[Phil T]

Have a merchant who said he was funded by Flex $60k 1.499 $1499/day. Here's the catch, he got 30k ($25k net) and was told he would get the other $30k ($25k net) after he makes payments for a month. This is obviously a way to fund a merchant for 30k/30 days twice. The merchant is no longer interested in the other 30k deal but Flex told him he cannot back out. Anyway out for the merchant? (obviously after paying full on the first 30k)

The 60k contract & COJ is from BFS (business funding source) but only identification on 25k wire is 'Rely Services LLC' which is the processor. no mention of the 60k being split in the BFS contract. Flex sent him a 'weekly deployment addendum to the merchant agreement' page which mentions the 30k + 30k but no BFS mention. this appears as if Flex is a broker who simple got him a 30k deal and planning to do so again. anyway to back out of this? TIA

[ryan $]

There is just red flags all over the place

[abfunders]

delete

[Jamesf]

If the contract doesnt mention the 60k being split, then BFS didnt adhere to it since they only gave him half, right?
Contact BFS directly and find out whats up.

If the BFS contract says 60k yet he only received 30k there must be a 30k contract for that somewhere from the funder, BFS. Maybe the broker forged it, idk. Just contact them and weed it out.

[mrmrg]

flex is solomon

[Phil T]

If the contract doesnt mention the 60k being split, then BFS didnt adhere to it since they only gave him half, right?
Contact BFS directly and find out whats up.

If the BFS contract says 60k yet he only received 30k there must be a 30k contract for that somewhere from the funder, BFS. Maybe the broker forged it, idk. Just contact them and weed it out.

I think the BFS contact was made up to fool the merchant into a 60k deal and then ISO got a 30k contract from another place (flex white label) and signed himself with the intention of doing it again. this is pure speculation of course. I am pretty sure BFS is always in wire memo. i've also never heard of BFS splitting funds and why would debits be from FLEX and not BFS if docs were BFS?

[mrmrg]

I think the BFS contact was made up to fool the merchant into a 60k deal and then ISO got a 30k contract from another place (flex white label) and signed himself with the intention of doing it again. this is pure speculation of course. I am pretty sure BFS is always in wire memo. i've also never heard of BFS splitting funds and why would debits be from FLEX and not BFS if docs were BFS?

Don't confuse business funding source with business financial services (BFS Capital).

[abfunders]

IOW, Phil is telling us that the merchant has no obligation at all to take the 2nd 30k. If no contracts were signed, and he didn't legally buy the other 30k of receivables, how can he be "forced" into it? Seems like a really bad bait and switch.

[WestCoastFunding]

This is becoming so common now. Have seen this game over the past few months and its pretty much criminal. Surprised this is only broken-up in payments to merchant. I've seen some of these have 5 payments over 5 months. Each time the funder gives the merchant just enough to cover the daily payments for a month, and then releases the next months funds. But the worst part is you aren't making payments on the amount you've received -- you're making payments on the entire amount.

Its like a reverse consolidation of itself.

[MCAdude]

FLEX ARE SCUMBAGS. ISO Sent them a file, Flex got it funded with another (non Flex) funder and paid the ISO. Next day, some guy Jay calls the merchant telling him he will get him more $ - no statements or app needed and knew all about the funding done through flex. Jay from Flex ended up funding him again with a different funder. I'd stay far away

[WestCoastFunding]

flex is solomon

Yeah, that's surprising.

[WestCoastFunding]

FLEX ARE SCUMBAGS. ISO Sent them a file, Flex got it funded with another (non Flex) funder and paid the ISO. Next day, some guy Jay calls the merchant telling him he will get him more $ - no statements or app needed and knew all about the funding done through flex. Jay from Flex ended up funding him again with a different funder. I'd stay far away

Listen, if you deal with Midnight, Atlas, Newchance, Nanoflex, Flex or the rest of the incestuous shops, this is going to happen time and time again.

[Jstarr]

the other companies at this address are HIGH FIVE GROUP, LLC

Entity Name	RELY SERVICES, LLC
Department of State (DOS) ID	5504644
Jurisdiction	NEW YORK
Initial DOS Filing Date	2019-03-01
Entity Type	DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
County	KINGS
DOS Process Name	THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
DOS Process Address	1279 49th Street Suite 197 Brooklyn New York 11219

Have a merchant who said he was funded by Flex $60k 1.499 $1499/day. Here's the catch, he got 30k ($25k net) and was told he would get the other $30k ($25k net) after he makes payments for a month. This is obviously a way to fund a merchant for 30k/30 days twice. The merchant is no longer interested in the other 30k deal but Flex told him he cannot back out. Anyway out for the merchant? (obviously after paying full on the first 30k)

The 60k contract & COJ is from BFS (business funding source) but only identification on 25k wire is 'Rely Services LLC' which is the processor. no mention of the 60k being split in the BFS contract. Flex sent him a 'weekly deployment addendum to the merchant agreement' page which mentions the 30k + 30k but no BFS mention. this appears as if Flex is a broker who simple got him a 30k deal and planning to do so again. anyway to back out of this? TIA

[Phil T]

IOW, Phil is telling us that the merchant has no obligation at all to take the 2nd 30k. If no contracts were signed, and he didn't legally buy the other 30k of receivables, how can he be "forced" into it? Seems like a really bad bait and switch.

Merchant was told by Flex that it is one 60k deal/contract so he must take the second fund since he must keep paying the $1500/day until the full 90k is paid. This merchant never signed any other pages/contracts relating to this deal. BFS docs have no mention of Flex (debiting) and Flex 'addendum' has no mention of BFS contract, payback amount or the 60k. Actually, it mentions $100k, not 60. Bizarre
this is the exact language on the one page FLEX Addendum: I underlined some of the text. SIC


FLEX FUNDING
Weekly Deployment Addendum to the Merchant Agreement
Weekly Sale and Purchase of Merchant's Future Receipts: Merchant hereby offers to sell and FLF agrees to purchase, up to the
Receipts Purchased Amount of future Receipts on a weekly basis according to this Deployment Schedule. FLF shall have the
right to terminate the deployment of the purchase price of any additional future Receipts as set forth in Section 2 of this
Addendum.
FLF's Obligation to Make Future Purchases: FLF reserves the right to terminate its obligation to make the weekly Deployments
at its option at any time after: (i) Any Event of Default, as defined in the Agreement, has occurred; (ii) Merchant fails to provide
to FLF a monthly Account statement, access codes to the Online Login Account, or a snap shot of the Merchant's bank
statements. (iii) Merchant obtains any additional funding without providing prior written notice to and receiving written
approval from FLF. As described herein merchant will only receive the full $100k deployment if merchant complies
and follows the terms of this agreement. We will also add the following clause; merchant cannot take additional
financing after this deal is funded, even if merchant only signs another agreement but it does not fund, it still
constitutes a breach if this addendum. If weekly deployments are terminated, the amount of receipts purchased shall
be recalculated by multiplying the actual funds disbursed and underwriting fees times the factor rate of 1.49. Merchant will
remain obligated to d liver the specified percentage or the alternative Specific Daily Amount to FLF until FLF has received the
Receipts FLF purchased prior to the termination of Deployments and to comply with all other provisions of this Agreement.
In addition, upon the occurrence of an event of default, FLF may call for full repayment of the purchased receipts and may
declare a default and avail itself of all remedies thereunder.
THE TERMS OF THIS ATTACHMENT ARE HEREBY INCORPORATED IN AND MADE A PART OF THE MERCHANT AGREEMENT IDENTIFIED ABOVE.
The following is an outline of the exact weekly deposit and the daily debits as agreed to by both parties, pursuant to this
addendum and to the merchant agreement:
WEEK #1: $ 30,000.00 WEEK #3: $ 30,000.00
DAILY DEBITS: $ 1,499.00

[Lmonus]

Listen, if you deal with Midnight, Atlas, Newchance, Nanoflex, Flex or the rest of the incestuous shops, this is going to happen time and time again.

This.

[WestCoastFunding]

Merchant was told by Flex that it is one 60k deal/contract so he must take the second fund since he must keep paying the $1500/day until the full 90k is paid. This merchant never signed any other pages/contracts relating to this deal. BFS docs have no mention of Flex (debiting) and Flex 'addendum' has no mention of BFS contract, payback amount or the 60k. Actually, it mentions $100k, not 60. Bizarre
this is the exact language on the one page FLEX Addendum: I underlined some of the text. SIC


FLEX FUNDING
Weekly Deployment Addendum to the Merchant Agreement
Weekly Sale and Purchase of Merchant's Future Receipts: Merchant hereby offers to sell and FLF agrees to purchase, up to the
Receipts Purchased Amount of future Receipts on a weekly basis according to this Deployment Schedule. FLF shall have the
right to terminate the deployment of the purchase price of any additional future Receipts as set forth in Section 2 of this
Addendum.
FLF's Obligation to Make Future Purchases: FLF reserves the right to terminate its obligation to make the weekly Deployments
at its option at any time after: (i) Any Event of Default, as defined in the Agreement, has occurred; (ii) Merchant fails to provide
to FLF a monthly Account statement, access codes to the Online Login Account, or a snap shot of the Merchant's bank
statements. (iii) Merchant obtains any additional funding without providing prior written notice to and receiving written
approval from FLF. As described herein merchant will only receive the full $100k deployment if merchant complies
and follows the terms of this agreement. We will also add the following clause; merchant cannot take additional
financing after this deal is funded, even if merchant only signs another agreement but it does not fund, it still
constitutes a breach if this addendum. If weekly deployments are terminated, the amount of receipts purchased shall
be recalculated by multiplying the actual funds disbursed and underwriting fees times the factor rate of 1.49. Merchant will
remain obligated to d liver the specified percentage or the alternative Specific Daily Amount to FLF until FLF has received the
Receipts FLF purchased prior to the termination of Deployments and to comply with all other provisions of this Agreement.
In addition, upon the occurrence of an event of default, FLF may call for full repayment of the purchased receipts and may
declare a default and avail itself of all remedies thereunder.
THE TERMS OF THIS ATTACHMENT ARE HEREBY INCORPORATED IN AND MADE A PART OF THE MERCHANT AGREEMENT IDENTIFIED ABOVE.
The following is an outline of the exact weekly deposit and the daily debits as agreed to by both parties, pursuant to this
addendum and to the merchant agreement:
WEEK #1: $ 30,000.00 WEEK #3: $ 30,000.00
DAILY DEBITS: $ 1,499.00

Merchant signs contract for $60,000 with payments of $1,500 for 60 days. Merchant only gets $30,000 but is making payments on the whole $60,000.

Why is the merchant making payments on money it hasn’t received?

**** like this is going to end up in Bloomberg, and it’s going to **** all of us.

[mcafundinggroup]

The Flex deals iv'e seen are structured very similar to reverse Consolidation deals, where the idea is to net the merchant a weekly amount and debit 20% - 30% lower than the amount being deployed weekly.
The difference between a Flex and a Reverse is that a typical Reverse goes out for the duration of the entire balance of the merchant (for instance if the merchant owes $500k the reverse will typically cover the full $500k even though the wires will be unevenly deployed. For instance the Reverse will deploy $40k a week for the first 4/ 5 weeks and then after 5 weeks the deployment will be less than the merchant's weekly debits to the reverse company, thereby charging the merchant a wasteful amount for money that does not help him in any way) VS a Flex only goes out for a fixed 4 / 5 weeks and then completely stops after that, allowing the merchant to get a 20% / 30% deduction for 4 / 5 weeks and afterwards no wasteful wires are deployed.

The Flex contracts that Iv'e seen clearly state that the Funder will only charge the rate on what was actually deployed as follows:

Calculation of Purchased Amount. If weekly deployments are terminated, the amount of receipts actually purchased, shall retroactively be the total of the purchased amounts as is set forth next to each weekly installment (the “Weekly Amounts”), as is recalculated by multiplying the actual funds disbursed plus the underwriting fees and other fees, times the factor rate of 1.45, and adding up all such Weekly Amounts based on how many installments have been disbursed which shall equal the “Total Minimum Amount Purchased.” Merchant will at all times remain obligated to deliver the Specified Percentage or the alternative Specific Daily Amount to FLF until FLF has received all of the Receipts purchased prior to the termination of Disbursements, and to comply with all other provisions of the Agreement. In addition, upon the occurrence of an Event of Default, FLF may call for full repayment of the all of the previously purchased receipts pursuant to Sections 1.11 of the Agreement, avail itself of all remedies under Section 3.1 thereunder. In the event it shall ever be adjudicated that the original sale and assignment of the Specified Percentage of the Receipts was up to the Purchased Amount set forth on Page 1, then FLF shall reassign to the Merchant, all Receipts in excess of the Total Minimum Amount Purchased based upon the amounts of disbursements made to the Merchant.

The typical Flex deal will actually be 70% cheaper than a Reverse consolidation - if you calculate the full term of both agreements, per the deployment schedule.

[Alpha]

Sarcastically speaking, why should the merchant have the chance to use any portion of the advance for legitimate business purposes?

Funder should call this a Default Risk Mitigation Advance!

[mcafundinggroup]

Sarcastically speaking, why should the merchant have the chance to use any portion of the advance for legitimate business purposes?

Funder should call this a Default Risk Mitigation Advance!

Many times merchants have certain scenarios where a 30% deduction for 4 - 5 weeks helps them keep up with their other daily obligations, which is typically the reason why many merchants enter into Reverse consolidation agreements. The Flex deal accomplishes the same goal of a Reverse consolidation deal, without the "extra juice" that these Reverses add after the first 4-5 weeks of the weekly Deployments.
The bottom line is, instead of entering into a $500k reverse agreement , a $200k Flex agreement would provide the same benefit without an extra $150,000 in unnecessary juice.

[Alpha]

Tranche funding serves an important risk mitigation purpose, it is used all the time in corporate high finance markets, but it's not like we are dealing with CFOs here. Key to these type of transactions is having a proper fiduciary in the role explaining it to merchant. And no matter what the knowledge base of the broker is, it's not an easy task to dumb it down to certain levels of understanding.

[BROKER TIME]

im waiting on mantis to post that you should sign up with them because they give double digit comissions
and fund within 30 seconds

[Alpha]

Many times merchants have certain scenarios where a 30% deduction for 4 - 5 weeks helps them keep up with their other daily obligations, which is typically the reason why many merchants enter into Reverse consolidation agreements. The Flex deal accomplishes the same goal of a Reverse consolidation deal, without the "extra juice" that these Reverses add after the first 4-5 weeks of the weekly Deployments.
The bottom line is, instead of entering into a $500k reverse agreement , a $200k Flex agreement would provide the same benefit without an extra $150,000 in unnecessary juice.

That depends, on if the juice is worth the squeeze and you account for the time value of money compounded, the reverse can be a better option for the merchant, if they are able to see a return on investment on additional capital provided with reverse over time. They are similar but, very different animals if the capital is deployed properly by the merchant and there is the catch 22, someone needs to advise the merchant properly as a fiduciary in order to determine proper course of action.

[SmartAdvanced]

I’ve seen some of theses Reverse/ Structured deals recently. Most contracts come with deployment addendums and they only charge you on the actual Net. I believe Par charges on the full amount though/ not sure

[WestCoastFunding]

The Flex deals iv'e seen are structured very similar to reverse Consolidation deals, where the idea is to net the merchant a weekly amount and debit 20% - 30% lower than the amount being deployed weekly.
The difference between a Flex and a Reverse is that a typical Reverse goes out for the duration of the entire balance of the merchant (for instance if the merchant owes $500k the reverse will typically cover the full $500k even though the wires will be unevenly deployed. For instance the Reverse will deploy $40k a week for the first 4/ 5 weeks and then after 5 weeks the deployment will be less than the merchant's weekly debits to the reverse company, thereby charging the merchant a wasteful amount for money that does not help him in any way) VS a Flex only goes out for a fixed 4 / 5 weeks and then completely stops after that, allowing the merchant to get a 20% / 30% deduction for 4 / 5 weeks and afterwards no wasteful wires are deployed.

The Flex contracts that Iv'e seen clearly state that the Funder will only charge the rate on what was actually deployed as follows:

Calculation of Purchased Amount. If weekly deployments are terminated, the amount of receipts actually purchased, shall retroactively be the total of the purchased amounts as is set forth next to each weekly installment (the “Weekly Amounts”), as is recalculated by multiplying the actual funds disbursed plus the underwriting fees and other fees, times the factor rate of 1.45, and adding up all such Weekly Amounts based on how many installments have been disbursed which shall equal the “Total Minimum Amount Purchased.” Merchant will at all times remain obligated to deliver the Specified Percentage or the alternative Specific Daily Amount to FLF until FLF has received all of the Receipts purchased prior to the termination of Disbursements, and to comply with all other provisions of the Agreement. In addition, upon the occurrence of an Event of Default, FLF may call for full repayment of the all of the previously purchased receipts pursuant to Sections 1.11 of the Agreement, avail itself of all remedies under Section 3.1 thereunder. In the event it shall ever be adjudicated that the original sale and assignment of the Specified Percentage of the Receipts was up to the Purchased Amount set forth on Page 1, then FLF shall reassign to the Merchant, all Receipts in excess of the Total Minimum Amount Purchased based upon the amounts of disbursements made to the Merchant.

The typical Flex deal will actually be 70% cheaper than a Reverse consolidation - if you calculate the full term of both agreements, per the deployment schedule.

Hi Flex.

[WestCoastFunding]

Guys, if they’re making payments of $1500 a day, they are making payments on a $90,000 Payback, yet they’ve netted $25,000. That’s not right.