[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.