[fundingsmbs]

**** was easier back in the day when only Split Funding existed.
You kept your merchants, no stacking.
Once you built a book you could sit back and keep renewing them working 10 hours a week.

It may not be a bad thing to go back to that. As it seems none of these issues arose from split funding or actual MCA Splits.

there was a migration to fixed daily than weekly throughout the industry years ago. The market began to dictate this model more than split funding. Investors preferred this model as well as it created an actual term length for repaying the debt whereas split was always guessed never known and merchant and brokers began to game the system by putting in new terminals, pos systems, to divert repaying. everyone joined the fixed daily or weekly bandwagon and here we are today. the problem with that is, a fixed daily or weekly and fixed term create a loan. and when you create a loan, you are now at the state and federal guidelines. this is why a handful or more of funders partnered with federally chartered banks to skirt usury laws in states. banks have exporting laws different from a state licensure. for those who didn't go in this direction, they are now under a microscope. Almost every first position funder went to the rent a bank model. if you ask those companies, they believe they will be left standing because they invested in this setup and compliance. only time will tell , but, you are right, an mca originated from the idea of purchasing future cc sales and repayment through split funding. today, out of every funding done, what does that represent 15% ? I don't know if that will come back