[PRIMO CASH]

I dont know how many exactly but more then a few have gone to court.. I was told before Pearl sold they were had faced more then a few of these and came to settlements with a couple of banks and paid. I dont know for certain as I was told this but I believe the person who told me so tend to believe this is true.

To your second point Primo there are companies who don"t stack and there are companies who stay away form stacking and do it rarely and when they do try to give merchants deals that don"t kill them. My problem lies with the companies that disregard 1st positions totally and focus on stacks, and don"t care what the deal does to the merchants ability to run their business. That is a business model that hurts the industry because companies that do that tend to offer deals which hurt merchants rather then help them. This kills the ISO's that do sell 1st positions deals because we end up losing the refi's on our deals. By the time they qualify for more money the 2nd position deal destroyed the banks and they no longer qualify for additional funding

I agree with that John. Some funders (especially the small and new ones) just don't care. In fact I know of a few that actually LOOK for deals funded by OnDeck or SFS just to fund behind them as if it was a plus that a large company funded. To the extent that they flat out say "we don't do 1st positions" which blows my mind. But there are instances when funders get cold feet and dont fund the max amount a client can actually handle. Even some of the big guys out there. In these cases, I don't see an issue with a 2nd position. Where do we draw the line of what "Stacking" is?
I actually reached out to a few people not too long ago about the idea to include ISO shops in NAMAA and not just funders so we can at least make an effort to clean up the industry a bit...I look forward to some kind of regulation because as it stands this industry is a filthy mess....