Did you know that you can reverse search debtor websites or even debtor email addresses by looking up the owners of those domain names? These are helpful to be sure you are receiving an independent verification from the debtor. After all, who owns the website where you are verifying the receivables? Where did that confirmation email come from? Was it from the debtor, or could it be from the client? I typically use Go Daddy to research this information.

On their home page, there is a domain search field where you can enter domain names or even try email address extensions (i.e., factoring.org). The site will tell you if that name is already registered. Then, you can just click on the link that says “Get Info” to see details on who owns that domain.

Why do we use the term ‘rely’ when we send out those written verification letters or when we pre-verify receivables? If you tell the debtor you are relying on the information they are providing to fund an invoice, then they know you only funded based on their response. This helps when pre-verifying invoices to ensure that the proper message has been conveyed. And, as a side note, if you verify an invoice after the fact, then you would not be relying on their information. That is why these post-funding calls are typically considered confirmation calls only.

What are some early warning signs and red flags to watch for during the verification or collection process?

• Credit memos, disputes, offsets start to increase
• Quality issues arise more frequently (i.e., incorrect product, damages)
• Debtor responses for verifications / collections decrease
• Key personnel changes at the debtor or client
• Clients picking up checks or changing factor remittance
• Average days to pay increases
• Payment patterns change
• Invoice receipt delays by accounts payable
• Billing errors increase
• Invoice dates vary (invoice date on invoice versus the date on the debtor’s check)
• Name changes on invoices or remittance (ABC Mfg Co now says ABC Company)
• Skipped invoice payments

Until the next time… Wishing you continued success. The Factor Guru.

The amount that can be advanced to a client is generally expressed as a percentage, called the Advance Rate. Typically, this is calculated as a function of Dilution (which is the percentage of an invoice that is not returned or paid). Dilution includes discounts, returns, allowances or any reason an invoice is not paid in full. Many factors will use a multiple of Dilution (3x or 4x) to establish the Advance Rate; other factors typically just add 10% to the dilution.

Tip: You may hear or see on factoring reports the words Chargeback, Recourse, or Adjustment… these are all dilutive items.

For illustration purposes, if a client sells $10,000 in widgets to their customer and a factor advances 80%, the client would receive $8,000. Then, when the customer (debtor) pays for the products, let’s assume they only pay $7,500 claiming they had a credit on file for $2,500. Therefore, they do not pay the full amount of the invoice. The portion that is not paid is considered dilutive, or Dilution. Of the $8,000 the factor sent to the client, only $7,500 was received. The factor would still be owed $500 plus any factoring fees.

It is because of this that setting an appropriate Advance Rate is important, as well as monitoring the client’s ongoing Dilution. This also highlights why during verifications and collections factors will inquire as to open credits, other potential offsets, discounts, disputes, etc.

Chargebacks / Dilution:

Did you know that many recourse factors may ignore chargebacks after recourse to a client. For example, if an invoice hits 90 days, they may just charge it back to the client without wondering or asking Why? Since the invoices purchased should include services that are completed or goods that have been delivered, why are there chargebacks?

• Was it a discount that was pre-approved in the client’s terms if the debtor paid quickly?
• Were the goods damaged or of poor quality? Is this an ongoing issue with the client that should be watched in the future?
• Was the account debtor a bad credit risk and didn’t have the ability to pay?
• Did the debtor request a credit and rebill for a reason? Do we know the reason? Does it make sense? And, did the invoice date stay the same or did they re-date the invoice?
• What was the ultimate outcome of the chargeback? Did the invoice pay later? If so, who did the money go to? If not, why was the invoice never paid?
• Did the client ‘pre-bill’ the invoice and not finish the work?
• Are there offsets that the debtor took against the invoice that we did not know about (i.e., contra account, deposit, other open credit memo, volume rebates, year end rebates, restocking fees, co-op charges, etc)?
• Was the invoice even real?

Remember that a factor purchases (buys) an invoice from a client and gives the client money against that invoice. For example, ABC client sends in an invoice for $50,000; the factor reviews the paperwork or verifies the invoice to ensure the work is completed. They should also review the debtor’s credit to be sure they have the ability to pay the invoice. The factor then buys the invoice, advancing typically 80% against the invoice amount. In this case, on the $50,000 invoice, the client would have received $40,000. If the invoice is later not paid, then how does the factor get repaid on the $40,000?

This is the reason that reviewing invoice documentation, verifying invoices and checking debtor (customer) credit are so important to a factor. Good factors know why these chargebacks occur and manage that risk.

Wishing You Continued Success. The Factor Guru.

How is the sale requested from the debtor?

In any industry, each party typically can evidence the ‘sale’ that generates an account receivable or invoice. Generally, a customer (Debtor) will ask the Prospect (Client) to perform a service or provide goods. This request can be in several formats such as verbally, a contract, work order, services agreement, purchase order, etc. This underlying agreement, when available (and yes, it’s available and does exist), dictates the terms of the sale. Pay special attention to those documents that refer to another agreement, the other side of the purchase order, or a website to print their underlying terms and conditions. You may find this information ‘enlightening’ when you are contemplating purchasing invoices and understanding the true sale arrangement.

How is the sale completed?

Once the service has been completed or the goods have been delivered, the Client can usually show that they did provide this service or deliver these goods. This can be in the form of a timesheet, delivery ticket, bill of lading, third party delivery, etc. There should be a way to show the completion of the sale, such as a sign off of the work completed, delivery documentation, etc…

When does a company invoice?

It is at this point that an invoice is usually created and sent to the Debtor. Remember, the invoice is not what dictates the terms and conditions of a sale. It is a reminder of payment for the services or goods delivered. Understand too that just because the Client prints the invoice off their system does not mean a completed sale has occurred or that the customer will pay. For example, a Client may invoice when an order is shipped; however, the goods may need to be inspected (as per those terms and conditions you found on their website) before payment can occur.

What do I ask for then?

Many times, it is easier to ask the Client how they do their billing. What do they receive letting them know their customer wants to order something or have something done? What do they get when it is completed? What does their customer require for payment? Sometimes, it is better to ask these open ended questions to gain a better understanding of the Client’s overall billing process. For example, if you just ask for the purchase order, it may not include the original underlying contract that exists.

Many factors will request a sample of the Client’s billing during the due diligence phase. Often times, Clients tend to provide a sample that doesn’t match as they are just pulling the closest information they can find on their desk (meaning, you may receive a work order for one sale, an invoice for another and a delivery ticket for another). However, it is important to be able to review an entire sale from beginning to end. Try to have the Client provide you with an invoice and all the backup relating to that ONE entire sale or order.

Once you have a basic understanding of their sales process, new questions may arise as you review this paperwork. Understanding that paperwork is critical, so ask the Client whenever in doubt or whenever something is not clear… it is better to know before you fund an invoice than when you are trying to collect on that invoice.

It is also important to remember that each industry is different and may have various types of documentation specific to their industry. But, we’ll leave that discussion for another day…

Wishing You Continued Success. The Factor Guru.

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…

Trend Cards, however, can help identify Red Flags as a whole and can provide a tool in monitoring accounts. Most Trend Cards include a 12-month period reflected on a monthly basis showing aging trends, dilution, receivable turnover, or other data points you want to measure. These reports can be manually generated in Excel or Access; some factoring software systems may include automated reporting for this information as well.

When reviewing trends, it is important to watch for anomalies. Below are some key data points you may want to monitor more readily:

PURCHASES. For example, monthly Purchases may illustrate sudden increases or decreases in sales, which may be attributed to seasonality or even a loss of customers because of quality issues. Where sales are suddenly increasing, this may be because of recent large orders or possibly even falsification of invoices. If a Client has no Purchases during a month, this could be a Red Flag.

COLLECTIONS. Changes in Collections can signify other Red Flags. You may want to ask yourself: Are there concerns within the verification or collection calls lately? Are all the checks going to your lockbox? Are customers paying more slowly? Is this a sign of potential pre-billing? Look for consistency in the relationship between Purchases and Collections. No Collections in the last month or erratic relationships between the Purchases and Collections could be a Red Flag.

DILUTION. Dilution changes should be monitored as well. Dilution results from the non-cash deductions to receivables. This is any time an invoice is not paid in full at par (face) value; therefore, reserves are applied for discounts, short pays, charge backs, credits, and other non-cash entries. Material increases in Dilution should be addressed.

Changes in dilution may represent a change in the Client’s business or billing practices. Are more invoices being charged off, disputed, or collected by the Client directly? Has the Client grown too quickly or not been on top of billing and collections as tightly? These are questions you may want to get answered.

It is important to note that typically an advance rate is initially set based on the expected Dilution. If over time, a Client’s advance rate stays at 80% but their Dilution increases to 25%, then for a $1,000 invoice, the advance to the Client would be $800 but only $750 would be paid by their customer.

THE AGING. The aging allows you to see how a Client’s typical receivables are spread over time. Watching for anomalies in this spread is important, as an early detection method or as a note to start monitoring a Client more closely.

As you can see, trends are a historical perspective only; however, when reviewed as a whole, these trends may reveal inconsistencies that may need to be addressed. For additional information on this subject, please feel free to email me, or call the International Factoring Association for additional reference contacts.

Wishing you success. The Factor Guru.

Sometimes, more than you thought possible… 

The #1 reason for delay of an initial new client funding can be attributed to not being able to structure a funding solution because the information is received late in the game. This information can include client names not being accurate in various places, including on the invoice, payment requirements being maintained including insurance needs and licenses, and more typically, the customer/debtor terms of the order directly affecting the payment of each invoice.

For invoices of any significant size, a contract, purchase order or other documentation outlining the company’s responsibilities between your prospective client and their customer is almost sure to exist.  Orders generally reflect the agreed upon price, the payment terms, what triggers billing, any insurance requirements, potential offsets or assignability, and more… Because of this, the next time you receive a complete application package and have any doubts about fully understanding the prospect’s business and billing (and I mean ‘any’ doubts), consider phoning the company again for a more in depth discussion prior to processing their application. 

Even if you are in the process of waiting for a prospect to respond with a completed application, what better reason to make that follow-up call and engage them than having them talk to you more about their business and how they operate that business. Understanding what they do can only help you, a factor, and the client, as they will not have to deal with ‘surprises’ later. Have them describe their billing processes and their customers’ payment history.  The company may even become more comfortable with you because you are taking an active interest into their business and truly how it works – you’re taking that extra step to build the relationship – you are showing them you want to understand their business and their needs.

It is always better to understand this dynamic prior to sending documents… prior to leading a company on (as they say). Why waste your time… or theirs. No surprises. That should be the motto, right?