Thank you for sharing your insights on revenue-based financing (RBF) and its potential impact on company financing. While I appreciate the innovative approach of securitizing recurring revenues, I have a different perspective on its applicability for series A+ companies.
In theory, RBF seems like a good fit for series A+ companies to raise debt capital. However, in practice, most of these companies may not be interested in raising debt through RBF. One of the primary reasons is the cost of capital associated with RBF products. Typically, RBF providers charge a minimum of 18-24% per annum, which can be relatively high compared to other financing options available to series A+ companies. These companies can often secure lines of credit at a lower cost, ranging from 13-18% per annum.
Therefore, it is my belief that companies in the D2C, e-commerce, SaaS, and other similar sectors, particularly at the early stages up until series A, may find RBF to be a better fit. This is because traditional debt players may not be as interested in offering debt financing to these types of businesses.
I appreciate your perspective on the potential of RBF, and it will certainly be interesting to see how it evolves and is adopted by different types of companies. However, I believe that the cost of capital associated with RBF may be a limiting factor for many series A+ companies, leading them to explore alternative financing options.
Thank you for sharing your insights on revenue-based financing (RBF) and its potential impact on company financing. While I appreciate the innovative approach of securitizing recurring revenues, I have a different perspective on its applicability for series A+ companies.
In theory, RBF seems like a good fit for series A+ companies to raise debt capital. However, in practice, most of these companies may not be interested in raising debt through RBF. One of the primary reasons is the cost of capital associated with RBF products. Typically, RBF providers charge a minimum of 18-24% per annum, which can be relatively high compared to other financing options available to series A+ companies. These companies can often secure lines of credit at a lower cost, ranging from 13-18% per annum.
Therefore, it is my belief that companies in the D2C, e-commerce, SaaS, and other similar sectors, particularly at the early stages up until series A, may find RBF to be a better fit. This is because traditional debt players may not be as interested in offering debt financing to these types of businesses.
I appreciate your perspective on the potential of RBF, and it will certainly be interesting to see how it evolves and is adopted by different types of companies. However, I believe that the cost of capital associated with RBF may be a limiting factor for many series A+ companies, leading them to explore alternative financing options.