[CreditGuy]

If the client defaults.

They already defaulted on the 1st when they stacked the 2nd. Then they defaulted on the 2nd when they stacked the 3rd. Then the defaulted on the 3rd when they stacked with you. Oh, you mean default with you, because those other lenders are immaterial in your ethical vacuum. Take your lumps for being a Z tier lender and own it.

[Michael I]

They already defaulted on the 1st when they stacked the 2nd. Then they defaulted on the 2nd when they stacked the 3rd. Then the defaulted on the 3rd when they stacked with you. Oh, you mean default with you, because those other lenders are immaterial in your ethical vacuum. Take your lumps for being a Z tier lender and own it.

credit guy are you in the mca industry . i don't know how you fund with anyone in our industry including first position lenders

[J.Celifarco]

credit guy are you in the mca industry . i don't know how you fund with anyone in our industry including first position lenders

and here we go let the fun begin... Those are the facts in terms of the defaults. Take the morality and ethics and right and wrong out of it. Legally speaking he did default on each prior advance each time he took an additional stack. That really isn't debatable it is fact

[Michael I]

and here we go let the fun begin... Those are the facts in terms of the defaults. Take the morality and ethics and right and wrong out of it. Legally speaking he did default on each prior advance each time he took an additional stack. That really isn't debatable it is fact

i agree but first position are also legally wrong in a lot of cases

[PRIMO CASH]

and here we go let the fun begin... Those are the facts in terms of the defaults. Take the morality and ethics and right and wrong out of it. Legally speaking he did default on each prior advance each time he took an additional stack. That really isn't debatable it is fact

For the sake of playing Devil's advocate and to also hear some feedback, they "defaulted on 1st and 2nd position because of the "no stack" clause in the funders agreements correct? If that is what you guys are referring to (and please correct me if I am wrong). That clause was simply created by the funding company's attorneys. There is no regulation in this industry so they could be in default as per the funders contract but does that hold up in court? There is no federal guideline to back the "no stack clause" which I believe is why most funders do not attack it and stacking still occurs. Future receivables could essentially be viewed as infinite so why can't a business owner sell more of their future receivables to someone else? Thoughts? Comments?

[mcaguru]

No IPO for us...we are just concentrating on growing and doing as much good business as possible!

The good ole way IPO's risk hurting "small investor USA" (some perhaps mom and pop merchants )...

[Chambo]

For the sake of playing Devil's advocate and to also hear some feedback, they "defaulted on 1st and 2nd position because of the "no stack" clause in the funders agreements correct? If that is what you guys are referring to (and please correct me if I am wrong). That clause was simply created by the funding company's attorneys. There is no regulation in this industry so they could be in default as per the funders contract but does that hold up in court? There is no federal guideline to back the "no stack clause" which I believe is why most funders do not attack it and stacking still occurs. Future receivables could essentially be viewed as infinite so why can't a business owner sell more of their future receivables to someone else? Thoughts? Comments?

doesn't have to be in regulation or not, if it is stated in the contract. Nothing criminal, just a breach of contract

[MCNetwork]

For the sake of playing Devil's advocate and to also hear some feedback, they "defaulted on 1st and 2nd position because of the "no stack" clause in the funders agreements correct? If that is what you guys are referring to (and please correct me if I am wrong). That clause was simply created by the funding company's attorneys. There is no regulation in this industry so they could be in default as per the funders contract but does that hold up in court? There is no federal guideline to back the "no stack clause" which I believe is why most funders do not attack it and stacking still occurs. Future receivables could essentially be viewed as infinite so why can't a business owner sell more of their future receivables to someone else? Thoughts? Comments?

Yes you're technically correct. There are no actual regulations in place and that's why nobody is really accountable for any of their actions. Therein lies the problem. You have the old guard (long established 1st positions funders) crying foul against the new guard (2nd through 5th position stackers) and we're at a standstill.

[Chambo]

Future receivables could essentially be viewed as infinite so why can't a business owner sell more of their future receivables to someone else? Thoughts? Comments?

If you come in as 4th position, you are agreeing to the receivable that remain AFTER that 1st, 2nd & 3rd get theirs. But you are collecting ASAP,...so you are in fact stealing from fund #1. You are taking what is contractually theirs

[Funder Mark]

Remind me Chambo, where do you work again?

[Chambo]

what does that have to do wit the price of eggs?

[PRIMO CASH]

doesn't have to be in regulation or not, if it is stated in the contract. Nothing criminal, just a breach of contract

Breach of contract is very vague though. I can add a clause that says if you sleep passed 11am after I give you my money you are in default. They breach the contract right? But it would not hold up anywhere. Just saying there's a very grey area in this industry. If it was that clear cut, 1st position funders would go after everyone behind them and half this industry would crumble.

[J.Celifarco]

Yes you're technically correct. There are no actual regulations in place and that's why nobody is really accountable for any of their actions. Therein lies the problem. You have the old guard (long established 1st positions funders) crying foul against the new guard (2nd through 5th position stackers) and we're at a standstill.

The no stacking clause just states what the penalty will be if they stack. The legality comes from what Chambo is talking about that you are taking receivables that were already pledged to another company when the 1st contract was signed

[J.Celifarco]

Breach of contract is very vague though. I can add a clause that says if you sleep passed 11am after I give you my money you are in default. They breach the contract right? But it would not hold up anywhere. Just saying there's a very grey area in this industry. If it was that clear cut, 1st position funders would go after everyone behind them and half this industry would crumble.

Some of them are doing that from what I understand there have been law suits filed already

[Chambo]

Chambo Knows.jpg

[PRIMO CASH]

If you come in as 4th position, you are agreeing to the receivable that remain AFTER that 1st, 2nd & 3rd get theirs. But you are collecting ASAP,...so you are in fact stealing from fund #1. You are taking what is contractually theirs

Again, just because I like hearing everyone's perspective, on a $21,000 contract paying back $28,000 does the contract specifically state that the funders are purchasing the very first $28,000 of future receivables that hit the bank account?

[PRIMO CASH]

Some of them are doing that from what I understand there have been law suits filed already

CAn you post the link to any of them? I'd be interested to read the complaints. Or see the results. I hear alot of them are doing it too but haven't seen anything in writing.

[Funder Mark]

what does that have to do wit the price of eggs?

Because if someone complains about eggs being too expensive, while working at a company that overcharges for eggs, some other people may have a faint suspicion that it walks, talks, sounds, and smells like hypocrisy, it just may be.

[Chambo]

Because if someone complains about eggs being too expensive, while working at a company that overcharges for eggs, some other people may have a faint suspicion that it walks, talks, sounds, and smells like hypocrisy, it just may be.

Mr Mark, this tells me you are not familiar with the inner workings of Yellowstone capital

[MCNetwork]

The no stacking clause just states what the penalty will be if they stack. The legality comes from what Chambo is talking about that you are taking receivables that were already pledged to another company when the 1st contract was signed

The penalty just applies to the merchant. He can be ruled in default and the 1st position funder can try to collect the full balance owed. But we all know that would never happen because that action would really put the merchant in default. So the 1st funder is really powerless to do anything but let the merchant continue to pay him back and hope he doesn't default from the weight of the stacks.

The real question is can the 1st funder sue the stacking company for tortious interference if there is a default? That's the gray area. The stacker can say that they have nothing to do with the merchant's contract with the 1st funder and there isn't a non-compete agreement in place between the two organizations so there's really no basis for a lawsuit.

[Funder Mark]

Could definitely be, and I find out I am wrong I will apologize publicly on the board, and take back any bad thing I may have said about you.

[Michael I]

Mr Mark, this tells me you are not familiar with the inner workings of Yellowstone capital

please elaborate .

[J.Celifarco]

CAn you post the link to any of them? I'd be interested to read the complaints. Or see the results. I hear alot of them are doing it too but haven't seen anything in writing.

I have heard about suits but as I said HEARD I wouldnt even know where to look for a link maybe someone else on here would know more about this then me

[MCNetwork]

Again, just because I like hearing everyone's perspective, on a $21,000 contract paying back $28,000 does the contract specifically state that the funders are purchasing the very first $28,000 of future receivables that hit the bank account?

I've seen many contracts from many funders and I've never seen that type of phrasing.

[MCNetwork]

Because if someone complains about eggs being too expensive, while working at a company that overcharges for eggs, some other people may have a faint suspicion that it walks, talks, sounds, and smells like hypocrisy, it just may be.

I think he's trying to say that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. In other words, yes Yellowstone Capital is a stacker.