[MCNetwork]

I'm on the fence. I've seen responsible 2nd (or even 3rd) position deals that made sense and didn't put a dent on the merchant's cash flow. And I've seen irresponsible stacks where a client kept going into overdraft but the stackers didn't give a damn. Their main underwriting criteria was based on how much overdraft protection a client had. I want to help put these types of stackers out of business. I think there's room in this industry for responsible stackers who are looking to do the right thing for the merchant and follow industry accepted guidelines. I don't think 1st position funders should have a monopoly on a client. If a client is seeking additional funds, then they have every right to receive it. But it should be granted in a responsible manner that doesn't jeopardize the merchant's ability to repay the 1st funder. We can find some common ground here where the industry as a whole will benefit. I think RapidAdvance's position is a bit too extreme. But then again, so is Pearl's.