[J.Celifarco]

https://debanked.com/2018/12/sbfa-an...4213143&_p_c=1

[WestCoastFunding]

The SBFA members are the ones that pushed this to Bloomberg. I’m 100% convinced.

[jbrown]

I have seen some chatter on various posts with this idea. I can't speak definitively for the actions of all SBFA members, but I can say 2 things with certainty. One, no member of the SBFA wants regulatory scrutiny of any kind. That rarely leads to a positive outcome. Second, Rapid doe not speak to the press. We had no hand or involvement of any kind in these articles.

[J.Celifarco]

The SBFA members are the ones that pushed this to Bloomberg. I’m 100% convinced.

It is too much of a risk for anyone to do that. MAYBE (and even that I find doubtful) some members would like some regulation but even if thats the case it is too much of a risk to do what you are saying. Once regulators get involved there is no control over the situation or how far they can take the regulation. Also those articles paint the entire industry as bad, what would someone gain from that

[WestCoastFunding]

It is too much of a risk for anyone to do that. MAYBE (and even that I find doubtful) some members would like some regulation but even if thats the case it is too much of a risk to do what you are saying. Once regulators get involved there is no control over the situation or how far they can take the regulation. Also those articles paint the entire industry as bad, what would someone gain from that

By getting rid of the COJ funders the SBFA members book performance will drastically improve overnight. They’d no longer have to be worried about being stacked 4 times. Even more, they won’t be “hopped” in the collections process by the COJ funders.

Here’s how I see it: If I was doing an investigative story on the MCA industry, would I not bring up brokers? No talk about PSFs? Brokers double-Funding with fake promises of a future consolidation? The way merchants’ proprietary info is just casually passed around?

None of that was mentioned. This story is lazer-focused in COJs (particularly YSC). The author was being fed by someone. Who would have an interest in taking down the COJ funders?

[harvey]

lets delete this post above before it is used

[Fundingfordollars]

By getting rid of the COJ funders the SBFA members book performance will drastically improve overnight. They’d no longer have to be worried about being stacked 4 times. Even more, they won’t be “hopped” in the collections process by the COJ funders.

Here’s how I see it: If I was doing an investigative story on the MCA industry, would I not bring up brokers? No talk about PSFs? Brokers double-Funding with fake promises of a future consolidation? The way merchants’ proprietary info is just casually passed around?

None of that was mentioned. This story is lazer-focused in COJs (particularly YSC). The author was being fed by someone. Who would have an interest in taking down the COJ funders?

Thats why u know Jeremy for sure said what he was quoted

[StipMeBabyOneMoreTime]

Who would have an interest in taking down the COJ funders?

Lots of people. Self-serving politicians, merchants who felt wronged, former YS employees.

[WestCoastFunding]

I have seen some chatter on various posts with this idea. I can't speak definitively for the actions of all SBFA members, but I can say 2 things with certainty. One, no member of the SBFA wants regulatory scrutiny of any kind. That rarely leads to a positive outcome. Second, Rapid doe not speak to the press. We had no hand or involvement of any kind in these articles.

Hey, I’m not saying your organization (as a whole) did this. But I’m saying that every member of this organization will see the performance of their books improve the day COJ funders are gone. Is that not fair?

[WestCoastFunding]

Lots of people. Self-serving politicians, merchants who felt wronged, former YS employees.

Merchants and pols didn’t know the names of people in these stories. This was fed from within the industry.

[fundingsmbs]

so this is interesting. there is a high probability that brokers who send deals to the SBFA also send deals to COJ funder's, and, many times, stack companies like RA using a COJ. If the SBFA wants to remove COJ funder's, it would also need to move themselves away from brokers for originations that utilize coj funders.

[swiftcloser]

.....

[Michael I]

Hey, I’m not saying your organization (as a whole) did this. But I’m saying that every member of this organization will see the performance of their books improve the day COJ funders are gone. Is that not fair?

if they still fund merchants will default more as they do not have the coj scaring them off . A lot of merchants that stack are scared to default because of them , also bad salesman could not sell the stack because of the coj . if those a re gone i think you will see an uptake not a down take .
not sure i even agree with what i am saying but this can really go either way

[StipMeBabyOneMoreTime]

Merchants and pols didn’t know the names of people in these stories. This was fed from within the industry.

That's not what you asked. You asked:

Who would have an interest in taking down the COJ funders?

There are lots of people with an interest.

I agree with Jeremy - nobody in this space wins when all eyes are on us. Everyone stands to lose something.

[mcaguru]

Interesting topics.

I am very close with many many leaders at the largest Factoring Companies (many do billions a year in transactions) and i can tell you they view the large first position A Paper/MCA Groups as predators and destroying the 130Billion a year factoring companies... (don't ever forget the large A paper houses aside from the cost of capital being 100% annually!!! they also SUE and destroy by way of judgments any possible asset the merchant may have -- yes they may take a while later to get the judgment BUT make no mistake speak to any defaulted merchant they will tell you the largest cleanest A paper shop come in and go after everything they have left!!! meaning in the defaulted merchants eyes the A paper or the X paper are all out to destroy them!! ).
My point is everyone is seeing this topic from their point of view and livelihood and if regulators are brought in they can try to make a case about putting road blocks to protect factoring firms... etc

https://debanked.com/2014/08/ifa-tel...s-to-get-lost/

[swiftcloser]

.....

[fundingsmbs]

That's not what you asked. You asked:



There are lots of people with an interest.

I agree with Jeremy - nobody in this space wins when all eyes are on us. Everyone stands to lose something.

there has been eyes on this industry for quite some time even pre cojs. overall, the industry has many many issues that self regulation has not solved for over the years. it is also very fragmented in that many funder's do not see eye to eye on topics and join diff associations inclu from within associations. this is the business we are in...

[WestCoastFunding]

so this is interesting. there is a high probability that brokers who send deals to the SBFA also send deals to COJ funder's, and, many times, stack companies like RA using a COJ. If the SBFA wants to remove COJ funder's, it would also need to move themselves away from brokers for originations that utilize coj funders.

Or they could just get rid of the COJ funders without going hitting directly at brokers (who they need for dealflow). That would take care of most of their problems.

[WestCoastFunding]

Interesting topics.

I am very close with many many leaders at the largest Factoring Companies (many do billions a year in transactions) and i can tell you they view the large first position A Paper/MCA Groups as predators and destroying the 130Billion a year factoring companies... My point is everyone is seeing this topic from their point of view and livelihood.

https://debanked.com/2014/08/ifa-tel...s-to-get-lost/

Yep. 100%

[fundingsmbs]

^ you are correct. even using the term "factor rate" to describe an mca cost sends their blood boiling. although that was a '14 article, many many behind closed doors do not like the mca business.

[mcaguru]

^ you are correct. even using the term "factor rate" to describe an mca cost sends their blood boiling. although that was a '14 article, many many behind closed doors do not like the mca business.

like the MCA? get a list of 100 factoring companies and ask them what they think about MCA (put some cotton in your ears to limited the ear damage). FYI. i met a guy in temple during the high holidays and as we chatted our work-life came up...it turns out he had 1 position only at this extremely well-known MCA company ( i mean white shoe MCA company!!) his rate was in the high teens (!!) and when business was bad he defaulted and hes LOST everything to them!!!!! they sued and went after everything he had!! i mean everything!! and did not want to settle nadda!! he told me he could not believe the viciousness of corporate America...

[NoBigDeal]

if they still fund merchants will default more as they do not have the coj scaring them off . A lot of merchants that stack are scared to default because of them , also bad salesman could not sell the stack because of the coj . if those a re gone i think you will see an uptake not a down take .
not sure i even agree with what i am saying but this can really go either way

I also think more funding companies will simply fund less cuz their recourse goes down tremendously without the COJ tool

[funding pro]

For those curious about who would be feeding info and pushing this agenda if not the members of the SBFA, in the articles the attorneys who have tried to sue MCA companies time and time again and lost are being quoted in the articles. There's your smoking gun.

[mcaguru]

I think the Smart Subprime funders can fund in any market condition. ( but underwriting above my pay grade),

[mcaguru]

For those curious about who would be feeding info and pushing this agenda if not the members of the SBFA, in the articles the attorneys who have tried to sue MCA companies time and time again and lost are being quoted in the articles. There's your smoking gun.

Interesting but don't you think these lawyers will have no more clients lol ? meaning personal injusy attorneys who specialize in suing bungee jumping firms want to try to stop bungee jumping outfits from operating ? i am just playing devils advocate to be honest i never put 1 min together to even think who was behind this PR.