[MaxAdvance]

Can anyone recommend an ACH company? Please list the pros/cons and a little something about your experience with them

[businessgrowthcapital]

We are an ACH lender. We offer rates 1.12-1.42 3-12 month terms, 4-7% compensation. -Vinny Caruso 855-565-4769 ext 32

[GRP Funding]

Sovereign/Santander Bank has a good system

[isaacdstern]

do you have a good contact at Sovereigh/Santander?

[GRP Funding]

We have a branch in the same building as our office so we just dealt with them when we got it set up. We've been using them since 2007.

[Sean Cash]

I think some ACH processors are feeling the pressure of Operation Choke Point and not processing for MCA companies anymore.

[Al1]

I think some ACH processors are feeling the pressure of Operation Choke Point and not processing for MCA companies anymore.

With 10 open civil investigations and 4 criminal investigations, we should finally start seeing some consent orders be issued and find out who was targeted.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...29-707780.html

[Sean Cash]

Good share Al1

"We have learned directly from many sources that banks that have received our subpoenas, and others aware of our efforts, are scrutinizing their relationships with high risk third-party payment processors," she wrote. "In several cases, after receiving a subpoena, banks and processors have self-disclosed potentially problematic relationships and have informed us that they have taken corrective action."

[Chambo]

Hey...Al Capone was done in by the IRS. If they want to get you, no matter how roundabout, they will get you

[MCAVeteran]

I'm sure all those processors and banks received spoilation of evidence letters which allows under litigation all forms of communication data to be examined for evidence. That article states how through employee emails alone most cases will be easy.

[ERS]

I will bet a dime to a dollar that Santander will get caught up in that probe! The Justice Dept is already looking very closely at their operations, the EU has fined them huge amounts of money, and they are currently the subject of a Class Action Suit in regards to their Car Loans. There are over 3000 members of that suit alone!

[rld]

This looks like the DOJ is more worried about online lenders and offshore stuff than the MCA industry. I have been under the impression that MCA's have been more legitimized by the good publicity we have received in the last few years by major publications that used to consider us the bottom of the barrel.

Now they are starting to see it for what it is.. a way for merchants to get cash when no one else will give it to them.

If your company hasn't done any fraudulent lending I doubt you have anything to worry about.. just more space for those of us who play by the books in my opinion.

[Sean Cash]

This looks like the DOJ is more worried about online lenders and offshore stuff than the MCA industry. I have been under the impression that MCA's have been more legitimized by the good publicity we have received in the last few years by major publications that used to consider us the bottom of the barrel.

Now they are starting to see it for what it is.. a way for merchants to get cash when no one else will give it to them.

If your company hasn't done any fraudulent lending I doubt you have anything to worry about.. just more space for those of us who play by the books in my opinion.

They are not targeting merchant cash advance companies specifically, but rather banks and processors that have high risk merchants/clients such as payday lenders. There are a lot of ways to draw attention to a possible payday lending or fraud scenario, one being by having a lot of ACH rejects, or a number of R08 bank freezes in excess of industry averages. Merchant cash advance companies are legal but they're high risk merchants, ones that can provoke the DOJ to come take a closer look at the rest of the bank's or processor's books.

Some banks and processors would rather do without the scrutiny even if they have nothing to hide and as such will not do business with merchant cash advance companies or they're dropping them as clients. That's the issue.

[jbrown]

Some banks and processors would rather do without the scrutiny even if they have nothing to hide and as such will not do business with merchant cash advance companies or they're dropping them as clients. That's the issue.

Sean is correct. Our industry issue is not scrutiny of MCA or ACH lending. It is that the banks don't want the hassle or the scrutiny by the regulators. All 3rd party ACH providers need an FDIC chartered bank to get access to the Fed to settle ACH's. If we get caught up in that, it may be a problem. Look at what the banks are doing to payday lenders and porn actors - legal businesses, but checking and banking accounts are being CANCELLED for long time customers and they are being told to take their business elsewhere - because the banks can do that for any depository account, at their discretion.

[jbrown]

Hear is some more insight into Operation Chokepoint and how it can potentially bubble over into our industry, using ACH returns as a leading indicator of fraud.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, which runs one of the nation's two automated clearing house networks, also turned over its regular "Dashboard Reports," according to the May 2013 memo. Those reports identify banks that have high rates of returned ACH transactions, which the DOJ used as an indicator of potential fraud. The Atlanta Fed gave the reports to the Justice Department in response to a subpoena, the memo states.

DOJ hoped to use investigative leads from the FTC and the Atlanta Fed to make a quick splash.

"I propose that we identify and engage ten suspect banks within 150 days," Assistant Attorney General Joel Sweet wrote in the November 2012 memo that proposed the establishment of Operation Choke Point. "This alone is likely to cause banks to scrutinize their accounts relationships and, if warranted, to terminate fraud-tainted processors and merchants."

[Chambo]

The DOJ is involved? Maybe NOW folks will start taking this stuff seriously.

[Sean Cash]

yeah so for the funders out there that say they'll do ACH deals to merchants with lots of NSFs, every returned ACH is probably bringing you one step closer to termination from your provider.

Some funders have already lost their actual bank accounts. Try moving banks when you have hundreds or thousands of merchants that you are supposed to be collecting from daily via ACH on top of all the splits and payroll and everything else.

[MCNetwork]

Some funders have already lost their actual bank accounts. Try moving banks when you have hundreds or thousands of merchants that you are supposed to be collecting from daily via ACH on top of all the splits and payroll and everything else.

Ouch. That would be a logistical nightmare!

[Sean Cash]

Ouch. That would be a logistical nightmare!

if that happened to me, I would probably pull one of these:

[MCNetwork]

Lol. This would be my reaction from my funding office:

10419641_724036567640229_8632001248477891609_n.jpg

[Capital Stack]

this thread is a pisser!!

[isaacdstern]

love the pink mickey mouse sweat shirt

[rld]

There is still too much money to be made.. for every time a bank falls 2 more will open up to take their places. If I was personally pulling money from 100's of accounts I would have an agreement with my bank up front about what I am doing and my lawyer would have an iron clad contract that would force any bank to give me a transition period before they would shut me down.. Any large ACH funder is crazy if they don't already have a deal of this type in place. I seriously doubt CAN's bank account could just shut them down.. and if they did I am sure they have 2nd and 3rd and 4th accounts at other banks ready to take over.

Now if you are funding 4th and 5th position loans then don't go crying when your ACH's start getting rejected like crazy.. and your bank singles you out. I know we are all here to make money and all.. but funding further out than you should will get you in hot water.. we all know that.

[Chambo]

There is still too much money to be made.. for every time a bank falls 2 more will open up to take their places. If I was personally pulling money from 100's of accounts I would have an agreement with my bank up front about what I am doing and my lawyer would have an iron clad contract that would force any bank to give me a transition period before they would shut me down.. Any large ACH funder is crazy if they don't already have a deal of this type in place. I seriously doubt CAN's bank account could just shut them down.. and if they did I am sure they have 2nd and 3rd and 4th accounts at other banks ready to take over.

Now if you are funding 4th and 5th position loans then don't go crying when your ACH's start getting rejected like crazy.. and your bank singles you out. I know we are all here to make money and all.. but funding further out than you should will get you in hot water.. we all know that.

Sounds nice and tough, but it doesn't work that way when dealing with the DOJ. They'll come in and freeze all the accounts first, ask questions later.

Banks aren't going to let that happen, so they will first cut off your ability to initiate any new ACH'es, then they will freeze your recurring (where most of the trouble is/will be). then they just shut you off entirely.

[MaxAdvance]

Great points and love the Kramer gif and mickey mouse pic!

Just getting back to the original point, besides for Santander- can anyone recommend an ACH company(ACH processing not funding)