[jotucker1983]

I'd say that's a little strong...

As I mentioned before, obviously stacking is not the premier scenario for lender or borrower, but it can make sense and I believe there's instances you can do it with a clear conscience. For instance, this exact thread revolves around a client that has seen astronomical growth over the past 8 months (right around 300% increase revenue since January alone) and that's largely due to the initial advance they received from Fora, as the use of funds was for marketing and a new location. Now the desired use of funds is for an inventory purchase to secure a better purchase price on bulk orders. Which makes sense because the demand for their clothing lines has increased. I personally have no shame in seeking a solution for them. They've shown great recourse through the previous advance, and I hope they do the same again!

I agree that there are situations when it makes "sense" from a cashflow standpoint. For example, if the merchant's 1st position lender has a required "60% paid down" metric, the 1st position deal isn't taking a significant portion of their monthly gross, the merchant's current level of sales/cashflow management could support a 2nd position, and the 2nd position is going to be strategically structured to easily "fit in" the sequence, with both payments still being relatively "efficient" in terms of the pull on the monthly gross.

However, making "sense" from a cashflow standpoint, does not mean the stack wouldn't violate the Agreement put in place by the 1st position holder.