[Akanner]

Winning, yes, you're 100% right. You're missing that even though they're not structured as loans, and everyone uses them as a reason why to get around usury laws, they are effectively used as short-terms loans. The legal description melding with the "street" description is the problem of the article, and why MCAs get bad press. Not all of which is undeserved, but ......

Also, while technically they might not legally be loans, that could change. they could find a way to categorize them as loans (like California has been doing in some way) and make problems. If she's starting that "they're illegal", that's at least bad press, but nobody will sue her for liable, seeing as there is no union or organization sticking up for the MCA industry.

How can the AG make MCA loans illegal? The essence of MCA is that it is not a loan but rather the price a business owner would pay a company to risk buying future money off them. The way I look at it is: the high payback amount is the Fair valve/ market value of borrowing unsecured money. No different than any other transaction done in the free market.

If I were to sell a bike for a heavy profit in the free market (where there was no deception) It is perfectly allowed and acceptable. But in the MCA world, since we are comparing money to money, it gets a very negative connotation for making a profit (on a risky product)