[DailyCloser]

Well also, lets remember, that same contract that has a "specified percentage" likely has a NO STACKING policy..

So if the problem here is "Why wont other funders provide a 2nd position+ because the merchant took advantage of the reconolition policy" then I think you should also consider all other aspects of the contracts as well.

End of the day, a modification is a modification. If they reduce payments because sales are low, why should another funder believe they can afford an additonal payment?

[benkhay]

Well also, lets remember, that same contract that has a "specified percentage" likely has a NO STACKING policy..

So if the problem here is "Why wont other funders provide a 2nd position+ because the merchant took advantage of the reconolition policy" then I think you should also consider all other aspects of the contracts as well.

End of the day, a modification is a modification. If they reduce payments because sales are low, why should another funder believe they can afford an additonal payment?

100%%%!!

[helpinghand]

The landmark lawsuits are crystal clear (see LG Funding).

And merchants really can't game the system because a) they only allowed to invoke every 30 days... and b) with access to banks, plaid, A/R requests, etc, funders can see real revenue.

If revenue declines, and they didn't anticipate that, and the merchant reconciles down, isn't that part of the game? That's the whole point of an advance right...

I think this is important because ISOs have to be clear about what they're selling.

[helpinghand]

Yes great point. Should have clarified it was a refinancing, not a stack.

Well also, lets remember, that same contract that has a "specified percentage" likely has a NO STACKING policy..

So if the problem here is "Why wont other funders provide a 2nd position+ because the merchant took advantage of the reconolition policy" then I think you should also consider all other aspects of the contracts as well.

End of the day, a modification is a modification. If they reduce payments because sales are low, why should another funder believe they can afford an additonal payment?

[Yankeeman07]

Well also, lets remember, that same contract that has a "specified percentage" likely has a NO STACKING policy..

So if the problem here is "Why wont other funders provide a 2nd position+ because the merchant took advantage of the reconolition policy" then I think you should also consider all other aspects of the contracts as well.

End of the day, a modification is a modification. If they reduce payments because sales are low, why should another funder believe they can afford an additonal payment?

They cannot, but, Bokers and Funders continue to push 2, 3rd, up to 9 positions, which is insane.