[SamuelH]

It "could also" - yes, but what I pointed out, and you don't get, is that it's not a proof either way. Previous case law in NY has clearly stated that it's not a loan. Like I keep saying, if it's a loan, then it's usury and illegal. If MCAs are legal, they cannot be in the category of loans. What is established case law with precedent in NY state is that an MCA is not a loan. https://debanked.com/2023/02/new-leg...y-in-new-york/


You have to also define the word "responsible". If he is responsible because of fraud, or if he's responsible to forcibly pay it back whether or not there's a business in the mix? There may be a level of responsibility going on, but that level will define if it's a loan or not. Not all responsibility creates liability.

Next, future receivables is not fancy jargon. It's a defined term that is approximately not-yet-earned income.

In answer to your question: I would never lend money to someone who I didn't expect to pay. Otherwise, it's called throwing money out windows. The correct term of discussion is "obligation" to pay. With a loan, there is an "obligation" to pay no matter what the future may bring about; an MCA there is only "obligation" to pay as long as what I purchased (the future receivables) are being generated.

"Expected" to come back is an assumption and investments are also "expected" to profit. The difference is that investments and futures and MCAs are not "required" to come back. Nothing is 100% guaranteed, but a loan is "secured" by the person, a PG, his house, whatever, and an MCA is not "secured" by much other than the hope that the company will remain in business. With a loan, I don't care if their company has gross revenue anymore. Let them take it out of their savings/real estate/inventory/shirt. If I lend someone a $100,000 mortgage, I DON'T CARE if they're profitable on the deal or not, I care that I can collect my $100,000 (+interest). That is not "future receivables", that happens to be a secured loan. An unsecured loan means that I can't directly foreclose on their real estate, but I can certainly sue them, and I will try to forcibly get them to sell their assets to pay me back.

I'll be more explicit: I don't give a heck about future receivables once the loan is made. Dip into your savings, go get a 2nd job, I don't care, just pay me principal (and interest, if it's not an interest-free loan).

With an MCA, if the merchant is a billionaire, but the company venture went bankrupt (i.e. some communists came and burned the store down), the MCA that the funder gave him is lost.

You're never going to agree? You don't have the ability to be wrong? If you specify which type of "expectation" you are referring to, then I think it will be easier to agree. Your opinion is either uninformed or incomplete, because NY state disagrees with you, and if you start peddling loans and charge 50% APR, you're going to lose the case in court and potentially go to jail.

Bro I didn't even read your rebuttal because at this point if you don't understand where I am coming from and can't provide some type of value other your circling arguments then Im out. i got those deals funded with a MCA Loan.......end of discussion.

[abfunders]

Bro I didn't even read your rebuttal because at this point if you don't understand where I am coming from and can't provide some type of value other your circling arguments then Im out. i got those deals funded with a MCA Loan.......end of discussion.

Bro, I know where you're coming from: You defined "expectation" wrong and therefore made all MCAs into loans. Just because you don't understand where I'm coming from and you don't have the energy to read a thought-out argument, doesn't make my logic circular. You clearly don't do much debating and just likely just watch news commentary about politics with lots of name-calling. You still haven't double-checked me with ChatGPT. I'm telling you, if you start peddling "loans" at 125% APR, you will get in trouble.