I recently became involved in underwriting an application for a factoring facility that brought me back to a session I co-instructed at the 2004 IFA Annual Factoring Conference. The title for that session: “Understanding the Paper you are Buying.” One of the ideas presented focused on how cutting corners in the due diligence process may lead to disastrous results. That was true five years ago, and it is even more so today.

It’s been said that it is very difficult to correct a bad underwriting decision, and anyone that has been tasked with a client “work-out” can echo that sentiment. The role of a factoring credit underwriter is to try to accurately predict that if a prospect is accepted for financing then that relationship will perform as expected – and to structure the facility in such a way that monitoring that performance can be effective. After the underwriter has recommended the prospect for financing, it becomes operation’s responsibility to employ the necessary procedures to protect and preserve the factor’s capital.

When you think about it, initial underwriting is a really tough job; even after you get past all the obstacles we understand academically, you still have to rely upon what your intuition tells you. And, after that, you have to determine if you are being too conservative or not conservative enough.

So, back to my original story about this application package, it was neat… too neat. Robust financials, plausible agings, strong guarantors, dare I say it – a factor’s dream. Of course there were issues a seasoned factor would spot such as the nature of the receivables having a “little hair on them” and the customers, while nicely spread out and quasi-governmental, still thin on the credit side. Of particular interest was the volume – it was substantial for the small non-traditional market. Who wouldn’t love funding a new prospect with a receivable base of several million, especially if it could be done for a desirable rate?

Personally, I wasn’t comfortable with the deal. It wasn’t necessarily the receivables themselves; it was more about the “Conditions” of the deal – Conditions is one of those “C’s” of credit we should never forget when underwriting. You see, the company had experienced tremendous growth in the past fiscal year, and by tremendous growth, I mean well over a 150% increase in revenues. But wait…

In this economy today, what industry could possibly support that kind of growth? I’m not talking about a startup company whose revenues might be expected to grow at a steep pace. This was a company that had been around for decades and had never experienced such a sharp increase in sales.

Another interesting Condition was that the prospect already had a factor funding their receivables. Usually this is not a cause for concern. In fact, it’s quite common to see an applicant who is already factoring. As part of the initial qualifying stage, the business development officer contacted the current factor and was given a glowing recommendation: the factor loved their client, had experienced zero dilution over the course of a multi-year relationship and wished they could keep funding the client. It was the client’s growth that had outstripped the factor’s ability to fund.

However, here is where the story becomes a little more interesting…

The prospect urged the incoming factor to “rush” funding. They needed the capital to continue operating during this explosive growth cycle. One should ask, “Why?”

Well, common sense and experience were telling me something was not quite right: the recent growth, the current factor volunteering there had never been any dilution over the course of a long funding relationship, and now the company needed to rush the initial funding for a payoff. Why was a participation arrangement not being considered or requested?

I know many factoring companies and believe that most have very capable and honest folks, but this factor in particular was relatively new to the industry and now had a several million dollar deal that had outgrown them. I’d never met this factor at any industry event; I even called other factors to see if they had any experience or knowledge of this financial source – no one did. Because of this, I recommended that my client (remember the one who originally engaged me to review the application) fully and strongly verify the receivable base before getting too far down the road. My client asked me, “Why shouldn’t we rely upon the existing factor’s story and records?”. And, this is what brought me back to that class in 2004…

It was after that session when a factor approached me stating they wished they would have attended this course before taking on a rather large client. They had relied upon another factor’s story, similar to the one described above. To their detriment, they funded the prospect’s receivables. You see, the incoming factor didn’t have a large enough staff to fully verify the invoices, and the payoff was also a “rush” situation. As it turned out, there was not enough true collateral. The incoming factor had wanted to appease the client and get the deal done. They had “assumed” the information received from the prior factor was accurate. Therefore, the incoming factor only made a few random calls instead of following their normal procedure of verifying a large percentage of the collateral.

I know several factors who would say they would never do such a thing: fund a large client without full verification – but what about those newer factoring companies? We’ve seen the number of factors steadily increasing over the years, and yet many of these businesses may not survive. I think this story provides a good reason why newer factoring companies tend to fail. They do not understand (or believe) that fraud exists, that there are people waiting for opportunities to intentionally defraud factors or lenders out of their capital. Further, they believe they can correct their cutting corners on the initial funding by performing post funding verifications. Really? I think if this is the plan, you will just know sooner that you have a fraud. Once the money is sent… it may really be gone.

Yes, it is important to talk to the prior factor and hear their story. However, you should not solely rely on what they say… especially where your interests are not the same. Perform your own due diligence.

Newer factors might not have experienced a fraud; they may assume the current factor has strong procedures in place that mirror their own. But, what if the current factor hasn’t figured out what they have on the books isn’t any good? Or, what if the current factor knows but is hoping someone takes them out of the deal? And then, what if the incoming factor just doesn’t have sufficient resources or time to verify the accounts? Well, that sounds like just too many “What if’s?”

Be aware of what your intuition tells you. Or as my friends in Texas say, “Go with your gut feel.” Business is tough for everyone, and we all want to fund new deals. But, just because you catch a nice fish on your line doesn’t mean you should take it home and fry it up – sometimes catch and release may be better off for the longevity of your factoring company.

Oh, and just in case you were wondering about that deal I was engaged to review… the factor did start calling to verify invoices before they funded even with the glowing recommendation from the prior factor. The result: Declined. While I won’t go into great detail, remember that a factor’s best friend can be the Internet and that searches and reverse phone number searches on customers can be easily checked.

Until the next time…

Tags: darla auchinachie, factor guru, IFA, Monitoring, Operations, prudent monitoring procedures, Sales and Marketing