[TopCapital]

They're saying they suspended funding for the meantime.
Did anybody else get that from them?

[RickyR3712]

2-3 weeks was what i was told.Looks like another one is going down.

[Atlas Financial]

So messy. The capital they got to put out loans was from a super shady guy who pushed Quarterspot to misrepresent defaults and payments by borrowers in order to increase perceived returns to his investors which then allowed him to collect about 11 million in excess management fees for hitting return milestones the past few years.

A tale as old as time. At the end of the day, that guy is responsible, but someone at Quarterspot was following commands so they're just as dirty.

[Atlas Financial]

Quick fix would be to fire whoever was in on this, package your loan data and pitch it to another investor to get your access to capital back. Who knows how long this ties them up for though.

[Kevin Henry-Seacoast]

Quick fix would be to fire whoever was in on this, package your loan data and pitch it to another investor to get your access to capital back. Who knows how long this ties them up for though.

Why would anyone lend to a company who's management team helped their former lender by inflating loan values and returns? There has been way too much of this in the industry.

What you will likely see is another round of lenders to the industry ask for audits from people they have provided lines to make sure it does not happen to them or kick some problem funding companies to the curb.

About a year ago a large funder smoked a bank. The bank in turn stared auditing all of the funders and factors they provided facilities for and started kicking some of them out. Other large lenders followed suit.

KH

[Atlas Financial]

Why would anyone lend to a company who's management team helped their former lender by inflating loan values and returns? There has been way too much of this in the industry.

What you will likely see is another round of lenders to the industry ask for audits from people they have provided lines to make sure it does not happen to them or kick some problem funding companies to the curb.

About a year ago a large funder smoked a bank. The bank in turn stared auditing all of the funders and factors they provided facilities for and started kicking some of them out. Other large lenders followed suit.

KH

You're right, no one may touch them with a ten foot pole. Sad sad sad.

[omegafund]

large investors still invest based on emotions and skewed data. Happens in so many different financial industries.

Will the government bail out the MCA world like they did the big banks and insurance?

[Kevin Henry-Seacoast]

large investors still invest based on emotions and skewed data. Happens in so many different financial industries.

Will the government bail out the MCA world like they did the big banks and insurance?

Probably not. The reason they bailed out the banks is so the public would not make a run on the banks. They did it to provide stability to the market and it was somewhat easy to monitor as most of the information about the banks is audited and regulated.

[omegafund]

Probably not. The reason they bailed out the banks is so the public would not make a run on the banks. They did it to provide stability to the market and it was somewhat easy to monitor as most of the information about the banks is audited and regulated.

Fictitious question on bail out. So the public wont make a run, yeah that is the smoke and mirrors answer for you. banks are at it again.

[Atlas Financial]

There is no one solution unfortunately. When you invest money by yourself, or with someone to invest for you, there are so many things that can go wrong, and you're responsible regardless. The guy made 11 million on bonuses, you think he has anything left to pay back people who may have lost money? Hell no. So who's responsible to pay them back, the government? It gets very tricky.

[Nunya]

Why would anyone lend to a company who's management team helped their former lender by inflating loan values and returns? There has been way too much of this in the industry.

What you will likely see is another round of lenders to the industry ask for audits from people they have provided lines to make sure it does not happen to them or kick some problem funding companies to the curb.

About a year ago a large funder smoked a bank. The bank in turn stared auditing all of the funders and factors they provided facilities for and started kicking some of them out. Other large lenders followed suit.

KH

I gotta figure audits (separate financial statement and collateral audits) are the norm. Which banks are getting smoked by not asking for this?

[Kevin Henry-Seacoast]

I gotta figure audits (separate financial statement and collateral audits) are the norm. Which banks are getting smoked by not asking for this?

Ha! Usually if everything is going good, they do less of them. When they see a little smoke in the industry, they have auditors checking everything!

During the last pull back..... You would be amazed how many calls I got from clients saying that their current factor wouldn't do certain things for them anymore (N90 term clients, approved/unbilled time, big concentrations, etc... It's because they should not have been doing them in the first place and now they are getting audited! My lender owns me! I can be a lot more flexible!

[golf2014]

Mca world very shady

[Happy Horse Shit]

Fictitious question on bail out. So the public wont make a run, yeah that is the smoke and mirrors answer for you. banks are at it again.

The truth is--the thing that scared them into TARP was the trillions in derivatives that were based on the contracts that gurantee a payout when there is a default on debt (bonds) That was the thing that if not done many banks would have failed immediately and those contracts were not traded anywhere they could be seen**so even the holders of the contracts did not know who was on the other side of the contract--that would mean that no one knew if what they held was valuable or worthless. So no one would believe that any bank was solvent at that point, because even the banks themselves weren't sure of the liabilites they might or might not have. If AIG was not saved it was good night everybody as the cascade of defaults would have been endless--AIG was the payer on more of those contracts than any other financial firm--it was one of thier most profitable business lines as they took all the risk never believing that a complete implosion was possible.

[sigmundpannu]

they just rolled out new underwriting guidelines