Archive for November, 2008

Complacency: Don’t Assume

The other day, someone sent me samples of backup documentation to review for a new prospect. The client (a transportation carrier) had been with another factor prior and was still being financed by that factor. The good news, however, was that the potential new factoring company wanted to make sure they understood the ‘paper’ they were buying… before they actually bought it. They had questions. They didn’t want to assume. So, they asked.

As it would turn out, the paperwork for the invoices (i.e., invoice, rate confirmation and the bill of lading) indicated other carriers that had hauled the load, or they revealed loads were picked up… but not yet delivered. Strange I thought. However, during the initial verifications on the invoices, the calls with customers of the carrier (or account debtors) evidenced that the loads were real; however, the goods were still en route. What do you know? Would this be an incident of pre-billing?

More than likely… yes. Here’s the question though. What does this mean to the current factor? The only thing I could come up with that happens all the time: complacency. You know what I mean. That thing that happens over time when you become comfortable with a client relationship, you stop looking at all their paperwork, you don’t call as often on their invoices as you used to, etc. Complacency does happen.

Now is the time to look at those clients’ performance, and more importantly, to review the account management on those accounts — to review the processes and procedures in your portfolio. Typically, factors feel they know the ‘weaknesses’ in their portfolio already. They ‘watch’ those accounts ongoing. Yet, it is the client you know and love that sometimes has issues… causing financial challenges… and potential exposure and risk to the factor.

The current economic climate dictates vigilance. It requires relentless review of your portfolio. It doesn’t stop there: looking more at the invoices and backup documentation being reviewed, how the collection calls are going and how checks are coming into the lockbox can be critical. In this new financial environment, a good check and balance system should be in place, even an internal audit each quarter or a few times each year. Otherwise, how will you feel comfortable that your processes and procedures in place are being adhered to sufficiently?

How will you know complacency is not occurring? Several firms perform these services including Factor Source, Factor Help, and several other examination and auditing firms. Or, call the International Factoring Association for consultation and assistance. You can even have someone internally review these processes. This is not a sales opportunity but a mantra for looking at your portfolio… over and over and over again. I believe it was Keith Reid who said, “If you think fraud isn’t in your portfolio, then you just haven’t looked hard enough.”

Yes, these internal exercises may appear to be in vain and actually may result in nothing being found. (What a relief). And, yet, if you identify a potential concern before it transcends into a true problem… then, it is worth it, right?

Vigilance is the test for a factor. Yes, trust, by verify; however, maintain vigilance. Reduce complacency. Focus on not just sending money out the door but also getting the money back.

Wishing you success. The Factor Guru.

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Lost in the Internet

So much information is available on the Internet. You can look up just about anything… or find out just about anything. One step I always take during due diligence for underwriting new prospective clients is ‘Googling’ them. Can we use that term or do we have to say “search the Internet?”

Anyhow, remember that just typing in the name of the company or the name of the guarantor may not be sufficient. Your search terms may be lost in all the information that may be available. You can’t really find out easily the information you are seeking. Try your own name as an example, just to see what comes up when you search yourself.

Sometimes, I find it helpful to insert quotes or add an ‘and’ or ‘minus’ to filter my results. After all, who wants to look through 20 pages of results? I don’t know if anyone even makes it beyond page two.

You may be asking, “What are you talking about?” If you are, then keep reading. If you are not and are now saying to yourself, “Who doesn’t know that,” then stop. No need to read any further; you probably already do these searches all the time if for no other reason than you cannot help it.

Lately, though, I have been amazed that more people don’t do any search or don’t know how to narrow their search criteria;  they don’t know about filtering or narrowing searches or modifying search phrases. So, for those who are not doing this already, here is a process you can try. I’d love to use a real example; however, I think I would be revealing information that should be kept to a private posting and not available for the world to see (at least not through this posting).

Therefore, searching your prospects is all up to you.

If you type [company name] by itself, you will receive a list of various Internet resources that have this name together or that have these names anywhere within the search results you find (meaning, the words searched are not all together as one phrase). By inserting quotes [“company name” or “guarantor name”], the search results become more narrowed. You are now only searching by the specific phrase listed in the quotes.

From here, you can narrow the results even further by adding an ‘and’ such as [“company name” and “Florida”] or other criteria you choose. Take this concept if you have results you don’t want and then insert a [minus ‘thing you don’t want’] and look again. This even works for factoring. Tired of seeing results that retrieve information on factoring polynomials? Just enter [factoring minus math] to narrow the results.

Eventually, depending on the transaction you are reviewing, you may find more information that you thought possible. Some of this data will just help you bring together all the information you already knew… or didn’t know but ultimately helped create a fuller picture. You will realize over time when you have searched too much (or over researched) as all the results will be the same.

However, in some cases, it may ‘pay off’ and you may have saved yourself from doing a deal that would have resulted in a loss. You may find out about prior frauds, tax liens, customer disputes or billing concerns, other charges, related entities, common ownership among customers, and more. You may no longer feel ’lost’ when you enter into a new transaction. And just think, it would all be through a free search… just your time and prudent due diligence.   

NEW: since this post, I did find an example that may help illustrate the importance of searching the Internet:

[Bob Pearson] was the contact for a prospective client on an insurance type of prospect, where receivables would be paid by the insurance or other commercial entity to the factor. Go ahead, search just the name without quotes.

Although a ‘one off’ deal, during the due diligence process, the factoring company also searched ["Bob Pearson" and "Dallas"]… do your own search with quotes to see what information was found…

Wishing you success. The Factor Guru

Tags: , , , ,

The Swiss Cheese Theory

Why do some deals make it and others don’t, even when they have similar characteristics? Even when you go through the company background, the receivable base and performance, financial trends and sometimes the background and credit of the guarantor, in some cases, a prospect may not fit into your box. Why?

Well, this can be attributed to just a deal that doesn’t fit within a factoring company’s target client profile. It may, however, be perfect for another factoring company based upon their niche, risk profile, or other criteria.

One other reason may be because too many holes exist. What does this mean?

Someone (I believe it was Michael Haddad, Core Business Credit) told me once that when you mitigate too many risks in a transaction… it’s like a block of Swiss cheese. There are too many holes without enough cheese holding it all together. I know… sounds weird but the analogy stuck.

Since factoring is more of an art, I think this Swiss cheese theory helps explain why.

So, what are the holes? Many look at the six Cs of credit when reviewing a prospective client transaction. I tend to break it down to four key areas instead (as I can never remember the other two as everyone seems to have a different other two): Character, Collateral, and Credit, along with Common Sense of course.

You may ask why Character first? The person running the business who has the relationship with the customers can be critical when reviewing a new transaction. How they manage their personal finances may be indicative of how they manage their business and, ultimately, how they may work with their factor or lender during challenging financial times.

Collateral remains the foundation of factoring. Some important questions to think about: Who does the company sell to (what types of customers)? How is the customer credit? What type of industry does the company operate in and what current trends are ongoing in that industry that may affect the collateral? Do concentrations exist? What does the aging reflect about aged invoices or credits? How does the company bill? When is an invoice considered accepted by the company’s customers?

The third element, Credit, can include customer credit; however, what about the credit of the company? What do their financial statements show? What is going on in the business? What is their margin and does it support the factoring expense? Are there any entries or trends that require additional explanation? Remember, reviewing one period of time only provides a snapshot; however, having prior financial statements to compare against may help show trends in the business.

Finally, Common Sense is a must. This is the key element that brings all the other pieces together. Does the information reviewed correspond to the discussions held to date? Are there any areas that remain unclear or are conflicting with the information reviewed? Have the holes been mitigated in a way that would result in a successful collection, should the need arise? Is there enough cheese… or, are there too many holes?

Wishing you success. The Factor Guru

Tags: , , , , ,