IBJNews

WOJTOWICZ: Character always counts—even in loan decisions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
Jean Wojtowicz

Q: I recently was refused a loan for my small business, even though I met almost all the bank’s criteria: I had a strong business plan, good credit history and so forth. Despite this, the banker I spoke with said his bank was concerned that I had not been in my industry (though my company is successful) for a long time. I was totally surprised and upset. What can I do now?

A: During these difficult times, lenders are looking harder at intangibles. At the end of the day, it is cash flow that will repay the loan. The collateral and personal guaranty are nice, but cash flow is king. And you as the primary decision maker will determine how that cash flow is allocated. It is your basic moral character that will determine if you spend this money as intended (for loan payments and other essential items).

You might ask: What are the intangibles that will overcome—from the lender’s point of view—a good business plan and credit history?

A senior lender has told me that a borrower’s character is the most important consideration. Your banker apparently determined that your job history was an important character trait that did not match the bank’s criteria.

Lenders actually run into this type of situation fairly often. Many people start small businesses after gaining experience in a different line of work or moving from another part of the country or even other countries. It’s harder for a local banker to get a good handle on a business owner with a spotty job history or few references, so they look intensely at what they can learn about a person’s character.

I’ve talked with bankers, many of whom are now retired, who recall bygone days in rural and small town banks. Bankers knew their customers, their families and reputations. It was easier to judge character because people interacted frequently in business and social or community settings.

Now, bankers tell me that they probably don’t know a potential borrower until they walk in and ask for a loan. In other words, a banker is asked to place a bet on the borrowers most likely to pay back a loan, and they may not have much information to work with.

When you ask for a loan, they may actually Google your name and explore Facebook for clues on how to judge your character. This seems over-the-top, but these social media are tools that did not exist a decade or so ago and some bankers use them to gather information, especially if other data is lacking. Is there a chance a careless photo or some past history make you seem untrustworthy to handle a bank’s money?

It all boils down to the essentials: You get one opportunity to make a good first impression. When you are ready to approach another banker, make an appointment, but don’t lay on the business plan and its fancy graphics first.

Before your appointment, write several talking points to take with you—and commit them to memory. Be sure to highlight some of your past success and try to make the link that this pattern of achievement will continue. Know the details of your business and be ready to answer the banker’s questions. Offer the business plan after you and the lender get to know each other and you’ve answered relevant questions. Then the lender will have a better idea of your character.

Times are difficult right now, and bankers simply believe that borrowers with strong character will do everything possible to avoid defaulting, even under stressful conditions.

Character has always counted. Our fragmented society places a premium on a reputation for good character while making it hard to establish one and difficult for lenders to discern where to place their money.

_____

Wojtowicz is president of Cambridge Capital Management Corp.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. these guys only skill was to steal from other's hard earned savings.

  2. I voted for him last time and it WAS the LAST time. He needed to to quit running around the world on useless trips, and giving our $$ away to sports teams. I'll vote for anyone but Ballard next time. BTW...we gave $40M to the Pacers and cannot even watch the games on TV.

  3. For the people concerned about traffic, you should know that mixed-use projects (like the one being proposed), actually allows for and encourages more people to walk and bike, thereby mitigating additional automobile traffic. If we continue to design and build suburban-type projects in the City (i.e. automobile-oriented projects), we are not offering anything different from what the suburbs offer, which means we will continue to lose jobs/people to the suburbs. The reason Broad Ripple is somewhat successful today is that people want to live in a place that offers the convenience of being able to walk/bike to restaurants, retail, nightlife, the Monon, etc. Why would you not want to support a project that is complimentary to what already makes the area desirable? The real argument with this project should be its lack-luster design and layout, not the density.

  4. It is unfortunate that there is a perception that celebrities validate an event. The Indy 500 stands on its own, especially for those coming in from out of town. It was always so disturbing to read the gushing descriptions of Ashley Judd threaded throughout the local coverage. Very happy that era is at an end.

  5. Good ole' Obamacare. Thanks liberals and those who didn't bother to vote.

ADVERTISEMENT