Affirm Continues Surge after Exclusive Amazon Deal
August 30, 2021
In a move announced Friday that can change the way consumers interact with the largest online retailer, Amazon and Affirm have partnered together to bring flexible payment options to Amazon customers. A leader in the buy-now-pay-later (BNPL) space, Affirm saw share prices soar as high as 40% Monday morning after inking the exclusive agreement.
According to the deal, Affirm plans to offer financing options for purchases greater than $50 for qualified Amazon customers. Buyers are approved, given the cost of financing and the price of their product prior to purchase upfront, and allowed to make payments via installments on those products. Customers who choose to finance through Affirm will not be charged any late or hidden fees.
“By partnering with Amazon we’re bringing the transparency, predictability and affordability that Affirm provides today to the millions of people who shop on Amazon.com in the U.S.,” said Eric Morse, Senior Vice President of Sales at Affirm in a press release. “Offering Affirm’s alternative to credit cards also delivers more of the payment choice and flexibility consumers on Amazon want.”
After an exclusive deal with Walmart in February of 2019, the company is continuing their attempt at a market takeover by striking a deal with Apple’s Canadian market and Shopify in the states — both within the last month. Affirm is quickly beginning to show dividends by putting together some of the largest exclusive flexible payment option deals out there.
With competition heating up in the BNPL industry, Affirm isn’t the only one trying to incorporate exclusive deals with large markets. Square, a company founded by Twitter’s Jack Dorsey recently acquired the Australian firm Afterpay for $29 billion. Paypal has also made their presence known by offering similar services. With a market cap at over $26 billion, Affirm will be in the fight to compete in the flexible payment option space. With competition from companies like Paypal and moguls like Dorsey, Affirm CEO Max Lechvin is in familiar territory. Prior to starting Affirm, Lechvin was a co-founder at Paypal.
With transparency a major component of their business model, Affirm customers may begin to spend more while initially paying less, a move that can provide a better experience for customers— something that seems like a no-brainer for any company selling pricey consumer-based products.
Square Loans (Formerly Square Capital) Originated $627M in Small Business Loans in Q2
August 4, 2021
Square Loans, the lending arm of the fintech bank Square, originated $627M of its Flex Loans in Q2, according to the company’s latest announcement. That brings the year-to-date total to $1.02B across 167,000 loans. The numbers produce a rough average of only $6,000 per loan.
“After pausing flex loan offers from early March to late July of 2020, we continued to expand loan offers during the second quarter behind improvements in underlying Seller GPV trends, nearing pre-pandemic quarterly origination levels for core flex loans,” the company said.
Square is on pace to meet or eclipse its pre-covid volume. (It originated $2.3B in 2019.)
Square touted much bigger news in the past few days, however, its planned acquisition of Australia-based Afterpay in a $29B all stock deal.
ODX Merges with Fundation
February 25, 2021
The ODX brand from OnDeck is splitting off to combine with Fundation, forming a new SMB digital banking company called Linear Financial Technologies.
The news follows the recent disclosure from Enova that it was looking to divest ODX in addition to OnDeck Canada and OnDeck Australia.
The new firm, headed by the current CEO of Fundation, Sam Graziano, will be an online banking service provider. Linear will take on Fundation’s service of processing loans for big and small banks, reportedly processing a total of $13 billion.
“Over the years, our combined platforms have served hundreds of thousands of business customers through many of the leading business banking providers in the market, deploying modern banking experiences that their customers and front-line colleagues expect in the digital era,” said Graziano in the published announcement. “Together as Linear, we’ll have the resources to more rapidly expand the breadth of our solutions to bring more value to our clients.”
Enova will retain a minority stake in the new firm.
Capify Announces $10 Million Equity Round As Well As Continued Support From Goldman Sachs Merchant Banking Division
September 30, 2020
Access To Business Loans Especially During COVID-19 Pandemic
(Manchester, England and Sydney, Australia) – Capify (http://www.capify.co.uk, http://www.capify.com.au ), a leading fintech small business lending platform, today announced it has closed a $10 million equity round as well as continued support from Goldman Sachs Merchant Banking Division through its existing credit facilities.
“The fact that we were able to raise $10 million for an online small business lender in the midst of a global pandemic from sophisticated investors with industry experience speaks to Capify’s business model, the unprecedented opportunity ahead of us and its management team,” said David Goldin, Founder and CEO of Capify.
Continued, Mr. Goldin, “We believe demand by small businesses seeking access to unsecured capital will be at unprecedented levels because most businesses have already accessed the government backed business loan programs in the UK and Australia market but will still need additional capital – as do the many businesses that didn’t qualify for the Government guaranteed programs and are seeking much needed working capital to grow.”
In addition, Capify is actively seeking partnerships with companies with large small business customer bases to provide much needed financing to their small business customers, thus allowing them access to capital to purchase goods / services which have proven financially difficult during this challenging time. Furthermore, we are looking for opportunities where we can assist our industry peers who don’t have access to capital during this time by providing capital to their customer base.
Capify’s 12 year presence in the UK and Australia market is more relevant than ever as small businesses demand for access to capital to navigate through COVID-19 is at an all time high. According to John Rozenbroek, COO / CFO of Capify, “It is crucial at this time that small businesses are aware of alternative funding solutions to support cash flow or invest in their future. Capify is one of the few online small business lending platforms in the marketplace that can actively provide non-government backed business loans at scale to small businesses seeking working capital to grow their business. ”
About Capify
Capify is an online lender that provides flexible financing solutions to small businesses in the UK and Australia seeking working capital to sustain or grow their business. The fintech company has been operating in the UK and Australia market for over 12 years.
For more details about Capify, visit
Capify UK: http://www.capify.co.uk
Capify Australia: http://www.capify.com.au
Capify UK Media Contact:
Ian Wood, Marketing Director
iwood@capify.co.uk
+44 0161 393 9536
Capify Australia Media Contact:
Nandita Graham, Senior Marketing Manager
ngraham@capify.com.au
+61 433 511 653
Capify CEO David Goldin on New $10 Million Equity Round
September 30, 2020
Capify, a leading international small business lending platform, announced a $10 million equity round this week from a new investment group with vast experience in the alternative lending industry.
“[investors were] diligent seeing Capify, the management team, and the opportunity,” Goldin said. “They thought it was a very good investment, particularly how Capify’s portfolio performed during the pandemic.”
Goldin said the capital is a great “restart of the engine” after the cautious approach the company took to lending at the height of the pandemic. The money is not an equity round from current investors, but rather new capital joining the team.
The funding will be directed toward ramping lending back up and extending business partnerships with firms that serve small businesses, as well as direct and indirect lenders.
“So, hindsight is actually better than 2020 vision; no one in our lifetime has experienced the pandemic,” Goldin said. “No one knew what to expect from a risk profile, so we took the conservative approach.”
That approach was to shut down new loans and focus on servicing its current customers. It was a difficult time for the alternative lending industry veteran, but now Goldin said he sees a great demand for capital.
“This was one of the toughest challenges that I’ve experienced ever as an entrepreneur,” Goldin said. “The result really speaks to Capify as a company. People are willing to make that investment, believing in opportunity ahead and not the current times or the past during the pandemic.”
Goldin said that Capify has always been known for its well-performing portfolio, one of the reasons that in 2019 the firm received a $95 million credit facility from Goldman Sachs’ Merchant Banking Division.
Goldin began working in the fintech industry before the word fintech was even coined; in the early 2000s, he started one of the first MCA companies. Amerimerchant started selling loans and MCAs internationally in the UK and Australia in 2008, then rebranded to Capify in 2015. After leaving the US market in 2017 gained Goldman’s attention last year.
“So now that we have the firepower, we believe there’ll be opportunities in these markets as demand picks up for small business lending,” Goldin said.
IN DEFAULT OR ABOVE WATER: How PPP Saved or Didn’t Save America
July 31, 2020
Kristy Kowal, a silver medalist in the 200-meter breast stroke at the 2000 Olympic games in Australia, had recently relocated to Southern California and embarked on a new career when the pandemic shutdown hit in March.
After nearly two decades as a third-grade teacher in Pennsylvania, Kowal was able to take early retirement in 2019 and pursue her dream job. At last, she was self-employed and living in Long Beach where she could now devote herself to putting on swim clinics, training top athletes, and accepting speaking engagements. “I’ve been building up to this for twenty years,” she says.
But fate had a different idea. The coronavirus not only grounded her from travel but closed down most swimming pools. At first, she tried to collect unemployment compensation. But after two months of calling the unemployment office every day, her claim was denied. “‘Have a great day,’ the lady said, and then she hung up,” Kowal reports. “She wasn’t rude; she just hung up.”
Then, in June, the former Olympian heard from friends about Kabbage and the Paycheck Protection Program. Using an app on her smart phone, Kowal says, she was able to upload documents and complete the initial application in fewer than 20 minutes. A subsequent application with a bank followed and within a week she had her money.
“I was down to ten cents in my checking account,” says Kowal, who declined to disclose the amount of PPP money for which she qualified, “and I’d begun dipping into my savings. This gives me the confidence that I need to go back to my fulltime work.”
Kowal is one of 4.9 million small business owners and sole proprietors who, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration, has received potentially forgivable loans under the Paycheck Protection Program. The PPP, a safety-net program designed to pay the wages of employees for small businesses affected by the coronavirus pandemic, is a key component of the $1.76 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). Since the U.S. Congress enacted the law on March 27, the PPP has been renewed and amended twice. It’s now in its third round of funding and Congress is weighing what to do next.
Kowal’s experience, meanwhile, is also a wake-up call for the country on the prominent role that both fintechs like Kabbage as well as community and independent banks, credit unions, non-banks and other alternatives to the country’s biggest banks play in supporting small business. Before many in this cohort were deputized by the SBA as full-fledged PPA lenders, a significant chunk of U.S. microbusinesses – especially sole proprietorships — were largely disdained by the brand-name banks.
“After the first round,” notes Karen Mills, former administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration and a senior fellow at the Harvard Business School, “more institutions were approved that focused on smaller borrowers. These included fintechs and I have to say I’ve been very impressed.”
Among the cadre of fintechs making PPP loans – including Funding Circle, Intuit Quickbooks, OnDeck, PayPal, and Sabre — Kabbage stands out. The Atlanta-based fintech ranked third among all U.S. financial institutions in the number of PPP credits issued, its 209,000 loans trailing only Bank of America’s 335,000 credits and J.P. Morgan Chase’s 260,000, according to the SBA and company data. Kabbage also reports processing more than $5.8 billion in PPP loans to small businesses ranging from restaurants, gyms, and retail stores to zoos, shrimp boats, beekeepers, and toy factories.
To reach businesses in rural communities and small towns, Kabbage collaborated with MountainSeed, an Atlanta-based data-services provider, to process claims for 135 independent banks and credit unions around the U.S. The proof of the pudding: Eighty-nine percent of Kabbage’s PPP loans, says Paul Bernardini, director of communications at Atlanta-based Kabbage, were under $50,000, and half were for less than $13,500.
The figures illustrate not only that Kabbage’s PPP customers were mainly composed of the country’s smaller, “most vulnerable” businesses, Bernardini asserts, but the numbers serve as a reminder that “fintechs play a very important, vital role in small business lending,” he says.
The helpfulness of such financial institutions contrasts sharply with what many small businesses have reported as imperious indifference by the megabanks. Gerri Detweiler, education director at Nav, Inc., a Utah-based online company that aggregates data and acts as a financial matchmaker for small businesses, steered AltFinanceDaily toward critical comments about the big banks made on Nav’s Facebook page. Bank of America, especially, comes in for withering criticism.
“Bank of America wouldn’t even take my application,” one man wrote in a comment edited for brevity. “I have three accounts there. They are always sending me stuff about what an important client I am. But when the going got tough, they wouldn’t even take my application. I’m moving all my business from Bank of America.”
Lamented another Bank of America customer: “I was denied (PPP funding) from Bank of America (where) I have an individual retirement account, personal checking and savings account, two credit cards, a line of credit for $20.000, and a home mortgage. Add in business checking and a business credit card. Yesterday I pulled out my IRA. In the next few days I’m going to change to a credit union.”
Many PPP borrowers who initially got the cold shoulder from multi-billion-dollar conglomerate banks have found refuge with local — often small-town — bankers and financial institutions. Natasha Crosby, a realtor in Richmond, Va., reports that her bank, Capital One, “didn’t have the applications available when the Paycheck Protection Program started” on April 6. And when she finally was able to apply, she notes, “the money ran out.”
Crosby, who is president of Richmond’s LGBTQ Chamber of Commerce, is media savvy and was able to publicize her predicament through television appearances on CNN and CBS, as well as in interviews with such publications as Mother Jones and Huffington Post. A “friendly acquaintance,” she says, referred her to Atlantic Union Bank, a Richmond-based regional bank, where she eventually received a PPP loan “in the high five figures” for her sole proprietorship.
“It took almost two months,” Crosby says. “I was totally frozen out of the program at first.”
Talibah Bayles heads her own firm, TMB Tax and Financial Services, in Birmingham, Ala. where she serves on that city’s Small Business Council and the state’s Black Chamber of Commerce. She told AltFinanceDaily that she’s seen clients who have similarly been decamping to smaller, less impersonal financial institutions. “I have one client who just left Bank of America and another who’s absolutely done with Wells Fargo,” she says. “They’re going to places like America First Credit Union (based in Ogden, Utah) and Hope Credit Union (headquartered in Jackson, Miss.). I myself,” she adds, “shifted my business from Iberia Bank.”
Main Street bankers acknowledge that they are benefiting from the phenomenon. “In speaking to our industry colleagues,” says Tony DiVita, chief operating officer at Bank of Southern California, an $830 million-asset community bank based in San Diego, “we’ve seen that many of the big banks have slowed down or stopped lending small-dollar amounts that were too low for them to expend resources to process.”
At the same time, DiVita says, his bank had made 2,634 PPP loans through July 17, roughly 80% of which went to non-clients. Of that number, some 30% have either switched accounts or are in the process of doing so. And, he notes, the bank will get a second crack at conversion when the PPP loan-forgiveness process commences in earnest. “Our guiding spirit is to help these businesses for the continuation of their livelihoods,” he says.
Noah Wilcox, chief executive and chairman of two Minnesota banks, reports that both of his financial institutions have been working with non-customers neglected by bigger banks where many had been longtime customers. At Grand Rapids State Bank, he says, 26% of the 198 PPP applicants who were successfully funded were non-customers. Minnesota Lakes Bank in Delano, handled PPP credits for 274 applicants, of whom 66% were non-customers.
“People who had been customers forever at big banks told us that they had been applying for weeks and were flabbergasted that we were turning those applications around in an hour,” says Wilcox, who is also the current chairman of the Independent Community Bankers of America, a Washington, D.C.-based trade group representing community banks.
Noting that one of his Gopher State banks had successfully secured funding for an elderly PPP borrower “who said he had been at another bank for 69 years and could not get a telephone call returned,” Wilcox added: “We’ve had quite a number of those individuals moving their relationships to us.”
For Chris Hurn, executive director at Fountainhead Commercial Capital, a non-bank SBA lender in Lake Mary, Fla., the psychic rewards have helped compensate for the sometimes 16-hour days he and his staff endured processing and funding PPP applications. “It’s been relentless,” he says of the regimen required to funnel loans to more than 1,300 PPP applicants, “but we’ve gotten glowing e-mails and cards telling us that we’ve saved people’s livelihoods.”
Yet even as the Paycheck Protection Program – which only provides funding for two-and-a-half months – is proving to be immensely helpful, albeit temporarily, there is much trepidation among small businesses over what happens when the government’s spigots run dry. The hastily contrived design of the program, which has relied heavily on the country’s largest financial institutions, has contributed mightily to the program’s flaws.
“The underbanked and those who don’t have banking relationships were frozen out in the first round,” says Sarah Crozier, director of communications at Main Street Alliance, a Washington D.C.-based advocacy organization comprising some 100,000 small businesses. “The new updates were incredibly necessary and long overdue,” she adds, “but the changes didn’t solve the problem of equity in access to the program and whom money is flowing to in the community.”
Professor David Audretsch, an economist at Indiana University’s O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs and an expert on small business, says of PPP: “It’s a short-term fix to keep businesses afloat, but it missed in a lot of ways. It was not well-thought-out and a lot of money went to the wrong people.”
The U.S. unemployment rate stood at 11.1% in June, according to the most recent figures released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, about three times the rate of February, just before the pandemic hit. The BLS also reported that 47.2% of the U.S. population – nearly half –was jobless in June. Against this backdrop, SBA data on PPP lending released in early July showed that a stunning array of cosseted elite enterprises and organizations, many with close connections to rich and powerful Washington power brokers, have been feasting on the PPP program.
In a stunning number of cases, the program’s recipients have been tony Washington, D.C. law firms, influential lobbyists and think tanks, and even members of Congress. Many businesses with ties to President Trump and Trump donors have also figured prominently on the SBA list of those receiving largesse from the SBA.
Businesses owned by private equity firms, for which the definition of “small business” strains credulity, were also showered with PPP dollars. Bloomberg News reported that upscale health-care businesses in which leveraged-buyout firms held a controlling interest, were impressively adept at accessing PPP money. Among this group were Abry Partners, Silver Oak Service Partners, Gauge Capital, and Heron Capital. (Small businesses are generally defined as enterprises with fewer than 500 employees. The SBA reports that there are 30.7 million small businesses in the U.S. and that they account for roughly 47% of U.S. employment.)
Boston-based Abry Partners, which currently manages more than $5 billion in capital across its active funds, merits special mention. Among other properties, Abry holds the largest stake in Oliver Street Dermatology Management, recipient of between $5 million and $10 million in potentially forgivable PPP loans. Based in Dallas, Oliver Street ranks among the largest dermatology management practices in the U.S. and, according to a company statement, boasts the most extensive such network in Texas, Kansas and Missouri.
Meanwhile, the design of the program and the formula for the looming forgiveness process is proving impractical. As it currently stands, loan forgiveness depends on businesses spending 60% of PPP money on employees’ wages and health insurance with the remaining 40% earmarked for rent, mortgage or utilities.
Many businesses such as restaurants and bars, storefront retailers and boutiques – particularly those that have shut down — are preferring to let their employees collect unemployment compensation. “Business owners had a hard time wrapping their heads around the requirement of keeping employees on the payroll while they’re closed,” notes Detweiler, the education director at Nav. “They have other bills that have to be paid.”
The forgiveness formula remains vexing for businesses where real estate costs are exorbitant, particularly in high-rent cities such as New York, Boston, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and Chicago. Tyler Balliet, the founder and owner of Rose Mansion, a midtown Manhattan wine-bar promising an extravagant, theme-park experience for wine enthusiasts, says that it took him a month and a half to receive almost $500,000 from Chase Bank. Unfortunately, though, the money isn’t doing him much good.
“I have 100 employees on staff, most of whom are actors,” he says. “We shut down on March 13. I laid off 95 employees and kept just a few people to keep the lights on.”
At the same time, his annual rent tops $1 million and the forgivable amount in the PPP loans won’t even cover a month’s rent. “I haven’t paid rent since March and I’m in default,” Balliet says. “Now I’m just waiting to see what the landlord wants to do.”
Like many business owners, Balliet financed much of his venture with credit card debt, which creates an additional liability concern, notes Crozier of the Main Street Alliance. “It’s very common for borrowers to have signed personal guarantees in their loans using their credit cards,” she says. “As we get closer to the funding cliff and as rent moratoriums end,” she adds, “creditors are coming after borrowers and putting their personal homes at risk.”
Mark Frier is the owner of three restaurants in Vermont ski towns, including The Reservoir — his flagship — in Waterbury. In toto, his eateries chalked up $6.5 million in combined sales in 2019. But 2020 is far different: the restaurants have not been open since mid-March and he’s missed out on the lucrative, end-of-season ski rush.
Consequently, Frier has been reluctant to draw down much of the $750,000 in PPP money he’d secured through local financial institutions. “We could end up with $600,000 in debt even with the new rules,” Frier says, adding: “We live off very thin margins. We need grants not loans.”
As the country recorded 3.7 million confirmed cases of coronavirus and more than 141,000 deaths as of mid-July, PPP money earmarked by businesses for health-related spending was not deemed forgivable. Yet in order to comply with regulations promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and mandates and ordinances imposed by state and local governments, many establishments will be unable to avoid such expenditures.
“What we really needed was a grant program for companies to pivot to a business environment in a pandemic,” says Crozier. She cites the necessity businesspeople face of “retrofitting their businesses, buying masks, gloves and sanitizers and cleaning supplies, restaurants’ taking out tables and knocking down walls, installing Plexiglass shields, and improving air filtration systems.”
Meanwhile, as Covid-19 was taking its toll in sickness and death, the economic outlook for small business has been looking dire as well. The recent U.S. Census’s “Pulse Survey” of some 885,000 businesses updated on July 2 found that roughly 83% reported that Covid-19 pandemic had a “negative effect on their business. Fully 38% of all small business respondents, moreover, reported a “large negative effect.”
Amid the unabated spikes in the number of coronavirus cases and the country’s grave economic distress, PPP recipients are faced with the unsettling approach of the PPP forgiveness process. As Congress, the SBA, and the U.S. Treasury Department continue to remake and revise the rules and regulations governing the program, businesses are operating in a climate of uncertainty as well. Currently, the law states that the amount of the PPP loan that fails to be forgiven will convert to a five-year, one-percent loan — a relaxation in terms from the original two-year loan which is not necessarily cheering recipients.
“One of the biggest problems with PPP is that the rule book has been unclear,” frets Vermont restaurateur Frier, glumly adding: “This is not even a good loan program.”
Ashley Harrington, senior counsel at the Center for Responsible Lending, a research and policy group based in Durham, N.C., argued in House committee testimony on June 17, that there ought to be automatic forgiveness for PPP loans under $100,000. Such a policy, she declared, “would likely exempt firms with, on average, 13 or fewer employees and save 71 million hours of small business staff time.”
She also said, “The smallest PPP loans are being provided to microbusinesses and sole proprietors that have the least capacity and resources to engage in a complex (forgiveness) process with their financial institution and the SBA.”
William Phelan, president of Skokie (Ill.)-based PayNet, a credit-data services company for small businesses which recently merged with Equifax, sounded a similar note. Observing that there are some 23 million “non-employer” small businesses in the U.S. with fewer than three employees for whom the forgiveness process will likely be burdensome, he says: “Estimates are that it will cost businesses a few thousand dollars just to get a $100,000 loan forgiven. It’s going to involve mounds of paper work.”
The country’s major challenge now will be to re-boot the economy, Phelan adds, which will require massive financing for small businesses. “The fact is that access to capital for small businesses is still behind the times,” Phelan says. “At the end of the day, it took a massive government program to insure that there’s enough capital available for half of the U.S. economy” during the pandemic.
For his part, Professor Audretsch fervently hopes that the country has learned some profound lessons about the need to prepare for not just a rainy day, but a rainy season. The pandemic, he says, has exposed how decades of political attacks on government spending for disaster-preparedness and safety-net programs have left the U.S. exposed to unforeseen emergencies.
“We’re seeing the consequence of not investing in our infrastructure,” he says. “That’s a vague word but we need a policy apparatus in place so that the calvary can come riding in. This pandemic reminds me a lot of when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans,’ he adds. “The city paid a heavy price because we didn’t have the infrastructure to deal with it.”
“Panic Induces Panic”: David Goldin on Small Business Funding and the Coronavirus
March 12, 2020With companies in Australia, Britain, and the United States, David Goldin has weathered storms of various sizes and seriousness over the past two decades. Whether it was the recent wildfires that saw state-sized infernos engulf the Australian countryside, the regulatory upheaval that is Brexit, or the unprecedented shockwaves sent by the 2008 financial crisis, the CEO has seen his fair share of global disruption.
So when AltFinanceDaily got in touch with Goldin about his perspective on the coronavirus pandemic, how it compares to what he’s seen before, and what funders should do to combat contagion, he was happy to discuss the insights he’s garnered from twenty years in business.
The following Q&A has been lightly edited for clarity and succinctness:
AltFinanceDaily: Generally speaking, how bad do you think the coronavirus pandemic is going to get?
“I don’t think anyone knows the outcome. I think what you’re going to see is the industry completely change over the next few days. In the last 48 hours you went from mild cancellations to, today alone, the NBA, NHL, and MLB. And Cuomo just announced in New York that there can be no more than 500 people at events, colleges are shutting down left and right, and schools as well. Basically, we’re heading in the direction of shutting down the entire country at some point.
So I think funders have two issues. One is their existing customers, right? And how do you lend in this market? There’s the obvious and the not so obvious, because, for example, a deal that may have been great a few days ago, let’s say there’s a college bar near SUNY Albany, and they just announced this shutting down of schools, that bar may not see any business for who knows how long.
I’m not the CDC, I’m not the WHO, I’m not a medical expert, but I know in life, people are always afraid of the unknown and panic induces panic, but this is just my opinion. So I think once people start getting this virus, which is inevitable, and they recover from it, I think that’s going to offset some of the panic.
I think you’re going to have a couple of more shock factors. I would not be surprised if we learn in the next few weeks that the President of the United States has it.”
And what about our industry specifically?
“I think right now, lenders will say, ‘Well, if I [tighten up], typically what happens in our industry is if a company runs into trouble, it’s usually just that company,’ right? So if they start tightening up, they lose the business.
The entire playing field will be level by Monday or Tuesday of next week, by the latest. I think some of the playbook will be that some funders may take the position to stop funding for the next couple of weeks and look to see what happens because no one knows how bad this is going to get.”
Do you have any advice for funders?
“I think you have to price the risk because I think everyone is foolish to think that the bolts are not going to go off. So you’re either going to have to increase the pricing to the customer or raise the rates to the broker and limit the amount they could charge the customer temporarily for the increased risk your portfolio is now going to take.
I think you need to shorten the term. During the 2008 recession, the industry was at a 1.35 to a 1.37 factor rate, averaging six or seven months. There weren’t too many providers back then going past a year, there really was no such things as a second or third position.
This is a much different world we live in. So I think, unfortunately, some of the platforms that tend to be longer-term players which do one year, two years, three years, even four years, I think they’re going to be in a lot of trouble. Their ships are too far out to sea and I think they’re really going to have to focus on portfolio management and collections.
There’s going to be opportunities in the marketplace for those that don’t take a prudent approach, but I think in the short term people have to shorten their terms, potentially raise pricing for risk, and decrease the amount of capital that they’re taking out of a customer’s gross sales.”
What lessons do you think can be learned from this?
“I think as a platform you have to look at redundancy of capital, and that the time to raise money is when you don’t need it. So I think this could be a lesson for all to perhaps have more than one funding source.
I think brokers are going to really have to diversify. There’s good and bad, I think the approval rates at companies are going to fall through the floor, but I think you’ll get a lot of borrowers over the next few weeks that can typically go to a bank that won’t be able to go to a bank. But you’re going to see a lot of watching and waiting right now. And you’re going to see the industry revert back to where it was a while ago: shorter term deals, pricing in the risk, lower gross sales taken.”
How does this compare to previous crises?
“So I think this one’s a little bit different. It’s affecting everything and your playbook is going to change literally daily. This will be affecting the majority of the major cities. When you’re shutting down things like the MLB, the NBA, the NHL, shutting down colleges and universities, I don’t think this country or the world has ever experienced anything like this for this extended period of time.
Now that doesn’t mean everyone’s going to go out of business, there’ll be a redistribution. For example, if it was a restaurant in midtown Manhattan that relied a lot on people going from work, and these people are now working from home, perhaps their local restaurants or supermarket may see an uptick in business.
I think you’re going to see decisions slowing down and really digging a lot deeper into the underwriting, understanding what the business actually does, how it’s potentially affected.”
What should funders be doing to combat contagion?
“They should be testing a disaster recovery plan to work remotely.
But most importantly it’s really about everyone being healthy, helping their families and their employees. That’s first and foremost.”
Open Banking: Canada Might Not Be Able to Make Up for Lost Time
January 22, 2020
Over the last two years, open banking has become a matter of public conversation in Canada. Most would agree there is overwhelming support for the implementation of an open banking regime. So why has nothing concrete happened yet?
2019 turned out to be an exciting, yet painfully underwhelming year for open banking in Canada. The news media finally caught on to the movement and started publishing stories on the rise of robo-advisor apps, or how small and medium-sized businesses would be impacted, and so forth. Experts and industry leaders pitched in with a massive volume of op-eds, most of which were in support of open banking, and with many deploring Canada’s slowness. Some came to our podcast to discuss their perspective (spoiler: customer-centricity is a very big theme.)
Another telling sign of the importance of open banking is the fact that at the federal level, both the legislative and executive arms of the government have become actively engaged in the public conversation. The Senate of Canada’s committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce produced a well-researched report — perhaps the most valuable contribution to the conversation. This report calls for swift action on the part of the federal government to advance a regulatory framework for open banking. In parallel, the Department of Finance’s appointed advisory committee on open banking held a consultation with key stakeholders and should publish its own report in the near future.
Even to a casual observer, there was an obvious sense that Canada is ready to embrace open banking.
But here’s the thing: despite all this work and evidence of widespread support, Canada didn’t move the needle on open banking in any concrete way.
Who’s leading?
The UK has already implemented a comprehensive open banking regime, and continental Europe is close behind. Dozens more countries are working toward their own versions. Among the various geographies moving in this direction, some are opting for a government-led approach, the UK probably being the best example. Others, like the US, tend to be more market-driven. In Canada, the main stakeholders are still largely hesitant about where to strike the balance between the two approaches — and the result is that so far, both have failed to provide the leadership that would allow open banking to move forward.
The Department of Finance’s advisory committee was tasked to study the “merits of open banking”. This line of inquiry feels very old, and for good reason: to question whether we should have open banking or not is a false debate, and a time-wasting rabbit hole. The real question Canada should be asking itself when it comes to open banking is, “what is the objective we want to achieve here?”
Let’s take a few steps back to realize just how important this question is.
The UK had a very clear vision for their open banking regime. The Competition and Markets Authority had assessed that the oligopolistic dynamics of the banking sector were putting consumers at a disadvantage. Thus, the UK set on their open banking journey with a very precise objective in mind: make it easier for consumers to switch providers. While some take great pride in criticizing the UK’s implementation — stating that its objective was either wrong, too narrow, or poorly executed — the fact remains that they are ahead of the pack. And the UK’s leadership in this area still persists, with the Financial Conduct Authority now studying the question of extending the current open banking regime into a holistic open finance regime.
Meanwhile, in Canada, the government is trying to wrap its head around the big questions, such as the liability framework that should be put in place for an open banking regime to be viable. (In other words, in a system where financial services are decentralized, how do we go about making the consumer whole when something goes wrong?) However, without a decision on what end state we are looking to achieve with open banking, these conversations are doomed to keep looking exactly like they’re looking now: a bunch of market actors with conflicting interests pretending they know what’s best for consumers. Conversations happening in industry groups aren’t much more productive, with the “trench war” dynamics being the trend there as well.
The irony is that the technical aspects of open banking can be dealt with easily. From a technical standpoint, financial data-sharing APIs have proven their effectiveness, and coming up with a shared technical standard should not be too difficult. The real challenge is coming up with a framework everyone — incumbents and new entrants alike — can rally behind, something industry groups have largely been ineffective at.
Canada’s highly concentrated financial services sector is a stable one, but incumbents are not likely to open themselves up to disruption. This is the part where bold political leadership is required.
The clock is ticking
Data sharing is nevertheless picking up, as 4 million Canadians (and counting) have made fintech apps a part of their financial lives. Consumers and businesses who want the benefits of on-demand data sharing must rely on the current generation of financial aggregators, like Flinks. This system may work as a de facto connectivity layer, but the lack of standards results in a clumsy patchwork of bilateral deals between aggregators and banks. It just isn’t a viable way to achieve an open banking regime that levels the playing field when it comes to data portability.
In its report, the Senate’s Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce states that Canada “risks falling behind” if it fails to implement open banking, and that “without swift action, Canada may become an importer of financial technology rather than an exporter.” It is true that if we keep delaying open banking, our slowness will prove to be a very stingy and lasting price to pay for the Canadian society; this is why we need bold action now. We can’t afford the comfort of waiting until we’ve figured out the 100% perfect solution.
There’s nothing like a real-world example: 2020 opened with a seismic shift when financial giant Visa acquired Plaid, one of the largest US financial aggregators, for over five billion USD. This is hinting at a new phase where markets will consolidate around a few large players; Canada can either ride the tide or get towed under.
It’s time to be bold
In the end, what needs to happen for Canada to move forward with open banking?
Our financial services sector can be compared to those of the UK and Australia, where a few powerful banks control a very large portion of the market. In those two countries, open banking was designed to stimulate competition, and government action was necessary to get things moving.
Right now, the question politicians ought to ask shouldn’t be if — or even how — but why. A why will pave the way and provide a natural direction to sort out the how. In 2019, discussions around open banking lacked this fundamental feature: political leadership centered on a bold, ambitious, consumer-centric mission statement. A why.
So here’s one for 2020: open banking will increase consumers’ choice when it comes to financial services. That would be a good start — and while good is not perfect, it still beats nothing by a landslide.





























