the business owner that was seeking a commercial loan was aware that they were apples and oranges, then as long as they were aligning the apples together or the oranges together and comparing the right rates, then there wouldn’t be confusion. Is that right?
Patterson: I think that if people got past the similarities between them and actually sort of dug in, they could potentially say, “Okay. ACC is basically computed completely differently and is designed to be a different metric.” I think the hard part is when you just see APR, ACC and you see rates. People are making quick decisions and I think they’re gonna see 36%, 23% and just go with that. One of the other things I think that’s problematic here is that the underlying differences— I wouldn’t even begin to try to explain because trying to say why APR is computed one way and why ACC is computed the other way is gonna be complicated and take up a lot of time on the phone where people try to understand which one is the real one that they’re supposed to be looking at.
Grayson: Sure. So, if we were comparing products—
Patterson: Yes. Uh-huh.
Grayson: …whether that product from three different lenders was using APR, then I would have a fair comparison between.
Patterson: Yes. Apples-apples.
Grayson: So, if I had all three providers also providing an ACC and they were being compared strictly amongst just ACC, there would be a fair comparison.
Patterson: I would be. And I think the challenge that they will have in doing straight up real-time and apples to apples is going to be that credit cards will never be using an ACC.
Grayson: Right.
Patterson: They’re off doing their TLA, you know, program with the Schumer box and they’re gonna continue to use APR. A lot of small businesses rely on that. So, they’re gonna have an orange, an apple, maybe a couple apples. Maybe a pair. No. Just apples and oranges.
Grayson: I love fruit.
Patterson: You’re gonna have to try to figure. [Laughter]. You’re gonna try to figure it out. So, I don’t think there’s gonna ever be kind of a true, you know—
[0:20:01]
Grayson: Madam Chair, if I may, and I don’t wanna—
Limon: Yeah. No.
Grayson: …take up too much time and I know I have members here that may have concerns or questions. If I may to the author ask a question of what was the motivation to depart from an APR and come up with this new untested ACC?
Glazer: Thank you for the question, although I wouldn’t agree with the untested part. But originally in my bill, I did have APR and opponents came in and said, “We don’t want you to have APR because APR changes with every payment you make. It changes the number.” And they said it creates legal vulnerability for us to add that to use APR. And I said, “Okay.” The purpose here is not to curtail small business lending. We need that capital out there. The only issue I want is disclosure and I don’t wanna create legal liability. So, I said, “Okay. Because APR changes with every payment, let’s come up with another metric that’s not a new metric, but a metric in the world of business that says let’s take a snapshot in time of what that would cost over the course of a year.” And that’s why we annualize cost of capital (ACC). It’s not based on whether you make more payments this month or less payments next month. It’s one snapshot, thereby providing a fair estimate without legal vulnerability and a very simple standard and that’s where ACC has come from.
Grayson: You said without legal vulnerability because I know that’s been one of the concerns of ACC is that you could draw a figure out there and it actually not be the exact figure and it creates liability on the lender’s part. What have you done to be able to mitigate that liability?
Glazer: Because in the bill, it says an estimate. It says an estimate, an annualized cost of capital. So, that’s the required disclosure and that is something that I think provides appropriate legal protection for any lender who is providing that capital and that proposal too.
Grayson: So, within their disclosure, you’re saying if you put estimate on there, then that would help mitigate it.
Glazer: And I certainly haven’t heard any criticism on those terms in regard to ACC.
Grayson: All right. Thank you.
Glazer: Thank you.
Limon: Any other questions or thoughts? Vice Chair Chen.
Chen: Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to say that, you know, as a Republican, one thinks that is always a concern is government overreach. This bill doesn’t do that. You know, my opinion, this is a bill which is helpful for the lender. It’s helpful for the consumer. It is information that is helpful in which will prevent them from making decisions that will be financial duress for them in the future. So, I appreciate bringing this bill forward. So, with that said, I’d be happy to move the bill.
Limon: [0:22:37][Inaudible]
Gabriel: Yeah. So, I was just curious for the opponents of the bill. If you’re opposed to ACC and you’re opposed to APR, is there a metric that you would recommend and suggest?
Patterson: Well, all of the members of ILPA do disclose APR now. So, we’re not opposed to APR. I think there were people in the business community. Let them speak.
Fisher: Yeah. Thank you. The total dollar cost of financing, which is not a percentage, but tells the small business owner this is how much the money will cost, that is the best metric and particularly because the goal is to provide a measurement that works across different products. So, that measurement works whether it’s a loan or a sale.
Gabriel: And is that something that’s already required to be disclosed?
Fisher: No. I mean, not by law. It is required to be disclosed by contract so that the customer understands what kind of financing they’re getting. And the members of the group I represent do provide disclosures like that.
Patterson: I would say that when we developed the SMART box and did a survey of small businesses part of that. Total cost of capital was something— Dollars and dollars out, at the end of the day, that is what is most meaningful to them. I’m not suggesting annualized metric or whatever. The problem with annualized metrics generally is that the shorter the term of the loan, they just look a lot— if it starts to fall apart under year. But to the point that you made, total cost of capital is something that business owners say is the metric and it’s why it’s at the top of our SMART box.
Limon: Assembly Member Weber.
Weber: Just wanted to get some clarity. Now, this SMART box that you have, how long have you had the SMART box? I mean, is this something that small businesses have access to and have for years or it’s something new?
Patterson: We launched it in June of 2016. So, it’s been around for 2 years.
Weber: Okay. But it’s not required.
Patterson: It is not. It’s a voluntary industry model. Anybody who joins the ILPA must disclose it as part of that membership. So, you have some of the larger lenders like OnDeck and Kabbage using it, but it is not mandatory. It’s not mandated by any government.
Weber: Okay. Okay. So, therefore, it’s kind of an uneven thing in terms of who has access to it or whether or not people know what the real cost of their loans are.
Patterson: Yes.
[0:25:00]
There’s no mandate to make these disclosures. That’s correct.
Weber: Okay. And the industry initially was opposed to APR and I assume they still are. I would imagine. Has there been some revelation—
[Crosstalk]
Fisher: Thank you. The financing companies that don’t offer loans, but offer a type of factoring program, they are opposed to any type of annualized metric because those types of transactions don’t have a term. The business only pays a percentage of its revenue as that revenue is created. So, the transaction will take as long as it takes the business to generate the revenue that they will then deliver to the company.
Weber: Okay. And I assume that any new system that you come up with will be untested. I mean, that’s the nature of something new. If it was not, it would be old rather than being something new. So, I’m not necessarily persuaded by the untested element of it. I think there needs to be some transparency. I was surprised that there wasn’t that much transparency in terms of commercial loans. I just assume everybody had transparency and knew what a loan cost. And so, I found it rather incredible that it didn’t happen. I’m not sure I’m convinced that ACC is the best thing, but I haven’t heard anybody tell me thing else. I know people don’t like the APR very much, but I think I heard that ACC is so horrible. I’m probably gonna support this as it goes forward with hopes that whatever problem there is you guys will work it out before it gets to the floor. I’m not sure that I will vote for it on the floor, but I do wanna give life to this so the conversation can continue because I think it is very important especially for small businesses. So, I’ll second the motion that was made.
Limon: Thank you, Assembly Member Weber. And I think we have Assembly Member Acosta and then Assembly Member Gabriel.
Acosta: Thank you very much. I kind of appreciate the discourse today. You know, I appreciate Senator Glazer coming by and having some significant conversations around this. It is a complicated issue when you’re talking about introducing a new metric by which consumers which— I know we’re calling them business owners, but they’re still people and they still have credit cards, and auto loans, and mortgages. And all these things are calculated somewhat differently. So, I think there is an opportunity here for more disclosure. I share my colleague’s— from San Diego— sympathies that this may not be the best answer because these things are all calculated differently whether it’s, you know, traditional factoring, whether it’s future receivables. My concern has been that as a consumer and a small business owner because they’re still individuals, they’re still people that you’re on one side of the fence and you’re getting a credit card offer or a small business loan offer from one entity on your credit card. It popped up on my screen from one of my bank statements the other day. And then over on this side, we’re doing something entirely different. And I’m concerned that there will be confusion there. I think of you have made attempts to try to address this. I think that we need good disclosure in this realm. Can you tell me just for the record the sunset date on this? We have a sunset of what?
Glazer: 4 years.
Acosta: 4 years. So, I’m not thrilled with no disclosure. I’m not sure this is 100% percent the way to go. But I think that given the fact that APR doesn’t work, ACC may not work, we gotta try something. You seem to be very interested in making something work. So, I really encourage you to work with, you know, the opposition to try to fix things to their liking and to really try to find something that small business owners can sink their teeth into. You know, maybe you’re gonna invent something new here that’s gonna carry throughout the rest of the country. I don’t know. I’m not 100% comfortable with the discrepancies that small business owners are gonna be finding themselves, but it’s a step. And so, I’m gonna be taking a look at this. I may lay off at this moment, but I’m leaning towards supporting your bill today just so we can continue to work on this, but I’m reserving judgment on the floor for what the final product is. Thank you.
Glazer: Thank you.
Limon: Assembly Member Gabriel and then Assembly Member Gloria.
Gabriel: Yeah. I just wanted to associate myself with the comments of my colleague from San Diego. I appreciate, Senator Glazer, your effort to do this and bring transparency to the space. I think that’s a very worthwhile objective. I’m inclined to support you today to continue the conversation, but then I’m gonna reserve judgment on the floor just to help myself understand this a little bit better, but very much appreciate what you’re trying to do here and thank you for bringing this bill forward.
Glazer: Thank you.
Gloria: Thank you, Madam Chair. And Senator, thank you for the bill today. I’m reading it furiously after being substituted just a few hours ago.
[0:30:01]
Sorry. It’s why the pass the medium-sized box. Right? I know you bring up a common sense approach here legislating. I was struggling with the conversation in terms of different metrics. I think I heard that part a bit. Forgive me if I missed the portion when you addressed one of the other things. In my quick read of this, what was somewhat troubling to me is the 4th page of the committee analysis talking about the ability or lack thereof to provide oversight or enforcement on this. It would seem to me then if we’re looking out for small businesses, we’d have to have some way of trying to actually enforce what you’re to do with this bill. It’s difficult for me to vote for something that says what it says here in terms of having— It’s either silent or it’s impossible to hold folks accountable so on and so forth. Can you speak to that and why the bill is at its current state with these comments?
Glazer: Absolutely. Thank you, Assembly Member. There are some that we like to regulate and the thing that we in our conversations about it that we’d rather start with this step of disclosure and not licensing and not regulation. And the hope would be that the marketplace can act appropriately, disclose appropriately and that can be the end of it. But under current law, if you have a contract dispute, you have the same remedies under this bill as proposed as you would in any other circumstance that you have today. And our public law enforcement officers have that same ability if they see violations to engage is appropriate. So, the same remedies that exists today, you know, are in place with the exception of regulation. And it was my view that— ‘cause you get folks from all sides on these kinds of things. And it’s a new engagement because it is the Wild West today. There is no requirement We heard from witnesses that she does this and they do that. There is no requirements anywhere in this space in California or across the country. And so, it was at that context that my feeling was— And we took a lot of amendments to narrow this bill and I can go through those. The first step should be a simple disclosure mechanism with a sunset and we can evaluate it as it goes. I don’t wanna curtail the lending market, whatsoever. But if we have bad actors that continue to not follow those rules, then I’m very open to trying to see what else is required. And that’s why we’ve taken a small step today that you see in front of you.
Gloria: So, this is not a matter of this will be addressed in a future committee or before it to the floor. It is the intent to leave it sort of open at least at this point.
Glazer: Again, given the various players in this space, the smaller step to me would seem to be the more appropriate step. No. It is not my intention to put a new regulatory framework under this bill. I think that makes it more difficult. And listen, if we didn’t have the opposition to APR from the start, we might be in a different place today, but I’ve tried to accommodate opposition and that’s why you have the narrowness of this bill before you.
Gloria: Okay. Thank you.
Glazer: Okay.
Limon: Assembly Member Gonzalez Fletcher.
Gonzalez Fletcher: And obviously, I don’t know what the opposition was to APR. All of this is new to me. I’m fairly new to this committee, but I am concerned with kind of— I don’t wanna say unsophisticated. But you know, my father has had small businesses and has made determinations whether he put something on a credit card versus takes out some sort of loan. Is the ACC always going to be smaller than the APR? I really know nothing about these things.
Glazer: It depends on the duration. It’s meant to say over 12 months. There’s a lot of loans and this is part of the problem in that space, is I say you need $1,000 for a pizza oven repair.
Gonzalez Fletcher: Right.
Glazer: And I say to you “Listen, I’ll give you $1,000. It will cost you $200.” And this is what the opposition said. The small business people wanna know what that total cost. Well, it’s $1,200 to get $1,000 now and you have to pay it back when? Well, you have to pay it back in 90 days. That interest rate that you’re paying is gonna be a lot higher than you can pay it back in a year or if you paid it back based on taking a penny out of every credit card transaction. So, when these lenders come in, they can offer you this wide array of ways in which it’s not gonna cost you anything to your dad and that’s been the challenge. The issue of the annualized cost of capital is to say whether you take that loan for 90 days or for 2 years. You have an annualized cost as if it was for 12 months and more importantly knowing how much it’s gonna cost you. You can shop the next vendor and the next financier and have an apples to apples to compare it to because one vendor may say, “Pay me in 6 months.” Another one will say, “Well, 18 months.” Well, what’s the difference?
[0:34:59]
And so, that annualized cost is a way to have that one standard review. And I did do a chart here to give you a sense of these are the standards required by the bill. And at the bottom of it, it says, “What’s the annualized cost of capital?” You have a way of reviewing that. This chart is based on $150,000 one time over the period of time. And so, each of these steps disclosed and then this is the last one, the bill that’s being debated today. What’s the annualized cost if you paid it over 12 months? This is a 15-month example, but this is what it would be over 12. And you can compare it from person to person or lender to lender.
Gonzalez Fletcher: As long as the product you’re getting is all from— Like I think what I’m struggling with is you’re making an assumption that they’re looking just at this one product, right, this online product and they’re not thinking through like “Well, I have space on this credit card. I have the ability—” You know? And if we’re not using the same percentage, then it’s biased to this because you’re gonna get a lower percentage. That’s what I’m concerned. Does that make sense?
Glazer: Yes. So now—
Gonzalez Fletcher: I feel really ignorant in this space. I have to tell you.
Glazer: No. No. And listen, welcome to the world of small business lending. Okay?
Gonzalez Fletcher: Right.
Glazer: Even us have struggle with it. So, this is an example based on 150,000 one-time loan paid off over— is it— about 3 years. Okay? Now, here’s another example of $150,000. But now, it’s paid off— let’s see here—
Gonzalez Fletcher: A little over a year.
Glazer: Right. A little over a year and it comes from money out of your— See, it says— Let’s see. Okay. This is the 15-month loan one time. This is money out of your cash register over a much longer period of time. And you can see how these charts then work out. Under this one, they’re both $150,000. This is the total cost of all your payments. This is 170. That’s 179. Here’s your financing costs under this example. It’s 20,000. On this example, it’s 29,000. Here’s how much you paid everyday. If what’s most sensitive to your dad was how much he had to put out everyday, this one is $370. That one is $163. And so, you work down this chart and then you say, “Well, what if I had to pay this over 1 year?” The apples and apples, this is a 10% cost and that one is a 6% cost, but you can get a sense of the complexity of these. Just two different examples. A flat loan versus something that you’re gonna pay off everyday out of your cash register. And this is the dilemma that they all face. How do you create the apples to apples with these different products? And this shows you that you can have different products with different loan amounts and different directions, but the one thing that you can compare the apples to is the annualized cost of capital in both charts. They’re never gonna give you an APR and an ACC. They’re gonna just show you the— whatever the law requires is what they’re gonna provide. And this is a way for you to cross comparison shop that doesn’t exist today.
Gonzalez Fletcher: Okay. So, I’m sorry. So, I get how you can compare these two. And I applaud what you’re trying to do. I think this is good. My concern is how do you compare this to my business credit card or something that’s giving me just an APR?
Glazer: That’s a consumer loan and that is a—
Gonzalez Fletcher: But small businesses use credit in a variety of way. I mean, I guess you can say loan, but I mean especially small businesses use a variety— I’m just worried about that like are we— This makes very good for what you are trying to do, but that’s not the only way people borrow money to—
Glazer: Right. And the challenges that the credit card APR— it’s based on how much you pay and when. In other words, that’s just an estimate, but it’s a changing estimate every month. If you decide to only pay so much in the principal, that’s gonna change that number. And so, that’s the dilemma of even looking at that financial instrument of if I put this on my credit card versus take out a business loan. It’s a very challenging thing for anyone to understand because— And that’s why I go back to the simplicity, is the annual cost, not an APR that fluctuates. And obviously, some in the industry say we love it and some say they hate it and wanted a change in the bill. And that will always remain that dilemma. Buyer beware, lender beware. We’re just trying to give that small business owner one additional tool and that’s not how much is the money gonna cost me or how much do I pay everyday. What would this cost if I had it for 12 months?
Gonzalez Fletcher: Why wouldn’t you have both?
Glazer: Well, we do. The bill does require that all these elements be provided.
Gonzalez Fletcher: No. APR and ACC. Why wouldn’t you have both?
[0:39:59]
Glazer: Well, first, we had the concern on APR about the legal jeopardy of that number fluctuating and how can you have it be a fair estimate.
Gonzalez Fletcher: How do they do it on credit cards? I get a credit card or I’m applying for a credit card and it tells me this is the APR and that’s [0:40:13][Inaudible]
Glazer: There is about a stack of federal regulation this high that went into that high plus more that have gone into the whole determination of APR. And when you say it’s been around a long time, it’s been hotly debated on the federal level. And so, you have this body of information that’s now there that guides companies in how they do it and how they calculate it.
Gonzalez Fletcher: So, these companies could do that.
Glazer: They could do that today. Most of them don’t. I’m happy to hear one that does provide it. But again, it’s the Wild West, so—
Gonzalez Fletcher: So, why wouldn’t we want both? I mean, there’s a function to do it and then it could better cross compare between different products. I meant more disclosure, not less.
Glazer: Yes.
Gonzalez Fletcher: I’m not like setting you— I have no idea. I’m totally confused on trying to do the right thing in this bill, so—
Glazer: Yeah. Well, look, I’m open minded. For me, the fundamental issue is how do we provide an appropriate level disclosure to give that small business person a fighting chance in the lending market. I hadn’t thought about whether providing both and whether that would be helpful or less helpful. I’m open minded to it. I’ve been trying to simplify this because there’s been a lot of efforts to complicate it and that’s why I hadn’t gone in that direction, but I’m still open minded about whether that would be more helpful or less.
Gonzalez Fletcher: Well, I would say for a lot of small businesses and I think that small business is my community where you have a lot of non-English speakers, a lot of non-native speakers being able to actually look at two completely different products. One that’s maybe not supposed to be used for small business loans. But as a credit card versus this to line up the letters regardless of how you get to that number and what it means, but line up the letters and try to get to some comparison would be helpful rather than assuming the level of knowledge I think that even if it was in their home language, probably— I mean, it’s beyond me and I consider myself slightly educated, but definitely with folks who are new to this country and who are trying to figure this all out I’m a little concerned. That’s all.
Glazer: Yeah. Thank you.
Limon: Thank you. Assembly Member Steinorth.
Steinorth: First, I just like to say I think this is very clever. I’ve been in business for over 20 years and my business is helping local and small businesses grow. I’ve been doing that successfully. I’ve probably helped over 10,000 businesses be successful and the single greatest reason for their failure is under capitalization. Period. That’s it. And so, short term versus longer term access to capital, I believe that your way of— I’m really trying to add the transparency to the short term access to capital so people have a clear understanding of what it’s going to cost their business. It’s gonna be very useful for their success.
Glazer: Thank you.
Steinorth: So, I’ll be voting yes on this bill. Thank you.
Glazer: Thank you. I appreciate it.
Limon: Thank you. Senator, you and I have had multiple conversations about this and I think the analysis does express some concern with the ability to enforce particularly because enforcement is also a way to ensure that your objective is met. It’s not just an enforcement mechanism, but it’s also about the objective. But we’ve also had conversations about the direction of the bill and knowing how important it is for any, you know, consumer to have the information they need to make the best decisions. What I’m hearing is that at this point APR— You’re lucky if you have it. Some do. Some don’t. It’s not a standardization. And so, as I listen to colleagues bring concerns forward about how do you compare all of your options, not just your online lending, but all of your options, I also understand that currently that can’t exist because if they— Right now today, if they were to try to go to an online loan or a cash advance and also compare credit cards, they don’t have the mechanism to look at it apples to apples. I appreciate that this is at least for the moment a temporary solution. It has a 4-year sunset so that we can understand. I still continue to have concerns about how the objective is going to be met, how we know that whether it’s ACC or something else is going to be met, and how we’re ensuring that over the next 4 years potentially all the consumers or customers of this product see the same thing. I’m not sure. But there are certain themes that you have brought forward, themes that I have been very sensitive to this year in the world of banking and finance. And those include the importance for transparency, for disclosure, and for people to understand the true cost of a loan.
[0:45:08]
I understand how hard it is for these things or these elements to be in place with a lot of products. And for those reasons, I’m going to give you an aye vote in good faith that we can try to get there, but I will note that there are still some concerns and I’m happy to be part of any kind of conversation to make sure that the objective you’re trying to get to is one that is able to be met. And I know how hard this work is. And with that, if there are no other comments, I think we will have you close and then we’ll take a vote. Thank you.
Glazer: Thank you, Madam Chair and members, for this thoughtful, thorough conversation that we’ve had today. I appreciate it. I wanna underscore again how hard we have worked (my staff, your staff, and others) to try to narrow the differences, take out leasing, take out some of the receivables issues that we can’t really fit into this box so that we could provide something that’s simple, and easy, and understandable, and transparent. I think we’ve gone a long ways here. I know there’s more work still to be done and I’m happy to look— I look forward to that work that we can do together. We do need to protect our small business people. And it is a Wild West of financing out there. And I think this bill does get us closer to that space and I appreciate your consideration. Thank you.
Limon: Thank you. Please call the roll.
Speaker: Limon.
Limon: Aye.
Speaker: Limon aye. Chen:
Chen: Aye.
Speaker: Chen aye. Acosta.
Acosta: Aye.
Speaker: Acosta aye. Burke. Gloria. Gabriel.
Gabriel: Aye.
Speaker: Gabriel aye. Gonzalez Fletcher. Gonzalez Fletcher not voting. Grayson.
Grayson: Aye.
Speaker: Grayson aye. Steinorth.
Steinorth: Aye.
Speaker: Steinorth aye. Stone. Weber.
Weber: Aye.
Speaker: Weber aye.
Limon: All right. The motion is do pass and that is out 7-0. We will leave the roll open for additional add-ons.
Glazer: Thank you very much.
Limon: Thank you.
Glazer: Thank you all.
[0:47:24] End of Audio
Australian Lenders Commit to Best Practices Code
July 10, 2018
Six small business fintech lenders operating in Australia, including OnDeck, have signed a self-imposed “code of best practice lending principles,” according to a recent statement from Prospa, one of Australia’s largest online small business lenders. This comes shortly after Prospa paused its June IPO, having received a letter from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) requesting information.
Possibly in response to ASIC’s inquiries into the Prospa IPO, what has emerged is a code of best practices signed by Prospa, OnDeck, Capify, GetCapital, Moula and Spotcap. This set of self-imposed rules, referred to as the Code, has not yet been solidified, but it already includes a number of constituents in a highly collaborative effort.
The six small business signatories will be contributing to the Code, along with a trade group for the Australian finance sector, the Australian Finance Industry Association (AFIA), the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, Kate Camel, the Bank Doctor, an SME advocate, and FinTech Australia, an industry association. According to the Prospa, the Code will be fully operational and enforceable by December 31, 2018.
“Our Online Small Business Lender Group members have embraced the sentiment of improving transparency and disclosure and took proactive action to come together quickly and collegiately to develop a Code,” said Helen Gordon, CEO of AFIA.
Acknowledging that small business lenders are already subject to rules from a number of regulatory bodies, the Prospa document stated:
“This Code is a proactive move to pull the obligations of online small business lenders together into one document. This makes it easier for current market participants and will also help new entrants understand their obligations.”
Already, some of the central elements agreed upon in the Code include:
- The introduction of a pricing comparison tool providing key metrics that will allow customers to compare the cost of unsecured loans from the signatories (including the total repayment amount, APR, simple annual interest rate)
- An easy-to-understand loan summary
- A glossary of key terms in accessible language that applies directly to online small business loans
- Signatories must attest their compliance with the Code on an annual basis
According to the Prospa statement, the Code was modelled after best practice examples and feedback from the US and UK, where the online lending industry is more developed.
This list of tenets already seems quite progressive, or onerous, depending on who you ask. The notion of introducing or requiring a price comparison tool is a hot button topic here in the US. Requiring that loans and merchant cash advance products be labeled with an APR or an Annual Cost of Capital (ACC) is what the state of California is moving towards with a highly contested bill that passed in the state assembly committee in June.
Proponents of the bill SB 1235, introduced by California State Sen. Steven Glazer, want to make certain that all small businesses can easily understand and compare the cost of loan and finance products. Opponents of the bill, many in the merchant cash advance industry, insist that a requirement like this amounts to shutting down their industry because a precise APR or ACC cannot be applied to a cash advance product given that the product depends on the duration of the deal, which is variable.
While not as formal, some efforts in the U.S. are also being made by alternative finance industry players to self-regulate. In May, the Small Business Finance Association (SFBA) announced the launch of an initiative called the SFBA Broker Council, which has a mission to create standards and best practices for brokers.
Report Demonstrates How Online Lenders Benefit Economy
May 31, 2018
A report on “The Economic Benefits of Online Lending to Small Businesses and the U.S. Economy” was released yesterday, using data from 180,000 U.S. small businesses that represented nearly $10 billion in funding from 2015 to 2017.
The report used data from five online lenders, including OnDeck, Kabbage and Lendio, and was sponsored by the Electronic Transactions Association (ETA), the Small Business Finance Association (SBFA) and the Innovative Lending Platform Association. The report was researched by three economists at NDP Analytics, an independent research firm.
One of the key findings was that the ten billion dollars funded from 2015 to 2017 by five of the top alternative small business lenders generated $37.7 billion in gross output and created 358,911 jobs and $12.6 billion in wages.
“I think the most important takeaway from this study is that small businesses are benefiting from a wide variety of choices in lending products,” said Jason Oxman, CEO of the ETA. “And, in particular, the online small business lenders have provided really a remarkable amount of working capital to small businesses in this country.”
Oxman told AltFinanceDaily that he was surprised to learn from the report the percentage of borrowers that operate extremely small businesses. According to the report, 24 percent of online business borrowers operate businesses that have less than $100,000 in annual sales. And two-thirds of online business borrowers had less than $500,000 in annual sales.
“These are clearly small businesses,” Oxman said. “These are companies that obviously have capital needs and are getting those needs met by online small business lenders.”
New York State was a focus of part of the research. According to a press release for the report, data extracted from it indicated that “overall, the small business loans provided by online lenders [from 2015 to 2017] generated $2.5 billion in gross output and created 20,154 jobs with over $795 million in wages” for communities in New York State.
“We [organized the report] with New York in mind,” said Steve Denis, Executive Director at the SBFA. “We wanted to send a message to show how much of an impact the online lending industry had on the state.”
Other interesting data from the report include:
— 75 percent of U.S. businesses have less than 10 employees.
— 22 percent of small business owners use their personal savings to expand
— Online lenders offer loans to companies in all stages of their life cycle and the distribution of company age is relatively uniform.
“[Alternative small business lending] is creating a lot of economic activity,” Denis said. “We’re helping to create jobs, and we need to protect this tool. It’s a valuable resource for businesses…and this [report] demonstrates how important it is to the economy.”
