Need a Funder or Vendor? START HERE

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26
  1. #1
    FUND IT! Reputation points: 2147483647 Sean Cash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,813

    rapidadvance bought by rockbridge growth equity?

    This release just came out. It makes it appear as though rockbridge has taken a controlling interest in rapidadvance. Acquires seems like pretty strong language.

    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...223943081.html

  2. #2
    Veteran Reputation points: 120507 Chambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,135

    so THAT is why Mark and Jeremy have been so elusive recently.....

  3. #3
    That is Dan Gilbert from Quicken Loans

  4. #4
    Veteran Reputation points: 120507 Chambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,135

    Rockbridge is part of the Rock Ventures family of companies, whose flagship company, Quicken Loans, is the nation's third largest residential mortgage lender

  5. #5
    Veteran Reputation points: 120507 Chambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,135

    The firm is also affiliated with other leading businesses including the Cleveland Cavaliers and Fathead.

  6. #6
    That is a huge name to jump into MCA

  7. #7
    FUND IT! Reputation points: 2147483647 Sean Cash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,813

    Quicken Loans? Never heard of em...

  8. #8
    Administrator Reputation points: 35496 admin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    528

    I think this ought to be republished here:


  9. #9
    Senior Member Reputation points: 325 Ryan Shiroky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    247

    Talk about growth industry...

    "Lunch is for whimps..." - G. Gekko

  10. #10
    Senior Member Reputation points: 148 Capital Stack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Wall ST.
    Posts
    273

    Cute..

    You know this thread really didn't get much play. I think its fascinating how there was a president set in the MCA space in a non distressed way that we haven't seen in others go down. The bold language of $100m Enterprise Value in the release is significant. What is also in a good connotation G. Gekkoish, is how Steve Mandis came in at I'm sure a significantly less valuation. Great trade!!

    It will be very interesting to see Rapid and the new family in 2014, and what it does to the MCA space.

  11. #11
    I am kind of wondering who sells next and what valuation they see

  12. #12
    Banned Reputation points: 123
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    151

    rapidadvance bought by rockbridge growth equity?

    This is getting interesting

  13. #13
    Senior Member Reputation points: 325 Ryan Shiroky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    247

    This is exactly what I was aiming at...

    I feel like we'll see a lot of serious old school corporate raiding down the line... Imagine the day On Deck goes public, its going to be mayhem on Wall Street. I feel like it will destroy the company being that everyone in the arena is going to want a piece of that pie and some of the big guys are not going to "Buy it lightly on the way up..." (-Sir Larry Wildman) they are going to gobble the company up...

    Some will laugh, some will cry, some will go home empty handed, some will be left holding the bag... We'll see...

  14. #14
    FUND IT! Reputation points: 2147483647 Sean Cash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    1,813

    Well I can say that there are a lot of big PE firms looking to buy big MCA companies just as one did with rapidadvance. potential buys I see are merchant cash and capital, business financial services, strategic funding source, kabbage etc. There's obviously a lot of other good buys but the appetite right now is to buy a front runner in terms of monthly volume.

    Three things I have learned from the PE firms I've spoken with is that they're very interested in bad debt %, technology, and scalability. You can't say "well we'll go from $3 million a month to $50 million a month by recruiting more ISOs." Everyone has biz dev. If you could scale up exponentially simply by recruiting more ISOs, they'll want to know why you haven't done that already.

    What makes your funding company an industry disrupter? A game changer? A deal that will return 10x the investment? When I started in this industry, there was no On Deck Capital. Now they're #2 in the space behind CAN. They didn't just do it by recruiting ISOs, they stirred the pot, challenged the norms, and likely are a big reason that the ACH advance/loan market exists right now. They recruit ISOs so easily that they actually CHARGE MONEY just to send them deals. Either you're an epic disrupter or you're leading the pack in volume (or both). That's whose going to get bought.

  15. #15
    Veteran Reputation points: 120507 Chambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,135

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Shiroky View Post
    This is exactly what I was aiming at...

    I feel like we'll see a lot of serious old school corporate raiding down the line... Imagine the day On Deck goes public, its going to be mayhem on Wall Street. I feel like it will destroy the company being that everyone in the arena is going to want a piece of that pie and some of the big guys are not going to "Buy it lightly on the way up..." (-Sir Larry Wildman) they are going to gobble the company up...

    Some will laugh, some will cry, some will go home empty handed, some will be left holding the bag... We'll see...
    Going public would be the single WORST thing On Deck would/could do. No more BS and smoke, they would have to produce their numbers every quarter and answer to shareholder scrutiny.

  16. #16
    Senior Member Reputation points: 325 Ryan Shiroky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    247

    Quote Originally Posted by Chambo View Post
    Going public would be the single WORST thing On Deck would/could do. No more BS and smoke, they would have to produce their numbers every quarter and answer to shareholder scrutiny.
    But if they were swallowed whole by a small group of some other big names then they would be operating on a whole other level, management would be switched up and there would be a mass execution of staff... So who knows what would happen really. But I do fully agree it would destroy the company because it would either be cannibalized by other funders or crumble from within (this is all speculation and simply my opinion, and wtf do i know, im just a sales guy...)

  17. #17
    Senior Member Reputation points: 325 Ryan Shiroky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    247

    Quote Originally Posted by cashguy View Post
    This is getting interesting
    This whole board is pretty damn interesting... for MCA junkies anyway...

  18. #18
    Veteran Reputation points: 120507 Chambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,135

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Shiroky View Post
    But if they were swallowed whole by a small group of some other big names then they would be operating on a whole other level, management would be switched up and there would be a mass execution of staff... So who knows what would happen really. But I do fully agree it would destroy the company because it would either be cannibalized by other funders or crumble from within (this is all speculation and simply my opinion, and wtf do i know, im just a sales guy...)
    On Deck has been fantasizing about this since inception in 2006.

  19. #19
    Senior Member Reputation points: 325 Ryan Shiroky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    247

    Quote Originally Posted by Chambo View Post
    On Deck has been fantasizing about this since inception in 2006.
    Indeed. The day they are profitable they are going to start pushing that IPO. And as you said, its going to be the single worst thing they have ever done/desired.

    What I don't understand... they are #2 in the space, HOW THE HELL are they NOT PROFITABLE?!?!?!? I don't see overhead as being a good excuse...

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Shiroky View Post
    Indeed. The day they are profitable they are going to start pushing that IPO. And as you said, its going to be the single worst thing they have ever done/desired.

    What I don't understand... they are #2 in the space, HOW THE HELL are they NOT PROFITABLE?!?!?!? I don't see overhead as being a good excuse...
    Easy. Keep raising capital from VC firms and selling a high growth story. Grow insanely now, profits come later. Until they don't and/or you can't continue to raise money. Then the wheels come off the bus (and the merchants go round and round...)

  21. #21
    Senior Member Reputation points: 325 Ryan Shiroky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    247

    Quote Originally Posted by jbrown View Post
    Easy. Keep raising capital from VC firms and selling a high growth story. Grow insanely now, profits come later. Until they don't and/or you can't continue to raise money. Then the wheels come off the bus (and the merchants go round and round...)
    So, they are making VC firms ooohhhh and ahhhh while having their pockets turned out??? Wouldn't a VC (at some point in the meeting) ask "ok the growth is nice, but where is the ROI????"

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Shiroky View Post
    So, they are making VC firms ooohhhh and ahhhh while having their pockets turned out??? Wouldn't a VC (at some point in the meeting) ask "ok the growth is nice, but where is the ROI????"
    Billions and billions were invested and lost in the dot.com crash of the late 90's based on investing in companies that reported the "# of eyeballs" they had captured. Not profits, not even revenues - just the future potential based on having lots of (non-paying) customers. Not the first time, and won't be the last time.

  23. #23
    Senior Member Reputation points: 325 Ryan Shiroky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    247

    Quote Originally Posted by jbrown View Post
    Billions and billions were invested and lost in the dot.com crash of the late 90's based on investing in companies that reported the "# of eyeballs" they had captured. Not profits, not even revenues - just the future potential based on having lots of (non-paying) customers. Not the first time, and won't be the last time.
    I totally understand that... but it still makes no sense...

    "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Shiroky View Post
    Indeed. The day they are profitable they are going to start pushing that IPO. And as you said, its going to be the single worst thing they have ever done/desired.

    What I don't understand... they are #2 in the space, HOW THE HELL are they NOT PROFITABLE?!?!?!? I don't see overhead as being a good excuse...
    My guess is that they are not profitable on a GAAP basis due to the accounting standards for Revenue Recognition and Loan Loss Reserves...This leads to little to no profit in high growth periods (i.e. their entire existence as a company.) I'm sure they're making positive returns in excess of cost of capital and overhead on their portfolio. Investors will be just fine.

  25. #25
    On deck already had a bid by wonga to purchase them and that deal didn't happen. It takes time for the right valuation to come around that makes sense for both parties and until you find the buyer at the right price , you continue to work on technology and growth branding. Most technology based companies have an exit strategy in their corporate DNA - so there may be new owners for some companies down the road but the brand name should stay around. The impact to wholesale channels shouldn't be an issue unless the new ownership mgmnt decides 3rd parties are no longer of interest or selling their product services-

Similar Threads

  1. Merchant Cash Group's Fast Funding Equity Program???
    By Sean Cash in forum Promotions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-09-2018, 06:07 PM
  2. Growth in the MCA industry
    By shieldfunding in forum Merchant Cash Advance
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-04-2013, 06:26 AM
  3. Unified Payments bought out by Public company
    By Capital Stack in forum Payment Processing
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-15-2013, 02:30 PM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •