|
|
February 22, 2001 Headlines---- New Trouble at GATX Jury Trial WINR Business Credit Changes Name to TCF Express Leasing Microfinancial Turns Internet Profits Advanced Rentals Comments Committment Fees Reader's Comments
Special: What American Express Brings to Sierra Cities Besides a Lot of Cash ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Geller---Joins Leasing News Advisory Board Congratulations on landing Steve Geller, one of the most knowledgeable, decent, and straight-shooting guys in the industry, for your Advisory Board. I remember attending my first EAEL annual conference many years ago. Steve was an established industry presence, and served on the welcoming committee for new members. This was during the stage of my leasing career when I was not yet confident that this was an industry in which I could succeed. Steve spoke to the group of incoming new members. I shall never forget his words: "This is an interesting time for the business world. Those of you with the energy, work ethic, intelligence, skill, drive and desire, will go on to be part of one of the most exciting, dynamic, important, and respected industries in the business community. The rest of you will become small-ticket brokers." (Just kidding, Steve.) In truth, Kit, Steve Geller is an enormous asset to the industry, and I am proud to call him a friend. Barry Reitman KEYSTONE EQUIPMENT LEASING, INC. baldguy@keystoneleasing.com http://www.keystoneleasing.com 1-800-225-3489 1-800-BALDGUY + + + I have known Steve Geller for more years then I want to remember. I was with Tilden when Steve came on board. Over the years Steve has always been a professional and a pleasure to work with. He will be valuable addition to your Board. Good luck Steve. Bob LaMontagne UnitedFinl@aol.com United Financial Corporation Congratulations on bringing Steve on board. I have enjoyed working with him for many years. He will bring an enlightened perspective to your team. Jeff Rudin lprudin@gte.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please send to a colleague as we are trying to build up our readership ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Seattle Funding Retreat Tomorrow--Friday We did not get any feedback on the Dallas Funding Retreat---but if you are going to tomorrow's in Seattle, please send us an e-mail about it, your impressions, or any news you can share with us. From: Suezy Proctor Subject: UAEL Funding Retreat in Seattle This is a friendly reminder to mark your calendars for the UAEL Funding Retreat in Seattle. The event is Friday, February 23rd at the Washington Athletic Club in Seattle at: 1235 6th Avenue. The Schedule is: 7:45 Registration 8:15-9:00 Town Hall Meeting 9:00-noon One on One Appointments with Brokers & Funders Noon-1:30 Lunch 1:30-3:00 Either Article 9 & FTC Ruling or Wild World of Credit & Scoring 3:00-4:30 Repeat Sessions You can contact the UAEL office for Registration at 510-444-9235. Hope to see you there!!! Suezy Proctor Suezy Proctor <Suezyp@finpac.com> Broker Relations Manager, NW Region Financial Pacific Leasing, LLC ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rodi-Goodman Show Let Goodman and Rodi fight it out in your newsletter. We can add some sexy cheerleaders and call it Extreme E-Mails or XEM's. Sex and violence always sell. Charlie Charlie Lester <clester@lpifinancial.com> + + + Thank you, Larry Turner, for bringing an opinion of value this e-letter! I totally agree with you. It's too bad that this (usually) informative newsletter lowers itself to posting such drivel as the Goodman and Rodi schoolyard fight. I will add another name to your Hall of Fame, and that is the name of Larry Turner. Having worked closely with you for many years, and been through a few difficult times, I know you to be a man of high integrity, and character. I wish I could say the same for (in the words of Mark Speros) "Bevis & Butthead". Mr. Turner, you are a man of class. Todd Garrison Priority Capital todd@prioritycapital.com + + + Committment Fees---- I've been following the on-going verbal exchange between Mssrs. Rodi & Goodman in your Leasing News and have found them to be enlightening and informational in the context of the debate as to the validity of exacting fees from Lesses for "services rendered". I believe that both arguments have merit. I am a relative "newcomer" in the "Industry" with only eight years of actual experience from which to draw from, other than my actual experience in dealing with potential lessees (and vendors) who shop rates, don't commit to proposals, and take advantage of my time and consult for personal gain without any expectation of "doing the deal". Providing "value added services" to our clients is, and should be, the mantra of our industry. It is in providing these services to our clients that we set ourselves above the "banking industry" and are able to capitalize from it. How could it be otherwise if "rate" were the deciding factor in a lease vs. buy analysis ( my apologies to Sudir, but most of my small ticket clients are credit challenged and just need to get the deal done, but still want to act as if they are "B" or "B+" credits). Maybe I should be going after the "A" credits that we all would like to do business with, but the reality is that there a lot more of the others out there and those are the people I see on a daily basis. Rather than turn the deal down on it's face value I tend to want to want to "go outside the box" and get it done because I feel good about helping someone to start their business, expand their business, or keep their business by providing an alternative to conventional financing in their time of need. I suspect this is the case for a lot of the brokers out there doing "small ticket", but , again, I haven't been in the business that long. We should all expect to receive a fee for our services if the services we eventually provide enable the lessee to achieve his, or her, or their intended goal - the funding of the transaction. The amount of the "consideration" should reflect the actual cost of those services and be "reasonable" as considered by the lessee. I am very much opposed to any practice that is usurious in nature and to the detriment of the client. However, the client (lessee) must be made to realize that if you are making the commitment to him to provide the very best of your services, he/she/or they should make the same commitment to you and be forthright and honorable in the realization or your "shared expectations". Fiduciary responsibility is a method of actualizing those expectations to ensure the desired results for both parties concerned. I can't begin to tell you all of the heartbreak, disappointment, and rejection I have felt after "busting my ....s to get a deal done (approved) and then to have the lessee shop the approval to another broker, or bank. SHAME ON ME!!! In today's competitive environment, if you are not getting a commitment fee, with a signed and dated proposal for each transaction to submit to your funding source, then your are not only doing a disservice to yourself, but also to the people you count on to fund your transactions. They are entitled to a reasonable assurance that if they do the due diligence and approve the transaction that they will eventually be doing the deal. Why should you go through the motions, and then have them go through the same procedure to expect anything less? Along that same note, why would you not expect the funding source(who is servicing the lease) to not expect a reasonable fee for providing a trade reference requested by another institution, or lease funding source (most banks are now charging fees for this service, as I am sure you are all aware). In my opinion VALUE ADDED SERVICES should command VALUE ADDED RESULTS - (BOTH FOR THE LESSEE AND THE BROKER/FUNDER). Jerry Michael, Sun Belt Funding P.S. I salute both Mr. Rodi and Mr. Goodman for providing the exchange of opinions that seem to differ widely but have stimulated the responses such as mine and created a forum with which to exchange ideas. Thanks for being there. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please. (A request.) Kit, just want to say that receiving the leasing news is totally cool. Love getting the 411 on fellow leasing brothers. I have a suggestion. Where you print the "headline" section it would be nice to be able to click on a specific headline and the page automatically scrolls to that request. Anyway, keep up the good work. Gm ILS George Meyer <george@ilslease.com> ( Thank you. The idea is great, and I will explore it for our "on line" version. We send in "text" format as most of our readers prefer this and do not use html ( AOL, among others, as we have many who receive this at home ). We could do this "on line," but the idea is to keep it simple, clean and simple, as we don't have the staff for bells and whistles. editor ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advance Rentals I am compelled to respond, once again, to a quote from your e-news. The quote was from Mark Seif regarding the retainment of advance rentals. "... any advance rentals received ... will be returned to the lessees if the deal can't be approved." I would be interested how other readers perceive this statement, but from my perspective, it appears that Preferred has a practice of signing up leases prior to having a formal approval in-hand. If this is the case, it is no wonder that "name withheld" is confused. It would also be interesting to hear how other readers view this practice. Collecting good faith deposits from lease proposals, which are commonly drafted in plain language which clearly express their intent is one thing; presenting legal documents to a prospective obligor without a bona fide commitment to perform, regardless of what is stated in the "fine print" of the document, then holding full inception moneys hostage until the deal is "approved", is entirely another thing. Would "name withheld" share with your readers the scripted explanation that is given to the client (who made commitments to its own customers, employees, etc believing he/she is approved for an equipment lease), when they cannot perform as Lessor on the signed lease? Thanks you very much for your newsletter, Kit. Now I have this Leasing News article to share with the next prospect who insists they are "approved" by Preferred (and companies of their ilk) because they have documents sitting on their desk. The pen is truly mightier. Jim Fleming <nationalbusinesscredit@yahoo.com> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What American Express Brings to Sierra Cities Besides a Lot of Cash 8 out of 12 Consider American Express "their most feared competitor" I have had the good fortune to sit on the Fair-Isaac client advisory board for its North America Markets group. Included in that group are high ranking risk management officers from some of the largest banks and lending institutions in the US and Canada. Prior to each board meeting F-I required that we fill out a questionnaire that asked about future plans, technology deployment, marketing and competition. One particular question at the board meeting two years ago was a question about who the board members considered their most dangerous competitor. There were 11 advisory board members at the meeting and 8 of them had answered that survey question with American Express as their most feared competitor and the remaining 3 members had them listed in the top 3. It surprised me somewhat to know that the likes of Wells Fargo and Citibank were worried about AMEX. I personally came away from that meeting worried that AMEX would put us all out of business. I even wrote an article in the UAEL Newsline about this. That was about the same time that they acquired Rockford Industries, which the "grapevine" reports has been, at best, a less than pleasing experience for them. Time went on and American Express, at least from my viewpoint, seems to have had little or no effect on the leasing business. While the industry has experienced some problems it would be a real stretch to relate any of them to AMEX's entry into the market place. It is hard for me, at this point, to see what additional reach Sierra Cities will bring to the AMEX program. In my humble opinion, those two corporate cultures are like honey and vinegar to each other. With the size of the bat that AMEX already has it is hard to imagine Sierra Cities as little more than the "bat boy" in this instance. Let's remember that there were few organizations that were better at marketing than Rockford Industries. In their day they were very good at what they did and they have not been tremendously successful under the AMEX umbrella. Almost everybody I know has an American Express Card for their business including me. I've even used their equipment finance program on occasion. It was convenient for very small ticket purchases. AMEX's entry into the over $15K market seem to be a major sticking point for them. I'm certain that it has to do with overall exposure,when considering card usage,travel related purchases, etc. We also have a substantial line of credit through AMEX that we use for a backup. This is also a part of the "exposure mix". It appears that AMEX has used their equipment finance program to garner incremental revenue, and extend their "center of influence" strategy in the small business market. Unless, with the acquisition of Sierra Cities, they intend to elevate leasing to "mainstream" AMEX product status I don't believe that this acquisition will have any more of an impact in the market place than AMEX's acquisition of Rockford did. They could possibly have a significant impact in the micro ticket segment but given their marketing thrust thus far, it is doubtful that they will become a force on larger transactions. You really gotta give Depping credit though. I wonder how many more lives that cat has left. Bob Rodi www.leasenow.com drlease@leasenow.com 1-800-321-LEAS(5327) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WINR Business Credit Changes Name to TCF Express Leasing
MINNETONKA, Minn., Feb. 22 /PRNewswire/ -- TCF Leasing, Inc. today announced that WINR Business Credit, its small ticket leasing division, has changed its name to TCF Express Leasing. TCF Express Leasing provides lease financing to small and mid-size companies through programs with vendors, manufacturers, distributors and franchise organizations that are acquiring business equipment and technology. "Our new name, TCF Express Leasing, more clearly defines our business objectives and creates a natural association between our company and our parent company, TCF Financial Corporation," said Bill Henak, General Manager of TCF Express and Executive Vice President of TCF Leasing, Inc. "Our customers tell us that financial strength, stability and service are important to them. We are confident that our new name conveys a strong message about the financial strength and stability of our company along with our commitment to deliver a high level of service." TCF Leasing is a wholly owned leasing and equipment finance subsidiary of TCF Financial Corporation (TCF) (NYSE: TCB). TCF is an $11.2 billion national financial holding company with banking offices in Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado and Indiana. Other TCF affiliates provide mortgage banking and annuity and mutual fund sales. SOURCE TCF Financial Corporation CO: TCF Financial Corporation; TCF Leasing, Inc.; WINR Business Credit; TCF Express Leasing ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another Class Action Suite was Filed Against GATX This Week, which we reported earlier. This regards a current civil case. GATX Warns of Adverse Impact of Jury Decision By John Schmeltzer, Chicago Tribune - Illinois - KRTBN In a civil case that could cost GATX dearly, a federal jury in California has found that the Chicago-based airplane and railroad-car leasing firm defrauded two customers. The dispute involves the company's role in a project aimed at remodeling 10 Boeing 747 passenger planes into cargo carriers between 1988 and 1994. In 1996, Federal Aviation Administration regulators issued an order that sharply curtailed the amount of cargo the modified planes would be allowed to haul. In the lawsuit, aircraft owners Evergreen International Airlines of McMinnville, OR, and Kalitta Air of Detroit, blamed GATX for making improper modifications and misrepresenting the impact of the planned changes that led to the adverse regulatory ruling. Now that jurors have sided with Evergreen and Kalitta, those companies are seeking compensatory damages of as much as $640 million and punitive damages of $1 billion or more from GATX. The company warned that the case "may have a material adverse Effect" on its financial condition. With the prospect of a large judgment looming, GATX shares closed Tuesday (2/20/01) at $44.55 per share, down $2.27, or 5 percent, on the New York Stock Exchange. Jesse Crews, president of GATX Capital, a company finance unit, termed the jury's decision "disappointing." "We strongly believe that throughout the course of the trial GATX/Airlog offered evidence showing that it did not breach its obligations under the terms of the modification agreements," Crews said. GATX has settled other lawsuits related to five of the 10 passenger-to-cargo modifications for "fractions" of the amounts being sought by Evergreen and Kalitta, according to GATX spokesman George Lowman. The case, which focuses on a company partnership known as GATX/Airlog, has been pending since 1996. At that time, GATX sued Evergreen, the world's largest privately-held cargo carrier, seeking a court ruling that would pin liability for the modified planes' cargo restrictions on the FAA. In that case, the court found GATX was not liable in connection with one aircraft purchased by Evergreen because of a four-year statute of limitations, but found GATX liable in connection with two other planes. Less than a year later, American International Airways filed suit in connection with two of the modified planes it purchased from GATX. American International's operations were acquired last fall by Kalitta. In 1999, a federal court in Washington rejected efforts by GATX/Airlog to force the FAA to assume liability in the case. "This is a case that is far from over," said Michael Grondahl, an analyst with U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray in Minneapolis, who said he spoke Tuesday with company officials about the lawsuit. "GATX has always been very conservative. Clearly, they have indicated there is the possibility of a reserve that is going to be taken." February 22, 2001 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MicroFinancial Reports Record Results MicroFinancial, a leader in Microticket leasing and finance, announced financial results for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2000. Net income for the fourth quarter ending December 31, 2000 was $5.5 million or $.43 per share vs. a loss $(2.5) million or $(.20) per share for the same period in the previous year. Quarterly revenues increased to $34.2 million, an all-time record and a 24.4% increase from Q4 1999. Net income for the year is $20.9 million or $1.63 per share vs. $10.7 million or $.83 per share for the same period in 1999, an increase of $10.2 million or 95.3%. Annual revenues increased to $127.3 million an increase of $28.8 million or 29.2% over the same period for 1999. Total investment in leases, loans and service contracts increased to $465.5, an increase of 23.5% with unearned income increasing by $31.9 million or 31.6% to $132.7 million vs. $100.8 million for year end 1999. Compared to the same period last year net interest expenses increased by $4.7 million primarily due to higher outstanding loan balances due to our growth and also due to a higher interest rate environment in fiscal 2000. Provision for credit losses increased by approximately $1.1 million, or 2.9%. Net charge offs were $36.8 million vs. $21.0 million with total past due balances greater than 31 days delinquent increasing to 13.5% from 10.4%; Depreciation and amortization increased by $2.6 million or 34.2%, primarily as a result of the increase in rental and service contracts. SG&A expenses increased by $2.6 million or 10.7%. The total increase is related to employee related expenses of which approximately $1.1 million is the result of the company accruing for potential management bonuses and company contributions to the employee 401K plan. All of these accrued expenses if approved by the Board of Directors would be paid sometime during the first quarter of 2001. "Compared to the fourth Quarter 1999 earnings per share on a fully diluted basis increased to $.43 per share on an |