PAR FUNDING

This is a search result page



Lending Club Narrowly Avoids Major Transparency Flop

November 18, 2015
Article by:

After many months of Lending Club warning that they would be REMOVING borrower credit data from note listings, they have completely reversed course and ADDED fifteen new credit attributes. On Peter Renton’s LendAcademy forum, one member speculated that this move was made to compete with Prosper for the attention of institutional investors. If true, that would be entirely misguided.

Almost exactly one year ago, Lending Club announced that they were cutting the amount of data points available to investors from 100 to 56. Renton, a marketplace lending evangelist and founder of the LendIt conference, gave it a negative spin in his blog:

It is pretty obvious by now that I don’t like these changes. For quite some time now Lending Club has been reducing the amount of transparency for investors. Now, some changes I completely understood such as removing the Q&A with borrowers and even the removal of loan descriptions. But removing data that investors have been using to make investment decisions is a step too far in my opinion.

I think Lending Club need to ask themselves if they are a true marketplace connecting borrowers and investors in a transparent fashion or whether they are more of a loan origination platform that makes products available to investors. They are certainly moving more towards the latter, I think, and that is a shame for everyone.

The move was seen by many as a way to stop investors from trying to reverse engineer their models and beat their grading system for above average yields. While understanding that perspective, it is mind boggling that they had planned to remove more data points and make the loans on the platform even less transparent. And here’s why…

Walking off a cliffLending Club is a key signatory to the Small Business Borrower’s Bill of Rights, a group of political activists that claim innovative small business lending can only achieve its potential “if it is built on transparency, fairness, and putting the rights of borrowers at the center of the lending process.” With transparency being a focal point of their agenda there, one might find their attempts to reduce disclosure and eradicate transparency a bit hypocritical.

Investors on Renton’s forum who had for months anticipated Lending Club to remove more data points, also viewed it negatively. “I’d have to think hard on whether to continue investing in LC notes without those credit fields — it would be very much like gambling rather than investing,” wrote Fred back on July 8th.

A similarly named user, Fred93, communicated that these data points were all investors had to go off. “We can’t shake a borrower’s hand, feel the firmness of his grip, the sweatiness of his palm. We can’t look a borrower in the eye. We live or die by a handful of numbers, which we hope mean something, on the average,” he wrote.

Clearly some investors weren’t thrilled with the proposed changes. All the while, Lending Club’s co-signatories had been promoting the transparency pledge through speeches, TV appearances, public relation events, and press releases. To be fair, The Small Business Borrowers Bill of Rights is aimed at transparency between business borrowers and sources offering business financing. Lending Club’s planned removal of data was targeted at investors in their consumer notes. It sounds different enough until you consider that 72% of Lending Club’s loans originated in 2014 were funded by investors vastly less sophisticated than the commercial businesses they have pledged to protect. That’s because that money came from consumers, many of whom are unaccredited and went through no screening process. Instead, these investors are presented with a prospectus as if they were buying a stock or bond and stuck with the risk whether they understand it all or not.

These consumers who are legally presumed to be unsophisticated are the very same people that Lending Club planned to reduce disclosures to, all the while heavily promoting to them that they roll over their retirement savings onto their platform. That logic is the very definition of insanity. Obfuscating the reasoning behind certain scoring grades to these investing consumers would be nothing short of unconscionable and would reasonably invalidate any pledge they’ve made towards transparency in other areas.

Lending Club has for now avoided a major flop by reversing course after having added 15 new pieces of data for investors.

Lending Club New Data Fields

While some investors speculated the move had to do with pressure from Lending Club’s institutional investor base. The more likely reason is increasing scrutiny from federal regulators. Less than two weeks ago for example, the FDIC warned banks about marketplace lending and advised them to perform their own underwriting on the loans they buy and not to rely on originator scoring models. A summary of their letter specifically said:

Some institutions are relying on lead or originating institutions and nonbank third parties to perform risk management functions when purchasing: loans and loan participations, including out-of territory loans; loans to industries or loan types unfamiliar to the bank; leveraged loans; unsecured loans; or loans underwritten using proprietary models.

Institutions should underwrite and administer loan and loan participation purchases as if the loans were originated by the purchasing institution. This includes understanding the loan type, the obligor’s market and industry, and the credit models relied on to make credit decisions.

Before purchasing a loan or participation or entering into a third-party arrangement to purchase or participate in loans, financial institutions should:
– ensure that loan policies address such purchases,
– understand the terms and limitations of agreements,
– perform appropriate due diligence, and
– obtain necessary board or committee approvals.

These guidelines conflict with Lending Club’s long sought after goal of getting investors to trust their A-G scoring grades. The banking regulator is advising banks to basically disregard them. “The institution should perform a sufficient level of analysis to determine whether the loans or participations purchased are consistent with the board’s risk appetite and comply with loan policy guidelines prior to committing funds, and on an ongoing basis,” the more complete memo reads. “This assessment and determination should not be contracted out to a third party.”

A law firm with specialized knowledge of the industry, criticized the FDIC’s move when they wrote on their website, “Ironically, given the Treasury Department’s recent request for information, which supported marketplace lending and focused in part on how the federal government could be supportive of the innovations in marketplace lending, we now have a federal banking agency that is creating roadblocks to having banks participate in this dynamic and rapidly growing space.”

Lending Club IRAAsking banks not to rely on marketplace scoring models alone hardly seems like a roadblock, especially when the models are tucked away in algorithmic obscurity, have hardly been around for very long, and would decide the fate of depositor money. And if this directive indeed contributed to Lending Club’s transparency reversal, then it couldn’t have been any more well-timed.

Whether or not the added data points will make any difference to the performance of investment portfolios is irrelevant. If unaccredited investors and/or depositor money are the source of marketplace loan funding, then Lending Club has a responsibility to disclose as much as possible, no matter how little value they believe certain pieces of information are worth. The 15 additional points are a welcome announcement. The question going forward should be, what else can they disclose?

As a company that pledged so strongly to protect corporations from transparency issues in the developing commercial finance market, they should be trying twice as hard to protect the unsophisticated consumers that invest in the loans they approve and make available for investing. Some of these consumers are prodded into putting their retirement funds on the platform and we all know some people will irresponsibly place their entire retirement portfolio in it. The “Number of credit union trades” a borrower has might not unlock the secret to better investing performance but if it’s something Lending Club knows, the investing public deserves to know it too, if only in the name of transparency which they have so committed themselves to uphold…

Marketplace Lending and Investing Conference (Part 1)

November 5, 2015
Article by:

Source Media’s Marketplace Lending and Investing conference kicked off today with a bang. During the opening keynote, two VPs at Goldman Sachs predicted that the industry would shift to retaining loans on balance sheets instead of continuing with the gain-on-sale model. The irony is that OnDeck appears to be going in the opposite direction since their recent path to profitability is being made possible by their new reliance on gain-on-sales.

marketplace lending and investing source media new york

The available solutions presented to small business financing problems at the conference covered the entire gamut. Pango Financial president Candice Caruso for example, explained that small businesses can get funding by rolling over money from a qualified retirement plan. Pango’s model capitalizes on The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), a 40-year old law that can be streamlined with the help of technology. ERISA established the regulation that allows for a private company to use retirement funds as business capital through an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP).

marketplace lending and investing conferenceCompanies like Pango have found a clever way to scale the benefits out of old policies and it’s opportunities like these that have everybody excited. QED Partners founder Frank Rotman summed it up best when he recited his own Wall Street Journal quote, “It feels like the Internet in 2000. Everyone is chasing it, but they aren’t sure what ‘it’ is.”

Rotman also cautioned lenders who are trying to throw money at technology as a fix to scale their businesses. You can’t just throw money at technology, he argued. “Technology needs to be in your DNA.”

For marketplace lenders like QuarterSpot, they fit that bill well. Their CEO Adam Cohen was the Chief Software Developer for JetBlue Airways.

And among some of the other names in attendance, many are on the fast track for success. Expansion Capital Group for example just closed a $25 million credit facility with Northlight Financial and Bastion Management. And there’s also Pearl Capital who was recently acquired by Capital Z Partners. And Herio Capital, founded by one of OnDeck’s earliest employees, recently reached a new funding milestone.

At the end of the day, Anjan Mukherjee, the Counselor to the Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions of the U.S. Treasury Department told attendees not to bank on regulatory interest being forgotten about with a new presidential administration. Certain agendas can be “de-emphasized”, he said, but overall at least as far as the Treasury is concerned, enough important people will not transition away. They won’t forget everything, he explained.

Credibly and BodeTree Announce Strategic Partnership

October 27, 2015
Article by:

Today, Credibly, an emerging Fintech platform that provides a broad range of tailored capital solutions to satisfy the entire SMB credit spectrum, announced a partnership with BodeTree, a leading cloud platform that provides small businesses with real-time access to all of their financial accounts and cash flow trends in one place.

The partnership provides BodeTree’s customers with streamlined access to Credibly’s full suite of business capital solutions. The collaboration will also allow Credibly to further optimize their service offerings, which provide customized funding and financial management options that best fit a small business’s unique needs.

“At Credibly, we believe all businesses deserve the right to access capital, and our partnership with BodeTree makes good on the mission of providing that access to as many entrepreneurs as possible,” said Glenn Goldman, CEO of Credibly. “The insights garnered from the BodeTree platform, coupled with access to funding through Credibly, will help BodeTree’s customers achieve their growth goals.”

To date, Credibly has provided over $200 million of funding to more than 4,500 businesses in over 300 industries. In Q3 2015 alone, Credibly provided small businesses with access to over $26 million, and in the last year, the company has grown revenue 100%, opened new offices in three states, and doubled the number of its employees to 120.

“The integration of BodeTree’s financial tools and Credibly’s efficient and equitable lending process equips even more small businesses with the resources and capital they need to thrive,” said BodeTree CEO Chris Myers. “The spirit of our partnership, and the shared vision of both companies, is truly about helping small businesses.”

BodeTree was developed to fill the gap in business intelligence and financial resources available to small businesses and startups. The company’s intuitive financial management system aggregates and organizes financial information, giving businesses a clear and actionable picture of business health, cash flow, valuation and options for capital.

For information on BodeTree, visit www.bodetree.com, and learn more about the Credibly Partner Program at partners.credibly.com.

About Credibly

Credibly is a best-in-class Fintech platform that leverages data science and analytics to improve the speed, cost, and choice of capital available to all small businesses. Founded in 2010, with offices in New York, Michigan, Arizona, and Massachusetts, Credibly is dedicated to creating a superior lending experience that meets the needs of all small businesses, regardless of product need or credit profile. To learn more, visit www.credibly.com.

About BodeTree

Founded in 2010, BodeTree is an online financial management platform for small businesses, and an alternative to costly accounting services and complex bookkeeping applications. The BodeTree app securely imports data from bank records to automatically generate financial reports, forecasts, and benchmark analyses so owners can confidently take steps to bring their businesses to the next level. For more information, visit www.bodetree.com.

Contacts
Bliss Integrated Communication
Reed Handley, 212-840-0088
reed@blissintegrated.com

Alternative Business Funding’s Decade Club

October 22, 2015
Article by:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WORKING TOWARD THE FUTURE

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

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

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

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

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

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

FINDING WAYS TO BE DIFFERENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE CULTURE OF CHANGE

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

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

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

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

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

ADVICE FOR NEWCOMERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palladium Equity Partners Announces Investment in Fora Financial, a Provider of Working Capital Financing to Small- and Medium-Sized Businesses

October 14, 2015
Article by:

hot dealPalladium Equity Partners, LLC (along with its affiliates, “Palladium”), a private investment firm with over $2.0 billion in assets under management, today announced that one of its affiliates has made a significant investment in partnership with the co-founders and management of Fora Financial LLC (together with its affiliates, “Fora Financial” or the “Company”), a technology-enabled provider of financing to small- and medium-sized businesses nationwide.

Founded in 2008, Fora Financial offers loans and merchant cash advances of between $5,000 and $500,000 to small businesses throughout the country. Since inception, the Company has provided total funding of nearly $400 million to more than 8,000 businesses. It has experienced rapid growth and recently was ranked among the fastest-growing companies in America in the Inc. 5000 list. Fora Financial recently expanded its New York City offices to accommodate its growing roster of over 100 employees as it bolsters key capabilities in analytics and technology and aims to continue to execute on its strategy of delivering capital in a timely and cost effective way.

Fora Financial will continue to be led by its two founders, CEO Jared Feldman and President Dan Smith.

“We believe Fora Financial has developed a highly attractive credit offering and technology platform that have made it a valued provider of financing to thousands of small businesses seeking capital,” said Justin Green, a Principal of Palladium. “My partners and I look forward to supporting Jared, Dan and the Fora Financial management team to continue the strong growth trajectory of the Company, including through new partnerships, expanded product offerings and increased lending capabilities.”

Feldman said, “We are excited to partner with Palladium, a firm with extensive financial services expertise and many years of experience supporting founder-owned businesses.”

Smith added, “With this partnership in place, we are well-capitalized to continue offering the small business community the custom, innovative funding solutions that have enabled us to build this Company into a market leader.”

Terms of the investment were not disclosed. Fora Financial was advised by Raymond James & Associates.

About Fora Financial

Fora Financial offers flexible, working capital solutions to small businesses in need of financing to sustain or grow their enterprise. The Manhattan-based company places a high value on trust and transparency and provides businesses with quick, customized financial solutions utilizing its state-of-the-art technology platforms. Founded in June 2008, Fora Financial has more than 100 employees who have provided nearly $400 million to over 8,000 customers. For additional information, please visit www.forafinancial.com, call (855) 515-2413 or follow Fora Financial on Facebook at facebook.com/Fora.Financial.

About Palladium Equity Partners, LLC

Palladium is a middle market private equity firm with over $2.0 billion in assets under management. The firm seeks to acquire and grow companies in partnership with founders and experienced management teams by providing capital, strategic guidance and operational oversight. Since its founding in 1997, Palladium has invested over $1.5 billion of capital in more than 25 platform investments and over 50 add-on acquisitions. The firm focuses primarily on buyout equity investments in the range of $50 million to $150 million. The principals of the firm have significant experience in financial services, business services, food, healthcare, industrial and media businesses, with a special focus on companies they believe will benefit from the growth in the U.S. Hispanic population. Palladium is based in New York City. For more information, visit www.palladiumequity.com.

For media inquiries, please contact:
Todd Fogarty or Peter Hill of Kekst and Company
212-521-4800
todd-fogarty@kekst.com or peter-hill@kekst.com

FinSight Acquires Stake in Fundry, Yellowstone Capital’s Parent Company

October 7, 2015
Article by:

breaking newsThough neither company has made an announcement, AltFinanceDaily has learned that FinSight Ventures, a venture capital firm that was a late stage investor in Lending Club, has acquired a stake in NY-based Fundry. As reported last week, Fundry is the newly formed parent company of Yellowstone Capital and Green Capital. Combined, they have originated more than $1 billion in small business funding since inception.

It was a small piece of equity, a single digit percentage share of ownership, said a source with knowledge of the transaction. In return, Fundry reportedly got a big boost in their valuation, though we were unable to ascertain a figure.

FinSight participated in Lending Club’s $125 million equity round back in May of 2013 that gave the company a $1.55 billion valuation and put them on track for an IPO. They were part of another equity round with Lending Club in April, 2014.

The transaction with Fundry is a nod to the industry that merchant cash advances have a lot more room to grow and perhaps a signal that Fundry is also on some kind of track.

Who’s On Your Fantasy Funding Team?

September 14, 2015
Article by:

top closerA few years ago, a friend of mine was dropped by the funding brokerage he worked for and put on the waiver wire. He was promptly picked up by a competitor and today ranks among one of the top closers in the industry. It was one of the strangest moves of the season because his numbers had been really good month after month. It turned out that he was turned loose for earning too much money, something the firm wasn’t content with.

Even though he was compensated on a commission-only basis, he was apparently putting the company over their salary cap. That of course begged the question, why was there a compensation cap for a top performer, somebody who was directly leading to the firm’s growth? For what it’s worth, he was entitled to approximately 20% of the company’s gross commission revenue. So on every deal funded the company took home the other 80% of the commission. This worked for both parties until the closer started earning well into the six figures, at which point they told him he wasn’t allowed to earn more than a certain amount.

Although discouraged by the sudden limitation, he continued to work hard to prove why the cap should be removed. It wasn’t. Soon afterward he found himself on the waiver wire.

He was replaced by two rookies fresh out of college who were willing to do the same job for a lot less, but neither had any experience in the field.

As someone who has been active in this industry for nearly a decade, I’ve watched this scenario play out dozens of times.

  1. Firm needs top talent to grow
  2. Firm hires Talent
  3. Talent produces
  4. Firm grows
  5. Firm doesn’t like that Talent is making so much
  6. Firm fires Talent or Talent quits

As the firms gallop off to the next scouting combine to find somebody younger and more malleable, the pool of experienced talent is dispersed across a sea of competitors. A consequence of this is that each of those companies become more evenly matched and it becomes increasingly difficult to stand apart from the crowd.

At trade shows and happy hours, it’s not uncommon for top players to openly question what would happen if they all joined forces to create a funding dream team of sorts. And while such cohesion rarely actually happens, I can’t help but imagine if given the opportunity to build the best team to win, who I would pick.

Top talent is expensive. I know this because I recently spent 89% of my budget in a fantasy football auction draft to acquire just three players. And last year I spent a similar percentage on only four players and won the entire league. My thought process was to build a team that was centered around the best of the best. Previous years of conservative play led to mediocre results and I wanted to change that.

Today, there are hundreds of alternative business financing companies and thousands that can be considered brokers. There’s a lot of decent teams out there but few that are built around a group of all stars. And oddly, some companies seem to be dumping their best and brightest on purpose, just like I described previously. That might lead to improved margins for the firm, but probably won’t help them win in the long run.

fantasy funder

Here’s something to think about while you’re watching Monday Night Football. If you had to build your company around a core group of talented people, who would you pick? Don’t worry about whether or not they’re available or if they fit into your budget. Those are obstacles that can be overcome.

Here’s a list of positions to help you imagine your fantasy funder:

  • 1 Senior Manager
  • 2 Underwriters
  • 2 Closers
  • 1 Flex Spot
  • 1 Admin
  • 1 Collector
  • 1 Tech Person

Good luck!

Alternative Funding: Over The Top Down Under

September 2, 2015
Article by:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“AUSTRALIANS RESIST ADVANCES IF TOO MANY FEES ARE ATTACHED”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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