[BROKER TIME]

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.

iam confused by your math here

how id it different from any other deal with these short term lenders



still makes merchant take 60k @1.5 term 60 payments payback 90k

whats it matter how they disburse the funds

i have seen worse term than 60 payments

[SmartAdvanced]

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.

What does the $1500 have to do with the Payback?

[Don Dolla]

Funding only 2 weeks apart is not terrible, I’ve see it funded scheduled 12 weeks apart

They do it for recent drops in revenue or recent funding

It’s basically a quick reprice adding one addendum page

[Jamesf]

So he signed the 60k contract and did not sign the addendum?
So according to the 60k contract he should have been funded the entire 60k right?
He was only given 30k.
Just tell them its material breach of contract, and so bingo hes nullifying it, talk to a lawyer.

Hes also been funded 30k out of a 60k contract, and then after signing the 60k contract been told the deal is changing. Thats misrepresentation or some fraud or something, right? Just say that, and if they dont back off get a lawyer.

[WestCoastFunding]

iam confused by your math here

how id it different from any other deal with these short term lenders



still makes merchant take 60k @1.5 term 60 payments payback 90k

whats it matter how they disburse the funds

i have seen worse term than 60 payments

My math is right. He’s paying $1500 over 60 payments for a $90,000 payback from day 1. But on day 1 he’s only received $25,000 with the hopes of another $30K in 30 days.

He is literally making a payback on money that hasn’t even been received.

[WestCoastFunding]

What does the $1500 have to do with the Payback?

The $1500 is the daily payment.. $1500 x 60 payments = $90,000 (the full payback on a $60,000 advance)

One problem: he’s making a $1500 payment while only receiving $25,000.

He’s literally paying interest/factor rate on money he hasn’t even received.

[WestCoastFunding]

Guys, it’s simple: you don’t make people payback money and interest on money they haven’t received yet. If you want to make dispersals of $30,000, then the payback should be on the $30,000 X factor rate.

[BROKER TIME]

Guys, it’s simple: you don’t make people payback money and interest on money they haven’t received yet. If you want to make dispersals of $30,000, then the payback should be on the $30,000 X factor rate.

i agree with that!!! only charge on whats
given to merchant

[StipMeBabyOneMoreTime]

[mcafundinggroup]

Guys, it’s simple: you don’t make people payback money and interest on money they haven’t received yet. If you want to make dispersals of $30,000, then the payback should be on the $30,000 X factor rate.

The argument that if the merchant decides not to continue with the remaining $30k (in this case the merchant opted out of the additional $30k) constitutes that the daily should be lowered to 50% of the original agreement is not so simple. After all the original agreement was set for $1499 and the funder did not "pull out" of the agreement, but rather the merchant pulled out.
The benefit that the merchant has that they are able to pull out of the agreement (with the "buyers remorse" clause) should not effect the original dailys. When the merchant opts out of the full agreement (in this case the merchant decided not to take the full $60k) the funder typically charges $45,000 on the $30,000 that was deployed and then the merchant is paid in full. There's no $90,000 at all. The $1499 daily isn't "interest" and does not add up to $90,000. The $1499 is the agreed upon daily % that the funder is entitled to, and if only $30,000 was deployed, only $45,000 is charged.

[Michael I]

The argument that if the merchant decides not to continue with the remaining $30k (in this case the merchant opted out of the additional $30k) constitutes that the daily should be lowered to 50% of the original agreement is not so simple. After all the original agreement was set for $1499 and the funder did not "pull out" of the agreement, but rather the merchant pulled out.
The benefit that the merchant has that they are able to pull out of the agreement (with the "buyers remorse" clause) should not effect the original dailys. When the merchant opts out of the full agreement (in this case the merchant decided not to take the full $60k) the funder typically charges $45,000 on the $30,000 that was deployed and then the merchant is paid in full. There's no $90,000 at all. The $1499 daily isn't "interest" and does not add up to $90,000. The $1499 is the agreed upon daily % that the funder is entitled to, and if only $30,000 was deployed, only $45,000 is charged.

but essentially it is a one month deal, no matter which way you cut it. the guy is practically paid off one month in and you are just forcing him to take a renewal of another 30k on a one month term again . I have to say pretty clever way of confusing the hell out of merchants to fool them into taking it. hell it seems you even confused yourself into it .

[BROKER TIME]

but essentially it is a one month deal, no matter which way you cut it. the guy is practically paid off one month in and you are just forcing him to take a renewal of another 30k on a one month term again . I have to say pretty clever way of confusing the hell out of merchants to fool them into taking it. hell it seems you even confused yourself into it .

lol this is great

looks like a good option

i dont see what all the craziness is here

what i do take more of an issue with

is when i have to compete with another broker that sells deals promising the merchant that they will than have a unicorn come deliver them more funds @ 10 year terms

unfortanetly have lost to many deals to those lies

[mcafundinggroup]

but essentially it is a one month deal, no matter which way you cut it. the guy is practically paid off one month in and you are just forcing him to take a renewal of another 30k on a one month term again . I have to say pretty clever way of confusing the hell out of merchants to fool them into taking it. hell it seems you even confused yourself into it .

If you send $30k two weeks apart, where do you figure that he is paid off and renewed? Your math is wrong. The reality is a deal that would not qualify for a full $60,000 and now he's getting the $60,000 within two weeks (because the funder sees two weeks of payment and it does not default out the gate) is probably a lot better than most early Refis that people do (where the merchant gets $30k and then "renews for $80k" and gets another $30k - paying back $120k.)

[Don Dolla]

Merchant should have canceled the deal on the funding call and not signed the addendum. But he was desperate and his month to date was **** so... he took the deal

[WestCoastFunding]

The argument that if the merchant decides not to continue with the remaining $30k (in this case the merchant opted out of the additional $30k) constitutes that the daily should be lowered to 50% of the original agreement is not so simple. After all the original agreement was set for $1499 and the funder did not "pull out" of the agreement, but rather the merchant pulled out.
The benefit that the merchant has that they are able to pull out of the agreement (with the "buyers remorse" clause) should not effect the original dailys. When the merchant opts out of the full agreement (in this case the merchant decided not to take the full $60k) the funder typically charges $45,000 on the $30,000 that was deployed and then the merchant is paid in full. There's no $90,000 at all. The $1499 daily isn't "interest" and does not add up to $90,000. The $1499 is the agreed upon daily % that the funder is entitled to, and if only $30,000 was deployed, only $45,000 is charged.

The merchant is paying back principal + interest on ****ing money there haven’t received. This is insane.

I’d love to see the COJ. I bet if they default one the first $30,000, the COJ will be filed for the full payback ($90,000).

And don’t get me started on the 17% fees.

[WestCoastFunding]

but essentially it is a one month deal, no matter which way you cut it. the guy is practically paid off one month in and you are just forcing him to take a renewal of another 30k on a one month term again . I have to say pretty clever way of confusing the hell out of merchants to fool them into taking it. hell it seems you even confused yourself into it .

But it’s a one month deal where they’re paying back double amount they actually received + factor rate + 17% fees.

[mcafundinggroup]

The merchant is paying back principal + interest on ****ing money there haven’t received. This is insane.

I’d love to see the COJ. I bet if they default one the first $30,000, the COJ will be filed for the full payback ($90,000).

And don’t get me started on the 17% fees.

They are paying a 1.45 on whatever they receive. (which is better than a typical Refi where the merchant "nets" $30k to pay back $120k)

[WestCoastFunding]

If you send $30k two weeks apart, where do you figure that he is paid off and renewed? Your math is wrong. The reality is a deal that would not qualify for a full $60,000 and now he's getting the $60,000 within two weeks (because the funder sees two weeks of payment and it does not default out the gate) is probably a lot better than most early Refis that people do (where the merchant gets $30k and then "renews for $80k" and gets another $30k - paying back $120k.)

Your math is wrong. How is 20 Payments “two weeks”?

And I’ve seen these things structured with 5 payments over 4 months. Each time the funder gives the merchant just enough to cover their daily payments back to the funder.

A reverse where you are actually reversing yourself. It’s crazy.

[Alpha]

But it’s a one month deal where they’re paying back double amount they actually received + factor rate + 17% fees.

Netting $25,000 on each $30,000 tranche with a $45,000 payback takes the effective factor rate from 1.5 to 1.8 on distributed funds.

[mcafundinggroup]

I agree with Westcoast that if the payments are stretched over 5 months it isn't a fair deal at all and no merchant should sign that. I also agree that 17% fees is excessive and fees should typically be at the very max @ 10% (unless it's a super duper high risk file).

[Alpha]

I agree with Westcoast that if the payments are stretched over 5 months it isn't a fair deal at all and no merchant should sign that. I also agree that 17% fees is excessive and fees should typically be at the very max @ 10% (unless it's a super duper high risk file).

The 17% fees on top, or any fees for that matter, just raises the default risk on this file for the funder exponentially, kind of defeats the arguments made for using a FLEX funding as a default risk mitigation measure in the first place.

[Don Dolla]

If a merchant stops disbursements on a reverse they only pay the factor on the money they received, not the contract or COJ amount. Same ****, **** deal is a **** deal

It’s not the funders fault merchants take money non stop. Give the people what they want! 30 day deal, 60 day deal, who gives a ****!

[Alpha]

If a merchant stops disbursements on a reverse they only pay the factor on the money they received, not the contract or COJ amount. Same ****, **** deal is a **** deal

It’s not the funders fault merchants take money non stop. Give the people what they want! 30 day deal, 60 day deal, who gives a ****!

It's never the funder's fault, the funder is always the one taking the "risk" with their capital. "Caveat Emptor"

[Michael I]

If you send $30k two weeks apart, where do you figure that he is paid off and renewed? Your math is wrong. The reality is a deal that would not qualify for a full $60,000 and now he's getting the $60,000 within two weeks (because the funder sees two weeks of payment and it does not default out the gate) is probably a lot better than most early Refis that people do (where the merchant gets $30k and then "renews for $80k" and gets another $30k - paying back $120k.)

after 20 payments he paid 30k for the 25k you gave him. and than after making 5k on it within 20 business days you than give him back his 25k and he winds up paying 90k. Again i never have an issue with what people do as merchant can decide if he wants it or not. But dont insult everyone on here inelegance to try to convulate the math to how you see fit.

[mcafundinggroup]

after 20 payments he paid 30k for the 25k you gave him. and than after making 5k on it within 20 business days you than give him back his 25k and he winds up paying 90k. Again i never have an issue with what people do as merchant can decide if he wants it or not. But dont insult everyone on here inelegance to try to convulate the math to how you see fit.

First of all 2 weeks isn't 20 payments. Second, he's not paying $90k on top, he's paying $90k in total so the $20k or $30k he already paid in gets deducted of the $90k. If you compare this to a Refi, it is definitively less juice than a Refi.
Every deal is different, depending on the risk. A decent Flex deal would look like this:
$100,000 approval. 4 wires of $25k each. $1,765 daily. term: 85 days