[Karen37a]

By explaining cost of capital on an annualized basis, you are NOT turning the B2B purchase of future receivables into a damn loan.

You’re like a circular Alex Jones argument that metastasizes and compounds itself. Nothing says anything about using an APR. And the language seems to provide an alternative that would then show the merchant an example of cost of capital.

Its not cost of capital they want to say APR

for the 100th time

Stop playing semantics to prove your point von Mises...you are wrong

[WestCoastFunding]

Its not cost of capital they want to say APR

for the 100th time

Stop playing semantics to prove your point von Mises...you are wrong

If "they" wanted contracts to state "APR", the legislation would have made reference to "APR". It does not. The language is quite clear. And by citing the annualized cost of capital in a contract, you are NOT somehow negating all the language of the sale of future receivables, and turning it into a loan. Period.

Its as if you make the argument that apples really are oranges, because both are fruit.

[Karen37a]

If "they" wanted contracts to state "APR", the legislation would have made reference to "APR". It does not. The language is quite clear. And by citing the annualized cost of capital in a contract, you are NOT somehow negating all the language of the sale of future receivables, and turning it into a loan. Period.

Its as if you make the argument that apples really are oranges, because both are fruit.

Well go read the arguments the lawyers made for the bill, against the bill and the results it says it all in there

If you had the ability to call someone high enough they would tell you too

They scraped annualized costs for APR at the last second ( like i said they would )

now the gov has the bills...end of month...we shall see