[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.

[Moshe73]

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.

I'm looking at a submission that used a similar service one month ago on a 12 month term for ~500k and is already looking for advances right now

I question the profitability on these, no way all these deals are getting completely stacked out.

[KanjorskiPartners]

Michah,

You are 100% correct on everything you have said, especially the lines about saving their business.

And again, we have no adversarial relationships with any MCA companies. They are happy to get their capital back from a merchant who is struggling with cash flow.

[KanjorskiPartners]

The ZBLs say that the balance is $0 and that's all in every case where we have done transactions. It is a mutually agreeable transaction between us and the merchant cash company. It is NOT a settlement or a default.

[WestCoastFunding]

The ZBLs say that the balance is $0 and that's all in every case where we have done transactions. It is a mutually agreeable transaction between us and the merchant cash company. It is NOT a settlement or a default.

It’s been brought up before, and I still don’t understand why you’re targeting consolidation of MCAs. 99% of subprime lenders and A paper MCA funders aren’t funding right now. Why not simply use your program to target companies without MCAs considering there isn’t anyone offering subprime 24 month loans? You’d have no competition while getting higher grade borrowers. Why simply pass that up and go right to consolidating cash advances? That really makes no sense to me.

[FHFunding]

It’s been brought up before, and I still don’t understand why you’re targeting consolidation of MCAs. 99% of subprime lenders and A paper MCA funders aren’t funding right now. Why not simply use your program to target companies without MCAs considering there isn’t anyone offering subprime 24 month loans? You’d have no competition while getting higher grade borrowers. Why simply pass that up and go right to consolidating cash advances? That really makes no sense to me.

Because they're angels from heaven doing the lords work! Duh!