[KanjorskiPartners]

We do MCA refinance (consolidations) into a 24 to 36-month term loan with ONE MONTHLY PAYMENT and offer new working capital at closing.

We are direct lenders and use our own capital to lend.

We are currently lending and haven't stopped.

Massive opportunity with our product in the small business landscape right now and for months/years to come.

Stefan Bernarsky
CIO
Kanjorski Partners LLC
570-862-7279 call or text
www.kanjorskipartners.com/refinance

[ryan $]

I think the whole forum knows what you do by now guy

[mrmrg]

I think the whole forum knows what you do by now guy

Admin needs to ban this guy ASAP.

[FCF Fund]

We do MCA refinance (consolidations) into a 24 to 36-month term loan with ONE MONTHLY PAYMENT and offer new working capital at closing.

We are direct lenders and use our own capital to lend.

We are currently lending and haven't stopped.

Massive opportunity with our product in the small business landscape right now and for months/years to come.

Stefan Bernarsky
CIO
Kanjorski Partners LLC
570-862-7279 call or text
www.kanjorskipartners.com/refinance

No Lender Lic# on your site and you are a direct lender? Sounds legit.....

[KanjorskiPartners]

We do not lend in CA and we only do non-mortgage, business/commercial lending.

[FCF Fund]

We do not lend in CA and we only do non-mortgage, business/commercial lending.

Are your contracts structured as Purchase of Futures Receivable?

[KanjorskiPartners]

No they are not.

[fin4all]

No they are not.

then you need a lenders license...

[FCF Fund]

then you need a lenders license...

Either they are in noncompliance with regulations and banking laws, or they are full of sh@t....me thinks both lol

[KanjorskiPartners]

then you need a lenders license...

Incorrect. Do your research.

[Zach]

You do not need a lender's license to operate in most states, even if you are structuring your transactions as a business loan.

[KanjorskiPartners]

You do not need a lender's license to operate in most states, even if you are structuring your transactions as a business loan.

You are correct Zach. I am glad you do your research which FCF clearly does not. He is engaged in "group speak" on this one for sure. He is fairly intelligent in other posts yet completely misses the mark on this discussions and is just flat wrong. FCF Fund doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to state and federal regulation of non-mortgage business loans. There is very little that governs a non-mortgage business loan in most all states. There are only usury laws in each state and a few states where a license is needed like CA. Other than that, this is what the UCC is for to govern interstate commerce. And to go even further, FCF, why do MCA companies even file UCCs since they are not even secured parties other than the receivables they purchase, yet they purchase receivables and get businesses and business owners to sell their receivable and/or future sales? And in most instances its not even theirs receivable or business asset to legally sell as more senior creditors already have a blanket UCC lien over all the collateral. MCAs are a contractual joke and they are predatory; payday loans for businesses.

The wake of this COVID epidemic will bring waves of class actions law suits against MCA companies and recharacterizations of advances into loans. Wait and see. Just ask Soft Bank about Kabbage.

[Red]

We do MCA refinance (consolidations) into a 24 to 36-month term loan with ONE MONTHLY PAYMENT and offer new working capital at closing.

We are direct lenders and use our own capital to lend.

We are currently lending and haven't stopped.

Massive opportunity with our product in the small business landscape right now and for months/years to come.

Stefan Bernarsky
CIO
Kanjorski Partners LLC
570-862-7279 call or text
www.kanjorskipartners.com/refinance

Will you fund a restaurant doing $30k in monthly revenue, owes $9800 to Knight?

[KanjorskiPartners]

We only do MCA refinances and we have a $150k minimum refinance amount.

[Joseph Pak]

are you a debt consolidation company? do tell merchants to stop paying there old advances?

[RickyR3712]

are you a debt consolidation company? do tell merchants to stop paying there old advances?

They do not tell merchant to stop payments but they do negotiate to pay less. I called 10 funders 3 told me they do consider it debt consolidation and the others told me they do not know.
Will admin care to chime in over here

[KanjorskiPartners]

No we do not tell merchants to stop paying their old advances. We pay off their MCAs and get them zero balance letters. We roll it all into one loan at the par value owed on a 24 to 36-month amortization with one monthly payment.

[ryan $]

No we do not tell merchants to stop paying their old advances. We pay off their MCAs and get them zero balance letters. We roll it all into one loan at the par value owed on a 24 to 36-month amortization with one monthly payment.

Ok you don't tell them to stop payments, but....

Do you "Settle for Less" on the Outstanding MCA Amounts, as opposed to paying off in full.........

[WestCoastFunding]

No we do not tell merchants to stop paying their old advances. We pay off their MCAs and get them zero balance letters. We roll it all into one loan at the par value owed on a 24 to 36-month amortization with one monthly payment.

When you negotiate a lower payoff amount with the MCA funders, is the merchant made aware of this? Specifically, do you tell the merchant what the negotiated payoff amount would be, or are they kept in the dark?

[KanjorskiPartners]

this has been asked before and yes they are made aware of this right from the start. They are more-than-happy to have a new payment that is 50 to 90% less per month than it is on their MCA amortization.

[KanjorskiPartners]

When you negotiate a lower payoff amount with the MCA funders, is the merchant made aware of this? Specifically, do you tell the merchant what the negotiated payoff amount would be, or are they kept in the dark?

This has been asked before and yes they are made aware of this right from the start. They are more-than-happy to have a new payment that is 50% to 90% less per month (because of their new amortization) than it is on their MCA amortization and the MCA company is more-than-happy to get an accelerated return on their capital or at minimum the expected monthly return on their capital, therefore the can reroll the compounded return into a new origination. Its a win-win-win-win transaction no matter how you try to dissect it (broker, merchant, us, MCA funder)

[golf2014]

If hes paying the mca off early you can ask to pay less as full settlement. They are getting the mca paid off early. If mca comoany agrees whats the issue ??

[FHFunding]

If hes paying the mca off early you can ask to pay less as full settlement. They are getting the mca paid off early. If mca comoany agrees whats the issue ??

Because the client's zero balance letter will not read 'paid in full'. It will say something to the effect of 'settled', or 'satisfied', or even 'negotiated'. That's a big red flag when trying to get said client future mca's.

[abfunders]

Because the client's zero balance letter will not read 'paid in full'. It will say something to the effect of 'settled', or 'satisfied', or even 'negotiated'. That's a big red flag when trying to get said client future mca's.

FHF, there are no rules in the industry, remember? It's still the wild west. "It's technically considered a default" is in the eyes of the beholder. Everyone wants to not pay a premium for money, and there's nothing wrong or illegal about good-faith negotiations. If the MCA companies cared about "their" merchants, then they would be thrilled that they found something else. Instead, it's a show of "selling cash" and selling bandaids as "real" solutions. Funders have obligations to resell their investors money, and want the entire balance paid-in-full. The funders legally bought the future receivables, there's nothing wrong with them demanding the entire amount (there is a contract after all ), but there's something wrong with someone saying that good faith negotiations are "technically defaults."

If a merchant successfully negotiated an early payoff, there's no law stating that the funder needs to write "settled" on a ZBL, nothing preventing them from saying "paid in full." They just might do it anyway. Both may be accurate statements.

Also, I don't think that a merchant who's entering a 24-month program with a balloon will be going back for MCAs so quickly (at least I hope not). Saving the merchant the money on the payoff and increasing cash-flow might save their business.

Trying not to take sides, just pointing out what is obvious to me.

[FHFunding]

FHF, there are no rules in the industry, remember? It's still the wild west. "It's technically considered a default" is in the eyes of the beholder. Everyone wants to not pay a premium for money, and there's nothing wrong or illegal about good-faith negotiations. If the MCA companies cared about "their" merchants, then they would be thrilled that they found something else. Instead, it's a show of "selling cash" and selling bandaids as "real" solutions. Funders have obligations to resell their investors money, and want the entire balance paid-in-full. The funders legally bought the future receivables, there's nothing wrong with them demanding the entire amount (there is a contract after all ), but there's something wrong with someone saying that good faith negotiations are "technically defaults."

If a merchant successfully negotiated an early payoff, there's no law stating that the funder needs to write "settled" on a ZBL, nothing preventing them from saying "paid in full." They just might do it anyway. Both may be accurate statements.

Also, I don't think that a merchant who's entering a 24-month program with a balloon will be going back for MCAs so quickly (at least I hope not). Saving the merchant the money on the payoff and increasing cash-flow might save their business.

Trying not to take sides, just pointing out what is obvious to me.

Couldn't agree with you more. However, this is our livelihood and I'm talking about the way things are - not how we'd hope them to be.