[FlexibleCapitalSolutions]

I would fund someone with no credit, if they were a real person with a good business, and was willing to accept guidance from true professionals on how to fix their business and themselves. You may not think I’m a professional, but I am and a lot of people know that. I’m unorthodox And unconventional with my underwriting and operations style, but I do it happily.

As far as community banks, all we want is small business owners to make it their first stop before venturing out into the World Wide Web, cyberspace, or answering a press 1 campaign or click an email to find financing. That’s all. Do community banks decline people? All the time! But most will help their local business get the services they need to get approved in the future, and direct them towards a lot happier of an outcome for their immediate funding needs. Because if they don’t, and that small business owner ends up in the WRONG HANDS in MCA or Fintech, we all know how that story can end.

I’m nobody’s enemy, unless you have no interest in fixing what’s bad in our world.

Good Shabbos!

You completely disregarded the real point of my question, yes obviously, if a merchant has bad credit but a great business then of course you would fund them; but what if its not a great business or if you deem that it is not a great business.

How many great businesses out there, at first, looked like terrible businesses until they weren't (Amazon for example)

Thats not the point, the point is, if a funder is willing to take on the risk of funding someone with a crappy business and/or crappy credit rating; why shouldn't they be allowed to factor their risk in their pricing?

Or do you only believe that businesses that you deem to be great deserve a chance at vital funding (even if expensive)

It seems very elitist of you. it seems like you are more romanticizing and offering unrealistic solutions much more than using any pragmatic thinking at all. You've likely never been in the type of position to require emergency funding while having a bad credit history or an unimpressive business.

In reality everyone deserves a chance at obtaining funding, and the funder deserves the right to price the risk into it or the funding will no longer exist for this segment of American Businesses that you look down on.

"In Theory There Is No Difference Between Theory and Practice - In Practice There Is" (Yogi Berra)

[abfunders]

In reality everyone deserves a chance at obtaining funding, and the funder deserves the right to price the risk into it or the funding will no longer exist for this segment of American Businesses that you look down on.

"In Theory There Is No Difference Between Theory and Practice - In Practice There Is" (Yogi Berra)

I like responding on this thread, because I really do feel like I have the critical thinking processes to answer major questions here and re-focus the discussion as a discussion, rather than mudslinging.

FCS, not everyone "deserves" everything out there. I would say that a convicted felon who lied to Congress 5 times and was put in prison on wire, mail and bank fraud for running a drug cartel that murdered 10 people does not deserve to be financed. Someone might want to anyway, but does he have a right to? Rights can be very subjective. Also, not everyone "deserves" to buy anything they want, or invest in anything they want. People go to jail for wiring money to terrorists for a reason. In some parts of the world, prostitution is legal to sell, but illegal to buy. These are very big moral questions.

However, the rest of the post is pretty accurate in my opinion. If it's moral to buy future AR, and it's moral to sell it, then there's every ability for each side to participate in deciding whether or not the pricing makes sense. If there's demand, then the price goes down, but only to the point where it's worth selling it. That's capitalism, without the noise of cartels and monopolies that make it more complex.

However, there is a reason that brokers in the private mortgage world are licensed. And there's a reason why loans over a legal limit are loan sharking and are illegal without a license.

It's a very hard balance, but to make it one-sided and emotional is a mistake, unless you have a vendetta (in which case, it's at least understandable, but childish), or to make a very strong push-back to get the result somewhere in the middle (which could be a smart way to go sometimes). I haven't seen many people "push" when they're in the middle somewhere.

[FlexibleCapitalSolutions]

I like responding on this thread, because I really do feel like I have the critical thinking processes to answer major questions here and re-focus the discussion as a discussion, rather than mudslinging.

FCS, not everyone "deserves" everything out there. I would say that a convicted felon who lied to Congress 5 times and was put in prison on wire, mail and bank fraud for running a drug cartel that murdered 10 people does not deserve to be financed. Someone might want to anyway, but does he have a right to? Rights can be very subjective. Also, not everyone "deserves" to buy anything they want, or invest in anything they want. People go to jail for wiring money to terrorists for a reason. In some parts of the world, prostitution is legal to sell, but illegal to buy. These are very big moral questions.

However, the rest of the post is pretty accurate in my opinion. If it's moral to buy future AR, and it's moral to sell it, then there's every ability for each side to participate in deciding whether or not the pricing makes sense. If there's demand, then the price goes down, but only to the point where it's worth selling it. That's capitalism, without the noise of cartels and monopolies that make it more complex.

However, there is a reason that brokers in the private mortgage world are licensed. And there's a reason why loans over a legal limit are loan sharking and are illegal without a license.

It's a very hard balance, but to make it one-sided and emotional is a mistake, unless you have a vendetta) in which case, it's at least understandable, but childish), or to make a very strong push-back to get the result somewhere in the middle (which could be a smart way to go sometimes). I haven't seen many people "push" when they're in the middle somewhere.

and who decides who deserves what ? is it you, or is there any specific person or entity that you feel comfortable relinquishing your freedom and rights to? and even if you do have this person or entity will they live forever? because if they don't, then are you confident their successors will maintain the same level of fairness you expect?

Also, just to correct something, these MCAs are not loans, they are factoring contracts with reconciliation clauses. Which means that in reality, and legally, there are no set terms under which they are required to repay them, it is solely based on the performance of the business. It can be within a month or it can take 2 years. It all depends on the performance and sales of the business. How can you calculate APR if you do not ever have a SET term.

[pcfunder]

and who decides who deserves what ? is it you, or is there any specific person or entity that you feel comfortable relinquishing your freedom and rights to? and even if you do have this person or entity will they live forever? because if they don't, then are you confident their successors will maintain the same level of fairness you expect?

Also, just to correct something, these MCAs are not loans, they are factoring contracts with reconciliation clauses. Which means that in reality, and legally, there are no set terms under which they are required to repay them, it is solely based on the performance of the business. It can be within a month or it can take 2 years. It all depends on the performance and sales of the business. How can you calculate APR if you do not ever have a SET term.

Because the terms are set in the contract through an ACH daily pull of a specified amount. I think that some companies put something in the contract that allows the merchant to change their daily payment if revenue goes up or down but has anyone ever actually explained that to the merchant or had a merchant use that?

[FlexibleCapitalSolutions]

Because the terms are set in the contract through an ACH daily pull of a specified amount. I think that some companies put something in the contract that allows the merchant to change their daily payment if revenue goes up or down but has anyone ever actually explained that to the merchant or had a merchant use that?

yes, I just mentioned it in the post you are replying to. It's called a reconciliation clause.

I do not know if it's ever explained to a merchant or not, however, it's there, and it's in writing.

I am not sure who to place this blame on, do you blame the broker, merchant or funder for the lack of explanation or clarification?

I guess you can make the argument for either of these, but in my opinion if it's in the contracts, then it's ultimately the merchants responsibility to read the contract.

[Michael I]

Because the terms are set in the contract through an ACH daily pull of a specified amount. I think that some companies put something in the contract that allows the merchant to change their daily payment if revenue goes up or down but has anyone ever actually explained that to the merchant or had a merchant use that?

hundreds of my merchants used it during this pandemic. Alot of funders go through this on the funding call, and good brokers make sure sure that the merchant knows about it