The Madden Decision, Three Years Later
February 18, 2018
At first, reversing the 2015 Madden v. Midland Funding court decision, which continues to vex the country’s financial system and which is having a negative impact on the financial technology industry, seemed like a fairly reasonable expectation.
The controversial ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, which also covers the states of Connecticut and Vermont, had humble roots. Saliha Madden, a New Yorker, had contracted for a credit card offered by Bank of America that charged a 27% interest rate, which was both allowable under Delaware law and in force in her home state.
But when Madden defaulted on her payments and the debt was eventually transferred to Midland Funding, one of the country’s largest purchasers of unpaid debts, she sued on behalf of herself and others. Madden’s claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act was that the debt was illegal for two reasons: the 27% interest rate was in violation of New York State’s 16% civil usury rate and 25% criminal usury rate; and Midland, a debt-collection agency, did not have the same rights as a bank to override New York’s state usury laws.
In 2013, Madden lost at the district court level but, two years later, she won on appeal. Extension of the National Bank Act’s usury-rate preemption to third party debt-buyers like Midland, the Second Circuit Court ruled, would be an “overly broad” interpretation of the statute.
For the banking industry, the Madden decision – which after all involved the Bank of America — meant that they would be constrained from selling off their debt to non-bank second parties in just three states. But for the financial technology industry, says Todd Baker, a senior fellow Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and a principal at Broadmoor Consulting, it was especially troubling.
“The ability to ‘export’ interest rates is critical to the current securitization market and to the practice that some banks have embraced as lenders of record for fintechs that want to operate in all 50 states,” Baker told AltFinanceDaily in an e-mail interview.
A 2016 study by a trio of law professors at Columbia, Stanford and Fordham found other consequences of Madden. They determined that “hundreds of loans (were) issued to borrowers with FICO scores below 640 in Connecticut and New York in the first half of 2015, but no such loans after July 2015.” In another finding, they reported: “Not only did lenders make smaller loans in these states post-Madden, but they also declined to issue loans to the higher-risk borrowers most likely to borrow above usury rates.”
With only three states observing the “Madden Rule,” the general assumption in business, financial and legal circles was that the Supreme Court would likely overturn Madden and harmonize the law. Brightening prospects for a Madden reversal by the Supremes: not only were all segments of the powerful financial industry behind that effort but the Obama Administration’s Solicitor General supported the anti-Madden petitioners (but complicating matters, the SG recommended against the High Court’s hearing the case until it was fully resolved in lower courts).
Despite all the heavyweight backing, however, the High Court announced in June, 2016, that it would decline to hear Madden.
That decision was especially disheartening for members of the financial technology community. “The Supreme Court has upheld the doctrine of ‘valid when made’ for a long time,” a glum Scott Stewart, chief executive of the Innovative Lending Platform Association – a Washington, D.C.-based trade group representing small-business lenders including Kabbbage, OnDeck, and CAN Capital — told AltFinanceDaily.
Even so, the setback was not regarded as fatal. Congress appeared poised to ride to the lending industry’s rescue. Indeed, there was rare bipartisan support on Capitol Hill for the Protecting Consumers’ Access to Credit Act of 2017 — better known as the “Madden fix.”
Introduced in the House by Patrick McHenry, a North Carolina Republican, and in the Senate by Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, the proposed legislation would add the following language to the National Bank Act. “A loan that is valid when made as to its maximum rate of interest…shall remain valid with respect to such rate regardless of whether the loan is subsequently sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred to a third party, and may be enforced by such third party notwithstanding any State law to the contrary.”
Just before Thanksgiving, the House Financial Services Committee approved the Madden fix by 42-17, with nine Democrats joining the Republican majority, including some members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Notes ILPA’s Stewart: “We were seeing broad-based support.”
But the optimism has been short-lived. The Madden fix was not included in a package of financial legislation recently approved by the Senate Banking Committee, headed by Sen. Mike Crapo, Republican of Idaho. Moreover, observes Stewart: “Senator Warner appears to have gotten cold feet.”
What happened? Last fall, a coast-to-coast alliance of 202 consumer groups and community organizations came out squarely against the McHenry-Warner bill. Denouncing the bill in a strongly worded public letter, the groups — ranging from grassroots councils like the West Virginia Citizen Action Group and the Indiana Institute for Working Families to Washington fixtures like Consumer Action and Consumer Federation of America – declared: “Reversing the Second Circuit’s decision, as this bill seeks to do, would make it easier for payday lenders, debt buyers, online lenders, fintech companies, and other companies to use ‘rent-a-bank’ arrangements to charge high rates on loans.”
The letter also charged that, if enacted, the McHenry-Warner bill “could open the floodgates to a wide range of predatory actors to make loans at 300% annual interest or higher.” And the group’s letter asserted that “the bill is a massive attack on state consumer protection laws.”
Lauren Saunders, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center in Washington, a signatory to the letter and spokesperson for the alliance, told AltFinanceDaily that “our main concern is that interest-rate caps are the No. 1 protection against predatory lending and, for the most part, they only exist at the state level.”
But in their study on Madden, the Stanford-Columbia-Fordham legal scholars report that the strength of state usury laws has largely been sapped since the 1970s. “Despite their pervasiveness,” write law professors Colleen Honigsberg, Robert J. Jackson, Jr., and Richard Squire, “usury laws have very little effect on modern American lending markets. The reason is that federal law preempts state usury limits, rendering these caps inoperable for most loans.”
While the battle over the Madden fix has all the earmarks of a classic consumers-versus-industry kerfuffle, the fintechs and their allies are making the argument that they are being unfairly lumped in with payday lenders. “Online lending, generally at interest rates below 36%, is a far cry from predatory lending at rates in the hundreds of percent that use observable rent-a-charter techniques and that result in debt-traps for borrowers,” insists Cornelius Hurley, a Boston University law professor and executive director of the Online Lending Policy Institute. Because of fintechs, he adds: “A lot of people who wouldn’t otherwise qualify in the existing system are getting credit.”
A 2016 Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank study reports that traditional sources of funding for small businesses are gradually exiting that market. In 1997, small banks under $1 billion in assets –which are “the traditional go-to source of small business credit,” Fed researchers note — had 14 percent of their assets in small business loans. By 2016, that figure had dipped to about 11 percent.
The Joint Small Business Credit Survey Report conducted by the Federal Reserve in 2015 determined that the inability to gain access to credit “has been an important obstacle for smaller, younger, less profitable, and minority-owned businesses.” It looked at credit applications from very small businesses that depend on contractors — not employees – and discovered that only 29 percent of applicants received the full amount of their requested loan while 30 percent received only partial funding. The borrowers who “were not fully funded through the traditional channel have increasingly turned to online alternative lenders,” the Fed study reported.
The ILPA’s Stewart gives this example: A woman who owns a two-person hair-braiding shop in St. Louis and wants to borrow $20,000 to expand but has “a terrible credit score of 640 because she’s had cancer in the family,” will find the odds stacked against when seeking a loan from a traditional financial institution.
But a fintech lender like Kabbage or CAN Capital will not only make the loan, but often deliver the money in just a few days, compared with the weeks or even months of delivery time taken by a typical bank. “She’ll pay 40% APR or $2,100 (in interest) over six months,” Steward explains. “She’s saying, ‘I’ll make that bet on myself’ and add two additional chairs, which will give her $40,000-$50,000 or more in new revenues.”
In yet another analysis by the Philadelphia Fed published in 2017, researchers concluded that one prominent financial technology platform “played a role in filling the credit gap” for consumer loans. In examining data supplied by Lending Club, the researchers reported that, save for the first few years of its existence, the fintech’s “activities have been mainly in the areas in which there has been a decline in bank branches….More than 75 percent of newly originated loans in 2014 and 2015 were in the areas where bank branches declined in the local market.”
Meanwhile, there is palpable fear in the fintech world that, without a Madden fix, their business model is vulnerable. Those worries were exacerbated last year when the attorney general of Colorado cited Madden in alleging violations of Colorado’s Uniform Consumer Credit Code in separate complaints against Marlette Funding LLC and Avant of Colorado LLC. According to an analysis by Pepper Hamilton, a Philadelphia-headquartered law firm, “the respective complaints filed against Marlette and Avant allege facts that are clearly distinguishable from the facts considered by the Second Circuit in Madden.
“Yet those differences did not prevent the Colorado attorney general from citing Madden for the broad-based proposition that a non-bank that receives the assignment of a loan from a bank can never rely on federal preemption of state usury laws ‘because banks cannot validly assign such rights to non-banks.’”
Should the Federal court accept the reasoning of Madden, Pepper Hamilton’s analysis declares, such a ruling “could have severe adverse consequences for the marketplace and the online lending industry and for the banking industry generally….”
Cleveland Fed Retracts Their Report on P2P Lending
November 18, 2017Here’s something you don’t see every day. A paper published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland about peer-to-peer lending was so dubious, that it has been taken down.
Since working paper no. 17-18 and related commentary on peer-to-peer lending were posted on our website on November 9, the authors have received several questions about the composition of the underlying data set they used in their analysis. In light of the comments received, the authors are currently revising their paper to further clarify the data sample they used in the study. Their revised paper will be posted as soon as it is completed.
– Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland after analysts poked major holes in their findings
P2P Lending evangelist Peter Renton, a LendIt co-founder, was one of the first to challenge it. One issue was a chart purporting to plot delinquency rates in p2p lending going back to 2006.
“This chart shows that the lowest delinquencies from P2P loans occurred in 2006. Really?” Renton wrote on his blog. “I am sorry but this is just plain wrong and I challenge the authors to show me the actual data this is based upon. In 2006, the only consumer P2P lending (or any significant online lending) platform in existence in this country was Prosper and their 2006 vintage was terrible.”
Nat Hoopes, executive director of the Marketplace Lending Association (MLA), was even more vocal. In an op-ed he wrote for American Banker, Hoopes says, “In our view, this paper — ‘The Taste of Peer-to-Peer Loans’ — and its accompanying materials show that a lack of precision and understanding of subject matter can result in significant inaccuracies. The report’s authors presented findings that seemed to reflect issues with the P-to-P industry, but they actually relied on data from a much broader category of loans. The result was a misleading and brutally critical report about the P-to-P industry that was actually based in part on data from more traditional loans.”
Online lenders had reason to fret over the report as the Cleveland Fed did more than just publish charts. “P2P loans resemble predatory loans in terms of the segment of the consumer market they serve and their impact on consumers’ finances,” the Fed concluded. “Given that P2P lenders are not regulated or supervised for antipredatory laws, lawmakers and regulators may need to revisit their position on online-lending marketplaces.”
The worst offense, according to MLA’s Hoopes, was that the data the Cleveland Fed relied on was not even p2p lending data. A senior VP at Transunion had reportedly admitted that the data used comprised of both traditional loans and online loans that had been requested by the Fed a long time ago to use for a different study.
Oops.
Lights, Camera, Crypto-Transaction – How a Lending Journalist Raised Millions to Build Magic Lamps Through the Murky World of Initial Coin Offerings
November 15, 2017
This past July, the winner of the Best Journalist Coverage category at the 2017 LendIt Conference Awards, announced that he would be stepping outside of his journalistic endeavors to raise money for a futuristic lamp company. The product, dubbed Lampix, is described as a lamp with a projector, a camera, specifically placed light-emitting diodes (LEDs), and a cloud-enabled computer. On the company’s “Medium” blog, Lampix promises that the product is “designed to transform any flat horizontal surface into an interactive computer.”
The man behind Lampix, George Popescu (whose Lending Times news site competed against and beat out fellow finalist AltFinanceDaily at the LendIt Awards), makes for an interesting case study in alternative finance. That’s because Lampix shunned traditional capital-raising methods by relying on an Initial Coin Offering (or ICO), an unregulated blockchain-based corporate event which is similar to an initial public offering. Rather than purchasing shares, as is the case in an IPO, investors in an ICO receive digital tokens instead of shares. In August, Lampix raised $14.2 million through its ICO*.
Popescu’s name popped up again a few months after the LendIt award on a regulatory blotter in the UK.
In case details published by the UK’s Insolvency Service on August 1st, the agency announced that Popescu was disqualified from serving as a company director.
Mr Popescu breached his fiduciary duties to act in the best interest of Boston Prime Limited (“Boston Prime”) and/or failed to ensure that both Boston Prime, as the regulated firm, and him individually, as the approved person, complied with the Financial Conduct Authority (“the FCA”) rules and guidance.
$6.2 million was transferred out of the company to a company named FXDD. Boston Prime’s receiver is presently suing FXDD seeking the return of the funds to the company. Proceedings are ongoing. Mr. Popescu is not under investigation and there are no legal proceedings at this time against Mr. Popescu.
It’s an inauspicious beginning for someone financing the “lamp of the future” using an unregulated and controversial strategy. Even so, when its ICO concluded on August 19, Lampix declared its gambit a success after raising $14.2 million through the sale of its digital tokens, which are known as PIX.**
By mid-November, the market value of those digital tokens, which exist on the Ethereum blockchain, had dropped by 50%, causing Lampix investors to suffer losses of $7 million. Unlike shareholders in publicly traded companies, token buyers have few investor protections. It’s not clear they are even considered to be actual investors at all. Buried in the fine print of Lampix’s 85-page “white paper” – a convenient way to avoid the label of prospectus – is a disclaimer. “Buyer should not participate in the [PIX] Token Distribution or purchase [PIX] Tokens for investment purposes. [PIX] Tokens are not designed for investment purposes and should not be considered as a type of investment.”
Additional disclaimers, moreover, declare that the white paper is not a prospectus, that the tokens “are not securities, commodities, swaps on either securities or commodities, or a financial instrument of any kind.”
But the distinction has not deterred people from joining in the frenzy of buying digital tokens like PIX. So much so, TechCrunch reports companies employing this strategy had raised nearly $800 million by means of ICOs in the first half of 2017.
And the SEC is not exactly excited about ICOs. “Fraudsters often use innovations and new technologies to perpetrate fraudulent investment schemes,” a July 29 directive by the SEC states. “Fraudsters may entice investors by touting an ICO investment ‘opportunity’ as a way to get into this cutting-edge space, promising or guaranteeing high investment returns. Investors should always be suspicious of jargon-laden pitches, hard sells, and promises of outsized returns. Also, it is relatively easy for anyone to use blockchain technology to create an ICO that looks impressive, even though it might actually be a scam.”
On September 29, moreover, the SEC brought an enforcement action against REcoin Group, charging Los Angeles businessman Maksim Zaslavskiy and two companies he controls with defrauding investors “in a pair of so-called initial coin offerings (ICOs) purportedly backed by investments in real estate and diamonds,” an SEC press release said.
The SEC alleges that Zaslavskiy and his companies –REcoin Group Foundation and DRC World (also known as Diamond Reserve Club) — have been selling unregistered securities, and that “the digital tokens or coins being peddled don’t really exist.”
Meanwhile, telephone calls and an e-mail to the SEC seeking the federal regulator’s view on Lampix’s ICO drew a terse response from Ryan T. White, a public affairs specialist, who replied that the agency would “decline comment.”
Deborah Meshulam, a partner in the Washington office of law firm DLA Piper and a former SEC enforcement official, told AltFinanceDaily: “Regarding the lack of equity ownership, Lampix is seeking to establish that the tokens are not securities. Whether the SEC would agree should it decide to look into the offering depends on the facts and circumstances. The SEC staff would look past form to substance to assess whether the sale of the tokens constitutes an investment contract under legal standards. If so, then the SEC would view the Lampix offering as a securities offering. It may be that Lampix (or its lawyers) already vetted the offering with the SEC but I don’t know the answer.”
Popescu tells AltFinanceDaily in an e-mail interview, “We had to respect all securities rules and regulations of course, respect the Howey test and so on. There were no hoops to jump through as we are not trying to avoid anything or prevent anything. We honestly built a token to build a community to help us crowdsource (mine) pictures for all applications among which, Lampix.”
“Each PIX token,” the Lampix website explains, “will be used as a form of payment to picture image miners, voters and app developers or to purchase a Lampix, cloud computing and apps.”
Meshulam also notes that the June, 2017, date of the Lampix white paper pre-dates the SEC’s enforcement activity in this area. She adds, “The statement that ‘token sales or ICOs are not currently regulated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission may be very literal in the sense that there is not a specific regulation, but the SEC has stated that, in the right situation, ICOs are subject to the US federal securities laws.”
Erin Fonte, an attorney in the Austin, Texas, office of Dykema Cox, and the leader of the firm’s regulatory & compliance group, says, “The ICO stuff is so up-in-the-air. The SEC is looking at it closely. But it’s fairly new. And some of them (ICO’s) have been tied to fraud and Ponzi schemes. If a client came to us (seeking advice), we’d want to vet the people behind the offering.”
But what of Lampix, the company that won the Augmented and Virtual Reality category of the South by Southwest (SXSW) Accelerator Pitch Event earlier this year in March – and put a pretty feather in the cap of Popescu?
Popescu’s resume is no doubt impressive. He holds a trio of master’s degrees in various scientific and technological disciplines, including one from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. And he is a serial entrepreneur who lays claim to having founded 10 companies: they include, according to his LinkedIn profile, online lending, a craft beer brewery, an exotic sports car-rental space, a hedge fund, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and a venture-debt fund.
He’s charmed journalists like Forbes contributor Roger Aitken, who declared: “The founders (of Lampix)…believe that Lampix will impact humans as much as computers or smart phones in the future…Think Tom Cruise in Minority Report. Imagine your room in five years: you will be able to use any surface around you as if it was a computer. The ability to transform any surface into an interactive computer (augmented reality) is going to unleash applications we have not even conceived of.”
The Lampix website hyped its ICO with the aid of an infographic listing “active product inquiries” the company has in its pipeline, the likes of which includes Amazon, Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, Sony, IBM, BMW, Bloomberg, PwC, and the Aspen Institute. With all of these names seemingly lining up, it begs the question: Why did Lampix choose the controversial route of an ICO to raise capital?
But it’s hard to determine the seriousness of these corporate relationships. Florin Mihoc, Lampix’s Strategic Partnerships & Development Advisor, said he could not assist us with confirming any of them, citing the slow and cumbersome bureaucracy of dealing with Fortune 500 companies. He did invite us to try reaching out to some of them on our own, which we did.
Bloomberg is one of the few acknowledging a relationship with Popescu’s company. Chaim Haas, head of innovative communication at Bloomberg, told AltFinanceDaily that the New York-based media and financial communications company “collaborated” with Lampix. Bloomberg, he says, “has used Lampix hardware in its fellowship program (Bloomberg AR Fellows) as a prototype for augmented reality applications.” But Haas declined to elaborate on whether Bloomberg’s relationship with Lampix was more than an experimental one.
Edward Caldwell, director of public relations for East Coast markets and sectors at Pricewaterhouse Coopers, the Big Four accounting firm, declined to comment about Lampix. “We can’t discuss individual companies, clients or engagements,” he reports.
Douglas Farrar, senior manager for communications and public affairs at the Aspen Institute, told AltFinanceDaily that he could find no business relationship between Aspen and Lampix. “I have gone down quite a few rabbit holes here,” he said in an e-mail, “But I’m coming up empty.”
When Popescu was directly confronted about this, he wrote, “The companies would only figure [in the infographic] if they actually themselves reached out to us and we exchanged emails with somebody from that entity. Most of these entities have many people and most of the companies’ people will have no idea [that] somebody else in the company is talking to us.”
Telephone calls and e-mail requests for comment to Microsoft were not returned.
A spokesperson using BMW of USA’s official twitter account, however, responded to an inquiry by saying they were a customer of Lampix, “but only for office usage.”
Meanwhile, George Popescu has been on the sales trail. A case in point was his October 5, Youtube interview conducted by Ian Balina, a self-described influential investor in blockchain technology and cryptocurrency – and someone with a reputation as an industry promoter and evangelist. (Balina caters to the get-rich quick crowd and publishes how-to guides trumpeting promises like “How ICOs can make you a millionaire in 3 years” and “make millions with bitcoin.”)
Balina asked Popescu the softball question, could he show viewers a demonstration of the product? Popescu admitted he wasn’t prepared to do that and when he attempted to set one up on the fly, it didn’t work. The incident is notable because Lampix has been promoting the video through its social media network.
Popescu corroborates a number of details about the ICO, however. He confirmed the ICO price of a PIX token to be 12 cents, the US dollar price people had to pay per token. Cryptocurrency exchanges, where token speculators can buy and sell tokens online, show the trading value of a PIX token currently hovering around 6 cents, which translates into roughly a 50% loss in value.
Investors feeling hurt by such a loss can’t contest the purchase of PIX tokens with their credit card issuers. That’s because of a requirement that token sales had to be purchased with ether (ETH), the currency of the Ethereum blockchain. While ether is arguably similar to Bitcoin, it operates on an entirely different blockchain.
To participate in the ICO, in a Youtube video, Lampix also explained to purchasers, for example, how they could first buy ether with dollars through an online exchange known as Coinbase** before forwarding the ether to a digital wallet. Next, investors were instructed to send the ether from the digital wallet to a specially designated PIX address. An automated “smart contract” would then release the appropriate amount of tokens to the buyers’ digital wallets 31 days after the ICO was consummated.
It’s a byzantine procedure. And for investors – especially for those who are not exactly tech-savvy – the rigmarole makes it nearly impossible for them to recover their money should they feel buyer’s remorse. Neither the video nor the Lampix white paper mentions any buyer restrictions. Indeed, Lampix’s white paper specifies that “anyone” in the global market can participate. That means that an investor could theoretically be underage or a citizen of Iran or North Korea. (When asked what steps Lampix took with regards to KYC/AML, Popescu said, we “implemented the standard ones with partners specialized in it.”) Investors could even be citizens of the UK where Popescu is banned from being a company director.
And global they are. AltFinanceDaily interviewed Rudy (whose last name we are withholding), a graduate student who lives in Singapore that says he bought approximately $2,200 worth of PIX tokens during the ICO. The drop in value has gotten him so frustrated that he’s contacted securities regulators in the United States to investigate Lampix. Despite the caveat in the white paper that tokens are not an investment and should not be used for investment purposes, Rudy said he considered himself to be an “investor” and that his reason for buying the tokens was to sell them in the future for a profit.
Popescu, who wasn’t asked about Rudy’s experience specifically, told AltFinanceDaily that Lampix is not selling PIX tokens as an investment but rather to primarily build a community. “What people do with the tokens is their choice and we cannot prevent them,” he asserted.
English is not his first language but Rudy said, “I think that [the] SEC should regulate ICOs in the USA. There are no rules currently, teams can promise anything before the ICO and forget everything after the ICO. Things have to change, there should be legal pressure on crypto teams.”
Rudy added that he was “so enchanted” by Lampix’s ideas that he had promised himself not to sell the tokens for at least two years even if they were losing value. He conceded that he was not a tech expert. But, he says, the award at the SXSW competition was an important milepost to him.
AltFinanceDaily found 700 more people interested in Lampix on the company’s official Telegram channel. The chat history since September 20, which we were able to obtain, has been dominated by talk of the PIX token’s trading value. Those bemoaning the low price regularly use the term “investors” to describe themselves – never mind that the white paper specifies that PIX tokens are not supposed to be an investment or to be used for investment purposes.
The chat’s administrator, who uses the nickname Chester, identifies himself as a “community manager” at Lampix. At one point he too refers to PIX holders as investors. “Hey guys,” he wrote in the channel on October 1, “Lampix is a company, not a single person, we don’t do things that quick, but pretty quick and we try not to confuse our investors by telling you unconfirmed news. Be patient, things will be just fine.”
Laura Toma, another community manager for Lampix, responded to complaints about the depressed price in the channel by saying, “The issue is that people want to get rich in a month.”
Indeed, investors hound not only the community managers, but also Popescu himself, who frequently joins in on the chat and fields questions about the trading price of PIX. “You should care more about the company revenue, clients, users.” Popescu replied to one user.
“Are you serious?” a user calling himself Dante fired back. “We are investors, and we care about the return on investment.” Another user with rough English tells Popescu, “As you know, most people come to ICOs for short-term profit. We cannot deny it.”
Others keep the faith. “PIX will be the real Aladdin’s magic lamp,” writes one user. Another hyperbolically predicts the price will “fly out of the earth, fly to the moon, and finally fly out of the galaxy.”
There is very little discussion about the use of the product itself while numerous inquiries are written in Mandarin. “Lampix has a lot of Chinese investors,” writes one. Other users self-identified as citizens of Russia, Romania, and France. Meanwhile, Toma writes, “Yes, there are investors from USA as well.”
Despite the losses that investors have so far experienced with Lampix, among other concerns, Popescu isn’t limiting himself to just one ICO. According to his online statements, Popescu is connected as an “advisor” to another company engaged in an ICO. AirFox, a Boston-based start-up launched by two Google alumni, provides free data to mobile phone users in return for eyeballing advertising. In early October, Airfox’s ICO raised $15 million. But a month later its AIR tokens, which sold for two cents apiece during the ICO, had lost 75% of their trading value. That means investors in AIR, the company’s ICO ticker symbol (which is becoming an increasingly ironic moniker) have seen more than $11 million go up in smoke almost overnight.
Popescu says in their defense, “The AIR tokens are meant to solve a real problem, of remunerating people who watch ads in exchange of getting more data and minutes on their mobile phone. The ecosystem is still being worked upon, the product is not live. Once the ecosystem is live we will see what really happens. Until then the token is mostly being handled by speculators. The price can therefore vary widely and it doesn’t reflect their true value.”
Even as Lampix and AirFox have been racking up massive losses for investors, Popescu announced on November 5 in a LinkedIn post that he would be involved in five more ICOs.
Among them is DropDeck Technologies, at which Popescu is listed as the chair of the advisor board; its ICO is scheduled for November 21. Another company, Factury, for which he is listed as an advisor, is initiating its ICO on December 15.
He’s an ambitious man.
And his ICO familiarity hasn’t escaped the scrutiny of PIX investors. “I find it strange that you are directing 5 other ICOs,” writes one user in the Telegram chat on November 4. “To make Lampix big, this will require a CEO [who is working] full time working on the project.”
Popescu responds personally. “I am working full time on the project but people have asked me to advise on their ICOs and this grows Lampix’s notoriety a lot in the crypto space,” he writes. He offered further assurances that he wouldn’t be advising those companies’ projects beyond their ICOs.
In an email to AltFinanceDaily, he writes, “I run right now Lending Times, Lampix and Block X Bank only. The ICOs are just customers of Block X Bank. I have built about a dozen companies in 9 years, sold a few, closed a few. Each company has a team to help me, I am not doing this alone. For the ICOs I am more or less involved as an advisor / helping them project-manage their ICOs. How to run 3 companies? It’s about being effective, organized, delegating, partnering and being productive. Oh and I don’t watch TV, so maybe I have a few more hours per day than the average person. I do work long hours.”
Block X Bank, through which Popescu extends his efforts toward other ICOs, is described on the company website as “a boutique investment consulting company specializing in connecting blockchain projects with funding.”
In all of these ICOs, money is seemingly being created out of thin air. A consultant who was hired by AltFinanceDaily to help analyze the technical aspects of both ICOs and smart contracts determined that Lampix raised much more than just the $14.2 million in token sales. In addition to the 114 million PIX tokens sold to investors, our consultant explained, the company also issued 220 million tokens to itself. At the ICO price of 12 cents apiece, those tokens would theoretically be worth $26.4 million – a huge piece of the total ICO pie that Lampix could sell on cryptocurrency exchanges if it wanted to rake in even more money.
There’s a kicker too. At scheduled intervals over the next four years, the smart contract that made PIX tokens possible in the first place is slated to automatically create – and allocate – 330 million new tokens to Lampix. Thus, when Lampix raised $14.2 million in August, the company reserved $66 million worth of PIX tokens for their corporate use.
Popescu said in his e-mail to AltFinanceDaily that these company tokens are for “corporate usage like employee incentives, M&A, other company investments…etc.”
It’s a mind-boggling sum of money for the development of a futuristic lamp whose followers mostly seem to reside on internet chats like Telegram, reddit, and bitcointalk.org.
And this has occurred despite the company’s withholding any information regarding Popescu’s status in the UK. Balina, who interviewed Popescu on Youtube, told AltFinanceDaily he wished he had known about his disqualification in the UK. “This is definitely a big issue and I wish I would have known about it so that either my audience or I could have asked him this directly on the live stream,” he said.
AltFinanceDaily asked Paul Savchuk, Co-founder, CEO, and Chief Product Officer at Cryptocurrency Capital LLC, a US-based hedge fund that only invests in utility tokens as commodities, if Popescu’s ban in the UK would have been relevant information in the Lampix ICO. “Yes, that might be a red flag for us in some cases and require us to perform additional research,” he wrote in an emailed response. “We look at management very seriously – especially since a lot of projects are treated like startups and management is a key component to whether or not many of these ICOs can make it. We try to find such events and spot red flags whenever we conduct our due diligence research on ICOs. The reason: each project has something that needs to be improved. ‘Red flag’ – sometimes conversely can lead to a great opportunity when other market participants ignored it or were too skeptical.”
Mr. Savchuk further said, “Lampix is a perfect example of a coin that on the surface looks very promising, but when you dig a little deeper, you do find red flags that can dampen the excitement for this investment.”
And yet Savchuk spoke rather positively of the Lampix product after reading their white paper. “We believe the project is looking to change the current AR/VR tech industry,” he said, referring to augmented reality/virtual reality. “The project is promising for two reasons. First, they have multiple companies in their pipeline. Second, they have a legitimate product which they will manufacture and sell. They are one of the few blockchain products to offer a tangible product with the ability to disrupt the market.”
“Third,” he went on, “most companies have gaps in building a strong structure at the outset of their existence. Some have bugs in initial code that cause breaches in cybersecurity. Others release product with a low level of usability – the ones who are aware of such problems have a greater chance of success. We would prefer to see publicly known strengths and weaknesses of such companies. Management has to be transparent about their team and product no matter what. Whenever possible, we want to be in touch with the management team.”
With regard to the price drop, Savchuk said, “This is a danger for all purchasers of ICOs. Sometimes it’s caused by token purchasers (swayed by) fear and greed and (hoping for) easy money and fast money. I doubt somebody sold Apple Inc.’s stock right after its IPO. It is also very difficult to restrict exchanges from allowing massive pump and dumps. That’s not even mentioning the difficulty of measuring the value of tokens,” Savchuk concluded. “Consequently, such projects are struggling with low credibility. However, it also creates a possibility for those who believe in the idea and product on a long-term run.”
Popescu downplays the significance of the UK issue. The root of the debacle, he says, is the result of Boston Prime – the company he previously ran – being forced into bankruptcy by the actions of a company he is now suing called FXDD. “FXDD bought the companies and then bankrupted them and that’s why Boston Prime [went bankrupt],” he writes. “Myself personally and each company separately are suing FXDD for this. UK has archaic laws where if you are a director of a bankrupted company you get disqualified from being a director again for a time. Attorneys charge about 40,000 GBP to defend this automatic case and I weighed the pros and cons and decided to ignore it as I have no plans to be a director in the UK for time being.”
Investors unhappy with underperforming ICOs may be willing to challenge their legality. On October 25, for example, a class action lawsuit was filed against Tezos, a computer networking project that raised $232 million in one of the largest ICOs ever. In a complaint, the lead plaintiff alleges that, among other things, Tezos unlawfully engaged in the unregistered offer and sale of securities and fraud in the offer or sale of securities. “In July 2017, Defendants conducted an ICO in which they sold 607,489,040.89 tokens (dubbed ‘Tezzies’ or ‘XTZ’) in exchange for digital currency worth approximately $232 million at the time,” the complaint reads. The plaintiff, who purchased 5,000 Tezzies, feels he was misled about the company and the offering.
Internal squabbling at Tezos which has delayed the release of its product and the sheer amount of money at stake have put the company on the map with the mainstream media and business press. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Fortune as well as news services Reuters and Bloomberg have all covered the allegations of fraud.
The day before the class action lawsuit was filed, moreover, a AltFinanceDaily reporter attended an explosive session at Money2020 in Las Vegas that saw Tezos co-founders, Arthur and Kathleen Breitman, attempting to give a status report of the company. A crowd that had gathered outside prior to the doors opening had attendees speculating whether the Breitmans “would actually show their faces” in the midst of all the drama.
To date, no lawsuits have been filed against Lampix despite the drop in the token’s value.
At a cryptocurrency/ICO meetup in NYC in October, a AltFinanceDaily reporter met with executives at one company preparing an ICO who said they would not allow American investors to participate because of securities-enforcement fears. Pressure is mounting in the Far East as well. Citing their illegality, Chinese regulators in September issued a blanket cease-and-desist order on all ICOs in their country. What that means for Lampix’s Chinese investors bears watching.
Popescu says that Lampix supports regulation in China. “Of course, all Chinese people have to follow Chinese regulation,” he writes.
Meanwhile, on the product front, Popescu says that right now a Lampix lamp can be purchased for $10,000, a tidy sum because they must be hand-made. “We plan to improve the manufacturing costs and then we’re planning to do a kickstarter early next year for around $500 [per] Lampix,” Popescu told AltFinanceDaily in his e-mail interview.
But for investors, it always comes back to the trading value of PIX. On October 25, one investor asks Popescu if the company will buy back its own PIX tokens at the ICO price to pump up their market price. “If you want a pump and dump please go to other companies,” Popescu responds. “We are here for 5-10 years to build a $100 billion dollar company and compete with Apple.”
And it all began with an ICO.
“ICOs also help with bootstrapping the user base – breaking the chicken and egg problem,” Popescu also explains in his e-mail to AltFinanceDaily. “In addition, given that Lampix is looking to crowdsource images, we prefer many different people hold PIX tokens rather than 2-3 VC funds. And last but not least I think tokens are better rewards for the community (liquid, mark to market, etc.) than illiquid instruments.”
Not everyone agrees that PIX is the most liquid instrument to grow the community. US Dollars come to mind, for example. “Let’s say I’m a customer,” one investor poses to Chester, a Lampix community manager. “I want to use the cloud computing service but then I see I have to pay with PIX. I have no experience in crypto and have no idea how to do that. I just want to use your service fast and don’t want to buy PIX coins first before I can make use of it. Will there be a fiat option?”
Chester is awed by the idea. “Well, you are so professional,” he writes. “Man, you are good. You are good, the question you threw just hit the spot seriously. I guess there is always something Lampix needs to figure out and choose the best solution. Technically speaking they are jolly good at this point, but it doesn’t mean it’s perfect.”
Chester, who assures him that he isn’t being sarcastic, goes on to refer to the investor who asked that fairly elementary question as a “big shark” that is “born to bite.”
It remains to be seen if the PIX “user base” shares the same philosophy as Lampix. Ian Balina, who interviewed Popescu on Youtube, separately asked his social media followers: “What’s the first thing you’re going to do once you hit your goals in cryptos?”
The responses fly in:
“Buying my Lambo”
“Travel to Paris”
“Buy an island”
“Buy my mum her dream home”
“Quit my job and start up something for me”
“Pay off mortgage and be financially free”
“Buy house in Miami, buy Lambo, enjoy life”
“Retire”
“Easy. Buy more crypto”
Meanwhile on Telegram, where investors continue to engage Lampix management on a daily basis, Dante offers a sobering reminder of what they’ve bought into, “We don’t have equity, we only have tokens,” he writes. “And we are taking a big risk.”
* The amount of tokens sold multiplied by the 12 cent ICO price doesn’t exactly match the dollar amount Lampix says they had raised. That’s because Lampix not only issued bonus tokens to buyers at each stage of their ICO but also because the market value of ether, which users had to convert to from dollars to buy PIX, had fluctuated when they reported how much they raised. Like Bitcoin, the value of ether is volatile.
** The smart contract Lampix wrote to launch Lampix’s tokens into existence specifically named them PIX tokens and dubbed their publicly identifiable symbol to be PIX.
*** Coinbase is a respected digital currency wallet platform based in San Francisco.
ID Analytics Now Has 85% Visibility Into Online Consumer Lending
October 24, 2017
At Money2020, AltFinanceDaily caught up with Kevin King, Director of Product Marketing and Ken Meiser, VP of Identity Solutions for ID Analytics. The last time I crossed paths with the company was six months ago at the LendIt Conference in New York City. Since then, the company has increased its visibility into the online consumer lending market to 85%.
Because so many lenders, including credit card issuers, are plugged into their system, ID Analytics can view where consumers are applying for credit across the spectrum. That’s bolstered by their visibility into where applicants are in the process with getting approved. “We’re seeing the lifecycle of that application,” said King, who added that it’s possible using their tool that a lender can know where in the process a borrower is with another lender, though without the ability to see who that lender is.
ID Analytics is not a credit bureau, but they can help lenders root out fraud by analyzing among many other factors, the “velocity” of a consumer’s credit applications. An example is the number of credit applications submitted in a short amount of time. It’s important to distinguish what kind of credit it is though, King and Meiser explained, because the way people apply for online loans can be different than how they apply for credit cards.
Meiser shared an example of something that might on its face look anomalous but is actually not, such as when someone moves and all of the sudden there are several credit applications tied to a home address never previously seen on record for that borrower. Are we talking about normal stuff like a store credit card at Home Depot to buy a refrigerator for the new house or is it for multiple loans? was the gist of a point he made.
ID Analytics won’t declare a loan application to be fraud, they just provide the lender with an ID Score®, a real-time fluid score that can signal to a lender to carry out more due diligence depending on the extremity of the score. If someone applies for five loans in one day, for example, that score could go up with each application. Their service helps root out fraud by looking at “leading indicators” rather than “trailing indicators,” they said.
“We’ve seen an interesting shift in how fraudsters are attacking,” King stated. The company is now reviewing about 1 million credit applications a day and can continuously scan for new trends. 7 out of the top 10 credit card issuers use their service, as do many online lenders and phone carriers.
Asked if their service would have anything to do with online lenders asking the occasional borrower to submit a utility bill or other document to confirm their identity all while other borrowers are not asked at all.
Lenders use a lot of their own factors, but if they’re suddenly asking for more documents to prove an applicant’s identity, there’s a good chance that could be because of us, they said.
Confidence in MCA and Online SMB Lending Industry Ticks Up
September 26, 2017The latest industry CEO survey conducted by Bryant Park Capital and AltFinanceDaily showed that confidence in the continued success of the SMB lending/MCA industry is coming back. Confidence had a hit a low of 73.8% in Q1 of this year, the lowest point since the survey started in 2015. In Q3, the number jumped up to 81.3%.
Confidence in being able to access capital at a reasonable cost to grow ticked up only slightly to 79.9%, up from its lowest point in Q1 this year at 78.7%.
The first quarter of 2016 holds the confidence record since the surveying began. Coincidentally, that period is widely considered to be the peak of the online lending bubble. An April 2016 blog post published during that year’s annual LendIt Conference declared an end to the euphoria.
While respondents to the most recent survey were not asked to explain their confidence level, factors like a steady regulatory climate and some recent competition-reducing consolidation likely played a role in the boost.
Journalist Barred From Being a Director of a UK Firm
August 21, 2017
George Popescu, owner of Lending Times, and the winner of the 2017 LendIt Awards for best journalist coverage, has been banned from acting as a company director in the UK for 12 years, according to the government’s Insolvency Service. The ban stems from his tenure as a director of a company called Boston Prime.
George Alex Popescu (“Mr Popescu”) breached his fiduciary duties to act in the best interest of Boston Prime Limited (“Boston Prime”) and/or failed to ensure that both Boston Prime, as the regulated firm, and him individually, as the approved person, complied with the Financial Conduct Authority (“the FCA”) rules and guidance.
$6.2 million was transferred out of the company to a company named FXDD. Boston Prime’s receiver is presently suing FXDD seeking the return of the funds to the company. Proceedings are ongoing. Mr. Popescu is not under investigation and there are no legal proceedings at this time against Mr. Popescu.
Meanwhile in the US, Popescu has raised millions of dollars for his latest company, Lampix, by conducting an initial coin offering for Pix tokens. Lampix reports having raised 52921.88 ETH to-date, currently valued at more than $17 million.
A month ago, the SEC issued a warning about these kinds of offerings.
“Recently promoters have been selling virtual coins or tokens in ICOs. Purchasers may use fiat currency (e.g., U.S. dollars) or virtual currencies to buy these virtual coins or tokens. Promoters may tell purchasers that the capital raised from the sales will be used to fund development of a digital platform, software, or other projects and that the virtual tokens or coins may be used to access the platform, use the software, or otherwise participate in the project. Some promoters and initial sellers may lead buyers of the virtual coins or tokens to expect a return on their investment or to participate in a share of the returns provided by the project. After they are issued, the virtual coins or tokens may be resold to others in a secondary market on virtual currency exchanges or other platforms.
Depending on the facts and circumstances of each individual [Initial Coin Offering] ICO, the virtual coins or tokens that are offered or sold may be securities. If they are securities, the offer and sale of these virtual coins or tokens in an ICO are subject to the federal securities laws.”
Lampix is not licensed to sell securities and they claim their tokens are not securities.
Old Woes Continue to Hang Over Lending Club
May 26, 2017
Former Lending Club CEO Renaud Laplanche at LendIt in 2016A class action lawsuit filed against Lending Club last year isn’t going away. On Thursday, United States District Judge William Alsup denied parts of Lending Club’s motion to dismiss, meaning that the securities fraud case will continue to move forward.
The complaint touched on several issues related to former CEO Renaud Laplanche’s departure, including a conflict of interest he had with a related company named Cirrix, misreported loan volume figures, and manipulated loan data.
In one area of the decision, the judge held that allegations relating to internal controls were adequately pled in that the registration statement represented that disclosure controls and procedures were effective at a reasonable level, when in fact the company represented eighteen months later that internal controls actually suffered from various material weaknesses.
“Reasonable investors would have found it important to know of CEO Laplanche’s prior efforts to drive his company’s performance with artificially initiated loans, and even more importantly, that LendingClub’s internal controls could not effectively curb the artifice,” the judge wrote.
The case # is 3:16-cv-02627-WHA in the Northern District of California. The lead plaintiff is the Water and Power Employees’ Retirement, Disability and Death Plan of the City of Los Angeles.
Lending Club’s stock was down 62% from its IPO price as of Thursday’s close but was up almost 9% on the year, according to the AltFinanceDaily Tracker.
How P2P Lending’s Evangelist is Faring Now
May 24, 2017Peter Renton, a co-founder of the LendIt Conference and p2p lending investor since 2008, published his latest portfolio performance data on Monday. While he wrote that the downtrend is continuing unabated, he still reports an overall marketplace lending return at 7.73%.
Notably, he reported that one of his Lending Club accounts actually lost money in the first quarter of the year, a first for him, though he is not the only person to experience losses.
