[ifundtrucking]

My loan officers are definitely asking for 3 months bank statements and a application so pretty legit sir.

This is so funny lol

[JasonBishop]

David Allen Capital Class of 2024

[Yankeeman07]

Sure it is...... Definition of Loan is a thing that is borrowed, especially a sum of money that is expected to be paid back with interest: AKA MCA

Two items a person learns very fast in the MCA Industry - Never use the words "loan" or "Interest"

A true MCA is the "purchase of future receivables" for upfront cash payment - An MCA has a "factor rate" not interest.

[SamuelH]

Sam you have no understanding of the loan industry.

That's not a loan officer, that a MCA broker who doesn't even look at the file...they submit it to a dozen MCA lenders.

A loan officer gets full financials and does a basic underwriting review.

Well accept what you get...it's your choice.

I am getting it taking care of but the back and forth has done nothing. Thanks

[Yankeeman07]

I am getting it taking care of but the back and forth has done nothing. Thanks

the truth hurts

[SamuelH]

Emerge Law considers it, but that's marketing to convince people to come and spend money to try to get their MCAs taken care of.
Did you try putting my answer through ChatGPT? I can find you a lot of MCA companies who will write on their websites that an MCA isn't a loan. Backd, altLine, OnDeck, to name a few on a quick Google search.

Try to quote me actual case law. This has been tried time and time again in NY state to make it a loan and therefore illegal usury, and they keep losing! https://debanked.com/2021/06/new-yor...are-not-loans/

Sometimes MCAs are loans, and that's when the exception is when the guaranteed payment is there, and the funders won't do reconciliation or push it off, etc etc. MCAs are not guaranteed "enough" to pass the muster to make them loans.

Bankruptcy erases loans and MCAs, but that doesn't prove that an MCA is a loan. It just proves that bankruptcy law is a blanket law, and loans and MCAs are a subset that are included. The point is that you don't need to file bankruptcy in order to get out of an MCA. The logical concept at play here is known as commonality vs. identity AKA the shared attribute fallacy. To be simple: Just because two people look similar, play pitcher, are both 6'4", and redheads with beards and have the same name..... doesn't make them the same person, and doesn't make them brothers. Google Brady Feigl.

I would like you to double-check me on ChatGPT.

I read that article from debanked in which at the end of the article it says, "It may have all been for naught because the parties actually settled the case two weeks prior to the decision, according to the public docket (See Index No: 2021-00877)." Would this mean that the parties settled as the merchant could have possibly been held accountable for the funds received? The point I am making here is that MCA whether considered a loan or not is something that is borrowed and is "expected' to be paid back and parties can still be held accountable. Saying it's not a loan doesn't create less penalties for non-repayment it's just word jargon for legalese. The only difference between the loan and MCA is the lending on the grounds for future receivables but let me ask you a question, would you loan someone some money if you didn't expect some type of future receivable?

[SamuelH]

Two items a person learns very fast in the MCA Industry - Never use the words "loan" or "Interest"

A true MCA is the "purchase of future receivables" for upfront cash payment - An MCA has a "factor rate" not interest.

This is truth you don't use it, but it doesn't change the fact that's what it is just my take on things you don't have to agree.

[abfunders]

It means they settled because the lawyers worked it out to some Middle grounds and it was cheaper that way. It doesn't mean that the actual case law would have come out in favor of one side or the other. When you see a settlement, you cannot bring a proof to anything.

With a loan, I don't really care if you profit it or not. Your future receivables don't bother me, I hope you're profitable but I don't care. I just care about the principle and interest. A future receivable is not a fancy jargon term, it is an actual reality, as legalese as that sounds it has been accepted, that future fruit that you produce comes to me at a rate that we are predetermining now. I don't care the market value later. However, if there is no fruit then I obviously don't get it. I'm only getting the next 500 tons of grapes at this price. If there's 500 tons of grapes.

In legal discussion, you always must keep definitions consistent so that you don't confuse what you thought should be the truth with what actually ends up being the truth.

[SamuelH]

It means they settled because the lawyers worked it out to some Middle grounds and it was cheaper that way. It doesn't mean that the actual case law would have come out in favor of one side or the other. When you see a settlement, you cannot bring a proof to anything.

With a loan, I don't really care if you profit it or not. Your future receivables don't bother me, I hope you're profitable but I don't care. I just care about the principle and interest. A future receivable is not a fancy jargon term, it is an actual reality, as legalese as that sounds it has been accepted, that future fruit that you produce comes to me at a rate that we are predetermining now. I don't care the market value later. However, if there is no fruit then I obviously don't get it. I'm only getting the next 500 tons of grapes at this price. If there's 500 tons of grapes.

In legal discussion, you always must keep definitions consistent so that you don't confuse what you thought should be the truth with what actually ends up being the truth.

Okay if they settled, it could also/possibly mean the merchant would have been held fully responsible so either way the merchant would have possibly had to pay on this debt whether he settled or not. If you don't care if the loan is going to bring profits, then writing the loan would be risky which would create more of the possibility of the person to default. Also read what I wrote "Saying it's not a loan doesn't create less penalties for non-repayment it's just word jargon for legalese" said nothing about future receivables being fancy jargon. You didn't answer the question: Would you loan someone some money if you didn't expect some type of future receivable? Yes, we are on the same page the MCA are based on receivables, but I am not ever going to agree that something that was given to me with expectation of me returning is not a loan just my personal opinion and you don't have to agree. Appreciate the banter.

[Yankeeman07]

but I am not ever going to agree that something that was given to me with expectation of me returning is not a loan just my personal opinion and you don't have to agree. Appreciate the banter.

Leave the business asap - You are clueless - the reason that MCA can be sold at a FACTOR RATE" vs an INTEREST RATE is it a purchase of future sales without a specified repayment date. That is a true MCA - read and understand any contract from any funder in the MCA market. Truth be known - a merchant cannot default on a true MCA if their revenue decreases.

[abfunders]

Okay if they settled, it could also/possibly mean the merchant would have been held fully responsible so either way the merchant would have possibly had to pay on this debt whether he settled or not. If you don't care if the loan is going to bring profits, then writing the loan would be risky which would create more of the possibility of the person to default. Also read what I wrote "Saying it's not a loan doesn't create less penalties for non-repayment it's just word jargon for legalese" said nothing about future receivables being fancy jargon. You didn't answer the question: Would you loan someone some money if you didn't expect some type of future receivable? Yes, we are on the same page the MCA are based on receivables, but I am not ever going to agree that something that was given to me with expectation of me returning is not a loan just my personal opinion and you don't have to agree. Appreciate the banter.

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.

[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.

[SamuelH]

I appreciate the convo and advice! Much success and great day.

[sam grossman]

hi im an iso rep i work over at raptor advance and i would love to speak to you about doing buisness together - Sam Grossman
ISO Relations
C . 347-745-0783
O . 860-419-7905
Sam@raptoradvance.com
www.raptoradvance.com