Helpful insights on good business practices, commercial loans, alternative forms of financing and planning your company’s future.
October 6, 2011

Owners who can’t get bank credit or aren’t selling much are tapping commercial financiers known as factors—despite their higher cost
By Karen E. Klein
In February 2010, Tiffany Bucher’s bank sent her an e-mail she assumed was a mistake: Her company’s checking account had been frozen and her $150,000 line of credit was being pulled. She later learned that the bank’s new president was nervous because Bucher’s company was involved in a lawsuit and its financial records were disorganized. “We had never missed a payment. I had $80,000 in payroll due the next morning. I was completely panicking,” recalls Bucher, president of Infincom, a Phoenix-based office equipment and software dealer.
Although she insists the company was having no trouble making its $546 monthly loan payment, Bucher couldn’t persuade her banker to change his mind. (The bank’s president did not respond to a request for comment.) So the next day, she turned to a commercial finance company, Factors Southwest Funding. FSW Funding covered her payroll obligation within 24 hours and she now uses the company regularly. “Factoring has been my life saver,” says Bucher, whose 48-employee company had $8.5 million in revenue last year.
With traditional financial institutions curtailing small business lending in the aftermath of the economic crisis, commercial finance companies have stepped into the breach to fund expansions and operations at small and midsized U.S. businesses. Because commercial funding is considered non-lending finance (factors buy invoices or accounts receivables at a discount, rather than loan against them), the industry is largely unregulated, particularly in comparison to banking. Factoring often comes with higher cost and greater long-term risk for small businesses.
David Banfield, chief executive officer of Interface Financial Group, an invoice discounter founded in 1972 that has 160 franchise locations worldwide, says his company has seen exponential growth since banks began spurning smaller loans. Three new franchisees opened this summer. “Until the past few years, the main funding supplier of capital for business in North America was the banking system,” Banfield wrote in an e-mail. “There are now fewer banks than a couple of years ago. Many have failed and many have been acquired. What that means for the smaller companies is that there are now less opportunities to go and seek out capital.”
Credit Crisis Sparked Factoring Boom
Technology is also fueling alternate finance options, primarily for small businesses. Nic Perkin, president of the Receivables Exchange, conceived his company in 2007 as a kind of Ebay (EBAY) for accounts receivables. It began operations in November 2008. “We certainly weren’t created as a business as a response to the credit crisis, but it has provided some wind in our sails,” says Perkin, whose typical clients are business-to-business companies with $2 million to $250 million in annual sales and list receivables on the exchange regularly or occasionally. “I’d be lying if I didn’t tell you that we got a big boost out of [the credit crisis]. We grew at 50 percent per month in 2009 and wound up with 500 percent first-year annual growth. The reality of it is, we probably would not have had that kind of growth otherwise.”
The commercial finance industry experienced the same sharp drop in demand in 2009 as bankers did, says Andrej Suskavcevic, CEO of industry trade group the Commercial Finance Assn., whose 250 members are mostly large factoring companies and asset-based lenders that typically make loans secured by machinery and equipment. Indeed, in 2009 the association recorded its steepest downturn since it began keeping records in 1976, with factoring volume falling to $116.6 billion, or 14.2 percent less than in 2008.
Demand has rebounded in the past couple of years, says Brian P. Cove, the association’s chief operating officer. And Mike Lubansky, a senior financial analyst at private company data provider Sageworks, says factoring is going mainstream: “In the past, some may have seen factoring, because of its higher cost, as associated with troubled situations. But now it’s just another source of financing, especially for funding that businesses need to grow when banks that have tightened credit standards and are focused on preserving capital are not able to lend as much.”
Caveat Emptor in Commercial Finance
That access isn’t cheap. Factoring may double the typical credit costs for a small business, says Bill Hettinger, author of Finance Without Fear and principal of Connecticut consulting firm the Institute for Finance and Entrepreneurship. Tom Swenson, founder and CEO of the Bank of Montana, says he’s advised small business customers considering factoring to shop prices aggressively before signing up. “Commercial financing is looked at as a caveat emptor, buyer-beware kind of situation. They figure you’re a business and you should know better—even though a lot of small businesses don’t,” he says.
Mark Deo, Torrance (Calif.)-based executive director of the consulting firm Small Business Advisory Network, says many entrepreneurs he consults with have turned to factoring, not only because they lack access to credit but also because they are having problems getting new business. “Factors are oftentimes the only source of funding for desperately needed cash, but it is very sad that business owners who have worked for years to build their businesses are entertaining factoring just to fund new purchases, equipment, or improvements,” he says.
Hettinger also worries about the long term: Companies with reduced profit margins are even less able to qualify for traditional credit. “Once you start factoring, it’s a difficult process to break. The key to a factoring or discounting decision is a complete analysis of all the financial implications of the decision. It’s more complicated to analyze than a bank loan,” he says.
Bucher didn’t have time for complex analysis when she turned to Robyn Barret, founder and managing member of FSW Funding. “I know it’s not the best solution and the cost is more for factoring,” she says, estimating that she paid $75,000 in factoring costs in 2010. “But I need the cash for payroll, parts, and supplies, and Robyn supplied it. To me, she’s the one that saved my business.”
Karen E. Klein is a Los Angeles-based writer who covers entrepreneurship and small-business issues.
http://www.businessweek.com/small-business/more-small-businesses-are-selling-receivables-at-a-loss-09272011.html?campaign_id=rss_search
Related Articles: New Health Care Law Will Have Negative Impact, How to turn fuming customers into lifelong fans, Allied Affiliated Funding Provides $500,000 in Working Capital to Northeast Manufacturer, Small business optimism keeps climbing, Allied Affiliated Funding Provides $750,000 in Acquisition Financing to Wisconsin Distributor , More Americans prefer small businesses to large companies, survey finds, Five ‘cardinal rules’ for launching a business, SBA loans hit record for North Texas , Four tricks — and treats — for small businesses, Dallas-area entrepreneurs parlay unexpected growth into new ventures
Comments: (0)
Tags: Economic, News, Small Business
February 24, 2011

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act represents the most significant transformation of the American health care system since Medicare and Medicaid. It will fundamentally change nearly every aspect of health care, from insurance to the final delivery of care. The length and complexity of the legislation, combined with a debate that often generated more heat than light, has led to massive confusion about the law’s likely impact. But it is now possible to analyze what is and is not in it, what it likely will and will not do, says Michael Tanner, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute.
In particular, we now know that:
While the new law will increase the number of Americans with insurance coverage, it falls significantly short of universal coverage — by 2019, roughly 21 million Americans will still be uninsured.
The legislation will cost far more than advertised — more than $2.7 trillion over 10 years of full implementation, and will add more than $823 billion to the national debt over the program’s first 10 years.
The new law will increase taxes by more than $569 billion between now and 2019, and the burdens it places on business will significantly reduce economic growth and employment.
While the law contains few direct provisions for rationing care, it nonetheless sets the stage for government rationing and interference with how doctors practice medicine.
Millions of Americans who are happy with their current health insurance will not be able to keep it.
In short, the more we have learned about what is in this new law, the more it looks like bad news for American taxpayers, businesses, health care providers and patients, says Tanner.
Source: Michael D. Tanner, “Bad Medicine: A Guide to the Real Costs and Consequences of the New Health Care Law,” Cato Institute, February 14, 2011.
For text:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11961
Related Articles: Small business optimism keeps climbing, SBA loans hit record for North Texas , More Small Businesses Are Selling Receivables at a Loss, Dallas-area entrepreneurs parlay unexpected growth into new ventures, Five Recovery Steps Business Owners Need to Take Now, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of the Tax Deal, Unemployment Insurance Kills Small Business, The Walking Death Tax , Huge Tax Hikes Coming Unless Congress Acts, Small Businesses Face Dangerous Tax Hikes Ahead
Comments: (0)
Tags: Economic, Economy, News, Small Business, Taxes
January 3, 2011

Compared to ideal tax policy, the deal announced this week between congressional Republicans and President Obama is terrible. But compared to what many expected to happen, the deal is pretty good. In other words, grading this package depends on your benchmark. This is why reaction has been all over the map, says Daniel J. Mitchell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
The Good.
The good part of the agreement is the avoidance of bad things, sort of the political version of the Hippocratic oath — do no harm.
Tax rates next year are not going to increase.
The main provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax acts are extended for two years — including the lower tax rates on dividends and capital gains.
Another bit of good news is that the death tax will be 35 percent for two years, rather than 55 percent, as would have happened without an agreement.
Last but not least, there is a one-year provision allowing businesses to”expense” new investment rather than have it taxed.
The Bad.
The burden of government spending is going to increase.
Unemployment benefits are extended for 13 months.
And there is no effort to reduce spending elsewhere to “pay for” this new budgetary burden.
The Ugly.
As happens so often when politicians make decisions, the deal includes all sorts of special-interest provisions.
Moreover, the temporary nature of the package is disappointing, and there will be very little economic boost from this deal.
Source: Daniel J. Mitchell, “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of the Tax Deal,” Cato-at-Liberty.org, December 7, 2010.
For text:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-the-tax-deal/
source: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=20118&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
Related Articles: New Health Care Law Will Have Negative Impact, Economy 101: Who benefits from new banking rules?, More Small Businesses Are Selling Receivables at a Loss, Obamacare Packs Crushing New Taxes, Unemployment Insurance Kills Small Business, The Walking Death Tax , What Is Fed’s QE2, and What Will It Do? Experts Explain in Everyday English., Huge Tax Hikes Coming Unless Congress Acts, ObamaCare: the Burden on Small Business, Clients’ Failure to Pay State Franchise Taxes is Risky Business for Factors
Comments: (0)
Tags: Economic, Economic Impact, Government, News, Taxes
September 14, 2010

By PALLAVI GOGOI (AP)
NEW YORK — At the core of an international agreement to head off future financial meltdowns is a requirement that banks keep more money on hand in case of trouble.The new rule released Sunday by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision aims to fortify banks worldwide and prevent them from spiraling into the kind of global financial crisis that brought the world to its knees in 2008.Banks will have about eight years to comply fully with the rules, but the proposed changes could have immediate effects on the U.S. economy. Some questions and answers about the new global banking rules:
Q. What is Basel and how does it have so much power?
A. The Basel Committee is a group of top central bankers from 27 nations who meet regularly and look for ways to manage risk for banks worldwide. The U.S. is represented by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. It is the only forum that the world relies on to create a common standard for large global banks.
Q. What’s the main change this year?
A. The most dramatic change proposed by the Basel Committee was a more than three-fold increase, from 2 percent to 7 percent, in the “core capital ratio,” or the amount of money banks need to set aside to help absorb losses on loans. The fear is that if banks have less capital than their losses, they cannot meet payments on their own debt, and they usually fail. Capital is expressed as a percentage of a bank’s assets.
Q. Who stands to benefit?
A. Consumers and some shareholders, perhaps. Most American banks already meet the new standard, and some actually exceed it, according to Richard Bove, banking analyst at investment firm Rochdale Securities. Many of the larger U.S. banks raised enormous amounts of capital after American regulators required them to do so last year on the heels of the financial crisis.That means the rules could help free up some capital for lending to American consumers, in the form of mortgages or credit cards. It will also benefit shareholders of the stronger banks who will likely see higher dividends.It “should be a positive catalyst for banks with strong capital and in a position to increase dividends,” Fred Cannon, banking analyst at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, said in a report.
Q. Who stands to lose?
A. Smaller community banks or credit unions that are already struggling with high loan losses and foreclosures. Many of them have found it hard to raise capital, and they will struggle with the new requirements.
Small businesses that rely on community banks for their borrowing needs could have an even tougher time getting loans. That could hurt job creation.
“Right now, we need banks to lend in local economies, not focus on new requirements,” said Sean Egan, managing director of Egan Jones Rating Agency. Egan believes that smaller banks will rush to comply with the rules rather than waiting years to comply. “They will try to make up for the higher capital requirements by lending at higher rates and stiffer terms,” Egan said.
Q. Will these new rules prevent another meltdown?
A. Possibly. If banks are forced to hold a higher percentage of capital for all the loans they write, it will prevent the kind of zero-down, zero-interest loans that were offered during the real estate boom. And if banks are stronger, they will be able to withstand the kind of losses that they faced during the last financial crisis.
However, not everyone agrees that the capital requirements are strong enough to avoid another meltdown.
Said Simon Johnson, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a former International Monetary Fund chief economist: “Lehman Brothers had 11.6 percent (of the same kind of) capital one day before it failed. The new capital requirements will not even reach that inadequate level.”
Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Related Articles: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of the Tax Deal, What Is Fed’s QE2, and What Will It Do? Experts Explain in Everyday English., ObamaCare: the Burden on Small Business, Economic and Financial Developments, More Small Businesses Are Selling Receivables at a Loss, New Health Care Law Will Have Negative Impact, Obamacare Packs Crushing New Taxes, Unemployment Insurance Kills Small Business, Huge Tax Hikes Coming Unless Congress Acts, Allied Affiliated Funding Announces Second Funding for July
Comments: (0)
Tags: Economic, Economic Impact, Government
August 26, 2010

August 17, 2010 – 12:03 ET
By Michael F. Cannon (@mfcannon)
How will ObamaCare affect a small business owner who’s married with two kids?
For one thing, he and his business will pay higher health premiums beginning this year.
He and his employees will have to purchase unlimited lifetime coverage and unlimited annual coverage (this requirement phases in between now and 2014). The Obama administration estimates that these mandates alone could increase premiums for some businesses by 7 percent.
He and his employees will have to purchase coverage for dependent children without any waiting periods for pre-existing conditions. Another mandate will require them to purchase coverage for dependents up to age 26. One private estimate puts the cost of this “slacker” mandate an average of 2 percent, but our small-business owner’s premiums may rise even more. Perversely, the cost may force him to drop dependent coverage entirely.If his health plan loses its “grandfathered” status—as most small businesses will—he and his workers will have to purchase 100-percent coverage for a long list of preventive services. The administration estimates this mandate will increase premiums on average by 1.5 percent, but private estimates are in the range of 3-4 percent.
The Obama administration also acknowledges there is “tremendous,” “substantial,” and “considerable” uncertainty about these mandates’ costs. That is, they may be higher than the administration says.
These mandates are a double-whammy for our small-business owner. He already faces some of the highest premiums out there. Yet he also provides some of the least comprehensive health plans. So his premiums will rise more than larger employers’ premiums will.
According to HHS, these added costs will likely push him to switch health plans, and he will likely switch to a plan that complies with the mandates, but places tight restrictions on accessing care.
If he offers his workers a health savings account (HSA), medical savings account (MSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement arrangement (HRA), its employees will lose the ability to purchase over-the-counter drugs tax-free. If they make non-medical withdrawals from their HSA or MSA, the penalty will double from 10 percent to 20 percent.
If his small business is a tanning salon, it is already paying a new 10-percent tax on its sales.
The Obama administration is quick to note that beginning in 2010, one third of small businesses may be able to get a tax credit that covers up to 35 percent of their health-benefits. But that credit is not a long-term solution to rising costs; it disappears after 6 years, and often sooner. It will also discourage hiring, because hiring too many workers will reduce or eliminate the credit.
By 2013, all businesses will have to fill out an IRS Form 1099 every time they purchase more than $600 worth of stuff from a vendor. If our small-business owner owns a trucking company, he will have to ask gas stations for their tax ID numbers. If the gas stations don’t cooperate, he will have to withhold money (i.e., send it to the IRS) for gas expenses. This will be the biggest nightmare in the bill for small businesses. Ironically, it will also hit many doctors, journalists, and others who supported ObamaCare, but run their own small business on the side.
If our small-business owner and his wife make over $250,000, they’ll pay the new, higher Medicare “payroll” tax of 3.8 percent, starting in 2013. (It’s currently 2.9 percent).
But it’s 2014 where things really get messy. That’s when the government will require everyone to purchase even more yet-unspecified types of coverage, which will cause premiums to rise even more.
If our small-business owner has 50 or more employees – or fewer full-time employees and lots of part-timers – he faces the prospect of tens of thousands of dollars in penalties under ObamaCare’s employer mandate if he does not provide “adequate” coverage to his workers.
The worst part is that these penalties will be triggered by factors that are unpredictable, unobservable, and totally beyond the control of our small-business owner. He could get hit with those penalties simply because a worker’s spouse loses or changes jobs. Or if a worker’s spouse moves out or dies. Or if an employee’s parents move in.
This creates so much uncertainty that a small-business owner with 55 employees may have to fire six of them just to eliminate that potential liability.
But if he splits his 60-employee small business into two 25-employee businesses, then the federal government—maybe the IRS—will start snooping around to determine whether he did so for legitimate business reasons or just to avoid the mandate.
No matter the size of his firm, if he or his workers earn around $30,000 to $100,000 and get coverage through one of the new health insurance exchanges, their implicit marginal tax rates will jump from around 30-40 percent all the way up to 60-75 percent!
In many cases, if his employees get a raise or work more hours, ObamaCare will leave them with less take-home pay, because the higher earnings will cause them to lose thousands of dollars in subsidies. Their implicit marginal tax rate will exceed 100 percent!
Our small-business owner is paying all these costs now – and so are his workers, and the unemployed.
ObamaCare has created enormous uncertainty. Our small-business owner doesn’t have any idea what ObamaCare’s mandates will cost him in 2011, 2012, 2013, or 2014. Or what additional benefits he will have to provide. Or what kind of insurance options will be available by then. All he knows is that these things will cost him more – possibly a lot more – and that he’s going to be spending lots of time and money, for the foreseeable future, on tax accountants and attorneys.
And he’s going to be much less likely to take on new commitments like expanding or hiring new workers.
Michael F. Cannon is director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute and co-author of Healthy Competition: What’s Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.
Related Articles: Economic and Financial Developments, More Small Businesses Are Selling Receivables at a Loss, New Health Care Law Will Have Negative Impact, Obamacare Packs Crushing New Taxes, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of the Tax Deal, Unemployment Insurance Kills Small Business, The Unraveling Of ObamaCare , Economy 101: Who benefits from new banking rules?, Take Advantage of 2 New Tax Breaks for Hiring Previously Unemployed People, How to turn fuming customers into lifelong fans
Comments: (0)
Tags: Economic, Economic Policies, Government, Health Care, Small Business
March 17, 2010

The economy grew at a rapid 6% annual rate in the fourth quarter of last year. For many, news of rapid growth appears inconsistent with widespread job losses, high unemployment rates and widespread bank failures. Much of the inconsistency stems from the difference between the level of business activity and its change. Changes from very depressed to not quite as depressed may impress economists and statisticians. They don’t impress those struggling to deal with current economic conditions.
There has clearly been some improvement in the business climate. Nationwide, housing prices are up about 5% from their lows last spring. However, prices remain 30% off their highs. The collapse in home prices has left a quarter of all mortgage holders with negative equity in their homes. Negative equity has meant significant loan losses for banks. In addition to the equity decline in their homes, many homeowners face a challenging job market. In spite of the improvement in business activity and increased orders for new business, layoffs continue and companies are reluctant to rehire workers.
Read the rest of this entry »
Related Articles: Economic and Financial Developments, New Health Care Law Will Have Negative Impact, Allied Affiliated Funding Provides $500,000 in Working Capital to Northeast Manufacturer, Small business optimism keeps climbing, SBA loans hit record for North Texas , More Small Businesses Are Selling Receivables at a Loss, Dallas-area entrepreneurs parlay unexpected growth into new ventures, We should’ve seen U.S. slowdown coming, economist Carmen Reinhart says, Five Recovery Steps Business Owners Need to Take Now, Small Businesses Continue Cautiously Optimistic Outlook
Comments: (0)
Tags: Economic, Economy, Financial, Financial Spending, Job Loss, Recession
February 5, 2010

There were monumental changes in both the economy and economic policies this past year. While business activity continued to decline during the first half of the year, by mid-year the economy began to grow.
Some attribute the turnaround in the economy to an unprecedented 18% increase in federal government spending. However, in spite of much talk about government stimulus, increases in federal spending tend to be associated with economic weakness rather than strength.
Some economists believe that government spending can boost total spending. This view first emerged during the 1930s when total spending collapsed and prices were falling. Few associated the collapse in spending with the Federal Reserve’s monetary restraint. Desperate to restore spending, politicians and economists reasoned that if government increased its spending then total spending would also increase. The problem with this line of reasoning is that the federal government cannot spend money without first taking it from someone else.
Read the rest of this entry »
Related Articles: Unemployment Insurance Kills Small Business, ObamaCare: the Burden on Small Business, Take Advantage of 2 New Tax Breaks for Hiring Previously Unemployed People, Economic and Financial Developments, New Health Care Law Will Have Negative Impact, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of the Tax Deal, What Is Fed’s QE2, and What Will It Do? Experts Explain in Everyday English., Economy 101: Who benefits from new banking rules?, Small business optimism keeps climbing, SBA loans hit record for North Texas
Comments: (0)
Tags: Economic, Economic Policies, Economy, Federal Spending, Financial Spending, Government
|