Item 4. Controls and Procedures
Our management, with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, has evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a- 15(e) and 15d- 15(e) under the Exchange Act), as of the end of the period covered by this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. Based on such evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that as of such date, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective.
There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting identified in management’s evaluation pursuant to Rules 13a-15(d) or 15d-15(d) of the Exchange Act during the period covered by this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q that materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
PART II - OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1. Legal Proceedings
In addition to the matters discussed below, in the ordinary course of business, from time to time, we have been and may be named as a defendant in various legal proceedings arising in connection with our business activities, including affordability claims related to the Sunny product.activities. We may also be involved, from time to time, in reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental agencies regarding our business (collectively, “regulatory matters”). We contest liability and/or the amount of damages as appropriate in each such pending matter. We do not anticipate that the ultimate liability, if any, arising out of any such pending matter will have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
TFI Settlement with CFPB
In June 2012, prior to the spin-off from TFI, and in February 2016, after the spin-off, TFI received Civil Investigative Demands from the CFPB. The purpose of the Civil Investigative Demands was to determine whether small-dollar online lenders or other unnamed persons engaged in unlawful acts or practices relating to the advertising, marketing, provision, or collection of small-dollar loan products, in violation of Section 1036 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, or any other federal consumer financial law and to determine whether CFPB action to obtain legal or equitable relief would be in the public interest. Further, on November 15, 2017 the CFPB sued TFI alleging it deceived consumers into paying debts that were not valid and that it collected loan payments that consumers did not owe. The CFPB and TFI have agreed to settle all claims and executed a settlement agreement that was filed with the United States District Court for the District of Montana and is part of a larger resolution of the bankruptcy proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas involving TFI. While TFI’s business is distinct from our business, we cannot predict the final outcome of the Civil Investigative Demands or to what extent any obligations arising out of such final outcome will be applicable to our company or business, if at all.
Other Matters
While no TFI related litigation has been filed directly against Elevate, we can provide no assurances that there will not be any future TFI related litigation filed against the Company. In October 2019, Elevate entered into tolling agreements with the TFI Creditors' Committee and class claimants in regard to any potential future claims against Elevate. These tolling agreements have been extended, and we may enter into additional extensions of the tolling agreements in the future. In December 2019, the TFI bankruptcy plan was confirmed, and any potential future claims from the TFI Creditors' Committee were assigned to the Think Finance Litigation Trust (“TFLT”). On February 20,August 14, 2020, Elevate and the TFLT commenced mediationfiled an adversary proceeding against Elevate in an attemptthe United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleging certain avoidance claims related to resolve, prior to any litigation being filed, any potential claimsElevate’s spin-off from TFI under the Bankruptcy Code and TUFTA. If it were determined that the TFLT may have against Elevate including, among other things, whether or not the spin-off of Elevate from TFI wasconstituted a fraudulent conveyance and anyor that there were other avoidance actions associated with the spin-off, then the spin-off could be deemed void and there could be a number of different remedies imposed against Elevate, including without limitation, the requirement that Elevate has to pay money damages. While the TFLT values this claim at $246 million, we believe that we have valid defenses to the claim and intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this claim. In November 2020, Elevate made a settlement proposal to the TFLT and established a reserve based on its settlement offer amount. Additionally, a class action lawsuit against Elevate was filed on August 14, 2020 in the Eastern District of Virginia alleging violations of usurious interest and aiding and abetting various racketeering activities related to the operations of TFI prior to and immediately after the 2014 spin-off. On October 26, 2020, Elevate filed a motion to dismiss and awaits a ruling on that motion. Elevate views this lawsuit as without merit and intends to vigorously defend its position. We accrued a contingent loss in the amount of $17 million for estimated loss related to the TFLT and class action disputes at March 31, 2021. The accrual is recognized as Non-operating loss in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and as Accounts payable and accrued liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Even when an accrual is recorded, we may be exposed to loss in excess of any amounts accrued. While Elevate can provide no assurances as to the duration or potential outcome of such mediation process,proceedings, in the event that for either proceeding there is a settlement and Elevate is unable to pay any amount resulting from such settlement, it could have a material adverse effect on Elevate’s financial condition, or, if there is no settlement and Elevate is deemed to ultimately be liable in this matter,these matters, Elevate could be obligated to file for bankruptcy. Elevate can provide no assurances as to how long the mediation process may take, or the outcome of such mediation. In addition, if the mediation is unsuccessful, Elevate anticipates that the TFLT will pursue its claims in litigation against Elevate. See Item 1A. "Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Association with TFI—The Think Finance Litigation Trust in the TFI Bankruptcy, as well as third parties, may seek to hold us responsible for liabilities of TFI due to the Spin-Off" of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. Because no claims have been filed against Elevate, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. We believe any future claims are without merit, and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously.
On January 9,June 5, 2020, the District of Columbia's Attorney General, Karl A. Racine, issued a subpoena toColumbia (the "District"), sued Elevate in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia alleging that Elevate may have violated the District of Columbia'sDistrict's Consumer Protection Procedures Act and the District of Columbia's Municipal Regulations in connection with loans issued by banks in the District of Columbia. The documents requested are relatedThis action has been removed to federal court, but the District filed a motion to remand to the FinWise and Republic Bank originated loans in the District of Columbia. Elevate has engaged counsel and initiated discussions with the Attorney General’s office and is working to address any potential issues and provide certain documents as requested.Superior Court on August 3, 2020. Elevate disagrees that it has violated the above referenced lawlaws and regulations and it intends to vigorously defend its position.
In addition, on January 27, 2020, Sopheary Sanh filed a class action complaint in the Western District Court in the state of Washington against Rise Credit Service of Texas, LLC d/b/a Rise, Opportunity Financial, LLC and Applied Data Finance, LLC d/b/a Personify Financial. The Plaintiff in the case claims that Rise and others are engaged in “predatory lending practices that target financially vulnerable consumers” andPersonify Financial have violated Washington’s Consumer Protection Act by engaging in unfair or deceptive practices, and seeks class certification, injunctive relief to prevent solicitation of consumers to apply for loans, monetary damages and other appropriate relief, including an award of costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees. The lawsuit was removed to federal court. On January 12, 2021, the court granted Rise's motion to dismiss, however Plaintiffs amended their complaint on January 25, 2021, suing Elevate alleging it is the true lender and violated Washington's Consumer Protection Act. Elevate disagrees that it has violated the above referenced law and it intends to vigorously defend its position.
On March 3, 2020, Heather Crawford filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the state of California, county of Los Angeles, against Elevate Credit, Inc., Elevate Credit Service, LLC and Rise Credit of California, LLC alleging unconscionable interest rates on Rise loans and seeking damages and public injunctive relief. Elevate filed a motion to compel arbitration, and Ms. Crawford dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice to refile in arbitration. Ms. Crawford has not filed any arbitration demand as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. In addition, on April 6, 2020, Danh Le made a demand for arbitration against Elevate Credit, Inc., Elevate Credit Service, LLC and Rise Credit of California, LLC similarly alleging unconscionable interest rates on Rise loans and seeking damages and public injunctive relief. Mr. Le later filed an amended demand, dropping his request for public injunctive relief but adding alleged violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiffs in these actions assert claims under the “unlawful,” “unfair,” and “fraudulent” prongs of the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) and for breach of contract and civil conspiracy. The “unlawful” UCL claims are premised upon alleged violations of (a) the California Financing Law’s prohibition on unconscionable loans and (b) the California False Advertising Law. Elevate disagrees that it has violated the above referenced lawlaws and it intends to vigorously defend its position.
Item 1A. Risk Factors
There have been no material changes from the Risk Factors described in Item 1A. “Risk Factors” of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019,2020, except as set forth below.
RISKS RELATED TO OUR BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and various policies being implemented to prevent its spread could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
In March 2020, the outbreak of the novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") was recognized as a pandemic by the World Health Organization. The spread of COVID-19 has created a global public health crisis that has resulted in unprecedented uncertainty, volatility and disruption in financial markets and in governmental, commercial and consumer activity in the US and globally, including the markets that we serve. Governmental responses to the pandemic have included orders closing businesses not deemed essential and directing individuals to restrict their movements, observe social distancing and shelter in place. These actions, together with responses to the pandemic by businesses and individuals, have resulted in rapid decreases in commercial and consumer activity, temporary closures of many businesses that have led to a loss of revenues and a rapid increase in unemployment, material decreases in oil and gas prices and in business valuations, disrupted global supply chains, market downturns and volatility, changes in consumer behavior related to pandemic fears, related emergency response legislation and an expectation that Federal Reserve policy will maintain a low interest rate environment for the foreseeable future.
The pandemic and measures implemented by government authorities to try to contain the virus can affect our business directly as well as affect our employees, customers and business partners. While we have successfully transitioned our employee base to a remote working environment, normal operations may be difficult to maintain and our resources may be constrained. Similarly, the operations of our business partners and third party service providers may be constrained, reducing the effectiveness of collections, credit bureau reporting, marketing or other aspects of our operations. The effects of the outbreak on us could be exacerbated given that the outbreak, and preventative measures taken to contain or mitigate the outbreak, may increasingly have significant negative effects on consumer discretionary spending and demand for and repayment of our products. Further, many of our customers are experiencing layoffs, slowdowns, work stoppages and other changes in work and financial circumstances, diminishing their demand for loans, eligibility for loans and ability to repay loans. In addition, efforts we take in response to the pandemic, such as expanding our payment flexibility programs, or to mitigate the effects of the pandemic, such as implementing underwriting changes to address credit risk associated with originations during the economic crisis created by the COVID-19 pandemic, may not be successful or may have other affects our business and results of operations such as, for example, decreasing the average APR of our products or reducing loan origination applications and loan origination volume. While we are closely monitoring the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic across our business, including the resulting uncertainties around customer demand, credit quality, levels of liquidity and our ongoing compliance with debt covenants, there can be no assurance that the COVID-19 outbreak and its effects will not materially adversely affect our financial position, and our access to capital, to the extent we need additional liquidity, may be constrained due to disruptions in the capital markets and financial markets.
Government efforts in the US and UK to mitigate the economic effects of the pandemic, including new legislation, may affect our business and operations. On March 27, 2020, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”), which provides wide-ranging financial and regulatory relief related to the ongoing COVID-19 public health crisis. In addition to other regulatory relief measures, the CARES Act requires lenders that furnish credit information to report to credit bureaus that consumers are current on their loans if consumers have sought relief from their lenders due to the pandemic. The pandemic has also sparked a litany of new orders, rules, laws, guidance related to creditor collections and third-party debt collection activities. These rules generally prohibit certain collections activities for a specified time. It is anticipated that these restrictions, as well as certain options for borrowers to defer payments offered by us and the banks we work with, will impact collections for the at least the next several months.
The effects of the pandemic may also cause various government authorities to slow or suspend enacting new legislation or rulemaking and may hinder the ability of such authorities to provide regulatory guidance in a timely manner. For example, the California legislature, like most other states, has had their session cut short due to the coronavirus pandemic and, as a result, it is unclear when and whether California will continue with its pursuit of proposed revisions to the California Department of Business Oversight to, among other things, rename the Department of Business Oversight to be the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation and also empower the Department to extend state oversight to financial services providers not currently subject to state supervision but also facilitate innovation.
Given the dynamic nature of the COVID-19 outbreak, the extent to which it will impact our business will depend on future developments that are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted at this time, including, but not limited to, the duration and spread of the pandemic, its severity, the actions taken and restrictions imposed by state and federal governments to contain the virus, treat its impact or provide stimulus to the economy and how quickly and to what extent normal economic and operating activities can resume. Due to the speed with which the situation is developing, we are not able at this time to estimate the effect of these factors on our business, but any adverse impact on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows could be material.
We operate in an industry that is rapidly evolving, and we may be unsuccessful in response to these changes.
Although our management team has many years of experience in the non-prime lending industry, we operate in an evolving industry that may not develop as expected. Assessing the future prospects of our business is challenging in light of both known and unknown risks and difficulties we may encounter. Growth prospects in non-prime lending can be affected by a wide variety of factors including:
Competition from other online and traditional lenders and credit card providers;
Regulatory limitations that impact the non-prime lending products we can offer and the markets we can serve;
An evolving regulatory and legislative landscape;
Access to important marketing channels such as:
| |
◦ | Direct mail and electronic offers; |
| |
◦ | Direct marketing, including search engine marketing; and |
| |
◦ | Strategic partnerships with affiliates; |
Changes in consumer behavior;
Access to adequate financing;
Increasingly sophisticated fraudulent borrowing and online theft;
Challenges with new products and new markets;
Dependence on our proprietary technology infrastructure and security systems;
Dependence on our personnel and certain third parties with whom we do business;
Risk to our business if our systems are hacked or otherwise compromised;
Evolving industry standards;
Recruiting and retention of qualified personnel necessary to operate our business and
Fluctuations in the credit markets and demand for credit.
We may not be able to successfully address these factors, which could negatively impact our growth, harm our business and cause our operating results to be worse than expected.
Our most recent annual revenue declined from the prior year and we may not be able to grow in the future.
Our revenues decreased to $747.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 from $786.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2018. Our revenue growth rate has fluctuated over the past few years and it is possible that, in the future, even if our revenues continue to increase, our rate of revenue growth could decline, either because of external factors affecting the growth of our business or because we are not able to scale effectively as we grow. If we cannot manage our growth effectively, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
We have a history of losses and may not maintain or achieve consistent profitability in the future.
We incurred net income (losses) of $32.2 million, $12.5 million and $(6.9) million for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively. As of December 31, 2019, we had an accumulated deficit of $34.3 million. We will need to generate and sustain increased revenues in future periods in order to become and remain profitable, and, even if we do, we may not be able to maintain or increase our level of profitability.
As we grow, we expect to continue to expend substantial financial and other resources on:
personnel, including significant increases to the total compensation we pay our employees as we grow our employee headcount;
marketing, including expenses relating to increased direct marketing efforts;
product development, including the continued development of our proprietary scoring methodology;
funding costs to support loan growth;
office space, as we increase the space we need for our growing employee base; and
general administration, including legal, accounting and other compliance expenses related to being a public company.
These expenditures are expected to increase and may adversely affect our ability to achieve and sustain profitability as we grow. In addition, we record our provision for loan losses as an expense to account for the possibility that some loans may not be repaid in full. We expect the aggregate amount of loan loss provision to grow as we increase the number and total amount of loans we make to new customers.
Our efforts to grow our business may be more costly than we expect, and we may not be able to increase our revenues enough to offset our higher operating expenses. We may incur losses in the future for a number of reasons, including the other risks described in this "Risk Factors" section, unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications and delays and other unknown events. If we are unable to achieve and sustain profitability, the market price of our common stock may significantly decrease.
The consumer lending industry continues to be subject to new laws and regulations in many jurisdictions that could restrict the consumer lending products and services we offer, impose additional compliance costs on us, render our current operations unprofitable or even prohibit our current operations.
Both stateState and federal governments in the US and regulatory bodies in the UK may seek to impose new laws, direct contractual arrangements with us, regulatory restrictions or licensing requirements that affect the products or services we offer, the terms on which we may offer them, and the disclosure, compliance and reporting obligations we must fulfill in connection with our lending business. They may also interpret or enforce existing requirements in new ways that could restrict our ability to continue our current methods of operation or to expand operations, impose significant additional compliance costs and may have a negative effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. In some cases, these measures could even directly prohibit some or all of our current business activities in certain jurisdictions or render them unprofitable or impractical to continue. For example, on October 25, 2019, the Company's UK subsidiary, ECI, entered into an agreement with the FCA that prohibits us from making payments greater than £1.0 million outside of the normal course of business without obtaining prior approval from the FCA. The Company believes this agreement will not have a material impact on ECI's ability to continue to serve its customers and meet its obligations.
In recent years, consumer loans, and in particular the category commonly referred to as “payday loans,” have come under increased regulatory scrutiny that has resulted in increasingly restrictive regulations and legislation that makes offering consumer loans in certain states in the US or the UK less profitable or unattractive. On October 5, 2017July 7, 2020, the CFPB issued a final rule covering loans that require consumersconcerning small dollar lending in order to repay all or mostmaintain consumer access to credit and competition in the marketplace. The final rule rescinds the mandatory underwriting provisions of the debt at once, including payday loans, auto title loans, deposit advance products, longer-term loans with balloonpreviously proposed 2017 rule after re-evaluating the legal and evidentiary bases for these provisions and finding them to be insufficient. The final rule does not rescind or alter the payments and any loan with an annual percentage rate over 36% that includes authorization for the lender to access the borrower’s checking or prepaid account (the "2017 Rule"). Since that time,provisions of the 2017 Rule has been amended. See "—The CFPB issued proposed revisions to the 2017 Rule affecting the consumer lending industry, and these or subsequent new rules and regulations, if they are finalized, may impact our US consumer lending business" for more information.
We also expect that further new laws and regulations will be promulgated in the UK that could impact our business operations. See “—The UK has imposed, and continues to impose, increased regulation of the high-cost short-term credit industry with the stated expectation that some firms will exit the market” for additional information.rule.
In order to serve our non-prime customers profitably we need to sufficiently price the risk of the transaction into the annual percentage rate (“APR”)APR of our loans. If individual states or the US federal government or regulators in the UK impose rate caps lower than those at which we can operate our current business profitably or otherwise impose stricter limits on non-prime lending, we would need to exit such states or dramatically reduce our rate of growth by limiting our products to customers with higher creditworthiness. On April 30, 2019, Senator Dick Durbin reintroduced a bill that would create a national interest rate cap of 36%For example, on consumer loans. S. 1230 "Protecting Consumers from Unreasonable Credit Rates Act of 2019" is co-sponsored by Senators Jeff Merkley, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Richard Blumenthal. Previous versions have been proposed in 2009, 2013, 2015 and 2017, but the bill has never made it to the House or Senate floor. The current bill is still pending in the Senate. In November 2019, Rep. Jesús "Chuy" García, Rep. Glenn Grothman and ten others introduced H.R. 5050, the Veterans and Consumers Fair Credit Act (VCFCA). This bill would create a national rate cap of 36% on all consumer loans from all lenders. Senators Jeff Merkley, Jack Reed, Sherrod Brown, Chris Van Hollen and others introduced S. 2833, a companion bill to H.R. 5050, in the Senate at the same time. The House Financial Services Committee held hearings on H.R. 5050 in February 2020 and it is possible that the bill will get more attention later this year.
On January 1, 2020, California lending law changed to impose a rate cap of 36% plus the Federal Funds Rate set by the Federal Reserve Board for all consumer-purpose installment loans, including personal loans, car loans, and auto title loans, as well as open-end lines of credit made under its California Financing Law where the amount of credit is $2,500 or more but less than $10,000. Rise loans originated by Elevate arewere impacted by this law and as a result, on January 1, 2020, no new Rise loans have been originated in California.
On January 13, 2021, the Illinois state legislature passed a bill that would prohibit lenders from charging more than 36% APR on all consumer loans. The legislation applies to all non-commercial loans, including closed-end and open-end credit, retail installment sales contracts and motor vehicle retail installment sales contracts. The Illinois legislation broadly defines “lender” to include any (i) affiliate or subsidiary of a lender or (ii) person or entity that buys a whole or partial interest in a loan, arranges a loan for a third party or acts as an agent for a third party in making a loan. The definition of “lender” also includes any other person or entity if the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation determines that the person or entity is engaged in a transaction that it is in substance a disguised loan or a subterfuge for the purpose of avoiding this legislation.
The Illinois legislation exempts federal and state-chartered banks. The legislation includes a “no evasion” provision that emphasizes that a person or entity is a lender subject to the requirements of the legislation notwithstanding the fact that the entity purports to act as an agent, service provider or in another capacity for another entity that is exempt from the legislation, if, among other things: (i) the entity holds, acquires or maintains, directly or indirectly, the predominant economic interest in the loan, (ii) the entity markets, brokers, arranges or facilitates the loan and holds the right, requirement or first right of refusal to purchase loans, receivables or interests in the loans or (iii) the totality of the circumstances indicate that the entity is the lender and the transaction is structured to evade the requirements of such legislation. The Illinois legislation requires lenders subject to its requirements to calculate the 36% APR using the system for calculating a military APR under Section 232.4 of the Military Lending Act. The legislation provides that any loan made in excess of 36% APR would be considered null and void. The Illinois legislation became effective on March 23, 2021. Rise Credit of Illinois will no longer originate loans that are not in compliance with the new law.
On April 16, 2021, the North Dakota Governor signed a bill that amends the North Dakota Money Brokers Act to limit the annual interest rate that licensees may charge to 36%. The law is effective August 1, 2021. On or before that date, Rise Credit of North Dakota will no longer originate loans that are not in compliance with the new law.
At the national level, bills that would create a national interest rate cap of 36% on consumer loans have been proposed at various times, including in 2009, 2013, 2015, 2017 and 2019.
Furthermore, legislative or regulatory actions may be influenced by negative perceptions of us and our industry, even if such negative perceptions are inaccurate, attributable to conduct by third parties not affiliated with us (such as other industry members) or attributable to matters not specific to our industry.
Any of these or other legislative or regulatory actions that affect our consumer loan business at the national, state international and local level could, if enacted or interpreted differently, have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows and prohibit or directly or indirectly impair our ability to continue current operations.
Regulators and payment processors are scrutinizing certain online lenders’ access to the Automated Clearing House system to disburse and collect loan proceeds and repayments, and any interruption or limitation on our ability to access this critical system would materially adversely affect our business.
When making loans in the US, we typically use the Automated Clearing House (“ACH”) system to deposit loan proceeds into our customers’ bank accounts. This includes loans that we originate as well as Elastic loans originated by Republic Bank & Trust Company (“Republic Bank”), Rise loans made through the credit services organization (“CSO”) programs and Rise loans originated by FinWise Bank ("FinWise"). These products also depend on the ACH system to collect amounts due by withdrawing funds from customers’ bank accounts when the customer has provided authorization to do so. ACH transactions are processed by banks, and if these banks cease to provide ACH processing services or are not allowed to do so, we would have to materially alter, or possibly discontinue, some or all of our business if alternative ACH processors or other payment mechanisms are not available.
It has been reported that actions, referred to as Operation Choke Point, by the US Department of Justice (the “Justice Department”) the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) and certain state regulators appear to be intended to discourage banks and ACH payment processors from providing access to the ACH system for certain lenders that they believe are operating illegally, cutting off their access to the ACH system to either debit or credit customer accounts (or both).
In the past, this heightened regulatory scrutiny by the Justice Department, the FDIC and other regulators has caused some banks and ACH payment processors to cease doing business with consumer lenders who are operating legally, without regard to whether those lenders are complying with applicable laws, simply to avoid the risk of heightened scrutiny or even litigation. These actions have reduced the number of banks and payment processors who provide ACH payment processing services and could conceivably make it increasingly difficult to find banking partners and payment processors in the future and/or lead to significantly increased costs for these services. If we are unable to maintain access to needed services on favorable terms, we would have to materially alter, or possibly discontinue, some or all of our business if alternative processors are not available. In response to Operation Choke Point, H.R. 2706 was introduced in the House to halt future similar actions. The bill passed out of the House on December 11, 2017 but did not progress. H.R. 189 was introduced in the House on January 3, 2019 to address Operation Choke Point. It is unknown if this newly reintroduced legislation will progress further. On May 22, 2019, the FDIC issued a letter in connection with litigation acknowledging that certain of its "employees acted in a manner inconsistent with FDIC policies with respect to payday lenders" in what has been generically described as "Operation Choke Point," and that this conduct created misperceptions about the FDIC's policies. Regulatory threats, undue pressure, coercion, and intimidation designed to restrict access to financial services for lawful businesses have no place at the FDIC."
If we lost access to the ACH system because our payment processor was unable or unwilling to access the ACH system on our behalf, we would experience a significant reduction in customer loan payments. Although we would notify consumers that they would need to make their loan payments via physical check, debit card or other method of payment a large number of customers would likely go into default because they are expecting automated payment processing. Similarly, if regulatory changes limited our access to the ACH system or reduced the number of times ACH transactions could be re-presented, we would experience higher losses.
If the information provided by customers or other third parties to us is incomplete, incorrect, or fraudulent, we may misjudge a customer’s qualification to receive a loan, and any inability to effectively identify, manage, monitor and mitigate fraud risk on a large scale could cause us to incur substantial losses, and our operating results, brand and reputation could be harmed.
For the loans we originate through Rise and Sunny, our growth is largely predicated on effective loan underwriting resulting in acceptable customer profitability. This is equally important for the Rise loans in Texas and the Rise loans and Elastic lines of credit originated by unaffiliated third parties. See “Management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations—Components of Our Results of Operations—Revenues.” Lending decisions by such originating lenders are made using our proprietary credit and fraud scoring models, which we license to them. Lending decisions are based partly on information provided by loan applicants and partly on information provided by consumer reporting agencies, such as TransUnion, Experian or Equifax and other third-party data providers. Data provided by third-party sources is a significant component of the decision methodology, and this data may contain inaccuracies. To the extent that applicants provide inaccurate or unverifiable information or data from third-party providers is incomplete or inaccurate, the credit score delivered by our proprietary scoring methodology may not accurately reflect the associated risk. Additionally, a credit score assigned to a borrower may not reflect that borrower's actual creditworthiness because the credit score may be based on outdated, incomplete or inaccurate consumer reporting data, and we do not verify the information obtained from the borrower's credit report. Additionally, there is a risk that, following the date of the credit report that we obtain and review, a borrower may have:
become past due in the payment of an outstanding obligation;
defaulted on a pre-existing debt obligation;
taken on additional debt; or
sustained other adverse financial events.
Our resources, technologies and fraud prevention tools, which are used to originate or facilitate the origination of loans or lines of credit, as applicable, under Rise, Sunny, Elastic and Today Card, may be insufficient to accurately detect and prevent fraud.
Inaccurate analysis of credit data that could result from false loan application information could harm our reputation, business and operating results.
In addition, our proprietary credit and fraud scoring models use identity and fraud checks analyzing data provided by external databases to authenticate each customer’s identity. The level of our fraud charge-offs and results of operations could be materially adversely affected if fraudulent activity were to significantly increase. Online lenders are particularly subject to fraud because of the lack of face-to-face interactions and document review. If applicants assume false identities to defraud the Company or consumers simply have no intent to repay the money they have borrowed, the related portfolio of loans will exhibit higher loan losses. We have in the past and may in the future incur substantial losses and our business operations could be disrupted if we or the originating lenders are unable to effectively identify, manage, monitor and mitigate fraud risk using our proprietary credit and fraud scoring models.
Since fraud is often perpetrated by increasingly sophisticated individuals and “rings” of criminals, it is important for us to continue to update and improve the fraud detection and prevention capabilities of our proprietary credit and fraud scoring models. If these efforts are unsuccessful then credit quality and customer profitability will erode. If credit and/or fraud losses increased significantly due to inadequacies in underwriting or new fraud trends, new customer originations may need to be reduced until credit and fraud losses returned to target levels, and business could contract.
It may be difficult or impossible to recoup funds underlying loans made in connection with inaccurate statements, omissions of fact or fraud. Loan losses are currently the largest cost as a percentage of revenues across each of Rise, Sunny, Elastic, and Today Card. If credit or fraud losses were to rise, this would significantly reduce our profitability. High profile fraudulent activity could also lead to regulatory intervention, negatively impact our operating results, brand and reputation and require us, and the originating lenders, to take steps to reduce fraud risk, which could increase our costs.
Any of the above risks could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
Because of the non-prime nature of our customers, we have historically experienced a high rate of net charge-offs as a percentage of revenues, and our ability to price appropriately in response to this and other factors is essential. We rely on our proprietary credit and fraud scoring models in the forecasting of loss rates. If we are unable to effectively forecast loss rates, it may negatively impact our operating results.
Our net charge-offs as a percentage of revenues for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018 were 50% and 52%, respectively. Because of the non-prime nature of our customers, it is essential that our products are appropriately priced, taking this and all other relevant factors into account. In making a decision whether to extend credit to prospective customers, and the terms on which we or the originating lenders are willing to provide credit, including the price, we and the originating lenders rely heavily on our proprietary credit and fraud scoring models, which comprise an empirically derived suite of statistical models built using third-party data, data from customers and our credit experience gained through monitoring the performance of customers over time. Our proprietary credit and fraud scoring models are based on previous historical experience. Typically, however, our models will become less effective over time and need to be rebuilt regularly to perform optimally. This is particularly true in the context of our preapproved direct mail campaigns. If we are unable to rebuild our proprietary credit and fraud scoring models, or if they do not perform up to target standards the products will experience increasing defaults or higher customer acquisition costs. In addition, any upgrades or planned improvements to our technology and credit models may not be implemented on the timeline that we expect or may not drive improvements in credit quality for our products as anticipated, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
If our proprietary credit and fraud scoring models fail to adequately predict the creditworthiness of customers, or if they fail to assess prospective customers’ financial ability to repay their loans, or any or all of the other components of the credit decision process described herein fails, higher than forecasted losses may result. Furthermore, if we are unable to access the third-party data used in our proprietary credit and fraud scoring models, or access to such data is limited, the ability to accurately evaluate potential customers using our proprietary credit and fraud scoring models will be compromised. As a result, we may be unable to effectively predict probable credit losses inherent in the resulting loan portfolio, and we, and the originating lender, may consequently experience higher defaults or customer acquisition costs, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
Additionally, if we make errors in the development and validation of any of the models or tools used to underwrite loans, such loans may result in higher delinquencies and losses. Moreover, if future performance of customer loans differs from past experience, which experience has informed the development of our proprietary credit and fraud scoring models, delinquency rates and losses could increase.
If our proprietary credit and fraud scoring models were unable to effectively price credit to the risk of the customer, lower margins would result. Either our losses would be higher than anticipated due to “underpricing” products or customers may refuse to accept the loan if products are perceived as “overpriced.” Additionally, an inability to effectively forecast loss rates could also inhibit our ability to borrow from our debt facilities, which could further hinder our growth and have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
We depend in part on debt financing to finance most of the loans we originate. Our business could be adversely affected by a lack of sufficient debt financing at acceptable prices or disruptions in the credit markets, which could reduce our access to credit.
We depend in part on debt financing to support the growth of our originated portfolios, Rise and Sunny. However, we cannot guarantee that financing will continue to be available beyond the current maturity date of our debt facilities, on reasonable terms or at all. Presently our debt financing for Rise and Sunny primarily comes from a single source, Victory Park Management, LLC (“VPC”), an affiliate of Victory Park Capital. If VPC became unwilling or unable to provide debt financing to us at prices acceptable to us, we would need to secure additional debt financing or potentially reduce loan originations. The availability of these financing sources depends on many factors, some of which are outside of our control.
We may also experience the occurrence of events of default or breaches of financial or performance covenants under our debt agreements, which are currently secured by all our assets. Any such occurrence or breach could result in the reduction or termination of our access to institutional funding or increase our cost of funding. Certain of these covenants are tied to our customer default rates, which may be significantly affected by factors, such as economic downturns or general economic conditions beyond our control and beyond the control of individual customers. In particular, loss rates on customer loans may increase due to factors such as prevailing interest rates, the rate of unemployment, the level of consumer and business confidence, commercial real estate values, the value of the US dollar, energy prices, changes in consumer and business spending, the number of personal bankruptcies, disruptions in the credit markets and other factors. Increases in the cost of capital would reduce our net profit margins.
The loan portfolio for Elastic, which is originated by a third-party lender, gets funding as a result of the purchase of a participation interest in the loans it originates from Elastic SPV, Ltd. (“Elastic SPV”), a Cayman Islands entity that purchases such participations. Elastic SPV has a loan facility with VPC for its funding, for which we provide credit support, and we have entered into a credit default protection agreement with Elastic SPV that provides protection for loan losses. Similarly, the loan portfolio for the Rise loans originated by FinWise gets funding as a result of the purchase of a participation interest in the loans it originates from EF SPV, Ltd. (“EF SPV”), a Cayman Islands entity that purchases such participations. EF SPV has a loan facility with VPC for its funding, for which we provide credit support, and we have entered into a credit default protection agreement with EF SPV that provides protection for loan losses. Any voluntary or involuntary halt to this existing program could result in the originating lender halting further loan originations until an additional financing partner could be identified.
In the event of a sudden or unexpected shortage of funds in the banking system, we cannot be sure that we will be able to maintain necessary levels of funding without incurring high funding costs, a reduction in the term of funding instruments or the liquidation of certain assets. If our cost of borrowing goes up, our net interest expense could increase, and if we were to be unable to arrange new or alternative methods of financing on favorable terms, we may have to curtail our origination of loans or recommend that the originating lenders curtail their origination of credit, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
The interest rates we charge to our customers and pay to our lenders could each be affected by a variety of factors, including access to capital based on our business performance and the volume of loans we make to our customers. These interest rates may also be affected by a change over time in the mix of the types of products we sell to our customers and a shift among our channels of customer acquisition. Our VPC funding facilities are variable rate in nature and tied to a base rate of the greater of the 3-month LIBOR rate, the five-year LIBOR swap rate or 1% at the borrowing date. Thus, any increase in the 3-month LIBOR rate could result in an increase in our net interest expense. Effective February 1, 2019, certain of the funding facilities were amended. The amended facilities included reductions to the interest rates paid on our debt in addition to other changes. Interest rate changes may also adversely affect our business forecasts and expectations and are highly sensitive to many macroeconomic factors beyond our control, such as inflation, recession, the state of the credit markets, changes in market interest rates, global economic disruptions, unemployment and the fiscal and monetary policies of the federal government and its agencies. Regulatory or legislative changes may reduce our ability to charge our current rates in all states and products. Also, competitive threats may cause us to reduce our rates. This would reduce profit margins unless there was a commensurate reduction in losses. Any material reduction in our interest rate spread could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. In the event that the spread between the rate at which we lend to our customers and the rate at which we borrow from our lenders decreases, our financial results and operating performance will be harmed.
In the future, we may seek to access the debt capital markets to obtain capital to finance growth. However, our future access to the debt capital markets could be restricted due to a variety of factors, including a deterioration of our earnings, cash flows, balance sheet quality, or overall business or industry prospects, adverse regulatory changes, a disruption to or deterioration in the state of the capital markets or a negative bias toward our industry by market participants. Disruptions and volatility in the capital markets could also cause banks and other credit providers to restrict availability of new credit. Due to the negative bias toward our industry, commercial banks and other lenders have restricted access to available credit to participants in our industry, and we may have more limited access to commercial bank lending than other businesses. Our ability to obtain additional financing in the future will depend in part upon prevailing capital market conditions, and a potential disruption in the capital markets may adversely affect our efforts to arrange additional financing on terms that are satisfactory to us, if at all. If adequate funds are not available, or are not available on acceptable terms, we may not have sufficient liquidity to fund our operations, make future investments, take advantage of acquisitions or other opportunities, or respond to competitive challenges and this, in turn, could adversely affect our ability to advance our strategic plans. Additionally, if the capital and credit markets experience volatility, and the availability of funds is limited, third parties with whom we do business may incur increased costs or business disruption and this could adversely affect our business relationships with such third parties, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
Any decrease in our access to preapproved marketing lists from credit bureaus or other developments impacting our use of direct mail marketing could adversely affect our ability to grow our business.
We market Rise and Sunny and provide marketing services to the originating lender in connection with Elastic, Today Card, and Rise bank-originated loans. Direct mailings and electronic offers of preapproved loans and Today Cards to potential loan customers comprise significant marketing channels for both the loans we originate and credit card product we offer, as well as those loans originated by third-party lenders. We estimate that approximately 65% and 92% of new Rise and Elastic loan customers, respectively, in the year ended December 31, 2019 obtained loans as a result of receiving such preapproved offers. The Today Card, which expanded its test launch in November 2018, is expected to expand its direct mailing activities in the future. Our marketing techniques identify candidates for preapproved loan or credit card mailings in part through the use of preapproved marketing lists purchased from credit bureaus. If access to such preapproved marketing lists were lost or limited due to regulatory changes prohibiting credit bureaus from sharing such information or for other reasons, our growth could be significantly adversely affected. If the cost of obtaining such lists increases significantly, it could substantially increase customer acquisition costs and decrease profitability.
Similarly, federal or state regulators or legislators could limit access to these preapproved marketing lists with the same effect.
In addition, preapproved direct mailings may become a less effective marketing tool due to over-penetration of direct mailing-lists. Any of these developments could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
We rely in part on relationships with marketing affiliates to identify potential customers for our loans. These relationships are generally non-exclusive and subject to termination, and the growth of our customer base could be adversely affected if any of our marketing affiliate relationships are terminated or the number of referrals we receive from marketing affiliates is reduced.
We rely on strategic marketing affiliate relationships with certain companies for referrals of some of the customers to whom we issue loans, and our growth depends in part on the growth of these referrals. In the year ended December 31, 2019, loans issued to Rise, Elastic and Sunny customers referred to us by our strategic partners constituted 17%, 7% and 4% of total respective new customer loans. Many of our marketing affiliate relationships do not contain exclusivity provisions that would prevent such marketing affiliates from providing customer referrals to competing companies. In addition, the agreements governing these partnerships, generally, contain termination provisions, including provisions that in certain circumstances would allow our partners to terminate if convenient, that, if exercised, would terminate our relationship with these partners. These agreements also contain no requirement that a marketing affiliate refer us any minimum number of customers. There can be no assurance that these marketing affiliates will not terminate our relationship with them or continue referring business to us in the future, and a termination of any of these relationships or reduction in customer referrals to us could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
Our success and future growth depend significantly on our successful marketing efforts, and if such efforts are not successful, our business and financial results may be harmed.
We intend to continue to dedicate significant resources to marketing efforts. Our ability to attract qualified borrowers depends in large part on the success of these marketing efforts and the success of the marketing channels we use to promote our products. Our marketing channels include social media and the press, online affiliations, search engine optimization, search engine marketing, offline partnerships, preapproved direct mailings and television advertising. If any of our current marketing channels become less effective, if we are unable to continue to use any of these channels, if the cost of using these channels were to significantly increase or if we are not successful in generating new channels, we may not be able to attract new borrowers in a cost-effective manner or convert potential borrowers into active borrowers. If we are unable to recover our marketing costs through increases in website traffic and in the number of loans made by visitors to product websites, or if we discontinue our broad marketing campaigns, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
We are dependent on third parties to support several key aspects of our business, and the failure of such parties to continue to provide services to us in the current manner and at the current rates would adversely affect our revenues and results of operations.
The Elastic line of credit product, which is originated by a third-party lender and contributed approximately 33% of our revenues for the year ended December 31, 2019, and the portions of the Rise installment loan product that we offer through CSO programs, which contributed approximately 6% of our revenues for the year ended December 31, 2019, and the Rise loans originated by a third-party lender, which contributed approximately 14% of our revenues for the year ended December 31, 2019, depend in part on the willingness and ability of unaffiliated third-party lenders to make loans to customers. Additionally, as described above, our business, including our Elastic loans and Rise loans made through the CSO programs and Rise loans originated by a third-party lender, depends on the ACH system, and ACH transactions are processed by third-party banks. See “—Regulators and payment processors are scrutinizing certain online lenders’ access to the Automated Clearing House system to disburse and collect loan proceeds and repayments, and any interruption or limitation on our ability to access this critical system would materially adversely affect our business.” We also utilize many other third parties to provide services to facilitate lending, loan underwriting, payment processing, customer service, collections and recoveries, as well as to support and maintain certain of our communication systems and information systems, and we may need to expand our relationships with third parties, or develop relationships with new third parties, to support any new product offerings that we may pursue.
The loss of the relationship with any of these third-party lenders and service providers, an inability to replace them or develop new relationships, or the failure of any of these third parties to provide its products or services, to maintain its quality and consistency or to have the ability to provide its products and services, could disrupt our operations, cause us to terminate product offerings or delay or discontinue new product offerings, result in lost customers and substantially decrease the revenues and earnings of our business. Our revenues and earnings could also be adversely affected if any of those third-party providers make material changes to the products or services that we rely on or increase the price of their products or services.
Elevate uses third parties for the majority of its collections and recovery activities. If those parties were unable or unwilling to provide those services for Elevate products, we would experience higher defaults until those functions could be outsourced to an alternative service provider or until we could bring those functions in-house and adequately staff and train internally.
Any of these events could result in a loss of revenues and could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
The profitability of our bank-originated products could be adversely affected by policy or pricing decisions made by the originating lenders.
We do not originate and do not ultimately control the pricing or functionality of Elastic lines of credit originated by Republic Bank, Rise loans originated by FinWise Bank ("FinWise") and the Today Card originated by Capital Community Bank ("CCB") (collectively the "Bank-Originated Products" and the "Bank Partners" or the "Banks"). Generally, a "Bank" is an entity that is chartered under federal or state law to accept deposits and/or make loans. Each Bank Partner has licensed our technology and underwriting services and makes all key decisions regarding the marketing, underwriting, product features and pricing. We generate revenues from these products through marketing and technology licensing fees paid by the Bank Partners, and through credit default protection agreements with certain Bank Partners. If the Bank Partners were to change their pricing, underwriting or marketing of the Bank-Originated Products in a way that decreases revenues or increases losses, then the profitability of each loan, line of credit or credit card issued could be reduced. Although this would not reduce the revenues that we receive for marketing and technology licensing services, it would reduce the revenues that we receive from our credit default protection agreements with the Bank Partners.
Any of the above changes could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
Our ability to continue to provide Bank-Originated Products could be adversely affected by a degradation in our relationships with our Bank Partners.
The structure of the Bank-Originated Products exposes us to risks associated with being reliant on the Bank Partners as the originating lenders and credit card issuers. If our relationships with the Banks were to degrade, or if any of the Banks were to terminate the various agreements associated with the Bank Products, we may not be able to find another suitable originating lender or credit card issuer and new arrangements, if any, may result in significantly increased costs to us. Any inability to find another originating lender or credit card issuer would adversely affect our ability to continue to provide the Bank-Originated Products which in turn could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
Decreased demand for non-prime loans as a result of increased savings or income could result in a loss of revenues or decline in profitability if we are unable to successfully adapt to such changes.
The demand for non-prime loan products in the markets we serve could decline due to a variety of factors, such as regulatory restrictions that reduce customer access to particular products, the availability of competing or alternative products or changes in customers’ financial conditions, particularly increases in income or savings. For instance, an increase in state or federal minimum wage requirements, or a decrease in individual income tax rates, could decrease demand for non-prime loans. Additionally, a change in focus from borrowing to saving (such as has happened in some countries) would reduce demand. Should we fail to adapt to a significant change in our customers’ demand for, or access to, our products, our revenues could decrease significantly. Even if we make adaptations or introduce new products to fulfill customer demand, customers may resist or may reject products whose adaptations make them less attractive or less available. Such decreased demand could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
A decline in economic conditions could result in decreased demand for our loans or cause our customers’ default rates to increase, harming our operating results.
Uncertainty and negative trends in general economic conditions in the US and abroad, including significant tightening of credit markets and a general decline in the value of real property, historically have created a difficult environment for companies in the lending industry. Many factors, including factors that are beyond our control, may impact our consolidated results of operations or financial condition or affect our borrowers’ willingness or capacity to make payments on their loans. These factors include: unemployment levels, housing markets, rising living expenses, energy costs and interest rates, as well as major medical expenses, divorce or death that affect our borrowers. If the US or UK economies experience a downturn, or if we become affected by other events beyond our control, we may experience a significant reduction in revenues, earnings and cash flows, difficulties accessing capital and a deterioration in the value of our investments.
We are also monitoring developments related to the decision by the UK government to leave the European Union (often referred to as "Brexit"), which could have significant implications for our UK business. In March 2017, the UK began the official process to leave the European Union. The UK formally exited the European Union on January 31, 2020. The instability surrounding Brexit and Brexit itself could lead to economic and legal uncertainty, including significant volatility in global stock markets and currency exchange rates, as well as new and uncertain laws, regulations and licensing requirements for the Company as the UK determines which EU laws to replace or replicate. For example, see "—The use of personal data in credit underwriting is highly regulated" below. Any of these effects of Brexit, among others, could adversely affect our operating results.
Credit quality is driven by the ability and willingness of customers to make their loan payments. If customers face rising unemployment or reduced wages, defaults may increase. Similarly, if customers experience rising living expenses (for instance due to rising gas, energy, or food costs) they may be unable to make loan payments. An economic slowdown could also result in a decreased number of loans being made to customers due to higher unemployment or an increase in loan defaults in our loan products. The underwriting standards used for our products may need to be tightened in response to such conditions, which could reduce loan balances, and collecting defaulted loans could become more difficult, which could lead to an increase in loan losses. If a customer defaults on a loan, the loan enters a collections process where, including as a result of contractual agreements with the originating lenders, our systems and collections teams initiate contact with the customer for payments owed. If a loan is subsequently charged off, the loan is generally sold to a third-party collection agency and the resulting proceeds from such sales comprise only a small fraction of the remaining amount payable on the loan.
There can be no assurance that economic conditions will remain favorable for our business or that demand for loans or default rates by customers will remain at current levels. Reduced demand for loans would negatively impact our growth and revenues, while increased default rates by customers may inhibit our access to capital, hinder the growth of the loan portfolio attributable to our products and negatively impact our profitability. Either such result could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
We are operating in a highly competitive environment and face increasing competition from a variety of traditional and new lending institutions, including other online lending companies. This competition could adversely affect our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
We have many competitors. Our principal competitors are consumer loan companies, CSOs, online lenders, credit card companies, consumer finance companies, pawnshops and other financial institutions that offer similar financial services. Other financial institutions or other businesses that do not now offer products or services directed toward our traditional customer base could begin doing so. Significant increases in the number and size of competitors for our business could result in a decrease in the number of loans that we fund, resulting in lower levels of revenues and earnings in these categories. Many of these competitors are larger than us, have significantly more resources and greater brand recognition than we do, and may be able to attract customers more effectively than we do.
Competitors of our business may operate, or begin to operate, under business models less focused on legal and regulatory compliance, which could put us at a competitive disadvantage. Additionally, negative perceptions about these models could cause legislators or regulators to pursue additional industry restrictions that could affect the business model under which we operate. To the extent that these models gain acceptance among consumers, small businesses and investors or face less onerous regulatory restrictions than we do, we may be unable to replicate their business practices or otherwise compete with them effectively, which could cause demand for the products we currently offer to decline substantially.
When new competitors seek to enter one of our markets, or when existing market participants seek to increase their market share, they sometimes undercut the pricing and/or credit terms prevalent in that market, which could adversely affect our market share or ability to exploit new market opportunities. Elevate products compete at least partly based on rate comparison with other credit products used by non-prime consumers. However, non-prime consumers by definition have a higher propensity for default and as a result need to be charged higher rates of interest to generate adequate profit margins. If existing competitors significantly reduced their rates or lower-priced competitors enter the market and offer credit to customers at lower rates, the pricing and credit terms we or the originating lenders offer could deteriorate if we or the originating lenders act to meet these competitive challenges. Any such action may result in lower customer acquisition volumes and higher costs per new customer.
We may be unable to compete successfully against any or all of our current or future competitors. As a result, our products could lose market share and our revenues could decline, thereby affecting our ability to generate sufficient cash flow to service our indebtedness and fund our operations. Any such changes in our competition could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
Customer complaints or negative public perception of our business could result in a decline in our customer growth and our business could suffer.
Our reputation is very important to attracting new customers to our platform as well as securing repeat lending to existing customers. While we believe that we have a good reputation and that we provide customers with a superior experience, there can be no assurance that we will be able to continue to maintain a good relationship with customers or avoid negative publicity.
In recent years, consumer advocacy groups and some media reports have advocated governmental action to prohibit or place severe restrictions on non-bank consumer loans and bank originated loans for the nonprime consumer. Such consumer advocacy groups and media reports generally focus on the annual percentage rate for this type of consumer loan, which is compared unfavorably to the interest typically charged by banks to consumers with top-tier credit histories. The finance charges assessed by us, the originating lenders and others in the industry can attract media publicity about the industry and be perceived as controversial. If the negative characterization of the types of loans we offer, including those originated through third-party lenders, becomes increasingly accepted by consumers, demand for any or all of our consumer loan products could significantly decrease, which could materially affect our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. Additionally, if the negative characterization of these types of loans is accepted by legislators and regulators, we could become subject to more restrictive laws and regulations applicable to consumer loan products that could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
Third parties may also seek to take advantage of unique regulations applicable to consumer loan products to drive up complaints and the cost of doing business in our industry. From the third quarter of 2018, the Company's UK business began to receive an increased number of customer complaints initiated by claims management companies ("CMCs") and others related to the affordability assessment of certain loans. If the Company's evidence supports the affordability assessment and the Company rejects the claim, the customer has the right to take the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (“FOS”) for further adjudication. We have incurred significant costs in the form of FOS administrative fees associated with each individual complaint submitted to FOS, operational costs necessary to manage the large volume of complaints, and payments we are required to make to customers to resolve these complaints. We believe that many of the increased claims against us are without merit and reflect the use of abusive and deceptive tactics by the CMCs. On April 1, 2019, the Financial Conduct Authority (the "FCA") took over responsibility for supervision and authorization of a high percentage of CMCs (those regulated by the Solicitor's Regulation Authority, which account for the minority of CMCs, will not be automatically impacted). In addition
to the CMCs issuing claims, some law firms are also issuing claims on behalf of claimants.
If we experience an increased volume of complaints due to the activities of the CMCs and law firms representing claimants and continue incurring significant costs to resolve such complaints, such costs could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. A significant number of consumer complaints could also trigger enhanced regulatory scrutiny by the FCA.
Separately, the FCA asked all industry participants to review their lending practices to ensure that such companies are using an appropriate affordability and creditworthiness analysis. Our UK business provided the requested information to the FCA. The FCA recently reported back to us and asked our UK business to tighten certain aspects of its income verification and expenditure processes. We are working with the FCA to ensure the changes we make address all matters raised by the FCA.
Our business depends on the uninterrupted operation of our systems and business functions, including our information technology and other business systems, as well as the ability of such systems to support compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements.
Our business is highly dependent upon customers’ ability to access our website and the ability of our employees and those of the originating lenders, as well as third-party service providers, to perform, in an efficient and uninterrupted fashion, necessary business functions, such as internet support, call center activities and processing and servicing of loans. Problems with the technology platform running our systems, or a shut-down of or inability to access the facilities in which our internet operations and other technology infrastructure are based, such as a power outage, a failure of one or more of our information technology, telecommunications or other systems, cyber-attacks on, or sustained or repeated disruptions of, such systems could significantly impair our ability to perform such functions on a timely basis and could result in a deterioration of our ability to underwrite, approve and process loans, provide customer service, perform collections activities, or perform other necessary business functions. Any such interruption could reduce new customer acquisition and negatively impact growth, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
In addition, our systems and those of third parties on whom we rely must consistently be capable of compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements and timely modification to comply with new or amended requirements. Any systems problems going forward could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
We are subject to cybersecurity risks and security breaches and may incur increasing costs in an effort to minimize those risks and to respond to cyber incidents, and we may experience harm to our reputation and liability exposure from security breaches.
Our business involves the storage and transmission of consumers’ proprietary information, and security breaches could expose us to a risk of loss or misuse of this information, litigation and potential liability. We are entirely dependent on the secure operation of our websites and systems as well as the operation of the internet generally. While we have incurred no material cyber-attacks or security breaches to date, a number of other companies have disclosed cyber-attacks and security breaches, some of which have involved intentional attacks. Attacks may be targeted at us, our customers, or both. Although we devote significant resources to maintain and regularly upgrade our systems and processes that are designed to protect the security of our computer systems, software, networks and other technology assets and the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information belonging to us and our customers, our security measures may not provide absolute security.
Despite our efforts to ensure the integrity of our systems, it is possible that we may not be able to anticipate or to implement effective preventive measures against all security breaches of these types, especially because the techniques used change frequently or are not recognized until launched, and because cyber-attacks can originate from a wide variety of sources, including third parties outside the Company such as persons who are involved with organized crime or associated with external service providers or who may be linked to terrorist organizations or hostile foreign governments. These risks may increase in the future as we continue to increase our mobile and other internet-based product offerings and expand our internal usage of web-based products and applications or expand into new countries. If an actual or perceived breach of security occurs, customer and/or supplier perception of the effectiveness of our security measures could be harmed and could result in the loss of customers, suppliers or both. Actual or anticipated attacks and risks may cause us to incur increasing costs, including costs to deploy additional personnel and protection technologies, train employees, and engage third-party experts and consultants.
A successful penetration or circumvention of the security of our systems could cause serious negative consequences, including significant disruption of our operations, misappropriation of our confidential information or that of our customers, or damage to our computers or systems or those of our customers and counterparties, and could result in violations of applicable privacy and other laws, financial loss to us or to our customers, loss of confidence in our security measures, customer dissatisfaction, significant litigation exposure, and harm to our reputation, all of which could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, our applicants provide personal information, including bank account information when applying for loans. We rely on encryption and authentication technology licensed from third parties to provide the security and authentication to effectively secure transmission of confidential information, including customer bank account and other personal information. Advances in computer capabilities, new discoveries in the field of cryptography or other developments may result in the technology used by us to protect transaction data being breached or compromised. Data breaches can also occur as a result of non-technical issues.
Our servers are also vulnerable to computer viruses, physical or electronic break-ins, and similar disruptions, including “denial-of-service” type attacks. We may need to expend significant resources to protect against security breaches or to address problems caused by breaches. Security breaches, including any breach of our systems or by persons with whom we have commercial relationships that result in the unauthorized release of consumers’ personal information, could damage our reputation and expose us to a risk of loss or litigation and possible liability. In addition, many of the third parties who provide products, services or support to us could also experience any of the above cyber risks or security breaches, which could impact our customers and our business and could result in a loss of customers, suppliers or revenues.
In addition, federal and some state regulators are considering promulgating rules and standards to address cybersecurity risks and many US states and the UK have already enacted laws requiring companies to notify individuals of data security breaches involving their personal data. These mandatory disclosures regarding a security breach are costly to implement and may lead to widespread negative publicity, which may cause customers to lose confidence in the effectiveness of our data security measures.
Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
Our ability to collect payment on loans and maintain accurate accounts may be adversely affected by computer viruses, physical or electronic break-ins, technical errors and similar disruptions.
The automated nature of our platform may make it an attractive target for hacking and potentially vulnerable to computer viruses, physical or electronic break-ins and similar disruptions. Despite efforts to ensure the integrity of our platform, it is possible that we may not be able to anticipate or to implement effective preventive measures against all security breaches of these types, in which case there would be an increased risk of fraud or identity theft, and we may experience losses on, or delays in the collection of amounts owed on, a fraudulently induced loan. In addition, the software that we have developed to use in our daily operations is highly complex and may contain undetected technical errors that could cause our computer systems to fail. Because each loan made involves our proprietary credit and fraud scoring models, and over 94% of loan applications are fully automated with no manual review required, any failure of our computer systems involving our proprietary credit and fraud scoring models and any technical or other errors contained in the software pertaining to our proprietary credit and fraud scoring models could compromise the ability to accurately evaluate potential customers, which would negatively impact our results of operations. Furthermore, any failure of our computer systems could cause an interruption in operations and result in disruptions in, or reductions in the amount of, collections from the loans we made to customers. If any of these risks were to materialize, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
Our platform and internal systems rely on software that is highly technical, and if it contains undetected errors, our business could be adversely affected.
Our platform and internal systems rely on software that is highly technical and complex. In addition, our platform and internal systems depend on the ability of such software to store, retrieve, process and manage immense amounts of data. The software on which we rely has contained, and may now or in the future contain, undetected errors or bugs. Some errors may only be discovered after the code has been released for external or internal use. Errors or other design defects within the software on which we rely may result in a negative experience for borrowers, delay introductions of new features or enhancements, result in errors or compromise our ability to protect borrower data or our intellectual property. Any errors, bugs or defects discovered in the software on which we rely could result in harm to our reputation, loss of borrowers, loss of revenues or liability for damages, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
To date, we have derived our revenues from a limited number of products and markets. Our efforts to expand our market reach and product portfolio may not succeed or may put pressure on our margins.
We frequently explore paths to expand our market reach and product portfolio. For example, we have launched or are in the process of launching other non-prime products like bank-originated installment loans and credit cards through FinWise and the Today Card, a bank-originated credit card. In the future, we may elect to pursue new products, channels, or markets. However, there is always risk that these new products, channels, or markets will be unprofitable, will increase costs, decrease margins, or take longer to generate target margins than anticipated. Additional costs could include those related to the need to hire more staff, invest in technology, develop and support new third-party partnerships or other costs which would increase operating expenses. In particular, growth may require additional technology staff, analysts in risk management, compliance personnel and customer support and collections staff. Although the Company outsources most of its customer support and collections staff, additional volumes would lead to increased costs in these areas.
When new customers are acquired, from an accounting point of view, we must recognize marketing costs and loan origination and data costs, and we incur a provision for loan losses. We use the same accounting treatment for new customers acquired through the Bank-Originated Products, such as loan participations that are purchased from the originating lender by a third party, which we protect from loan losses pursuant to a credit default protection arrangement. Due to these marketing costs, loan origination and data costs, and provision for loan losses, new customer acquisition does not typically yield positive margins for at least six months. As a result, rapid growth tends to compress margins in the near-term until growth rates slow down.
In the states in which we originate Rise under a state-license, the rates and terms vary based on specific state laws. In states with lower maximum rates, we have more stringent credit criteria and generally lower initial customer profitability due to higher customer acquisition costs and higher losses as a percentage of revenues. While these states can have significant growth potential, they typically deliver lower profit margins. In states in which FinWise originates Rise installment loans, loan participations are purchased from FinWise by a third party, which we protect from loan losses pursuant to a credit default protection arrangement. As a result, Rise loans originated through our third-party partnerships have the same pattern of variable profit margins depending on state laws and which states are offering the most growth potential.
We may elect to pursue aggressive growth over margin expansion in order to increase market share and long-term revenue opportunities.
There also can be no guarantee that we will be successful with respect to any new product initiatives or any further expansion beyond the US and the UK, if we decide to attempt such expansion, which may inhibit the growth of our business and have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
Our allowance for loan losses is determined based upon both objective and subjective factors and may not be adequate to absorb loan losses. If we experience rising credit or fraud losses, our results of operations would be adversely affected.
We face the risk that customers will fail to repay their loans in full. We reserve for such losses by establishing an allowance for loan losses, the increase of which results in a charge to our earnings as a provision for loan losses. We have established a methodology designed to determine the adequacy of our allowance for loan losses. While this evaluation process uses historical and other objective information, the classification of loans and the forecasts and establishment of loan losses are also dependent on our subjective assessment based upon our experience and judgment. Actual losses are difficult to forecast, especially if such losses stem from factors beyond our historical experience. As a result, there can be no assurance that our allowance for loan losses will be sufficient to absorb losses or prevent a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Losses are the largest cost as a percentage of revenues across all of our products.
Fraud and customers not being able to repay their loans are both significant drivers of loss rates. If we experienced rising credit or fraud losses this would significantly reduce our earnings and profit margins and could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
In June 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the "FASB") issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-13, Financial Instruments—Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments ("ASU 2016-13"). ASU 2016-13 is intended to replace the incurred loss impairment methodology in current US GAAP with a methodology that reflects expected credit losses and requires consideration of a broader range of reasonable and supportable information to inform credit loss estimates to improve the quality of information available to financial statement users about expected credit losses on financial instruments and other commitments to extend credit held by a reporting entity at each reporting date. For public entities, ASU 2016-13 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, including interim periods within those fiscal years. In November 2019, the FASB issued ASU No. 2019-10, Financial Instruments - Credit Losses (Topic 326), Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815), and Leases(Topic 842): Effective Dates ("ASU 2019-10"). The purpose of this amendment is to create a two-tier rollout of major updates, staggering the effective dates between larger public companies and all other entities. This granted certain classes of companies, including Smaller Reporting Companies ("SRCs"), additional time to implement major FASB standards, including ASU 2016-13. Larger public companies will still have an effective date for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, including interim periods within those fiscal years. All other entities are permitted to defer adoption of ASU 2016-13, and its related amendments, until fiscal periods beginning after December 15, 2022. Under the current SEC definitions, the Company meets the definition of an SRC as of the ASU 2019-10 issuance date and is adopting the deferral period for ASU 2016-13.
The new methodology for determining the allowance for loan losses, once adopted by the Company, will extend the time frame covered by the estimate of credit losses by including forward-looking information, such as "reasonable and supportable" forecasts in the assessment of the collectability of loans. As a result, rather than just looking at historical performances of loans to determine allowance for loan losses, we will have to consider future losses as well. Further, the new standard will drive a change in the accounting treatment in that the new expected lifetime losses of loans will be recognized at the time a loan is made rather than over the lifetime of the loans. We anticipate that adoption of this new methodology may have a material impact on our financial statements due to the timing differences caused by the change. We also expect that the internal financial controls processes in place for the Company's loan loss reserve process will be impacted. In addition, if we fail to accurately forecast the collectability of our loans under this new methodology and we reserve inadequate allowance amounts, we could be required to absorb such additional losses, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
Increased customer acquisition costs and/or data costs would reduce our margins.
Although losses are our largest cost, if customer acquisition costs or other servicing costs increased this would reduce our profit margins. Marketing costs would be negatively affected by increased competition or stricter credit standards that would reduce customer fund rates. We could also experience increased marketing costs due to higher fees from credit bureaus for preapproved direct mail lists, search engines for search engine marketing, or fees for affiliates, and these increased costs would reduce our profit margins. Other costs, such as legal costs, may increase as we pursue various company strategic initiatives, which could further reduce our profit margins.
We purchase significant amounts of data to facilitate our proprietary credit and fraud scoring models. If there was an increase in the cost of data, or if the Company elected to purchase from new data providers, there would be a reduction in our profit margins.
Any such reduction in our profit margins could result in a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
Our success is dependent, in part, upon our officers and key employees, and if we are not able to attract and retain qualified officers and key employees, or if one of our officers or key employees is temporarily unable to fully contribute to our operations, our business could be materially adversely affected.
Our success depends, in part, on our officers, which comprise a relatively small group of individuals. Many members of the senior management team have significant industry experience, and we believe that our senior management would be difficult to replace, if necessary. Because the market for qualified individuals is highly competitive, we may not be able to attract and retain qualified officers or candidates. In addition, increasing regulations on, and negative publicity about, the consumer financial services industry could affect our ability to attract and retain qualified officers.
Our future success also depends on our continuing ability to attract, develop, motivate and retain highly qualified and skilled employees. Qualified individuals are in high demand, and we may incur significant costs to attract and retain them. The loss of any of our senior management or key employees could materially adversely affect our ability to execute our business plan and strategy, and we may not be able to find adequate replacements on a timely basis, or at all. We cannot ensure that we will be able retain the services of any members of our senior management or other key employees. Our officers and key employees may terminate their employment relationship with us at any time, and their knowledge of our business and industry would be extremely difficult to replace. While all key employees have signed non-disclosure, non-solicitation and non-compete agreements, they may still elect to leave the Company or even retire any time. Loss of key employees could result in delays to critical initiatives and the loss of certain capabilities and poorly documented intellectual property.
If we do not succeed in attracting and retaining our officers and key employees, our business could be materially and adversely affected.
Our US loan business is seasonal in nature, which causes our revenues and earnings to fluctuate.
Our US loan business is affected by fluctuating demand for the products and services we offer and fluctuating collection rates throughout the year. Demand for our consumer loan products in the US has historically been highest in the third and fourth quarters of each year, corresponding to the holiday season, and lowest in the first quarter of each year, corresponding to our customers’ receipt of income tax refunds. This results in significant increases and decreases in portfolio size and profit margins from quarter to quarter. In particular, we typically experience a reduction in our credit portfolios and an increase in profit margins in the first quarter of the year. When we experience higher growth in the second quarter through fourth quarters, portfolio balances tend to grow and profit margins are compressed. Our cost of sales for the non-prime loan products we offer in the US, which represents our provision for loan losses, is lowest as a percentage of revenues in the first quarter of each year, corresponding to our customers’ receipt of income tax refunds, and increases as a percentage of revenues for the remainder of each year. This seasonality requires us to manage our cash flows over the course of the year. If our revenues or collections were to fall substantially below what we would normally expect during certain periods, our ability to service debt and meet our other liquidity requirements may be adversely affected, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. Any unexpected change to the growth in the second half of the year or delay of our customers' receipt of income tax refunds could change our typical seasonal product demand pattern and impact our profit margins and our annual cash flow management plans, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
If internet search engine providers change their methodologies for organic rankings or paid search results, or our organic rankings or paid search results decline for other reasons, our new customer growth or volume from returning customers could decline.
Our new customer acquisition marketing and our returning customer relationship management is partly dependent on search engines such as Google, Bing and Yahoo! to direct a significant amount of traffic to our desktop and mobile websites via organic ranking and paid search advertising. We bid on certain keywords from search engines as well as use their algorithms to place our listings ahead of other lenders.
Our paid search activities may not continue to produce the desired results. Internet search engines often revise their methodologies. The volume of customers we receive through organic ranking and paid search could be adversely affected by any such changes in methodologies or policies by search engine providers, by:
decreasing our organic rankings or paid search results;
creating difficulty for our customers in using our web and mobile sites;
producing more successful organic rankings, paid search results or tactical execution efforts for our competitors than for us; and
resulting in higher costs for acquiring new or returning customers.
In addition, search engines could implement policies that restrict the ability of companies such as us to advertise their services and products, which could prevent us from appearing in a favorable location or any location in the organic rankings or paid search results when certain search terms are used by the consumer. Our online marketing efforts are also susceptible to actions by third parties that negatively impact our search results such as spam link attacks, which are often referred to as “black hat” tactics. Our sites have experienced meaningful fluctuations in organic rankings and paid search results in the past, and we anticipate similar fluctuations in the future. Any reduction in the number of consumers directed to our web and mobile sites could harm our business and operating results.
Finally, our competitors’ paid search, pay per click or search engine marketing activities may result in their sites receiving higher paid search results than ours and significantly increasing the cost of such advertising for us. We have little to no control over these potential changes in policy and methodologies relating to search engine results, and any of the changes described above could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
Failure to keep up with the rapid technological changes in financial services and e-commerce, or changes in the uses and regulation of the internet could harm our business.
The financial services industry is undergoing rapid technological changes, with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services. The effective use of technology increases efficiency and enables financial and lending institutions to better serve customers and reduce costs. Our future success will depend, in part, upon our ability to address the needs of our customers by using technology to provide products and services that will satisfy customer demands for convenience, as well as to create additional efficiencies in our operations. We may not be able to effectively implement new technology-driven products and services as quickly as some of our competitors or be successful in marketing these products and services to our customers. Failure to successfully keep pace with technological change affecting the financial services industry could harm our ability to compete with our competitors.
Additionally, the business of providing products and services such as ours over the internet is dynamic and relatively new. We must keep pace with rapid technological change, consumer use habits, internet security risks, risks of system failure or inadequacy, and governmental regulation and taxation, and each of these factors could adversely impact our business. In addition, concerns about fraud, computer security and privacy and/or other problems may discourage additional consumers from adopting or continuing to use the internet as a medium of commerce. Also, to expand our customer base, we may elect to appeal to and acquire consumers who prove to be less profitable than our previous customers, and as a result we may be unable to gain efficiencies in our operating costs, including our cost of acquiring new customers, and our business could be adversely impacted. Any such failure to adapt to changes could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
Our ability to conduct our business and demand for our loans could be disrupted by natural or man-made catastrophes.
Catastrophes, such as fires, hurricanes and tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, or other natural disasters, terrorist attacks, computer viruses and telecommunications failures, could adversely affect our ability to market, originate or service loans. Natural disasters and acts of terrorism, war, civil unrest, violence or human error could also cause disruptions to our business or the economy as a whole, which could negatively affect customers’ demand for our loans. Despite any precautions we may take, system interruptions and delays could occur if there is a natural disaster that affects our offices or one of the data center facilities we lease. As we rely heavily on our servers, computer and communications systems and the internet to conduct our business and provide high-quality customer service, such disruptions could harm our ability to market our products, accept and underwrite applications, provide customer service and undertake collections activities and cause lengthy delays which could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition. We have implemented a disaster recovery program that allows us to move production to a backup data center in the event of a catastrophe. Although this program is functional, we do not currently serve network traffic equally from each backup data center and are not able to switch instantly to our backup center in the event of failure of the main server site. If our primary data center shuts down, there will be a period of time that our loan products or services, or certain of such loan products or services, will remain inaccessible to our users or our users may experience severe issues accessing such loan products and services. Our business interruption insurance may not be sufficient to compensate us for losses that may result from interruptions in our service as a result of system failures.
Any of these events could also cause consumer confidence to decrease in one or more of the markets we serve, which could result in a decreased number of loans being made to customers. As a result of these issues, any of these occurrences could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
We may be unable to protect our proprietary technology and analytics or keep up with that of our competitors.
The success of our business depends to a significant degree upon the protection of our proprietary technology, including our proprietary credit and fraud scoring models, which we use for pricing loans. We seek to protect our intellectual property with non-disclosure agreements and through standard measures to protect trade secrets. However, we may be unable to deter misappropriation of our proprietary information, detect unauthorized use or take appropriate steps to enforce our intellectual property rights. If competitors learn our trade secrets (especially with regard to marketing and risk management capabilities) it could be difficult to successfully prosecute to recover damages. A third party may attempt to reverse engineer or otherwise obtain and use our proprietary technology without our consent. The pursuit of a claim against a third party for infringement of our intellectual property could be costly, and there can be no guarantee that any such efforts would be successful. Our failure to protect our software and other proprietary intellectual property rights or to develop technologies that are as good as our competitors could put us at a disadvantage relative to our competitors. Any such failures could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
We are subject to intellectual property disputes from time to time, and such disputes may be costly to defend and could harm our business and operating results.
We have faced and may continue to face allegations that we have infringed the trademarks, copyrights, patents or other intellectual property rights of third parties, including from our competitors or non-practicing entities. Patent and other intellectual property litigation may be protracted and expensive, and the results are difficult to predict and may require us to stop offering certain products or product features, acquire licenses, which may not be available at a commercially reasonable price or at all, or modify such products, product features, processes or websites while we develop non-infringing substitutes.
In addition, we use open source software in our technology platform and plan to use open source software in the future. From time to time, we may face claims from parties claiming ownership of, or demanding release of, the source code, potentially including our valuable proprietary code, or derivative works that were developed using such software, or otherwise seeking to enforce the terms of the applicable open source license. These claims could also result in litigation, require us to purchase a costly license or require us to devote additional research and development resources to change our platform, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
Current and future litigation or settlements or regulatory proceedings could cause management distraction, harm our reputation and have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
We, our officers and certain of our subsidiaries have been and may become subject to lawsuits that could cause us to incur substantial expenditures, generate adverse publicity and could significantly impair our business, force us to cease doing business in one or more jurisdictions or cause us to cease offering or alter one or more products.
We have been and may also become subject to litigation in the future and a future adverse ruling in or a settlement of any such litigation against us, our executive officers or another lender, could result in significant legal fees that could become material, could harm our reputation, create obligations, forego collection of the principal amount of loans, pay treble or other multiple damages, pay monetary penalties and/or modify or terminate our operations in particular jurisdictions. On January 9, 2020, the District of Columbia's Attorney General, Karl A. Racine, issued a subpoena to Elevate alleging that Elevate may have violated the District of Columbia's Consumer Protection Procedures Act in connection with loans issued by banks in the District of Columbia. The documents requested are related to the FinWise and Republic Bank originated loans in the District of Columbia. Elevate has engaged counsel and initiated discussions with the Attorney General’s office and is working to address any potential issues and provide certain documents as requested. Elevate disagrees that it has violated the above referenced law and it intends to vigorously defend its position. In addition, on January 27, 2020, Rise Credit Service of Texas, LLC d/b/a Rise, Opportunity Financial, LLC and Applied Data Finance, LLC d/b/a Personify Financial were sued in a class action lawsuit in Washington state. The Plaintiff in the case claims that Rise and others are engaged in “predatory lending practices that target financially vulnerable consumers” and have violated Washington’s Consumer Protection Act by engaging in unfair or deceptive practices. In California, there have been filed two separate actions seeking public injunctive relief and alleging unconscionable interest rates on RISE loans - one lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, and one demand for arbitration. The Plaintiffs in these actions assert claims under the “unlawful,” “unfair,” and “fraudulent” prongs of the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) and for breach of contract and civil conspiracy. The “unlawful” UCL claims are premised upon alleged violations of (a) the California Financing Law’s prohibition on unconscionable loans and (b) the California False Advertising Law.
While no TFI related litigation has been filed directly against Elevate, we can provide no assurances that there will not be any future TFI related litigation filed against the Company. In October 2019, Elevate entered into tolling agreements with the TFI Creditors' Committee and class claimants in regard to any potential future claims against Elevate. These tolling agreements have been extended, and we may enter into additional extensions of the tolling agreements in the future. In December 2019, the TFI bankruptcy plan was confirmed, and any claims from the TFI Creditors' Committee were assigned to the Think Finance Litigation Trust (“TFLT”). Elevate and the TFLT have commenced mediation in an attempt to resolve, prior to any litigation being filed, any potential claims that the TFLT may have against Elevate including, among other things, whether or not the spin-off of Elevate from TFI was a fraudulent conveyance and any other avoidance actions associated with the spin-off. While Elevate can provide no assurances as to the potential outcome of such mediation process, in the event that there is a settlement and Elevate is unable to pay any amount resulting from such settlement, it could have a material adverse effect on Elevate’s financial condition, or, if there is no settlement and Elevate is deemed to ultimately be liable in this matter, Elevate could be obligated to file for bankruptcy. Elevate can provide no assurances as to how long the mediation process may take, or the outcome of such mediation. If the mediation is unsuccessful, Elevate anticipates that the TFLT will pursue its claims in litigation against Elevate. For more information please see “The Think Finance Litigation Trust in the TFI bankruptcy, as well as third parties, may seek to hold us responsible for liabilities of TFI due to the Spin-Off.” Because no claims have been filed against Elevate, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. We believe any future claims are without merit, and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously.
Defense of any lawsuit, even if successful, could require substantial time and attention of our management and could require the expenditure of significant amounts for legal fees, expenditures related to indemnification agreements and other related costs. In addition, a lawsuit or the mediation process with the TFLT, could cause investors to sell our stock based on concerns about potential adverse outcomes, whether unfounded or not, which could negatively impact our share price. We and others are also subject to regulatory proceedings, and we could suffer losses as a result of interpretations of applicable laws, rules and regulations in those regulatory proceedings, even if we are not a party to those proceedings. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
We may be unable to use some or all of our net operating loss carryforwards, which could materially and adversely affect our reported financial condition and results of operations.
At December 31, 2019, we had a UK net operating loss carryforward (“NOL”) of $57.2 million available to offset future taxable income due to prior period losses. This NOL can be carried forward indefinitely. At December 31, 2018, we had a NOL from US operations of approximately $42.0 million. We expect that our results from operations in 2019 will fully utilize this NOL carryforward. At December 31, 2019, the remaining US NOL was immaterial. If not utilized, the US NOL will begin to expire in 2034. If we do not generate sufficient taxable income, we may not be able to utilize a material portion of our NOLs, even if we achieve profitability. If we are limited in our ability to use our NOLs in future years in which we have taxable income, we will pay more taxes than if we were able to fully utilize our NOLs. This could materially and adversely affect our results of operations.
Under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), our ability to utilize the NOL or other tax attributes, such as research tax credits, in any taxable year may be limited if we experience an “ownership change.” A Section 382 “ownership change” generally occurs if one or more stockholders or groups of stockholders, who own at least 5% of our stock, increase their ownership by more than 50 percentage points over their lowest ownership percentage within a rolling three-year period. Similar rules may apply under state tax laws. We have not completed a Section 382 analysis through December 31, 2019. If we have previously had, or have in the future, one or more Section 382 “ownership changes,” including in connection with our IPO, we may not be able to utilize a material portion of our NOL.
RISKS RELATED TO OUR ASSOCIATION WITH TFI
The Think Finance Litigation Trust in the TFI bankruptcy, as well as third parties, may seek to hold us responsible for liabilities of TFI due to the Spin-Off.
In connection with our separation from TFI, TFI has generally agreed to retain all liabilities that did not historically arise from our business. Third parties may seek to hold us responsible for TFI’s retained liabilities, including third-party claims arising from TFI’s business and retained assets. Under the separation and distribution agreement, we are responsible for the debts, liabilities and other obligations related to the business or businesses that we own and operate. Under our agreements with TFI, TFI has agreed to indemnify us for claims and losses relating to its retained liabilities. However, if any of those liabilities are significant and we are ultimately held liable for such liabilities, we cannot assure you that we will be able to recover the full amount of our losses from TFI. As an example, Elevate is a potential defendant in litigation that may be brought on behalf of the debtors' estates in the TFI bankruptcy.
Although no such claims have been brought directly against Elevate to date, in October 2019, Elevate entered into tolling agreements with TFI Creditors' Committee and class claimants in regard to any potential future claims against Elevate. These tolling agreements have been extended, and we may enter into additional extensions of the tolling agreements in the future. In December 2019, the TFI bankruptcy plan was confirmed, and any claims from the TFI Creditors' Committee were assigned to the TFLT. Elevate and the TFLT have commenced mediation in an attempt to resolve, prior to any litigation being filed, any potential claims that the TFLT may have against Elevate including, among other things, whether or not the spin-off of Elevate from TFI was a fraudulent conveyance and any other avoidance actions associated with the spin-off. In the event the mediation is unsuccessful, Elevate anticipates that the TFLT will pursue its claims in litigation against Elevate. As discussed below, in the event of litigation, to the extent that Elevate is not successful, it could be required to pay money in an amount equal to the difference between the consideration received by TFI in the spin-off and the fair market value of Elevate at the time of the spin-off. While Elevate can provide no assurances as to whether there will be a settlement, or a judgment against Elevate, or what the terms of any such settlement or judgment could be, in the event that Elevate is unable to pay any amount resulting from such settlement or judgment, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, and Elevate could be obligated to file for bankruptcy. At this time, because no claims have been filed against Elevate, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. We believe any future claims are without merit, and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously.
Although we do not anticipate liability for any obligations not expressly assumed by us pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement, it is possible that we could be required to assume responsibility for certain obligations retained by TFI should TFI fail to pay or perform its retained obligations.
In addition, the spin-off could be challenged under various state and federal fraudulent conveyance laws. An unpaid creditor or an entity vested with the power of such creditor (such as the TFLT in the TFI bankruptcy could claim that the distribution left TFI insolvent or with unreasonably small capital or that TFI intended or believed it would incur debts beyond its ability to pay such debts as they mature and that TFI did not receive fair consideration or reasonably equivalent value in the spin-off. The measure of insolvency for purposes of such fraudulent conveyance laws will vary depending on which jurisdiction’s law is applied. Generally, however, an entity would be considered insolvent if either the fair saleable value of its assets is less than the amount of its liabilities (including the probable amount of contingent liabilities), or it is unlikely to be able to pay its liabilities as they become due. If it were determined that the spin-off constituted a fraudulent conveyance, then the spin-off could be deemed void and there could be a number of different remedies imposed against Elevate, including without limitation, the requirement that Elevate has to pay money damages in an amount equal to the difference between the consideration received by TFI in the spin-off and the fair market value of Elevate at the time of the spin-off. While Elevate can provide no assurances as to whether there will be a settlement, or a judgment against Elevate, or what the terms of any such settlement or judgment could be, in the event that Elevate is unable to pay any amount resulting from such settlement or judgment, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition,or, if there is no settlement and Elevate is deemed to ultimately be held liable in this matter, Elevate could be obligated to file for bankruptcy. In addition, in negotiations with the TFLT in the TFI bankruptcy, Elevate may be obligated to book a reserve for potential settlement amounts that it considers as an estimate of possible loss. Any such reserve could materially impact Elevate’s financial condition. Elevate can provide no assurances as to how long the mediation process may take, or the outcome of such mediation.
The CFPB has authority to investigate and issue Civil Investigative Demands to consumer lending businesses and may issue fines or corrective orders.
The CFPB has authority to investigate and issue Civil Investigative Demands (“CIDs”) to consumer lending businesses, including us. In June 2012, prior to the spin-off, and after the spin-off, TFI received CIDs from the CFPB. The purpose of the CIDs purportedly was to determine whether TFI engaged in unlawful acts or practices relating to the advertising, marketing, provision, or collection of small-dollar loan products, in violation of parts of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), the Truth in Lending Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, or any other federal consumer financial law and to determine whether CFPB action to obtain legal or equitable relief would be in the public interest. On November 15, 2017, the CFPB sued TFI alleging it engaged in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. The CFPB and TFI have settled all claims and have received final court approval in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas. While TFI’s business is distinct from our business, we cannot predict to what extent any obligations arising out of such final outcome will be applicable to our Company, business or officers, if at all.
OTHER RISKS RELATED TO COMPLIANCE AND REGULATION
We, our marketing affiliates, our third-party service providers and our Bank Partners are subject to complex federal, state and local lending and consumer protection laws, and if we fail to comply with applicable laws, regulations, rules and guidance, our business could be adversely affected.
We, our marketing affiliates, our third-party service providers and our Bank Partners must comply with US federal, state and local regulatory regimes, including those applicable to consumer credit transactions. Certain US federal and state laws generally regulate interest rates and other charges and require certain disclosures. In particular, we may be subject to laws such as:
local regulations and ordinances that impose requirements or restrictions related to certain loan product offerings and collection practices;
state laws and regulations that impose requirements related to loan or credit service disclosures and terms, credit discrimination, credit reporting, debt servicing and collection;
the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z promulgated thereunder, and similar state laws, which require certain disclosures to borrowers regarding the terms and conditions of their loans and credit transactions and other substantive consumer protections with respect to credit cards, such as an assessment of a borrower's ability to repay obligations and penalty fee limitations;
Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits unfair and deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, Section 1031 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which prohibits unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices in connection with any consumer financial product or service, and similar state laws that prohibit unfair and deceptive acts or practices;
the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B promulgated thereunder and state non-discrimination laws, which generally prohibit creditors from discriminating against credit applicants on the basis of race, color, sex, age, religion, national origin, marital status, the fact that all or part of the applicant’s income derives from any public assistance program or the fact that the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the federal Consumer Credit Protection Act;
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the “FCRA”) as amended by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, and similar state laws, which promote the accuracy, fairness and privacy of information in the files of consumer reporting agencies;
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”) and similar state and local debt collection laws, which provide guidelines and limitations on the conduct of third-party debt collectors and creditors in connection with the collection of consumer debts;
the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Regulation P promulgated thereunder and similar state privacy laws, which include limitations on financial institutions’ disclosure of nonpublic personal information about a consumer to nonaffiliated third parties, in certain circumstances require financial institutions to limit the use and further disclosure of nonpublic personal information by nonaffiliated third parties to whom they disclose such information and require financial institutions to disclose certain privacy policies and practices with respect to information sharing with affiliated and nonaffiliated entities as well as to safeguard personal customer information, and other privacy laws and regulations;
the Bankruptcy Code and similar state insolvency laws, which limit the extent to which creditors may seek to enforce debts against parties who have filed for bankruptcy protection;
the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and similar state laws, which allow military members and certain dependents to suspend or postpone certain civil obligations, as well as limit applicable rates, so that the military member can devote his or her full attention to military duties;
the Military Lending Act and Department of Defense rules, which limit the interest rate and fees that may be charged to military members and their dependents, requires certain disclosures and prohibits certain mandatory clauses among other restrictions;
the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E promulgated thereunder, which provide disclosure requirements, guidelines and restrictions on the electronic transfer of funds from consumers’ asset accounts;
the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act and similar state laws, particularly the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, which authorize the creation of legally binding and enforceable agreements utilizing electronic records and signatures and, with consumer consent, permits required disclosures to be provided electronically;
the Bank Secrecy Act, which relates to compliance with anti-money laundering, customer due diligence and record-keeping policies and procedures; and
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") and the regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (the "FCC"), which regulations include limitations on telemarketing calls, auto-dialed calls, prerecorded calls, text messages and unsolicited faxes.
While it is our intention to always be in compliance with these laws, it is possible that we may currently be, or at some time have been, inadvertently out of compliance with some or any such laws. Further, all applicable laws are subject to evolving regulatory and judicial interpretations, which further complicate real-time compliance. Lastly, compliance with these laws is costly, time-consuming and limits our operational flexibility.
Failure to comply with these laws and regulatory requirements applicable to our business may, among other things, limit our or a collection agency’s ability to collect all or part of the principal of or interest on loans. As a result, we may not be able to collect on unpaid principal or interest. In addition, non-compliance could subject us to damages, revocation of required licenses, class action lawsuits, administrative enforcement actions, rescission rights held by investors in securities offerings and civil and criminal liability, which may harm our business and may result in borrowers rescinding their loans.
Where applicable, we seek to comply with state installment, CSO, servicing and similar statutes. In all jurisdictions with licensing or other requirements that we believe may be applicable to us, we comply with the relevant requirements by acquiring the necessary licenses or authorization and submitting appropriate registrations in connection therewith. Nevertheless, if we are found to not have complied with applicable laws, we could lose one or more of our licenses or authorizations or face other sanctions or penalties or be required to obtain other licenses or authorizations in such jurisdiction, which may have an adverse effect on our ability to perform our servicing obligations or make products or services available to borrowers in particular states, which may harm our business.
Our products currently have usage caps and limitations on lending based on internally developed “responsible lending guidelines.” If those policies become more restrictive due to legislative or regulatory changes at either the local, state, US federal, or UK regulatory level these products would experience declining revenues per customer. In some cases, legislative or regulatory changes at the local, state, US federal or UK regulatory level may require us to discontinue offering certain of our products in certain jurisdictions.
The CFPB may have examination authority over our US consumer lending business that could have a significant impact on our US business.
In July 2010, the US Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act. Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act created the CFPB, which regulates US consumer financial products and services, and gave it regulatory, supervisory and enforcement powers over certain providers of consumer financial products and services, including authority to examine such providers.
The CFPB is currently considering rules to define larger participants in markets for consumer installment loans for purposes of supervision. Once this rule and corresponding examination rules are established, we anticipate the CFPB will examine us. The CFPB’s examination authority permits CFPB examiners to inspect the books and records of providers and ask questions about their business practices. The examination procedures include specific modules for examining marketing activities, loan application and origination activities, payment processing activities and sustained use by consumers, collections, accounts in default, consumer reporting activities and third-party relationships. As a result of these examinations, we could be required to change our products, our services or our practices, whether as a result of another party being examined or as a result of an examination of us, or we could be subject to monetary penalties, which could reduce profit margins for the company or otherwise materially adversely affect us.
Furthermore, the CFPB’s practices and procedures regarding civil investigations, examination, enforcement and other matters relevant to us and other CFPB-regulated entities are subject to further development and change. Where the CFPB holds powers previously assigned to other regulators or may interpret laws previously interpreted by other regulators, the CFPB may not continue to apply such powers or interpret relevant concepts consistent with previous regulators’ practice. This may adversely affect our ability to anticipate the CFPB’s expectations or interpretations in our interaction with the CFPB.
The CFPB also has broad authority to prohibit unfair, deceptive and abusive acts and practices and to investigate and penalize financial institutions that violate this prohibition. In addition to having the authority to obtain monetary penalties for violations of applicable federal consumer financial laws (including the CFPB’s own rules), the CFPB can require remediation of practices, pursue administrative proceedings or litigation and obtain cease and desist orders (which can include orders for restitution or rescission of contracts, as well as other kinds of affirmative relief). Also, where a company is believed to have violated Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act or CFPB regulations implemented thereunder, the Dodd-Frank Act empowers state attorneys general and state regulators to bring civil actions to remedy such violations after consulting with the CFPB. If the CFPB or one or more state attorneys general or state regulators believe that we have violated any of the applicable laws or regulations, they could exercise their enforcement powers in ways that could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
Many states, including California, Massachusetts, Maryland and New York, have taken steps to actively enforce consumer protection laws, including through the creation of so-called “mini-CFPBs.”
The CFPB issued proposed revisions to the 2017 Rule affecting the consumer lending industry, and these or subsequent new rules and regulations, if they are finalized, may impact our US consumer lending business.
The CFPB released its final “Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Lending Rule” (the "2017 Rule") on October 5, 2017, covering certain short-term and longer-term loans with an APR of 36% or higher and have a “leveraged payment mechanism” such as an ACH payment plan. On February 6, 2019, the CFPB issued proposed revisions to the 2017 Rule (the “2019 Proposed Revisions”). The 2019 Proposed Revisions leave in place requirements and limitations on attempts to withdraw payments from consumers’ checking, savings or prepaid accounts. Among other requirements, the payment provisions prohibit lenders that have had two consecutive attempts to collect money from a consumers’ account returned for insufficient funds from making any further attempts to collect from the account unless the consumers have provided new authorizations for additional payment transfers. Additionally, the payment provisions require us to give consumers at least three business days' advance notice before attempting payment withdrawals. The mandatory compliance deadline for the payment provisions of the 2017 Rule was August 19, 2019. Language in the 2019 Proposed Revisions suggest that the CFPB may be receptive to informal requests to revisit such payment provisions requirements. There are also recordkeeping requirements and compliance plan requirements in the 2019 Proposed Rule that will apply to us. On June 7, 2019, the CFPB announced a 15-month delay in the rule's August 19, 2019 compliance date to November 19, 2020 that applies only to the proposed rescission of the ability-to-pay provisions. Relatedly, the Community Financial Services Association of America (“CFSA”) sued the CFPB in April 2018 over the Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Lending Rule. As a result, the court suspended the Bureau’s August 19, 2019 implementation of the 2019 Proposed Revisions pending further order of the court. On August 6, 2019 the court issued an order that leaves the compliance date stay in effect. The CFPB plans to finalize the 2019 Proposed Revisions in the first or second quarter of 2020. To the extent that the 2019 Proposed Revisions, or subsequent new rules and regulations proposed by the CFPB, are finalized, the results of operations of our US consumer lending business could be adversely affected.
The FDIC has issued examination guidance affecting our unaffiliated third-party lenders and these or subsequent new rules and regulations could have a significant impact on our products originated by unaffiliated third-party lenders.
The Bank-Originated Products are offered by Elevate's unaffiliated third-party lenders using technology, underwriting and marketing services provided by Elevate. The unaffiliated third-party lenders are supervised and examined by both the states that charter them and the FDIC. If the FDIC or a state supervisory body considers any aspect of the products originated by unaffiliated third-party lenders to be inconsistent with its guidance, the unaffiliated third-party lenders may be required to alter the product.
On July 29, 2016, the board of directors of the FDIC released examination guidance relating to third-party lending as part of a package of materials designed to “improve the transparency and clarity of the FDIC’s supervisory policies and practices” and consumer compliance measures that FDIC-supervised institutions should follow when lending through a business relationship with a third party. The proposed guidance, if finalized, would apply to all FDIC-supervised institutions that engage in third-party lending programs, including certain Bank Products.
The proposed guidance elaborates on previously issued agency guidance on managing third-party risks and specifically addresses third-party lending arrangements where an FDIC-supervised institution relies on a third party to perform a significant aspect of the lending process. The types of relationships that would be covered by the guidance include (but are not limited to) relationships for originating loans on behalf of, through or jointly with third parties, or using platforms developed by third parties. If adopted as proposed, the guidance would result in increased supervisory attention of institutions that engage in significant lending activities through third parties, including at least one examination every 12 months, as well as supervisory expectations for a third-party lending risk management program and third-party lending policies that contain certain minimum requirements, such as self-imposed limits as a percentage of total capital for each third-party lending relationship and for the overall loan program, relative to origination volumes, credit exposures (including pipeline risk), growth, loan types, and acceptable credit quality. Comments on the guidance were due October 27, 2016. While the guidance has never formally been adopted, it is our understanding that the FDIC has relied upon it in its examination of third-party lending arrangements.
On June 5, 2018, Jelena McWilliams was sworn in as the Chair of the FDIC. At this time, it is unclear what impact the incoming Chair will have on the FDIC's third-party lending policies governing the Bank Products.
The UK has imposed, and continues to impose, increased regulation of the high-cost short-term credit industry with the stated expectation that some firms will exit the market.
During the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, our UK operations represented 14% and 16%, respectively, of our consolidated total revenues. In the UK, we are subject to regulation by the FCA pursuant to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (the “FSMA”), the Consumer Credit Act 1974, as amended (the “CCA”), and secondary legislation passed under such statutes, among other rules and regulations including the FCA Handbook, which collectively serve to transpose the obligations under the European Consumer Credit Directive into UK law.
The FSMA gives the FCA the power to authorize, supervise, examine, bring enforcement actions and impose fines and disciplinary sanctions against providers of consumer credit, as well as to make rules for the regulation of consumer credit. The Consumer Credit Sourcebook (the "CONC") incorporates prescriptive regulations for consumer loans such as those that we offer, including mandatory affordability checks on borrowers, limiting the number of refinances, or “rollovers,” to two, restricting how lenders can advertise, banning advertisements that the FCA deems misleading, and introducing a limit of two unsuccessful attempts on the use of continuous payment authority ("CPA") (which provides a creditor the ability to directly debit a customer’s account for payment using their bank card details when authorized by the customer to do so) to pay off a loan. The UK also has strict regulations regarding advertising (including websites) and the presentation, form and content of loan agreements, including statutory warnings, the layout of prescribed financial information, as well as in relation to defaulted loans and collections activities. The changes that we have implemented or any changes we may be required to implement in the future as a result of such legislative and regulatory activities could have a material adverse effect on our UK business.
In the period since the FCA acquired responsibility for the regulation of consumer credit in the UK in place of the Office of Fair Trading (the "OFT") in April 2014, there have been a large number of new regulations affecting our UK product offerings. These include the introduction of a rate cap, a prohibition on certain types of line of credit products, the establishment of a price comparison website, and restrictions on payment processing activities, among other changes. The rate cap imposes a maximum interest rate of 0.8% per day and maximum late payment fee of £15; the total amount charged for the loan, including all default charges, must not exceed 100% of the capital sum originally borrowed. This rule translates to a maximum rate of £24 for every £100 borrowed for a 30-day period, or 0.8% per day. The maximum fees that can be earned on the loan (through interest, default fees, and late interest) ensure that a consumer cannot pay back more than twice the amount of principal borrowed.
Elevate’s UK business has been authorized by the FCA since February 2016. Similar to US federal and state regulatory regimes, the FCA has the power to revoke, suspend or impose conditions upon our authorization to conduct a consumer credit business if it determines we are out of compliance with applicable UK laws, high-cost short-term rules or other legal requirements. If the FCA adopts rules that significantly restrict the conduct of our business, any such rules could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows or could make the continuance of all or part of our UK business impractical or unprofitable. Any new rules adopted by the FCA could also result in significant compliance costs and any findings by the FCA of our failure to adequately assess creditworthiness and our handling of complaints could make the continuance of all or part of our UK business impractical or unprofitable.
In July 2017, the FCA announced that it had reviewed the impact of the 0.8% per day price cap and concluded that the current price cap will be left in place. The FCA will review the price cap again in 2020. Further, the FCA found that regulation of high-cost short-term credit, including the price cap, has led to substantial benefits to consumers. The FCA validated concerns about specific products and segments of the high-cost credit market, including unarranged overdrafts and long-term use of high-cost credit and the rent-to-own, home-collected credit and catalog credit markets. In May 2018, the FCA published the outcome of its high-cost credit review and proposed changes to its regulations of overdrafts, the rent-to-own market, home-collected credit, catalogue credit and store cards.
No recommendations were made concerning the high-cost short-term credit loan market. Separately, the FCA has asked companies to review their lending practices regarding repeat borrowing to ensure such lending practices reflect decisions made by the Financial Ombudsman Service. Our UK business has undertaken this exercise and has invited the FCA to discuss its findings. While we believe that our UK business has implemented lending practices for repeat borrowing that are compliant with regulatory requirements, if the FCA were to impose a cap on a number of times a consumer of our Sunny product can borrow from us, this could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
Over the last three years, our UK business received an increased number of customer complaints initiated by claims management companies ("CMCs") related to the affordability assessment of certain loans. If our evidence supports the affordability assessment and we reject the claim, the customer has the right to take the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service for further adjudication. The CMCs' campaign against the high cost lending industry increased significantly during the third and fourth quarters of 2018 and continued through 2019 resulting in a significant increase in affordability claims against all companies in the industry during this period. We believe that many of the increased claims are without merit and reflect the use of abusive and deceptive tactics by the CMCs. The FCA began regulating the CMCs in April 2019 in order to ensure that the methods used by the CMCs are in the best interests of the consumer and the industry. As of December 31, 2019, we accrued approximately $2.3 million for the claims received that were determined to be probable and reasonably estimable based on the Company's historical loss rates related to these claims. The outcomes of the adjudication of these claims may differ from the Company's estimates, and as a result, our estimates may change in the near term and the effect of any such change could be material to the financial statements. We continue to monitor the matters for further developments that could affect the amount of the accrued liability recognized.
Separately, the FCA asked all industry participants to review their lending practices to ensure that such companies are using an appropriate affordability and creditworthiness analysis. Our UK business provided the requested information to the FCA. The FCA reported back to us and asked our UK business to tighten certain aspects of its income verification and expenditure processes. In addition, in October 2019, the FCA required our UK business to enter into an agreement with the FCA that prohibits us from making any payments greater than £1.0 million outside of the normal course of business without obtaining prior approval from the FCA. We believe that we have adequately addressed the FCA’s concerns, however, there can be no assurances that the FCA will not require further changes to our business or operations in the UK, or that such changes will not make all or part of our UK business impractical or unprofitable.
Our advertising and marketing materials and disclosures have been and continue to be subject to regulatory scrutiny, particularly in the UK.
In the jurisdictions where we operate, our advertising and marketing activities and disclosures are subject to regulation under various industry standards, consumer protection laws, and other applicable laws and regulations. Consistent with the consumer lending industry as a whole (see “—The consumer lending industry continues to be subjected to new laws and regulations in many jurisdictions that could restrict the consumer lending products and services we offer, impose additional compliance costs on us, render our current operations unprofitable or even prohibit our current operations” above), our advertising and marketing materials have come under increased scrutiny. In the UK, for example, consumer credit firms are subject to the financial promotion regime set out in the FSMA (Financial Promotion) Order 2005 and specific rules in the CONC, part 3, such as the inclusion of a risk warning on all advertising materials. The FCA has also decided to adopt certain elements of industry codes as FCA rules on a case by case basis. Our advertising and marketing materials in the UK are subject to review and regulation both by the FCA and the Advertising Standards Authority. We have in some cases been required to withdraw, amend or add disclosures to such materials, or have done so voluntarily in response to inquiries or complaints. Going forward, there can be no guarantee that we will be able to advertise and market our business in the UK or elsewhere in a manner we consider effective.
Any inability to do so could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
The regulatory landscape in which we operate is continually changing due to new CFPB rules, regulations and interpretations, as well as various legal actions that have been brought against others in marketplace lending, including several lawsuits that have sought to re-characterize certain loans made by federally insured banks as loans made by third parties. If litigation on similar theories were brought against us when we work with a federally insured bank that makes loans, rather than making loans ourselves and were such an action to be successful, we could be subject to state usury limits and/or state licensing requirements, in addition to the state consumer protection laws to which we are already subject, in a greater number of states, loans in such states could be deemed void and unenforceable, and we could be subject to substantial penalties in connection with such loans.
The case law involving whether an originating lender, on the one hand, or third-parties,third parties, on the other hand, are the “true lenders” of a loan is still developing and courts have come to different conclusions and applied different analyses. The determination of whether a third-party service provider is the “true lender” is significant because third-parties risk having the loans they service becoming subject to a consumer’s state usury limits. A number of federal courts that have opined on the “true lender” issue have looked to who is the lender identified on the borrower’s loan documents. A number of state courts and at least one federal district court have considered a number of other factors when analyzing whether the originating lender or a third party is the “true lender,” including looking at the economics of the transaction to determine, among other things, who has the predominant economic interest in the loan being made. If we were re-characterized as a “true lender” with respect to Elastic, or Rise of Texas or FinWise or CCB states, loans could be deemed to be void and unenforceable in some states, the right to collect finance charges could be affected, and we could be subject to fines and penalties from state and federal regulatory agencies as well as claims by borrowers, including class actions by private plaintiffs.
Even if we were not required to change our business practices to comply with applicable state laws and regulations or cease doing business in some states, we could be required to register or obtain lending licenses or other regulatory approvals that could impose a substantial cost on us. If Republic Bank, FinWise Bank, CCB or the CSO lenders in Texas were subject to such a lawsuit, they may elect to terminate their relationship with us voluntarily or at the direction of their regulators, and if they lost the lawsuit, they could be forced to modify or terminate the programs.
On August 13, 2018, the California Supreme Court in Eduardo De La Torre, et al. v. CashCall, Inc., held that interest rates on consumer loans of $2,500 or more could be found unconscionable under section 22302 of the California Financial Code, despite not being subject to certain statutory interest rate caps and that such a finding requires a full unconscionability analysis, which is fact-intensive. The California Supreme Court did not hold that any particular loan or loans were unconscionable. In its opinion, the California Supreme Court noted that the unconscionability determination is not an easy one, that high interest rates may indeed be justified for higher risk borrowers. As a result of the California Supreme Court’s ruling, the case was remanded to the Northern District of California. The Judge for the Northern District of California dismissed the case, on the basis that the unconscionability analysis and class action determination are matters of state law for evaluation by a state court.
On April 13, 2021, a case was decided in the Northern District of California involving FinWise Bank and its non‑bank service provider, Opportunity Financial, LLC, challenging the validity of loans and business practices associated with a bank partnership program. The plaintiff, a California consumer, alleged that the defendants operated a “rent-a-bank” scheme to issue high-cost loans although the bank was listed as the lender on the loan. The plaintiffs claimed the bank was lender in name only, with the service provider marketing the loan, purchasing the loan and then servicing and collecting the loan, which plaintiffs alleged were to evade California interest rate restrictions.
Plaintiff claims were under both California and Utah law for unfair and unconscionable conduct. The defendants challenged all claims based on the doctrine of federal preemption and alternatively that if preemption failed that the action failed to state a cognizable claim under either state’s law.
The court found that all of the plaintiff’s claims failed on the merits. In part, the Court held that the plaintiff failed to show that the defendants were subject to the California Financial Code which contains wording that the California statute does not apply to any person doing business under any law of any state relating to banks. In that regard, the Court upheld existing precedent that as to usury, the court may look only to the face of the transaction and not to the intent of the parties, citing Beechum v. Navient Sols., Inc., 2016 WL 5340454 (C.D. Cal. 2016). On the face of the loan agreement, it was not subject to California law. The court noted that arguments as to evasion of California law are irrelevant since the bank is the lender on the documents. The court also reviewed the service provider’s website and found that it was not misleading as to who was the lender on the loans. The Court also dismissed claims under Utah law for unconscionability in that Utah law allows any rate of interest to be charged on a loan.
A claim was also made under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA") that a preauthorized transfer was required as a condition of the loan and therefore violated EFTA and Regulation E. The court found this claim to be insufficient based on language in the loan agreement allowing for alternative payment methods.
Similarly, on April 7, 2021, in Robinson and Spears v. Nat’l. Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-2, 2021 WL 1293707, Case No. 20-cv-10203 ADB (D. Mass. April 7, 2021),the court upheld the concept of “valid when made” and found that Section 85 of the National Bank Act preempts conflicting Pennsylvania law and national banks have the power to purchase and sell loans (citing 12 CFR 7.4008(a)). The Court ruled that the interest rate on the original loan was non-usurious and therefore could not become usurious upon assignment. The Court gave deference to the OCC’s recently enacted valid when made regulation. As to the true lender challenge, the Court held that the plaintiffs had not identified any binding authority that would require it to apply the true lender doctrine. In addition, the Court saw that the bank was named as the lender on the loan document, funded the loan and could be required to hold the loan for an extended period of time. Therefore, the Court did not deem it necessary to address the OCC’s true lender rule that is being challenged in court and in Congress.
On August 31, 2016, the United States District Court for the Central District of California ruled in CFPB v. CashCall, Inc. et. al. that CashCall was the “true lender” and consequently was engaged in deceptive practices by servicing and collecting on payday loans in certain states where the interest rate on the loans exceeded the state usury limit and/or where CashCall was not a licensed lender. The CashCall case is related to a tribally related lending program. In reaching its decision, the court adopted a “totality of the circumstances” test to determine which party to the transaction had the “predominant economic interest” in the transaction. Given the fact-intensive nature of a “totality of the circumstances” assessment, the particular and varied details of marketplace lending and other bank partner programs may lead to different outcomes to those reached in CashCall, even in those jurisdictions where courts adopt the “totality of the circumstances” approach. Notably, CashCall did not address the federal preemption of state law under the National Bank Act or any other federal statute. Although CashCall is appealing the decision in the Ninth Circuit, on January 26, 2018, the District Court ordered CashCall to pay approximately $10.2 million in civil money penalties, but no consumer restitution. In issuing the judgment, which was significantly less than the $280 million the CFPB sought in penalties and consumer restitution, the Court found that CashCall had not knowingly or recklessly violated consumer protection laws, and that the CFPB had not demonstrated that consumer restitution was an appropriate remedy.
On September 20, 2016, in Beechum v. Navient Solutions, Inc., the United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed a class action suit alleging usurious interest rates on private student loans in violation of California law. In doing so, the court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that the defendants were the de facto “true lenders” of loans made by a national bank under a bank partnership arrangement with a non-bank partner. Consistent with the controlling judicial authority for challenges to the applicability of statutory or constitutional exemptions to California’s usury prohibition, the court determined that “it must look solely to the face of the transaction” in determining whether an exemption applies and did not apply the “totality of the circumstances” test.
In addition to true lender challenges, a question regarding the applicability of state usury rates may arise when a loan is sold from a bank to a non-bank entity. In Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the federal preemption of state usury laws did not extend to the purchaser of a loan issued by a national bank. In its brief urging the US Supreme Court to deny certiorari, the US Solicitor General, joined by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”), noted that the Second Circuit (Connecticut, New York and Vermont) analysis was incorrect. On remand, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concluded on February 27, 2017 that New York’s state usury law, not Delaware's state usury law, was applicable and that the plaintiff’s claims under the FDCPA and state unfair and deceptive acts and practices could proceed. To that end, the court granted Madden’s motion for class certification. At this time, itIt is unknown whether Madden will be applied outside of the defaulted debt context in which it arose; however, recently two class actions, Cohen v Capital One Funding, LLC,et al and Chase Card Funding, LLC,et al, have relied on Madden to challenge the interest rate charged once debt was sold to securitization trusts. The facts in CashCall, Navient and Madden are not directly applicable to our business, as we do not engage in practices similar to those at issue in CashCall, Navient or Madden, and we do not purchase whole loans or engage in business in states within the Second Circuit. However, to the extent that either the holdings in CashCall or Madden were broadened to cover circumstances applicable to our business, or if other litigation on related theories were brought against us and were successful, or we were otherwise found to be the "true lender," we could become subject to state usury limits and state licensing laws, in addition to the state consumer protection laws to which we are already subject, in a greater number of states, loans in such states could be deemed void and unenforceable, and we could be subject to substantial penalties in connection with such loans.
In response to the uncertainty Madden created as to the validity of interest rates of bank-originated loans, sold in the secondary market, in November 2019,both the OCC and the FDIC took action to reaffirm the “valid when made” doctrine by issuing a notice of proposed rulemakingissued final rules to clarify that when a bank sells, assigns or otherwise transfers a loan, the interest permissible prior to the transfer would continuecontinues to be permissible following the transfer. The 60-day comment periods ended January 21, 2020 and February 4, 2020, respectively, and it is anticipated that the agencies will issueOCC final rules soon.rule was effective on August 3, 2020. The FDIC issuedfinal rule was effective on August 21, 2020. On July 29, 2020, the attorneys general from California, Illinois and New York filed a similar proposed rulelawsuit against the OCC challenging the rule. Then in August 2020, attorneys general from California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina and D.C. sued the FDIC alleging the core of the rulemaking "is beyond the FDIC's power to reaffirm the “valid when made” doctrineissue, is contrary to statute, and its comment period ended on February 4, 2020.would facilitate predatory lending through sham 'rent-a-bank' partnerships designed to evade state law."
Relatedly, the OCC and FDICboth agencies have signaled they are working on a rule to remove uncertainty surrounding the “true lender” theory-which involves a claim by a borrower or regulator that the supposed “true lender” of a loan funded by a bank is a non-bank service provider of the bank, rather than the bank itself. This controversial theory poses a growing threat to banks’ ability to enter into contractual partnerships with nonbanknon-bank service providers to extend responsible credit products that are far superior to payday loans. Such a theory threatens to undermine the long-established lending powers of national and state charteredstate-chartered banks and the validity of their originated loans and could cause substantial disruption to the financial system upon which all Americans rely. As a result, the agencies are looking to provide clarity for banks and their non-bank service providers.
Lastly,On July 20, 2020, the OCC and FDIC are also working on a proposed “Small Dollar Rule” which will facilitate greater financial inclusion and give guidance for banks that make “small dollar” loans to non-prime consumers. The guidance could impact the products or interest rates that unaffiliated third-party banks originate utilizing the Elevate’s lending platforms.
California’s Governor Gavin Newsom recently proposed a rule that would determine when a national bank or federal savings association makes a loan and is the "true lender" in the context of a partnership between a bank and a third party. The proposed rule would resolve this uncertainty by specifying that a bank makes a loan and is the "true lender" if, as of the date of origination, it (1) is named as the lender in the loan agreement or (2) funds the loan.
On October 27, 2020, the OCC issued its final rule as proposed. In addition to the bright line test as to who is the "true lender", the rule also clarifies that as the "true lender" of a loan, the bank retains the compliance obligations associated with the origination of that loan, thus negating concern regarding harmful rent-a-charter arrangements. The rule became effective December 29, 2020.
On July 20, 2020, the FDIC announced that is seeking the public's input on the potential for a public/private standard-setting partnership and voluntary certification program to promote the efficient and effective adoption of innovative technologies at FDIC-supervised financial institutions. The Request for Information asks whether the proposed program might reduce the regulatory and operational uncertainty that may prevent financial institutions from deploying new law,technology or entering into partnerships with technology firms, including "fintechs." The deadline for comments was September 22, 2020. We are awaiting further developments from the FDIC.
On January 1, 2021, the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL)("CCFPL"), that would renameexpanded the Departmentenforcement powers of Business Oversight to be the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation and also empower(previously known as the California Department to extendof Business Oversight). The new law extends state oversight toof financial services providers not currently subject to state supervision but also facilitate innovation.
supervision.
In 2017, the Colorado Attorney General recently filed complaints in state court against marketplace lenders Marlette Funding LLC and Avant of Colorado LLC on behalf of the administrator of Colorado’s Uniform Consumer Credit Code (UCCC)(“UCCC”), alleging violations of the UCCC based on “true lender” and loan assignment (Madden) cases with respect to lending programs sponsored by WebBank and Cross River Bank, respectively. After years of litigation, on August 7, 2020, all parties entered into a settlement of all claims comprising of a civil money penalty of $1,050,000 and a $500,000 contribution to a Colorado financial literacy program. The complaints allege thatsettlement provides a safe harbor for the non-bank service providers, Marlette Funding LLC and Avantmarketplace lending programs at issue in the suits, as well as certain of Colorado LLC - rather than WebBank and Cross River Bank, are the "true lenders," and therefore subject to Colorado usury limits. Efforts by Avant and Marlette Funding to remove the cases to federal court and efforts by Cross River Bank and WebBank seeking declaratory judgments against the administrator of Colorado's UCCC failed (although both Cross River Bank and WebBank filed appeals with the Tenth Circuit). At this time, it is unknown what the outcome of these cases will be and whether any conclusions of law would be applied outside Colorado. However, recently in November 2018, the administrator of Colorado's UCCC amended its complaints against Avant and Marlette Funding to add additional parties (the securitization trusts that acquired the loans originated under the bank partnerships Avant and Marlette Funding have with Cross River Bank and WebBank) alleging violations of Colorado's UCCCbanks’ other marketplace lending programs if certain criteria related to oversight, disclosure, funding, licensing, consumer terms, and structure are followed. Only the finance chargesparties to the litigation are bound by this settlement and fees receivedfurther, it only applies to closed-end loans offered by the securitization trusts.banks in conjunction with non-bank partners or fintechs partnering with banks that involve origination of loans through an online platform. Another marketplace lender, Kabbage, Inc. and its bank, Celtic Bank, were sued in Massachusetts federal court in 2017, with the defendant alleging that Kabbage, not Celtic Bank, is the “true lender.” Kabbage, Inc. was successful in compelling arbitration in that case. In October 2019, Kabbage was sued in the Southern District of New York by several small businesses alleging violations of state usury laws (California, Massachusetts, Colorado, New York) and racketeering and conspiracy under federal RICO statutes. It also includes claims for violations of various state laws other than usury laws, including the California Financing Law Code (CFLC)("CFLC").
The plaintiffs This case was settled and dismissed in that case also make a UDAP claim under Massachusetts law in which they allege that Kabbage’s loan agreements were “contracts of adhesion” that included “unconscionable and unfair provisions” such as provisions that required the plaintiffs to waive the right to a jury trial, waive the right to participate in a class action, and waive the right to seek legal redress in their home state. It is expected that the Kabbage will again seek to compel arbitration in this most recent lawsuit.August 2020.
In the last few months, we have seen increased activity by some state regulatory authorities seeking to understand the services we provide to our Bank Partners. We cannot predict the final outcome of these inquiries or to what extent any obligations arising out of such final outcome will be applicable to our Company, business or officers, if at all. It is possible that some state regulators could conclude that we are subject to state laws, including licensing or registration in connection with services we provide to our Bank Partners.
In September 2019, the FDIC The recent and the OCC jointly submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. District Court for the Districtanticipated further clarifications of Colorado in support of the appellee debt buyer, urging the district court to uphold the bank's rights to enforce that debt to the debt buyer, including the bank's right to chargefederal interest as authorized under the laws of its home state. The brief includes related discussions of (i) the rights of federally regulated banks to "export" their home states' interest ratesrate preemption by charging those rates to borrowers nationwide, first with respect to national banks under section 85 of the National Bank Act and then with respect to state banks under section 27 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and (ii) federal preemption of state usury laws. The portion of the brief that discusses rate exportation strongly reaffirms the OCC and the FDIC's complete accord that section 27 and section 85FDIC should be mirror images of each other. At the conclusion of their brief, the agencies ask the district courtprovide clarification to affirm the bankruptcy court's decision on the basis that affirmation would "preserve the banks' longstanding ability to engage in loan sales, would reaffirm the traditional protections that such loan sales have received under the law, would ensure the proper functioning of the credit markets, and would promote safety and soundness in the banking sector by supporting loan sales and securitizations, which are used to manage capital and liquidity positions."conclusions.
We use third-party collection agencies to assist us with debt collection. Their failure to comply with applicable debt collection regulations could subject us to fines and other liabilities, which could harm our reputation and business.
The FDCPA regulates persons who regularly collect or attempt to collect, directly or indirectly, consumer debts owed or asserted to be owed to another person. Many states impose additional requirements on debt collection communications, and some of those requirements may be more stringent than the federal requirements. Moreover, regulations governing debt collection are subject to changing interpretations that differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. We use third-party collections agencies to collect on debts incurred by consumers of our credit products. Regulatory changes could make it more difficult for collections agencies to effectively collect on the loans we originate.
Non-US jurisdictions also regulate debt collection. For example, in the UK, due to new rules under the CONC we have made adjustments to some of our business practices, including our collections processes, which could possibly result in lower collections on loans made by us and has resulted in a decrease in the number of new customers that we are able to approve. In addition, the concerns expressed to us by the OFT and the FCA relate in part to debt collection. We could be subject to fines, written orders or other penalties if we, or parties working on our behalf, are determined to have violated the FDCPA, the CONC or analogous state or international laws, which could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
Our business is subject to complex and evolving US and international laws and regulations regarding privacy, data protection, and other matters. Many of these laws and regulations are subject to change and uncertain interpretation, and could result in claims, changes to our business practices, monetary penalties, increased cost of operations, or declines in user growth or engagement, or otherwise harm our business.
We receive, transmit and store a large volume of personally identifiable information and other sensitive data from customers and potential customers. Our business is subject to a variety of laws and regulations in the US and the UK that involve user privacy issues, data protection, advertising, marketing, disclosures, distribution, electronic contracts and other communications, consumer protection and online payment services. The introduction of new products or expansion of our activities in certain jurisdictions may subject us to additional laws and regulations. In addition, international data protection, privacy, and other laws and regulations can be more restrictive than those in the US. US federal and state and international laws and regulations, which can be enforced by private parties or government entities, are constantly evolving and can be subject to significant change.
A number of proposals have recently been implemented or are pending before federal, state, and international legislative and regulatory bodies that could impose obligations in areas such as privacy. For example, the European Union's new General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”) was implemented in the UK in May 2018, and the California Consumer Privacy Act (the “CCPA”) came into effect on January 1, 2020. The GDPR is more prescriptive than the prior EU regime and has imposed new obligations on businesses, including the requirement to appoint a data protection officer in some circumstances, self-report personal data breaches, obtain express consent to data processing in certain circumstances and provide more enhanced rights to individuals whose personal data they process, including the "right to be forgotten," by having records containing their personal data erased, subject to certain exceptions. Penalties for non-compliance with the GDPR are significant, with a maximum fine calculated as the higher of €20 million or 4% of global turnover for the preceding year. Similar to the GDPR, the CCPA broadly defines personal information and provides California consumers increased privacy rights and protections. California Attorney General ("AG") Xavier Becerra issued draft regulations on October 11, 2019 to guide covered businesses' implementation of the CCPA. The regulations address several CCPA provisions that explicitly call for the AG's input, as well as others that have been the subject of confusion, criticism, or discussion.
In addition, the 4th European Union's anti-money laundering directive (2015/849/EC) came into effect in June 2017 and requires changes to customer due diligence assessments and greater focus on a risk-based approach.
Some countries are also considering or have enacted legislation requiring local storage and processing of data that, if applicable to the markets in which we operate, would increase the cost and complexity of delivering our services. These existing and proposed laws and regulations can be costly to comply with and can delay or impede the development of new products, the expansion into new markets, result in negative publicity, increase our operating costs, require significant management time and attention, and subject us to inquiries or investigations, claims or other liabilities, including demands that we modify or cease existing business practices or pay fines, penalties or other damages.
It is difficult to assess the likelihood of the enactment of any future legislation or the impact that such rules and regulations could have on our business. We are operating on the basis, confirmed by the UK government and the FCA, that the decision of the UK to leave the European Union will not affect the implementation of the new European Union directives on data protection and anti-money laundering as outlined above.
The use of personal data in credit underwriting is highly regulated.
In the US, the FCRA regulates the collection, dissemination and use of consumer information, including consumer credit information. Compliance with the FCRA and related laws and regulations concerning consumer reports has recently been under regulatory scrutiny. The FCRA requires us to provide a Notice of Adverse Action to a loan applicant when we deny an application for credit, which, among other things, informs the applicant of the action taken regarding the credit application and the specific reasons for the denial of credit. The FCRA also requires us to promptly update any credit information reported to a consumer reporting agency about a consumer and to allow a process by which consumers may inquire about credit information furnished by us to a consumer reporting agency. Historically, the FTC has played a key role in the implementation, oversight, enforcement and interpretation of the FCRA. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB has primary supervisory, regulatory and enforcement authority of FCRA issues. Although the FTC also retains its enforcement role regarding the FCRA, it shares that role in many respects with the CFPB. The CFPB has taken a more active approach than the FTC, including with respect to regulation, enforcement and supervision of the FCRA. Changes in the regulation, enforcement or supervision of the FCRA may materially affect our business if new regulations or interpretations by the CFPB or the FTC require us to materially alter the manner in which we use personal data in our credit underwriting.
On May 28, 2018, our UK business became subject to the GDPR, and in January 2020, our California business became subject to the CCPA. As described above in "-Our business is subject to complex and evolving US and international laws and regulations regarding privacy, data protection, and other matters. Many of these laws and regulations are subject to change and uncertain interpretation, and could result in claims, changes to our business practices, monetary penalties, increased cost of operations, or declines in user growth or engagement or otherwise harm our business," the CCPA broadly defines personal information and provides California consumers increased privacy rights and protections, and the GDPR is more prescriptive than the prior regime and includes new obligations on businesses, including the requirement to appoint a data protection officer, self-report breaches, obtain express consent to data processing and provide more rights to individuals whose data they process, including the “right to be forgotten,” by having their records erased. Penalties for non-compliance with the GDPR are significant with a maximum fine calculated as the higher of €20 million or 4% of global turnover for the preceding year. There are also strict rules on the use of credit reference data under the CCA regulations and the CONC. We are also subject to laws limiting the transfer of personal data from the European Economic Area to non-European Economic Area countries or territories.
There are also strict rules on the instigation of electronic communications such as email, text message and telephone calls under the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 (“PECR”), which generally prohibit unsolicited direct marketing by electronic means without express consent, as well as the monitoring of devices. The UK left the European Union on January 31, 2020. During the transition period agreed between the UK and the European Union, which is expected to end on December 31, 2020, the GDPR, PECR and other European Union laws will continue to apply within the UK. When the transition period ends, the UK will implement the Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendments etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which transpose the protections of the GDPR and PECR under UK law. The UK is expected to continue the protections of the GDPR and PECR for the transfer of personal data into and out of the UK. We expect to comply with any changes to the framework for the transfer of personal data into and out of the UK but can provide no assurances as to whether such regulation will be more or less burdensome than the GDPR, PECR and other European Union regulations, and we may incur significant costs in transitioning to any new regulatory model. Furthermore, compliance with any new or developing privacy laws in the US, including the CCPA or other state or federal laws that may be enacted in the future, may require significant resources and could have a material adverse impact on our business and results of operations.
The oversight of the FCRA by both the CFPB and the FTC and any related investigation or enforcement activities or our failure to comply with the Data Protection Act ("DPA"), GDPR, PECR and any supplementary data protection legislation may have a material adverse impact on our business, including our operations, our mode and manner of conducting business and our financial results.
Judicial decisions or amendments to the Federal Arbitration Act could render the arbitration agreements we use illegal or unenforceable.
We include arbitration provisions in our consumer loan agreements. These provisions are designed to allow us to resolve any customer disputes through individual arbitration rather than in court and explicitly provide that all arbitrations will be conducted on an individual and not on a class basis. Thus, our arbitration agreements, if enforced, have the effect of shielding us from class action liability. Our arbitration agreements do not generally have any impact on regulatory enforcement proceedings. We take the position that the arbitration provisions in our consumer loan agreements, including class action waivers, are valid and enforceable; however, the enforceability of arbitration provisions is often challenged in court. If those challenges are successful, our arbitration and class action waiver provisions could be unenforceable, which could subject us to additional litigation, including additional class action litigation.
Any judicial decisions, legislation or other rules or regulations that impair our ability to enter into and enforce consumer arbitration agreements and class action waivers could significantly increase our exposure to class action litigation as well as litigation in plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions, which would be costly and could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
We use marketing affiliates to assist us and the originating lender in obtaining new customers, and if such marketing affiliates do not comply with an increasing number of applicable laws and regulations, or if our ability to use such marketing affiliates is otherwise impaired, it could adversely affect our business.
We depend in part on marketing affiliates as a source of new customers for us and, with respect to the Bank Products, for the originating lender and credit card issuer. Our marketing affiliates place our advertisements on their websites that direct potential customers to our websites. As a result, the success of our business depends in part on the willingness and ability of marketing affiliates to provide us customer referrals at acceptable prices.
If regulatory oversight of marketing affiliates relationships is increased, through the implementation of new laws or regulations or the interpretation of existing laws or regulations, our ability to use marketing affiliates could be restricted or eliminated.
Marketing affiliates’ failure to comply with applicable laws or regulations, or any changes in laws or regulations applicable to marketing affiliates relationships or changes in the interpretation or implementation of such laws or regulations, could have an adverse effect on our business and could increase negative perceptions of our business and industry. Additionally, the use of marketing affiliates could subject us to additional regulatory cost and expense. If our ability to use marketing affiliates were to be impaired, our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows could be materially adversely affected.
RISKS RELATED TO THE SECURITIES MARKETS AND OWNERSHIP OF OUR COMMON STOCK
The price of our common stock may be volatile, and the value of your investment could decline.
Technology stocks have historically experienced high levels of volatility. The trading price of our common stock may fluctuate substantially depending on many factors, some of which are beyond our control and may not be related to our operating performance. These fluctuations could cause you to lose all or part of your investment in our common stock. Factors that could cause fluctuations in the trading price of our common stock include the following:
announcements of new products, services or technologies, relationships with strategic partners or acquisitions or changes in the timing of such anticipated events; of the termination of, or material changes to, material agreements; or of other events by us or our competitors;
changes in economic conditions;
changes in prevailing interest rates;
price and volume fluctuations in the overall stock market from time to time;
significant volatility in the market price and trading volume of technology companies in general and of companies in the financial services industry;
fluctuations in the trading volume of our shares or the size of our public float;
actual or anticipated changes in our operating results or fluctuations in our operating results;
quarterly fluctuations in demand for our loans;
whether our operating results meet the expectations of securities analysts or investors;
actual or anticipated changes in the expectations of investors or securities analysts;
regulatory developments in the US, foreign countries or both and our ability to comply with applicable regulations;
material litigation, including class action lawsuits;
major catastrophic events;
sales of large blocks of our stock;
entry into, modification of or termination of a material agreement; or
departures of key personnel or directors.
In addition, if the market for technology and financial services stocks or the stock market in general experiences loss of investor confidence, the trading price of our common stock could decline for reasons unrelated to our business, operating results or financial condition. The trading price of our common stock might also decline in reaction to events that affect other companies in our industry even if these events do not directly affect us. In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, securities class action litigation has often been brought against that company. If our stock price is volatile, we may become the target of securities litigation. Securities litigation could result in substantial costs and divert our management’s attention and resources from our business. This could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition.
Sales of substantial amounts of our common stock in the public markets, or the perception that they might occur, could reduce the price that our common stock might otherwise attain and may dilute your voting power and your ownership interest in us.
Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market, or the perception that these sales could occur, could adversely affect the market price of our common stock and may make it more difficult for you to sell your common stock at a time and price that you deem appropriate.
We may issue our shares of common stock or securities convertible into our common stock from time to time in connection with a financing, acquisition, investments or otherwise. Any such issuance could result in substantial dilution to our existing stockholders and cause the trading price of our common stock to decline.
The requirements of being a public company may strain our resources, divert management’s attention and affect our ability to attract and retain qualified board members.
As a public company, we are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, the NYSE listing standards and other applicable securities rules and regulations. Compliance with these rules and regulations increases our legal and financial compliance costs, makes some activities more difficult, time-consuming or costly, and increases demand on our systems and resources, particularly after we are no longer an “emerging growth company” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the “JOBS Act”). Among other things, the Exchange Act requires that we file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and operating results and maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. In order to maintain and, if required, improve our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting to meet this standard, significant resources and management oversight may be required. As a result, management’s attention may be diverted from other business concerns, which could harm our business and operating results.
In addition, changing laws, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure are creating uncertainty for public companies, increasing legal and financial compliance costs and making some activities more time consuming. These laws, regulations and standards are subject to varying interpretations, in many cases due to their lack of specificity, and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies. This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices. We intend to invest resources to comply with evolving laws, regulations and standards, and this investment may result in increased general and administrative expense and a diversion of management’s time and attention from revenues-generating activities to compliance activities. If our efforts to comply with new laws, regulations and standards differ from the activities intended by regulatory or governing bodies, regulatory authorities may initiate legal proceedings against us and our business may be harmed.
However, for so long as we remain an “emerging growth company” as defined in the JOBS Act, we may take advantage of certain exemptions from various requirements that are applicable to public companies that are not “emerging growth companies,” including not being required to comply with the independent auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements, and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. We may take advantage of these exemptions until we are no longer an “emerging growth company.” As a result, our stockholders may not have access to certain information they deem important.
We will cease to be an “emerging growth company” upon the earliest of: (i) the first fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of the completion of our IPO, (ii) the first fiscal year after our annual gross revenues are $1.07 billion or more, (iii) the date on which we have, during the previous three-year period, issued more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt securities, and (iv) as of the end of any fiscal year in which the market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates exceeded $700 million as of the end of the second quarter of that fiscal year.
We cannot predict if investors will find our securities less attractive because we will rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our securities less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for securities and our stock price may be more volatile.
If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or reports about our business or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research reports about our business, our share price and trading volume could decline.
The trading market for our common stock, to some extent, depends on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. We do not have any control over these analysts. If one or more of the analysts who cover us should downgrade our shares or change their opinion of our shares, our share price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts should cease coverage of our company or fail to regularly publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which could cause our share price or trading volume to decline.
We do not intend to pay dividends for the foreseeable future.
We have never declared or paid any dividends on our common stock. We intend to retain any earnings to finance the operation and expansion of our business, and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the future. In addition, pursuant to our financing agreement, we are prohibited from paying cash dividends without the prior consent of VPC, and we may be further restricted in the future by debt or other agreements we enter into. As a result, you may only receive a return on your investment in our common stock if the market price of our common stock increases.
Anti-takeover provisions in our charter documents and Delaware law may delay or prevent an acquisition of our company.
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws contain provisions that may have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control of us or changes in our management. The provisions, among other things:
establish a classified Board of Directors so that not all members of our Board of Directors are elected at one time;
permit only our Board of Directors to establish the number of directors and fill vacancies on the Board;
provide that directors may only be removed “for cause” and only with the approval of two-thirds of our stockholders;
require two-thirds approval to amend some provisions in our restated certificate of incorporation and restated bylaws;
authorize the issuance of “blank check” preferred stock that our Board of Directors could use to implement a stockholder rights plan, or a “poison pill;”
eliminate the ability of our stockholders to call special meetings of stockholders;
prohibit stockholder action by written consent, which will require that all stockholder actions must be taken at a stockholder meeting;
do not provide for cumulative voting; and
establish advance notice requirements for nominations for election to our Board of Directors or for proposing matters that can be acted upon by stockholders at annual stockholder meetings.
These provisions, alone or together, could delay or prevent hostile takeovers and changes in control or changes in our management.
In addition, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the “DGCL”) which limits the ability of stockholders owning in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock to merge or combine with us in certain circumstances.
Any provision of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation or amended and restated bylaws or Delaware law that has the effect of delaying or deterring a change in control could limit the opportunity for our stockholders to receive a premium for their shares of our common stock and could also affect the price that some investors are willing to pay for our common stock.
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation designates the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware as the exclusive forum for certain litigation that may be initiated by our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us.
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware is the sole and exclusive forum for (i) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf, (ii) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed to us or our stockholders by any of our directors, officers, employees or agents, (iii) any action asserting a claim against us arising under the DGCL or (iv) any action asserting a claim against us that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine. This choice of forum provision does not preclude or contract the scope of exclusive federal or concurrent jurisdiction for any actions brought under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act. Accordingly, our exclusive forum provision will not relieve us of our duties to comply with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder, and our stockholders will not be deemed to have waived our compliance with these laws, rules and regulations. The choice of forum provision in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation may limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us.
If we fail to maintain an effective system of disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud.
Ensuring that we have adequate disclosure controls and procedures, including internal controls over financial reporting, in place so that we can produce accurate financial statements on a timely basis is costly and time-consuming and needs to be reevaluated frequently. We are required to comply with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”) and related rules and regulations. Pursuant to Section 404, our management is required to report on, and, if we cease to be an emerging growth company, our independent registered public accounting firm will have to attest to the effectiveness of, our internal control over financial reporting. Our management may conclude that our internal controls over financial reporting are not effective if we fail to cure any identified material weakness or otherwise.
Moreover, even if our management concludes that our internal controls over financial reporting are effective, our independent registered public accounting firm may conclude that our internal controls over financial reporting are not effective. In the future, our independent registered public accounting firm may not be satisfied with our internal controls over financial reporting or the level at which our controls are documented, designed, operated or reviewed, or it may interpret the relevant requirements differently from us. In addition, during the course of the evaluation, documentation and testing of our internal controls over financial reporting, we may identify deficiencies that we may not be able to remediate in time to meet the deadline imposed by the SEC for compliance with the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Any such deficiencies may also subject us to adverse regulatory consequences. If we fail to achieve and maintain the adequacy of our internal controls over financial reporting, as these standards may be modified, supplemented or amended from time to time, we may be unable to report our financial information on a timely basis, may not be able to conclude on an ongoing basis that we have effective internal control over financial reporting in accordance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and may suffer adverse regulatory consequences or violations of listing standards. Any of the above could also result in a negative reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of investor confidence in the reliability of our financial statements.
Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds.
Repurchases of Equity Securities
On July 25, 2019, the Company'sAt March 31, 2021, we had an outstanding stock repurchase program authorized by our Board of Directors authorized a share repurchase program providing for the repurchase of up to $10$55 million of our common stock through July 31, 2024. In January 2020, the Company's2024; after our Board of Directors authorized a $20$25 million increase to the Company's existing common stock repurchase program providing for the repurchase of up to $30 million of the Company's common stock through July 31, 2024.plan in January 2021. The Company purchased $3.3 million of common shares under its $10 million authorization during the second half of 2019.2019 and during the year ended December 31, 2020, an additional 7,694,896 shares were repurchased at a total cost of $19.8 million, inclusive of any transactional fees or commissions. The share repurchase program, as amended, provides that up to a maximum aggregate amount of $25 million shares may be repurchased in any given fiscal year. Repurchases will be made in accordance with applicable securities laws from time-to-time in the open market and/or in privately negotiated transactions at our discretion, subject to market conditions and other factors. The share repurchase plan does not require the purchase of any minimum number of shares and may be implemented, modified, suspended or discontinued in whole or in part at any time without further notice. All repurchased shares may potentially be withheld for the vesting of RSUs.
The following table provides information about our common stock repurchases during the quarter ended March 31, 2020.2021.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Period | | Total number of shares purchased | | Average price paid per share (1) | | Total number of shares purchased as part of the publicly announced program | | Approximate dollar value of shares that may yet be purchased under the program (1) |
| January 1, 2021 to January 31, 2021 | | 1,241,513 | | | $ | 4.28 | | | 1,241,513 | | | $ | 26,524,544 | |
| February 1, 2021 to February 28, 2021 | | 463,127 | | | $ | 4.32 | | | 463,127 | | | $ | 24,524,551 | |
| March 1, 2021 to March 31, 2021 | | 776,101 | | | $ | 4.51 | | | 776,101 | | | $ | 21,024,574 | |
| Total | | 2,480,741 | | | $ | 4.36 | | | 2,480,741 | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Period | | Total number of shares purchased | | Average price paid per share (1) | | Total number of shares purchased as part of the publicly announced program | | Approximate dollar value of shares that may yet be purchased under the program (1) |
| January 1, 2020 to January 31, 2020 | | 706,463 |
| | $ | 4.86 |
| | 706,463 |
| | $ | 23,225,251 |
|
| February 1, 2020 to February 29, 2020 | | 56,144 |
| | $ | 4.01 |
| | 56,144 |
| | $ | 23,000,379 |
|
| March 1, 2020 to March 31, 2020 | | 165,779 |
| | $ | 3.31 |
| | 165,779 |
| | $ | 22,452,355 |
|
| Total | | 928,386 |
| | $ | 4.53 |
| | 928,386 |
| | |
(1) Includes fees and commissions associated with the shares repurchased.
Item 6. Exhibits
|
| | | | |
Exhibit
number | Description |
10.110.1+ | |
| 10.2+ | |
| 10.3+ | |
| 10.4+ | |
| 31.1 | |
| 31.2 | |
| 32.1& | |
| 32.2& | |
101.INS*101.INS | XBRL Instance Document.Document - the instance document does not appear in the Interactive Data File because its XBRL tags are embedded within the Inline XBRL document. |
101.SCH*101.SCH | Inline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document. |
101.CAL*101.CAL | Inline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document. |
101.DEF*101.DEF | Inline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document. |
101.LAB*101.LAB | Inline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Labels Linkbase Document. |
101.PRE*101.PRE | Inline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document. |
| 104 | XBRL for cover page of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, included in the Exhibit 101 Inline XBRL Document Set. |
|
| | | | | | | |
&# | | Previously filed. |
| ∞ | | Confidential treatment has been requested as to certain portions of this exhibit, which portions have been omitted and submitted separately to the Securities and Exchange Commission. |
| + | | Indicates a management contract or compensatory plan. |
| & | | This certification is deemed not filed for purposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act), or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act. |
* | | Pursuant to applicable securities laws and regulations, these interactive data files are deemed not filed or part of a registration statement or prospectus for purposes of sections 11 or 12 of the Securities Act, are deemed not filed for purposes of section 18 of the Exchange Act and otherwise are not subject to liability under these sections. |
(1) Filed as an exhibit to our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed on August 7, 2020.
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Elevate Credit, Inc. |
| | | |
| Date: | May 7, 2021 | Elevate Credit, Inc. |
| By: | | | |
Date: | May 8, 2020 | By: | /s/ Jason Harvison |
| | | Jason Harvison |
| | | Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
|
| | | |
| Date: | May 8, 20207, 2021 | By: | /s/ Christopher Lutes |
| | | Christopher Lutes |
| | | Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
|
| | | |
