[pcfunder]

Just out of curiosity, why is it bad to stack a reverse?

[Lmonus]

Just out of curiosity, why is it bad to stack a reverse?

The Reverse company will stop distributing funds and the deal will explode within days.

[pcfunder]

The Reverse company will stop distributing funds and the deal will explode within days.

Will it explode because the reverse will file a judgement and start collecting or will it explode because the merchant won't be able to handle the payments?

[Michael I]

Will it explode because the reverse will file a judgement and start collecting or will it explode because the merchant won't be able to handle the payments?

if merchant signed for 100k pay back 140k and only received 6k . now he stacks and owes 140k for only receiving 6k. how can he pay back that much for receiving that little

[pcfunder]

if merchant signed for 100k pay back 140k and only received 6k . now he stacks and owes 140k for only receiving 6k. how can he pay back that much for receiving that little

Oh wow so merchant is due the entire payback amount once they stack? I was wondering why it's bad to stack a reverse because it seems unfair to companies in a deal already that a company who does a reverse can take ownership of the deal so easily.

[newunderwriter007]

if merchant signed for 100k pay back 140k and only received 6k . now he stacks and owes 140k for only receiving 6k. how can he pay back that much for receiving that little

Not the way it works. To use your example, the contract only covers a MAX of $100k which can be funded under the contract. If at any point the contract is killed, because of stacking, negative days or the merchant saying they doesn't want it anymore, all the merchant owes is the payback of the amount they received, minus what they paid back. The problems kick in because all the existing pulls have to be paid out of the merchants own resources, plus the pull of the reverse which has to be paid off.

[pcfunder]

Not the way it works. To use your example, the contract only covers a MAX of $100k which can be funded under the contract. If at any point the contract is killed, because of stacking, negative days or the merchant saying they doesn't want it anymore, all the merchant owes is the payback of the amount they received, minus what they paid back. The problems kick in because all the existing pulls have to be paid out of the merchants own resources, plus the pull of the reverse which has to be paid off.

So hypothetically speaking, if I am a funding company who hypothetically funded a merchant for 100k and then renewed the merchant for 140k. When I hypothetically wanted to renew for a 3rd time I found that the merchant was in a reverse but hypothetically speaking the merchant had room for another 100k. Hypothetically speaking I would be a dick if I hypothetically funded the merchant because I should just let the reverse consolidation take over my deal?

This is all hypothetically speaking of course

[nationwidefunder]

So hypothetically speaking, if I am a funding company who hypothetically funded a merchant for 100k and then renewed the merchant for 140k. When I hypothetically wanted to renew for a 3rd time I found that the merchant was in a reverse but hypothetically speaking the merchant had room for another 100k. Hypothetically speaking I would be a dick if I hypothetically funded the merchant because I should just let the reverse consolidation take over my deal?

This is all hypothetically speaking of course

hypothetically yes

[NoBigDeal]

So hypothetically speaking, if I am a funding company who hypothetically funded a merchant for 100k and then renewed the merchant for 140k. When I hypothetically wanted to renew for a 3rd time I found that the merchant was in a reverse but hypothetically speaking the merchant had room for another 100k. Hypothetically speaking I would be a dick if I hypothetically funded the merchant because I should just let the reverse consolidation take over my deal?

This is all hypothetically speaking of course

Hahaha asking for a friend?

[Michael I]

Not the way it works. To use your example, the contract only covers a MAX of $100k which can be funded under the contract. If at any point the contract is killed, because of stacking, negative days or the merchant saying they doesn't want it anymore, all the merchant owes is the payback of the amount they received, minus what they paid back. The problems kick in because all the existing pulls have to be paid out of the merchants own resources, plus the pull of the reverse which has to be paid off.

why dont you ask par? remember they signa coj on the full 140k

[pcfunder]

why dont you ask par? remember they signa coj on the full 140k

Didn't par steal a bunch of peoples deals by putting them into a reverse and then renewing them into regular MCA's after?

[newunderwriter007]

why dont you ask par? remember they signa coj on the full 140k

When you sign a COJ, you aren't liable for the full payback, you are liable for the payback MINUS whatever you paid in.

[Nunya]

Will it explode because the reverse will file a judgement and start collecting or will it explode because the merchant won't be able to handle the payments?

Could be for a multitude of reasons, but if the reverse isn't distributing funds, all of the original advances will certainly stop getting paid, begin enforcement, etc.