Madden v. Midland Appealed to the US Supreme Court
November 15, 2015The Madden v. Midland decision has been appealed to the US Supreme Court and the future of non-bank lending potentially hangs in the balance. The introductory statement reads as follows:
This case presents a question which is critical to the operation of the national banking system and on which the courts of appeals are in conflict. The National Bank Act authorizes national banks to charge interest at particular rates on loans that they originate, and the Act has long been held to preempt conflicting state usury laws. The question presented here is whether, after a national bank sells or otherwise assigns a loan with a permissible interest rate to another entity, the Act continues to preempt the application of state usury laws to that loan. Put differently, the question presented concerns the extent to which a State may effectively regulate a national bank’s ability to set interest rates by imposing limitations that are triggered as soon as a loan is sold or otherwise assigned.
Several attorneys have said off the record that the likelihood the US Supreme Court would actually hear the case is about 100 to 1, because the issue lacks sex appeal. Gay Marriage, Obamacare, these are the type of things that make their way through the system.
Nevertheless, the petition argues the matter at hand:
The Second Circuit vacated the judgment, holding that the National Bank Act ceased to have preemptive effect once the national bank had assigned the loan to another entity. App., infra, 1a-18a. In so holding, the Second Circuit created a square conflict with the Eighth Circuit, and its reasoning is irreconcilable with that of the Fifth Circuit. The Second Circuit also rode roughshod over decisions of this Court that provide broad protection both for a national bank’s power to set interest rates and for its freedom from indirect regulation. And it cast aside the cardinal rule of usury, dating back centuries, that a loan which is valid when made cannot become usurious by virtue of a subsequent transaction.
The Second Circuit, of course, is home to much of the American financial-services industry. And if the Second Circuit’s decision is allowed to stand, it threatens to inflict catastrophic consequences on secondary markets that are essential to the operation of the national banking system and the availability of consumer credit. The markets have long functioned on the understanding that buyers may freely purchase loans from originators without fear that the loans will become invalid, an understanding uprooted by the Second Circuit’s decision in this case. It is no exaggeration to say that, in light of these practical consequences, this case presents one of the most significant legal issues currently facing the financial-services industry. Because the Second Circuit’s decision creates a conflict on such a vitally important question of federal law, and because there is an urgent need to resolve that conflict, the petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.
Brian Korn, a partner at Manatt, Phelps and Phillips, told the LendAcademy blog in an interview that the Court could rule on the motion at any time and that it takes 4 out of 9 justices to agree to accept the case.
The plaintiff, Madden, has until December 10, 2015 to file a response to the petition.
Madden vs. Midland Funding, LLC: What does it mean for Alternative Small Business Lending?
August 13, 2015
On Friday, May 22, 2015, while the rest of us were gearing up for the long Memorial Day weekend, three judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit quietly issued their decision in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC. Though issued to little fanfare, the decision, if upheld on appeal—may lead to significant changes in consumer and commercial lending by non-bank entities.
Loans that were previously only subject to the usury laws of a single state may now be subject to more restrictive usury laws of multiple jurisdictions. Commercial transactions that could be affected include short-term loans by a number of alternative small business lenders.
The Case
The plaintiff, Saliha Madden, opened a credit card account with a national bank in 2005. Three years later, Madden’s account was charged off with an outstanding balance. The account was later sold to Midland Funding, LLC, a debt purchaser.
In November 2010, Midland sent a collection letter to Madden’s New York residence informing her that interest was still accruing on her account at the rate of 27% per year. In response, Madden filed a class action lawsuit against Midland and its servicer. In her complaint, Madden alleged that Midland had violated state and federal laws by attempting to collect a rate of interest that exceeded the maximum rate set by New York State’s usury laws. Midland countered that as a national bank assignee, it was entitled to the preemption of state usury laws granted to national banks by the National Bank Act (the “NBA”). The district court agreed with Midland and entered judgment in its favor. Madden appealed to the Second Circuit.
After reviewing the record, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court found that the NBA’s preemption provision did not apply to Midland as a mere bank assignee. Instead, the court held that in order “[t]o apply NBA preemption to an action taken by a non-national bank entity, application of state law to that action must significantly interfere with a national bank’s ability to exercise its power under the NBA.”
The court explained that the NBA’s preemption protections only apply to non-bank entities performing tasks on a bank’s behalf (e.g. bank subsidiaries, third-party tax preparers). If a bank assignee is not performing a task on a national bank’s behalf, the NBA does not protect the assignee from otherwise applicable state usury laws. Therefore, as Midland’s collection efforts were performed on its own behalf and not on behalf of the national bank that originated Madden’s account, the appellate court found that New York’s usury laws were not preempted and that Midland could be subject to New York’s usury restrictions.
Usury Law Compliance
The Madden decision undermines a method of state usury law compliance that I’ll refer to as the “exportation model”. In a typical exportation arrangement, a non-bank lender contracts with a national bank to originate loans that the lender has previously underwritten and approved. After a deal has been funded, the bank sells the loan back to the lender for the principal amount of the loan, plus a fee for originating the deal.
1F.3d —, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8483 (2d Cir. N.Y. May 22, 2015).
The exportation model allows non-bank lenders to benefit from the preemption protections granted to banks under the NBA. Specifically, the NBA provides that a national bank is only subject to the laws of its home state. This provision allows a bank to ‘export’ the generally less restrictive usury laws of its home state to other states where it does business. As bank assignees, lenders that have purchased loans from a bank are only subject to the laws of the originating bank’s home state. This exemption saves these non-bank lenders from having to engage in a state-by-state analysis of applicable usury laws.
The Madden decision, however, casts doubt on the ability of these non-bank assignees to benefit from the NBA’s preemption protections. The Second Circuit’s decision makes clear that non-bank assignees that are not performing essential acts on a bank’s behalf—which would seem to include alternative small business lenders—are not entitled to NBA preemption and are subject to the usury laws of the bank’s home state as well as any otherwise applicable state’s
usury laws.
Aftermath
While the Court of Appeals’ decision foreclosed Midland’s preemption argument, other issues remained unresolved. Specifically, the circuit court did not decide whether the choice-of-law provision in Madden’s cardholder agreement—which provided that any disputes relating to the agreement would be governed by the laws of Delaware—would prevent Madden from alleging violations of New York State usury law.
In the district court proceeding, both parties had agreed that if Delaware law was found to apply, the 27% interest rate would be permissible under that state’s usury laws. The district court, however, did not address the choice-of-law issue because the court had found that the NBA’s preemption protections were sufficient grounds upon which to resolve the case. As the issue had not been addressed, the circuit court remanded the case back to the district court to decide which state’s law controlled.
But before sending the case back down, the appellate court made two points worth noting. First, the court stated that “[w]e express no opinion as to whether Delaware law, which permits a ‘bank’ to charge any interest rate allowable by contract…would apply to the defendants, both of which are non-bank entities.” The court’s statement suggests that it may not have completely agreed with the parties that 27% would be a permissible interest rate under Delaware law.
Second, the court highlighted a split in New York case law on the enforceability of choice-of-law provisions where claims of usury are involved. Generally, courts will refuse to enforce a choice-of-law provision if the application of the chosen state’s law would violate a public policy of the forum state. As usury is sometimes considered an issue of public policy, the enforceability of such clauses is commonly a point of contention in usury actions. The cases cited by the Court of Appeals show that some courts in New York have enforced choice-of-law provisions—even where the interest rate permitted by the chosen state would violate New York’s usury laws—while other New York courts have refused to enforce such provisions in light of public policy concerns.
New York, however, is by no means the only state with usury laws that are less than straightforward. The general complexity of state usury laws is evidenced by the circuit court’s hesitation to agree with Madden’s concession that a 27% interest rate would be permissible under Delaware law. The court made clear that an argument could be made that the rate was usurious under both New York and Delaware law.
Madden’s Impact
An important legal principle that was not addressed in either the district or circuit court proceedings is the ‘valid when made’ doctrine of assignment law. The ‘valid when made’ doctrine provides that a loan that is valid at the time it is made will remain valid even if the loan is subsequently assigned. This doctrine may have led to a different outcome in the case had Midland argued it before the district or circuit court. Midland is now appealing the Second Circuit’s decisions and many expect a ‘valid when made’ argument to be a primary point of Midland’s appeal (SEE NOTE BELOW). If this argument is successful, the practical impact of Madden would be greatly diminished.
NOTE: The Second District Court rejected a request to rehear the case. Read that decision here.
In the meantime, the Madden decision will likely increase the importance of choice-of-law analysis in relation to usury law. Assignees that previously relied on the NBA’s preemption provision as a method of state usury law compliance will now need to address the enforceability of their contractual choice-of-law clauses where claims of usury may become an issue. This analysis is often a complex undertaking because states take varying views of what constitutes usury as well as whether or not usury is an issue of public policy.
While the Madden decision may have been published before the long Memorial Day weekend, analyzing its consequences will likely keep many non-bank lenders (and their attorneys) busy, even on their days off.
Madden v. Midland Appeal Rejected
August 13, 2015Alternative lenders might have reason to lose a little bit of sleep going forward. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit shot down a request for a rehearing of Madden v. Midland. The original ruling stated that third party debt buyers are not covered under National Bank Act pre-emption. That decision had major ramifications for alternative lenders who often rely on banks to issue the loans and then immediately sell them to the “lender” to book and service.
You can read a legal brief of the case here.
Lending Club’s CEO recently addressed this case and he explained that he believed his company would be unaffected because of their choice of law provision.
And Patrick Siegfried, Esq, the author of the Usury Law Blog, has previously said that Madden v. Midland may be the start of new usury Litigation.
Decision below:
Renaud Laplanche on Madden v. Midland
August 8, 2015
In case you missed the comments by Lending Club’s CEO regarding the Madden v. Midland decision, we’ve got the transcript of it from the Q2 earnings call below. A brief of that case was published on AltFinanceDaily back on June 11th by lawyers from Giuliano McDonnell & Perrone, LLP.
Smittipon Srethapramote – Morgan Stanley
And do you have any comments on the Madden versus Midland funding case that’s going through the court system right now in terms of how it potentially impacts your business?Renaud Laplanche – Founder & CEO
Yes, so we’ve seen that case that came out a couple of months ago. I think the –our take there is obviously the particular circumstances of the case are different from what we’re seeing on our platform. But in general what really helps us apply Utah law to most of our loans is really a couple of things. One is for the all preemption. And the second is choice of law provision in our contract. The Madden case really challenged the federal preemption but did not challenge the choice of law provision, so that’s really the – and we don’t need both, we need one of them. So we continue to operate in the Second Circuit district where that decision was rendered exactly as we did before and are relying on our choice of law provisions.Note that this particular case is getting challenged by a lot of players in the banking industry, including the American Banking Association. And I think it’s an unusual case, but certainly that doesn’t come back to us in that the sense that we continue to rely on choice of law provision. If we were to see that the choice of law provision was getting challenged elsewhere which there’s no reason to expect at this point, we could also think of a different issuance framework than the one we’re using now where we would switch to a series of state licenses. And that’s in [indiscernible] we provided in our slide deck that shows that using the current mix we have about 12.5% of our loans that would exceed the state interest rate caps.
So that certainly would be [indiscernible] demand and we’d have to revise our pricing in certain states, but that certainly would be another option available to us if our choice of law provision and federal preemption was getting challenged in other states.
On July 28th, Attorney Patrick Siegfried pointed out that the Madden case could be the start of a chilling trend after a subsequent ruling in Blyden v. Navient Corp. In that brief, he wrote, “Blyden also demonstrates that debtors that become aware of subsequent assignments of their loans may be inclined to use the assignment event as a way to invalidate otherwise legitimate debts.”
Blyden v. Navient Corp: A Glimpse of a Post-Madden Future?
July 28, 2015
A recent US District Court decision out of California offers a rough idea of the usury litigation that may begin to occur if the decision in Madden vs. Midland Funding, LLC ultimately stands.
The case involved a student loan that the plaintiff had received that had been originated by a national bank. The loan charged an interest rate of 10.25% which the plaintiff believed to be lawful because the loan had been made by a bank.
When the plaintiff later learned that her loan had been assigned to a non-bank entity, she instituted a usury class action arguing that the assignee was not been permitted to charge more than 10% interest under California law. She sought to represent a class of borrowers whose loans had been made by the national bank and later assigned.
In an effort to represent the largest class possible, the plaintiff named as defendants various investment trusts that had purchased loans from the bank despite the fact that most of the trusts had never had any interest in her specific loan. While the court ultimately dismissed the case because of pleading deficiencies, it granted the plaintiff leave to amend her complaint and the case seems likely to continue.
What’s noteworthy about the Blyden case is that it is illustrative of some of the possible consequences of the 2nd Circuit’s decision in Madden. In particular, it shows that a large number of unrelated entities may be drawn into extended litigation by a plaintiff that is unable (because of a lack of information) or unwilling (because of a desire to represent the largest class possible) to limit its claims to those specific entities that have had or presently maintain an interest in the loan at issue. While this desire to cast the widest net possible is common to most class action plaintiffs, it seems likely to prove especially true in cases involving securitized products that have passed through numerous investment vehicles.
Blyden also demonstrates that debtors that become aware of subsequent assignments of their loans may be inclined to use the assignment event as a way to invalidate otherwise legitimate debts. The plaintiff in Blyden conceded that she was unable to pursue a usury action against the national bank that had originated the loan because of NBA preemption. She also acknowledged that the original transaction had been legal. Only when the plaintiff later learned of the assignment of her loan to a non-bank entity did she seek to recover the allegedly usurious interest charges.
What may be most disconcerting for assignees about the Blyden case is that it only demonstrates some of the complex consequences that may result from the Madden decision.
Blyden v. Navient Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96824 (C.D. Cal. July 23, 2015)
Legal Brief: Madden v. Midland Funding
June 11, 2015Madden v. Midland Funding, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8483 (2nd Cir. May 22, 2015).
This is an interesting case for the alternative lending industry that deals with the interplay between the National Banking Act and New York State’s usury laws.
The plaintiff borrower opened a credit card account with a national bank, Bank of America (“BoA”). BoA sold the account to another national bank, FIA. FIA subsequently sent a change of terms notice stating that, going forward, the plaintiff’s account agreement would be governed by the law of Delaware, FIA’s home state. FIA later charged off the account and sold it to a third-party debt purchasing company, Midland. FIA did not retain any interest in the account after selling it to Midland and Midland was not a national bank.
Midland attempted to collect on the account and sent the plaintiff a demand letter indicating that there was a 27% interest rate on the account. Plaintiff sued Midland, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and New York’s criminal usury laws. New York law limits effective interest rates to 25 percent per year. The parties agreed that FIA had assigned plaintiff’s account to Midland and that the plaintiff had received FIA’s change in terms notice. Based on the agreement, the trial court held that the plaintiff’s state law usury claims were invalid because they were preempted by the National Bank Act.
The National Bank Act supersedes all state usury laws and allows national banks to charge interest at the rate allowed by the law of the bank’s home state. Midland argued that, as FIA’s assignee, it was permitted to charge the plaintiff interest at a rate permitted under Delaware law. FIA was incorporated in Delaware and Delaware permits interest rates that would be usurious under New York law.
On appeal, The Second Circuit Court of Appeals noted that some non-national banks, such as subsidiaries and agents of national banks, might enjoy the same usury-protection benefit as a national bank. However, third-party debt buyers, such as Midland, are not subsidiaries or agents of national banks. Midland was not acting for BoA or FIA when it attempted to collect from the plaintiff. Midland was acting for itself as the sole owner of the debt. For this reason, the Second Circuit held that Midland could not rely upon National Bank Act preemption of New York State’s usury laws.
Avant CEO: Colorado Decision Framework for Bank Fintech Partnerships
October 13, 2020
After three years of litigation, in August, the Colorado “true lender” case settled with an agreement between the fintech lenders, bank partners, and the state regulators. Along with lending restrictions above a 36% APR, the fintech lenders will have to maintain a state lending license and comply with other regulatory practices.
The decision has been called unfair regulation and a bad precedent for other similar regulatory disputes across the country.
But James Paris, the CEO of Avant, sees the decision as a victory for fintech lenders. Paris said the decision was an excellent framework for fintech/bank partnerships across the nation and a sign that regulators are finally taking the benefits of alternative finance seriously.
“For us, the case also involved being able to continue to provide these good credit products to deserving customers who maybe weren’t being served as well through some of the legacy providers,” Paris said.
Paris called back to the Madden vs. Midland Funding case in the US Court of Appeals Second Circuit decided in 2015. That case called into question if loans made in fintech bank partnerships in the state of New York were valid at the time of origination. Regulators charged that though national banks can create loans higher than state regulations allow, fintech partners buying those loans to take advantage of higher rates were skirting state regulations.
“The ruling was essentially that the loan would not continue to be valid,” Paris said. “Because the individual state in question, which was New York’s local usury law, would apply because it was no longer a national bank that held that loan after it had been sold.”
The decision called into question loans made in the fintech space. Paris said that the Colorado true lender Case was not about whether the banks were even making loans. Instead, fintech lenders were called the true originators and therefore didn’t have a license that allowed them to make loans at higher rates than the state allowed.
Paris said the decision showed confidence that fintech bank partnerships were not exporting rates, and that by limiting lending to under 36%, regulators were protecting bank fintech partnerships and consumers.
“All of the lending Avant does is under 36%, and that’s been the case for years,” Paris said. “In the space where we do play, from 9% to just under 35%, through our partnership with WebBank, we are confident in running a portfolio extremely focused on regulatory compliance.”
Colorado went from not allowing partnerships at all, to working with fintech companies to developing a set of terms that allowed partnerships to function, Paris said. He added that Avant’s products have always been to customers below nonprime credit, from 550 to 680 Fico scores, serviced by up to 36% APRs.
Paris said he does not know about customers outside of this range, or how they are affected by limiting APR to 36%, but he cited a study done by economist Dr. Michael Turner. Turner is the CEO and founder of the Policy and Economic Research Council (PERC), a non-profit research center.
The study compared lending after the Madden case in New York with how customers can be served after the Colorado true lender case. In the credit market Avant serves, Turner found that customers are better off with access to regulated fintech loans, as opposed to not having access at all.
The study looked at the average borrower credit score, APR, and loan size of Avant and WebBank borrowers, and found that if WebBank loans through Avant were prohibited, borrowers would be forced to access other means of credit, through much higher rates.
“Should WebBank loans be prohibited in Colorado, then we can reasonably expect that some non-trivial portion of the WebBank loan borrower population, as well as prospective future borrowers, will be forced to meet their credit needs with higher cost products,” Turner wrote. “This outcome is financially detrimental for this borrower population, most of whom have no access to more affordable mainstream alternatives.”
Given this data, Paris is happy to comply with the regulation. Without the framework Colorado has provided, Paris said borrowers would be worse off. Paris hopes that this decision will precede other state frameworks because what fintech bank partnerships need the most are consistent regulatory practices.
“I’m hopeful that to the extent there are ongoing concerns around bank models across other states, that this type of safe harbor model that Colorado helped develop is something that others could look to as a precedent or a model. Because I think the more that we can have consistency across the relevant jurisdictions, the better.”
2020 and Beyond – A Look Ahead
March 3, 2020
With the doors to 2019 firmly closed, alternative financing industry executives are excited about the new decade and the prospects that lie ahead. There are new products to showcase, new competitors to contend with and new customers to pursue as alternative financing continues to gain traction.
Executives reading the tea leaves are overwhelming bullish on the alternative financing industry—and for good reasons. In 2019, merchant cash advances and daily payment small business loan products alone exceeded more than $20 billion a year in originations, AltFinanceDaily’s reporting shows.
Confidence in the industry is only slightly curtailed by certain regulatory, political competitive and economic unknowns lurking in the background—adding an element of intrigue to what could be an exciting new year.
Here, then, are a few things to look out for in 2020 and beyond.
Regulatory developments
There are a number of different items that could be on the regulatory agenda this year, both on the state and federal level. Major areas to watch include:
- Broker licensing. There’s a movement afoot to crack down on rogue brokers by instituting licensing requirements. New York, for example, has proposed legislation that would cover small business lenders, merchant cash advance companies, factors, and leasing companies for transactions under $500,000. California has a licensing law in place, but it only pertains to loans, says Steve Denis, executive director of the Small Business Finance Association. Many funders are generally in favor of broader licensing requirements, citing perceived benefits to brokers, funders, customers and the industry overall. The devil, of course, will be in the details.
- Interest rate caps. Congress is weighing legislation that would set a national interest rate cap of 36%, including fees, for most personal loans, in an effort to stamp out predatory lending practices. A fair number of states already have enacted interest rate caps for consumer loans, with California recently joining the pack, but thus far there has been no national standard. While it is too early to tell the bill’s fate, proponents say it will provide needed protections against gouging, while critics, such as Lend Academy’s Peter Renton, contend it will have the “opposite impact on the consumers it seeks to protect.”
- Loan information and rate disclosures. There continues to be ample debate around exactly what firms should be required to disclose to customers and what metrics are most appropriate for consumers and businesses to use when comparing offerings. This year could be the one in which multiple states move ahead with efforts to clamp down on disclosures so borrowers can more easily compare offerings, industry watchers say. Notably, a recent Federal Reserve study on non-bank small business finance providers indicates that the likelihood of approval and speed are more important than cost in motivating borrowers, though this may not defer policymakers from moving ahead with disclosure requirements.
“THIS WILL DRIVE COMMISSION DOWN FOR THE INDUSTRY”
If these types of requirements go forward, Jared Weitz, chief executive of United Capital generally expects to see commissions take a hit. “This will drive commission down for the industry, but some companies may not be as impacted, depending on their product mix, cost per lead and cost per acquisition and overall company structure,” he says.
- Madden aftermath. The FDIC and OCC recently proposed rules to counteract the negative effects of the 2015 Madden v. Midland Funding LLC case, which wreaked havoc in the consumer and business loan markets in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. “These proposals would clarify that the loan continues to be ‘valid’ even after it is sold to a nonbank, meaning that the nonbank can collect the rates and fees as initially contracted by the bank,” says Catherine Brennan, partner in the Hanover, Maryland office of law firm Hudson Cook. With the comments due at the end of January, “2020 is going to be a very important year for bank and nonbank partnerships,” she says.
- Possible changes to the accredited investor definition. In December 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission voted to propose amendments to the accredited investor definition. Some industry players see expanding the definition as a positive step, but are hesitant to crack open the champagne just yet since nothing’s been finalized. “I would like to see it broadened even further than they are proposed right now,” says Brett Crosby, co-founder and chief operating officer at PeerStreet, a platform for investing in real estate-backed loans. The proposals “are a step in the right direction, but I’m not sure they go far enough,” he says.
Precisely how various regulatory initiatives will play out in 2020 remains to be seen. Some states, for example, may decide to be more aggressive with respect to policy-making, while others might take more of a wait-and-see approach.
“I think states are still piecing together exactly what they want to accomplish. There are too many missing pieces to the puzzle,” says Chad Otar, founder and chief executive at Lending Valley Inc.
As different initiatives work their way through the legislative process, funders are hoping for consistency rather than a patchwork of metrics applied unevenly by different states. The latter could have significant repercussions for firms that do business in multiple states and could eventually cause some of them to pare back operations, industry watchers say.
“While we commend the state-level activity, we hope that there will be uniformity across the country when it comes to legislation to avoid confusion and create consistency” for borrowers, says Darren Schulman, president of 6th Avenue Capital.
Election uncertainty
The outcome of this year’s presidential election could have a profound effect on the regulatory climate for alternative lenders. Alternative financing and fintech charters could move higher on the docket if there’s a shift in the top brass (which, of course, could bring a new Treasury Secretary and/or CFPB head) or if the Senate flips to Democratic control.
If a White House changing of the guard does occur, the impact could be even more profound depending on which Democratic candidate secures the top spot. It’s all speculation now, but alternative financers will likely be sticking to the election polls like glue in an attempt to gain more clarity.
Election-year uncertainty also needs to be factored into underwriting risk. Some industries and companies may be more susceptible to this risk, and funders have to plan accordingly in their projections. It’s not a reason to make wholesale underwriting changes, but it’s something to be mindful of, says Heather Francis, chief executive of Elevate Funding in Gainesville, Florida.
“Any election year is going to be a little bit volatile in terms of how you operate your business,” she says.
Competition
The competitive landscape continues to shift for alternative lenders and funders, with technology giants such as PayPal, Amazon and Square now counted among the largest small business funders in the marketplace. This is a notable shift from several years ago when their footprint had not yet made a dent.
This growth is expected to continue driving competition in 2020. Larger companies with strong technology have a competitive advantage in making loans and cash advances because they already have the customer and information about the customer, says industry attorney Paul Rianda, who heads a law firm in Irvine, Calif.
It’s also harder for merchants to default because these companies are providing them payment processing services and paying them on a daily or monthly basis. This is in contrast to an MCA provider that’s using ACH to take payments out of the merchant’s bank account, which can be blocked by the merchant at any time. “Because of that lower risk factor, they’re able to give a better deal to merchants,” Rianda says.
Increased competition has been driving rates down, especially for merchants with strong credit, which means high-quality merchants are getting especially good deals—at much less expensive rates than a business credit card could offer, says Nathan Abadi, president of Excel Capital Management. “The prime market is expanding tremendously,” he says.
Certain funders are willing to go out two years now on first positions, he says, which was never done before.
Even for non-prime clients, funders are getting more creative in how they structure deals. For instance, funders are offering longer terms—12 to 15 months—on a second position or nine to 12 months on a third position, he says. “People would think you were out of your mind to do that a year ago,” he says.
Because there’s so much money funneling into the industry, competition is more fierce, but firms still have to be smart about how they do business, Abadi says.
Meanwhile, heightened competition means it’s a brokers market, says Weitz of United Capital. A lot of lenders and funders have similar rates and terms, so it comes down to which firms have the best relationship with brokers. “Brokers are going to send the deals to whoever is treating their files the best and giving them the best pricing,” he says.
Profitability, access to capital and business-related shifts
Executives are confident that despite increased competition from deep-pocket players, there’s enough business to go around. But for firms that want to excel in 2020, there’s work to be done.
Funders in 2020 should focus on profitability and access to capital—the most important factors for firms that want to grow, says David Goldin, principal at Lender Capital Partners and president and chief executive of Capify. This year could also be one in which funders more seriously consider consolidation. There hasn’t been a lot in the industry as of yet, but Goldin predicts it’s only a matter of time.
“A lot of MCA providers could benefit from economies of scale. I think the day is coming,” he says.
He also says 2020 should be a year when firms try new things to distinguish themselves. He contends there are too many copycats in the industry. Most firms acquire leads the same way and aren’t doing enough to differentiate. To stand out, funders should start specializing and become known for certain industries, “instead of trying to be all things to all businesses,” he says.
Some alternative financing companies might consider expanding their business models to become more of a one-stop shop—following in the footsteps of Intuit, Square and others that have shown the concept to be sound.
Sam Taussig, global head of policy at Kabbage, predicts that alternative funding platforms will increasingly shift toward providing more unified services so the customer doesn’t have to leave the environment to do banking and other types of financial transactions. It’s a direction Kabbage is going by expanding into payment processing as part of its new suite of cash-flow management solutions for small businesses.
“Customers have seen and experienced how seamless and simple and easy it is to work with some of the nontraditional funders,” he says. “Small businesses want holistic solutions—they prefer to work with one provider as opposed to multiple ones,” he says.
Open banking
This year could be a “pivotal” year for open banking in the U.S., says Taussig of Kabbage. “This issue will come to the forefront, and I think we will have more clarity about how customers can permission their data, to whom and when,” he says.
Open banking refers to the use of open APIs (application program interfaces) that enable third-party developers to build applications and services around a financial institution. The U.K. was a forerunner in implementing open banking, and the movement has been making inroads in other countries as well, which is helping U.S. regulators warm up to the idea. “Open banking is going to be a lively debate in Washington in 2020. It’ll be about finding the balance between policymakers and customers and banks,” Taussig says.
The funding environment
While there has been some chatter about a looming recession and there are various regulatory and competitive headwinds facing the industry, funding and lending executives are mostly optimistic for the year ahead.
“If December 2019 is an early indicator of 2020, we’re off to a good start. I think it’s going to be a great year for our industry,” says Abadi of Excel Capital.
