LendingLoop.ca – Lending by the Masses: First Look

The premise of Lending Loop (www.lendingloop.ca) is simple: They are a new Canadian start up that enables you lend your money directly to companies. This has been done in the United States but this is the first Canadian-focused start up. They opened for business in the fall of 2015 and when I heard about them I signed up immediately. I have been watching them from the start and am a “lender” myself.  The following is my thoughts on how things have gone so far.

Historically, Canadians (those with a small net worth anyway) haven’t had many investing options. You can always put your money in a bank and get pitiful interest as your reward or you can invest in a bond fund, mutual fund, or increasingly stocks now that fees are quite low. However, other types of investing are limited to “accredited investors”, i.e. investors with large asset bases. Lower net worth individuals are protected from themselves by the government through minimum net worth requirements or are simply locked out because of the logistics of firms not wanting or able to deal with small amounts of money from a large group of people.

Lending Loop is opening up a world of finance that traditionally hasn’t been available to smaller investors - direct lending to companies. You lend as little as $50 and then receive interest and principal back over a few years.

The process – Lending Loop acts as the middleman between the lenders (you) and the company, replacing the traditional role of the bank. However, rather than the bank borrowing money from you (paying you practically nothing) and then lending it to someone else, you get to lend your money directly at your own discretion. Loan sizes so far have typically been in the $10,000-50,000 range. They conduct due diligence of the company and, if it meets their minimum lending requirement guidelines, it is given a loan rating from A+ to C with the interest rate paid based on the rating. Lending Loop makes money as the loan administrator. If a company pays, say 10% per year, Lending Loop will take 1.5% as its management fee. They also charge the company an upfront fee, which is disclosed but does not involve or benefit the lenders in any way. The full fee schedule can be found here: https://www.lendingloop.ca/help#fee_schedule

Loan structures so far have been simple amortizing loans with principal and interest payments spread out monthly over 2-4 years. All loans I have seen have been simple term loans supported by personal guarantees (although you do not get information on the guarantors, see further discussion below). There are no other structures such as including balloon payments or receivables based lending, and understandably so. They want to keep things simple to simplify management and keep the process straightforward for lenders and borrowers. Companies will still need a bank for their day-to-day needs. Companies so far have included a tax preparation office, a yoga place expanding to a new location, and a Second Cup.

My experience so far has been good. I put in a few hundred dollars and have provided funding to a few companies. It was easy to transfer funds into the account and the process is transparent. So far I have received the first few payments without issue.

However, information given to lenders is pretty light. You are provided with the company background, some basic financial statement information (last few years balance sheet and income statement provided in Lending Loops format, albeit brief) and information on the structure (e.g. 3 year loan, personal guarantee provided).  However, loan requests remain open for a period of time where you can ask management questions directly. You also do not have to commit to any company you do not like of course and the minimal disclosures need to be put in perspective as you are contributing as little as $50.  That said, at the moment I would be hard pressed to make a large commitment to any individual loan myself.

Loans are only committed once they are fully funded. If they are not fully funded by the deadline they do not go through, although I have not seen this happen yet.

If something goes wrong (such as the company cannot make a payment) it is handled by Lending Loop. In the loan agreement Lending Loop has discretion to manage the process on behalf of lenders, as negotiating a restructuring with potentially hundreds of individual lenders would be a nightmare. That said, as someone with lending experience it is unclear to me how this is going to work in practice. Most borrowers I have seen so far on the site have been asset-lite but supported by personal guarantees. I imagine most failures will result in bankruptcies and sale of company and personal assets for repayment rather than some sort of more complicated restructuring process. I also imagine that there won’t be a lot of assets to liquidate for repayment in some of these situations.

Other issues – There are a number of potential problems with this model. The most important one to me the agency issue. They make their fee from underwriting new loans while they do not have skin in the game. This could lead to issues such as them underestimating the risk of loans by accident or otherwise. That said, it would not take many bad situations for them to lose creditability (and, in turn, tank the firm) and I believe they are well aware of this. Various members of the Lending Loop team also seem to have decent experience with several of them having commercial/corporate lending backgrounds at Canadian banks. This helps but it is still an issue to be very conscious of.

From a borrower perspective the financing seems quite expensive. Many loans are in the 10-12% interest rate range (never mind the up front fees paid to Lending Loop) so it seem that borrowers might be choosing Lending Loop because they do not have access to traditional bank lending, potentially indicating a higher risk profile. That said, Canadian banks are notoriously rigid and uncreative, unless of course you want to mortgage a half a million dollar home. They can’t be blamed completely as they are buried in red tape, either self-imposed or by a friendly regulator.

I think Lending Loop might have found a real niche here and I applaud them for trying something new. Frankly, I have found the process quite fine. It is a different feeling lending directly to a company and gives you a sense of ownership. That said, I am using it as a side thing for small amounts of money. There is real risk here and it won’t be replacing my regular portfolio anytime soon. I want to see how things go over the next year or two (and the results of bad loans when they inevitably show up). In the meantime, Lending Loop will provide me with a bit of fun and diversification.

Stay tuned!

Source: www.lendingloop.ca

K-Bro Linen (TSX: KBL, C$48.80) - Dirty Dollars

Airing your dirty laundry usually has a negative connotation but around here we always trying to look at things in a new way. 

K-Bro has lots of dirty laundry to talk about, being Canada’s largest publicly listed linen cleaning company. The company’s origins go back to the 1950s where they laundered cloth baby diapers. Now, however, they have turned the company into a nice business where they are a provider of linen cleaning services for 1) the healthcare industry (2/3rds of revenue) and 2) the hospitality industry (1/3rd) with 2014 revenues of $136MM.  

What makes them interesting is: 

1) The majority of their business is supported by long-term contracts with healthcare contracts typically being ten years. 

2) They have good steady margins – Operating margins of 12-13%, NI margin at 8-9%, and a steady dividend payout of ~40%.  

3) Capital costs are up front with minimal maintenance capex required (currently $1-2MM/year compared to operating cash flows of $22-25MM).  

4) Big new contract with Saskatchewan’s 3sHealth for the provinces healthcare linen needs. The Company built a new plant in Saskatoon to serve the needs of the province. The exact expected impact of this is unclear (the Company and province have been very quiet about the terms, just that it will save the province “$100 million dollars” over the course of the contract. 

What happens when these large contracts run out? We can look to 2008. When K-Bro renewed their Calgary Health Region contract the existing facility lease was up for expiry and could not be renewed. K-Bro ultimately built a new facility (~$15MM). This does remind us that, even though its reported balance sheet is unlevered, it does have $6MM of annual operating lease expenses, for which over $40MM should be added to the balance sheet as debt.  

Reported maintenance capex levels: One thing that stood out to use is the Company's stated level of maintenance capital (defined as "costs required to maintain or replace assets which do not have a discrete return on investment"), which management states is $1-2MM annually. This seems at odds with D&A of $7MM; though we have never run an industrial-scale laundry plant, and despise doing our own laundry for that matter, we think their depreciation assumptions seem reasonable. Perhaps free cash flow after maintenance capital may not be as high as it seems, and earnings are a better way to assess profitability. If you are doing some sort of DCF analysis you would have to either 1) Assume the plants are completely rebuilt at some point (as capital is usually all up front)  or 2) Assume the contracts do not get renewed.

What do we think? It’s a decent, possibly great, business but it’s just too expensive. Unfortunately K-Bro is trading at an almost 30x P/E ratio (2.5% dividend). Assuming a 30% increase in corporate earnings (probably a fair estimate) that still reflects a ~25x P/E multiple, which is a high price for a company that has steady but slow and lumpy growth (never mind the risk that major contracts do not get renewed). It appears that this new contract is already baked in and new growth would mean another new contract with another province that would take several years to bring to fruition.  One thing we would note is the Saskatchewan union has been actively trying to make the recent 3sHealth contract public - if they are successful, this would be a good time to revisit when the economics of a major contract become public.

We’ll keep an eye open for a (large) dip and remain on the sidelines. 

Charlie Munger - On the Psychology of Human Misjudgement (1995 Harvard)

As a follow up to the last post, here is Charlie Munger's Standard Causes of Human Misjudgment:

  1. Under-recognition of the power of what psychologists call ‘reinforcement’
    and economists call ‘incentives.’
  2. My second factor is simple psychological denial.
  3. Incentive-cause bias, both in one’s own mind and that of ones trusted
    adviser, where it creates what economists call ‘agency costs.’
  4. This is a superpower in error-causing psychological tendency: bias
    from consistency and commitment tendency, including the tendency to avoid or
    promptly resolve cognitive dissonance. Includes the self-confirmation tendency of
    all conclusions, particularly expressed conclusions, and with a special persistence
    for conclusions that are hard-won.
  5. Bias from Pavlovian association, misconstruing past correlation as a reliable
    basis for decision-making.
  6. Bias from reciprocation tendency, including the tendency to act as other persons expect.
  7. Now this is a lollapalooza, and Henry Kaufman wisely talked about this:
    bias from over-influence by social proof -- that is, the conclusions of others,
    particularly under conditions of natural uncertainty and stress.
  8. What made these economists love the efficient market
    theory is the math was so elegant.
  9. Bias from contrast-caused distortions of sensation, perception and cognition.
  10. Bias from over-influence by authority.
  11. Bias from deprival super-reaction syndrome, including bias caused by
    present or threatened scarcity including threatened removal of something almost
    possessed but never possessed.
  12. Bias from envy/jealousy.
  13. Bias from chemical dependency.
  14. Bias from mis-gambling compulsion.
  15. Bias from liking distortion, including the tendency to especially like oneself, one’s
    own kind and one’s own idea structures, and the tendency to be especially
    susceptible to being misled by someone liked. Disliking distortion, bias from that,
    the reciprocal of liking distortion and the tendency not to learn appropriately
    from someone disliked.
  16. Bias from the non-mathematical nature of the human brain in its natural state as it deal with probabilities employing crude heuristics, and is often misled by mere contrast, a tendency to over-weight conveniently available information and other psychologically misrouted thinking tendencies on this list.
  17. Bias from over-influence by extra-vivid evidence.
  18. Mental confusion caused by information not arrayed in the mind and theory structures, creating sound generalizations developed in response to the question “Why?” Also, mis-influence from information that apparently but not really answers the question “Why?” Also, failure to obtain deserved influence caused by not properly explaining why.
  19. Other normal limitations of sensation, memory, cognition and knowledge.
  20. Stress-induced mental changes, small and large, temporary and permanent.
  21. Other common mental illnesses and declines, temporary and permanent, including the tendency to lose ability through disuse.
  22. Development and organizational confusion from say-something syndrome.
  23. [Paraphrasing] The above can be combined to greatly increase their power to change behavior, regarded by Charlie as the lollapalooza effect.