[Achfund]

Andy- that's factually incorrect. Clearly when someone is as big as a Pearl, an Everest, a Strategic and a Yellowstone etc. people are going to be envious of what they have. It's only natural for any large corporation. Everyone can find something they don't like about every funder out there.

[CreditGuy]

Clearly when someone is as big as a Pearl, an Everest, a Strategic and a Yellowstone etc. people are going to be envious of what they have.

"Clearly". LOL.

Pearl is an ethically bankrupt bottom feeder. There is nothing to envy about a company who's strategy consists of stacking and funding D-F paper.

[Andy]

Andy- that's factually incorrect. Clearly when someone is as big as a Pearl, an Everest, a Strategic and a Yellowstone etc. people are going to be envious of what they have. It's only natural for any large corporation. Everyone can find something they don't like about every funder out there.

Lol its not factually incorrect. It is a fact. anyone who has been in this business for a few years knows it. every company you mentioned with the exception of strategic is a stacker. And they all charge a bunch of junk fees. There are other stackers that do not charge as much in junk fees. And NONE of the A paper, first position companies charge anywhere near to those type of fees. On deck, 2.5% in fees. MCC, Snap, GRP, etc 300 in admin fees, not 7-10% of the advance amount.

I am not bad mouthing any of those companies that you have mentioned. They fill a need. I have worked with some of the for years. I am merely pointing out that Pearl, in addition to 3 month 1.45 , they also charge 7-10% in fees that are deducted from the funding amount, bringing the effective interest rate to 200+%. And I do not think it would be in pearls best interest to go public and advertise that they charge those kind of rates