Jargon Busting

The varied funding structures used by new companies can be a bewildering topic for the uninitiated, not least because they are mired in financial jargon.

 

How many non-financial people could explain how seed funding differs from mezzanine finance for example? Or who supplies these different types of funding?

 

Let’s cut through the jargon and take a look at the key concepts.

 

When any company is created, or in its early stages, it is described as a startup. They are often not profitable or even generating revenue.

 

jargon-busting

 

Thus, they desperately require a financial lifeline to help navigate through this formative period. This seed capital, as it is known, is usually equity rather than debt and allows startups to invest in areas such as product development and general operations to get them on their feet.

 

So where do they look to obtain it? It is hard to come by from traditional financers such as banks, or venture capitalists, as it considered a very high risk investment, so startup directors must often look to friends, family and their own savings for this initial cash. It is also likely that some angel investors (like TV’s dragons) will be interested in investing at this very early stage. These are often wealthy veteran entrepreneurs who invest their own money and can offer advice based on experiences.

 

Latterly, of course, crowdfunding platforms have also offered equity-based funding.

 

If the startup moves forward, the business may then be in a position to launch a new round of funding and attract new investment when the initial funding runs out. This is likely be referred to as a Series A funding round and may be followed by a Series B, C, D and so on. These are sometimes termed alphabet rounds.

 

These will usually be for an equity stake in the business, though some businesses may offer debt instead if their balance sheets are robust and directors do not want to dilute their ownership.

 

Unlike the initial round, however, the business will now likely be able to attract institutional investment from venture capitalists to stabilise them over the medium-term.

 

Venture capitalists invest through a business, rather than as individuals or part of a syndicate as angel investors do, and also tend to offer larger amounts than angels. They will likewise offer a growing business support and contacts to help them, but will generally take a more active role in its running and require a seat on the board.

 

All these companies will now have traded for at least a few years, acquiring a financial track record and hopefully a steady customer base. This increased business maturity and stability tends to translate into lower risk (and lower reward) for potential investors, something that changes the nature of the available sources of finance.

 

Some companies with more robust balance sheets will now be in a position to seek out senior debt in the form of loans secured against assets of the business.

 

Senior debtholders are those that are most likely to be repaid in the event that a business gets into financial difficulty. Gaining a loan from a bank at this this stage of development is notoriously difficult however. As such, businesses are increasingly turning to newer sources of finance, such as peer-to-peer lending platforms, to provide them with the credit lines they need.

 

Others businesses that lack assets against which to secure debt, or the stable cash flows to service it, may look to invoice financing to improve their cash flow.

 

Invoice financing can be split into discounting and factoring, both of which involve the third party finance provider advancing the money owed to a business by its customers, minus a service fee. With factoring, the finance provider takes control of the debtor book, while with discounting the relationship between a business and its customers is left untouched.

 

For businesses in certain sectors, manufacturing particularly, there is an increasing availability of supply chain finance (SCF). SCF links buyer, seller and financier, providing short-term credit to optimise working capital for both buyer and seller. More simply put the buyer uses the financiers money to pay the suppliers invoices, with the financier taking title to the raw materials provided and the goods that the buyers manufactures from them. SCF is available from both banks and P2P business lenders.

 

For those businesses that seek to expand aggressively though, either of these forms of financing alone may not be enough, leading them to seek out mezzanine finance to help them achieve their goals.

 

Mezzanine finance is usually unsecured and sits behind senior debt in terms of repayment priority. Because of this increased risk for the lender, it carries a much higher interest rate and often a clause that converts the debt into equity in the company if the loan is not repaid.

 

These types of funding will suffice to meet the business requirements of many companies, allowing for growth while keeping ownership in private hands. The next step, if the company chooses, is to go public with an IPO (Initial Public Offering).

 

There are a number of reasons why a company might consider going public, such as reducing the burden of interest payments or generating publicity. Over and above any of these considerations though is the ability that being publically listed brings to raise large amounts of capital on a consistent basis.

 

That said, firms must take into account the significant costs of the listing process, as well as the increased regulatory requirements.

 

 

The Sharing Economy – Driven by Peer Review and Trust

A couple of weeks ago, while most of us were distracted, PWC posted ‘The Sharing Economy’ report. The main point taken from the sharing economy piece would be ‘never settle for stable’. The sharing economy explains that businesses cannot be taken for granted in a fast-changing world, todays changes can be changed again by tomorrow and so businesses cannot stand still. To maximise, companies must embrace change and continuously develop in order to maximise consumer benefit and competitive advantage.

The key points I’d take from the Sharing Economy piece:

–          Peer review is far and away the main driver of trust, 92% said they valued peer review above all other forms of marketing and advertising.

–          Without trust services aren’t used much, 89% said that ‘trust’ was a major factor.

–          A mind shift has begun in business from offering a product, an item, and hoping it will sell to building relationships and providing service and thereby creating a greater perceived value.

–          Embrace change/disruption in industry. We should always be looking for new ways, never standing still. Always be thinking about your competitors and how they may be changing.

sharing economy

The suggestion of the report is that only companies willing to rise to the challenges and expand are ‘poised to survive – and the potential ahead will be constrained only by the imagination of decision makers’. As companies utilise the sharing economy and create partnerships and collaboration they will find more ways to profit and aid their businesses – while helping the community and its industry sector to grow and sustain success.

Of course there’s nothing new in suggesting that only those who adapt will survive, Charles Darwin being the master of this theory – “It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”

The crowdlending sector was born from an inability of the banks (and other providers of finance, banks becoming the collective noun for a failing sector) to adapt to changed circumstances, their failure was dramatic, public and adversely affected all of us. The lesson is clear we must keep adapting not to go the way of the banks that may yet follow the dodo.

Media and finance industry need to work together to show that P2P comes in more than one flavour

Once again, we find mainstream media treating the diverse alternative finance sector as one homogenous group and misleading or alarming investors in the process.

This time, we have Ruth Lythe of the Daily Mail launching with a headline on 7 June, “MPs attack risky online firms offering 7% returns from lending savers’ cash to strangers to buy cars and even phones”.

The article refers to Zopa’s recent announcement of its point-of-sale partnership with Unshackled.com.

In essence, the article can be summarised in one of the lines within it: ‘P2P loans are risky’.  This is written without providing any context for the reader, which is both naïve and does a great disservice to existing and potential investors.

  • A comment on the losses experienced to date by peer-to-peer investors would have been good (they are below what the banks accept as ‘normal’ and are published by the largest platforms in the smallest detail for all to see, which is something the banks never do).
  • A comment on the variety of models available in P2P would have been helpful too, rather than bracket everything under one, doom-laden label.

Of course a judgement has to be made when investing in peer-to-peer. Judgement is required in most forms of investment, but what really matters and needs explaining when making sweeping assessments of this nature is how the likelihood of loss is mitigated and managed, which differs from platform to platform.

In the case of Archover, all business loans have to pass the scrutiny of not only our own lending specialists, but also those of leading credit insurers, who provide cover on the underlying asset that we use as security. If we were even tempted to lower our standards we would not be allowed to do so. I know of no bank that can provide that same level of comfort.

Daily Mail Old

In other parts of the market, RateSetter and others have provision funds which cover all losses. This means that, to date, nobody has ever lost money lending over their platforms. The banks rely on the good old UK tax payer for such a guarantee.

I think I speak for the entire industry here when I say the FCA is doing an excellent job in making sure investors are as informed as possible about the nature of their investments.

Andrew Tyrie’s letter to the FCA on behalf of the Treasury Select Committee is perfectly reasonable and I have no doubt the Regulator will provide a full and well considered response in good time. This will no doubt include some of the facts, such as net returns for investors after default being in the range of 5%-7% since the inception of the industry, the never before seen level of transparency in financial services and the resilience of the sector to economic shocks – even against the most stringent scenario laid out by the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA).

The Regulator will certainly have our full backing if even more improvements can be made to help investors.

As an industry, we do not criticise the Daily Mail or the media at large for advising caution, but we do implore it to examine the facts and make a more rounded assessment on behalf of its readers.

Institutional Investors are a welcome addition to any Crowd

Marc Shoffman’s recently published article on ThisisMoney.co.uk last week was a bit of mixed bag, from an Alternative Finance perspective. First and foremost, I salute his noble efforts to raise awareness for his father and others battling with Parkinson’s disease. He is raising finance for speech therapy through a social enterprise reward-based crowdfunding campaign through the Crowdfunder platform. The article itself focuses on the increased presence of institutional money in crowdfunding, with some muddled references to “peer to peer” thrown in. With a fairly mainstream readership, however, I felt that a response could be somewhat beneficial to clear up some of the more glaring errors in the article. As a starting point, any article on alternative finance that fails to clearly differentiate peer-to-peer lending from crowdfunding is counter-productive, especially for an uninitiated reader. The article raises some questions on where the alternative finance industry is heading, but he seems to have misunderstood the true nature of Crowds; his statement that “as the sector becomes more mainstream, it may also become less attractive” is a case in point. It isn’t really about a popularity contest: the wisdom of the crowd comes from a group of people making informed decisions, not a bunch of people throwing caution to the wind in the name of doing something a little bit different.

picture_crowdsourcing

First, let’s dispel some myths and nip some clichés in the bud. To say that “[Alternative Finance] no longer has that jazzy alternative tag which in the long run could hit its popularity” is a belittlement of an industry that is in the process of becoming FCA regulated. The word “alternative” is used here in its purest sense as something that departs from or challenges traditional norms; alternative finance is not some hipster “Jazzy”-ness. In reference to the allusion to the FSCS compensation scheme, it isn’t really relevant to our industry; this article on AltFi will shed some light on a few of the peer to peer lending contingency funds and how platforms strive to protect investors. There is also, of course, the ArchOver “secured and insured” model as an exemplar as well.

It is important to emphasize that the institutions that lend over any platform are valued members of the crowd, and they lend on exactly the same terms as everybody else. That’s the alternative finance ethos, that’s where this movement began. It’s a process of democratisation and we mean that sincerely. The wisdom of the crowd is greatly boosted by the presence of institutions lending money to SMEs, or indeed buying equity. Individual investors can take a hell of a lot of comfort knowing that schools, county councils and family offices lend across the various platforms on the same terms and at the same rates as they get; it benefits all the parties involved. The banks and funds are coming around to accepting that. Those that don’t will sit on the side-lines and that’s fine too. The great thing about democracy is that you have a choice.

The point he makes about larger pledges and shutting out the little guy is a question of balance. Marc uses BrewDog as an example of a business that “value smaller investors”. Yet BrewDog is probably the prime example of how a business has taken advantage of unsuspecting crowdfunders by masquerading as anti-establishment whilst using good old-fashioned bankers’ tactics. Their crowdfunding should be for fans of their beer, not for people to invest their hard earned savings into. This article, again by AltFi, serves as a cautionary tale of what to look out for, using BrewDog as a case in point. On the one hand you want people to think about what they are doing and to take the time to understand what they are doing. On the other you want as many as possible taking part and benefitting. As you know ArchOver set the minimum pledge at £1k per project, which obviously I believe ensures that the balance is met. Of course, this won’t be appropriate for everybody, and that is why small lenders are looked after so well at the likes of RateSetter and Funding Circle.

A bigger, wiser, democratic crowd with the ability to invest over a range of platforms to spread their risk, and soon to enjoy the benefits of the Innovative Finance Isa? Now all of that does sound “jazzy” to me.