[FlexibleCapitalSolutions]

Okay, so everyone assumes that everyone else is assuming the worst. Jon at Credibly just called me after I signed the new agreements (I don't PSF anyway). I asked him, "But you're going to get stacked by Everest or Forward or whoever, how do you know that it wasn't me?"

Here's what he told me: If you stack, don't bring them back for a renewal, they have no way of knowing what happened. However, if the deal goes bad and the stack is there, they're not stupid enough to start a fight. They will ask the merchant: "Who offered the stack?" To figure out what happened truthfully they will ask for email chains to find out.

I somehow doubt that they will willy-nilly dock everyone and just start fights for no reason. They need to put their foot down, but we don't have to play these games. Just because YOU are a bad guy doesn't mean that EVERYONE is a bad guy. MCA companies are known for their due diligence and double-checking everything. This is a pretty easy one to prove/disprove.

Yeah, the merchant could lie, but that's where the email chains will help. Both sides can prove that as well. Nobody wants a lawsuit or a fight.

The potential scenario i imagine in my head is:

Assuming you do some volume with them

- You fund a deal and earn $5-10k commission
- later on some other broker submits statements to them for your merchant or the merchant tries to get a renewal, they see that the merchant stacked
- they could care less who stacked it, your the iso on record, they clawback commission or offset the clawback against pending commissions
- you call them and argue with them nothing gets resolved
- you speak to an attorney and he will charge you 5-10k to file the lawsuit.
- you decide its not worth it and you take the hit and move on.

[abfunders]

The potential scenario i imagine in my head is:

Assuming you do some volume with them

- You fund a deal and earn $5-10k commission
- later on some other broker submits statements to them for your merchant or the merchant tries to get a renewal, they see that the merchant stacked
- they could care less who stacked it, your the iso on record, they clawback commission or offset the clawback against pending commissions
- you call them and argue with them nothing gets resolved
- you speak to an attorney and he will charge you 5-10k to file the lawsuit.
- you decide its not worth it and you take the hit and move on.

Yes, that's the question. However, why would they do it that way? The places that aren't professional could do that. Brokers who aren't professional that don't pay commissions, they'll give excuses all day long why they didn't and never pay. However, a big firm has compliance and lawyers, and their own lawyers won't let them do something like "sue first, let them sue us to get it back." Especially when it's just so easy to trace and do your due diligence up-front. Credibly doesn't have a bad reputation, no reason to assume they'd ruin their name for that.

And of course, this new contracts helps Credibly reinforce their no-stack preferences. If you're afraid of this scenario, the ISO should create an email thread after funding congratulating the merchant and stating clearly, "DO NOT STACK, because here are the consequences."

On the flip-side, no-stack clauses for first positions keep merchants stuck behind "term" debt! There's a reason why MCAs came behind SBAs and 2nd stacks came around behind 1st positions. I prefer what Quikstone and PIRS and TMR do with add-ons. What do you want a merchant to do that took out $50k now *but qualified for $200k), and needs another $50k next week and Credibly won't give it to them because they already have a position?

[goatFunding]

I never promote or offer to stack a merchant I funded.. at the same time funders need to understand that not all stacking by the broker is evil... If the merchant will take a new deal with or with out me... shouldn't I, the broker who spent time and $ getting the guy in the door make the commission?
I will always work on getting the longest terms possible, to make the original funders deal less at risk... And I will usually call the funder and alert them..

Also.. as a broker I do not like this new policy for reasons mentioned above. at the time I understand them... 1.23 over 9 months paying 5 … its important not to get stacked.