[jotucker1983]

.........Ever since Pearl got bought out a few weeks ago they stopped doing anything past a 2nd position, anything under a 550 Fico score and have started paying other advance e companies off. Basically they are just another A, B and C funder and barely resemble the old Pearl............I am looking to recruit Iso's to send over to Yellowstone......

Interesting point of view, well, I have included my opinions on a number of things you said below. To begin though, I don't believe that Pearl Capital's Fico Score cut-off is that high (550) but more along the lines of somewhere under 500, also if they aren't funding anything pass a 2nd position anymore then what is wrong with that decision?


1.) No Merchant Should Get Anything Beyond A 2nd Position

No merchant should get anything pass a 2nd position, I have seen merchants with 4th position stacks and NSFs everywhere since the 3rd and 4th stack was funded. The merchant goes from being what this industry defines as a "Premium A" or "B" Merchant, to being what you might define as an "F" merchant based not on their actual operating history, but based on the fact there's four companies with a fixed daily pull in there. That just makes absolutely no sense.

A 2nd position in and of itself, while it could violate the terms and conditions of the 1st position lender, should only be done when it makes total sense. For example, take a merchant that might qualify for $100,000 with about $1.2 - $2 million in sales, let's say he's at 35% paid on the 1st position deal with a balance totaling around $55,000. A 2nd position of let's say $25,000 - $35,000 because the 1st position lender refuses to initiate a renewal until they are at 60% pay-down, would make sense. Anything more than that is excessive and makes no sense.


2.) No Merchant With Extremely Bad Credit Should Be Funded

Not sure how you market, but I don't believe these advances/loans should be used to save a business from going under. If your fico average/calculation is coming in under 480, the risk on the deal is just too excessive. There has to be numerous other creditors that the merchant isn't paying so what makes any Underwriter in this space think the merchant is going to pay them when our creditor position is one of the easiest to circumvent? If the merchant is taking the advance/loan at literally the last minute before the business files bankruptcy, then he has absolutely no intention of paying back the advance/loan.

Finally, I personally have always hated the business practice of bashing one company to promote your own/another one. If you want to promote another company, then just promote the benefits and features of working with another company. But to bash another company in attempt to make another firm look more "promising" is just a bad business practice.

Those are my opinions.