[Finance1]

I've been off the board for a while and this thread got messy. It's an apples to oranges product comparison. The argument is silly. Like Nathan clearly articulated, it's a needs based world out there. There's a need for all products and square pegs / round holes don't makes sense on either side.

If I have a top tier client who qualifies for and is looking for a multi year term loan then that's where I'll go with it. But for the rest of the pool (95%) we'll do the best we can to fund a make sense deal or broker the best we can
find.

The problem I have with Ami's posts is they come off like we are "steering" clients into high cost deals unnecessarily when there is this easy street of long money available to them. That's just not reality. Not even close.

There are many good examples when a short term deal makes the most sense regardless of qualifications. We just funded a 4 month deal to a multi location pizza franchise with excellent everything. He's opening a 5th location and ran 25k short. He even had plenty of credit available on personal credit cards (which I pointed out). The reply was simple, "I want to keep it in the business and off my dti". We offered terms from 3 - 12 months and he took the 4 month option because it made the most financial sense and he knew he could afford it. Quick, fast and easy and the client was very grateful for everything. I'm sure every poster here has plenty of similar stories.

I get that term stuff is good and there is an appetite on both sides for it. But coming off like it should replace or cut heavily into the MCA/ACH space is naive.

[channin19]

The problem I have with Ami's posts is they come off like we are "steering" clients into high cost deals unnecessarily when there is this easy street of long money available to them. That's just not reality. Not even close.

Bingo.

Ami your line of argument used to be that there were no options to bridge from alternative to more traditional funding. I'd try to keep pushing that.