[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.

[J.Celifarco]

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.

I agree with you to an extent I just dont see how there is room for some stacking.. Unfortunately I think it will be an all or nothing thing. The companies that do responsible seconds are going to get screwed by all the companies that do ridiculous seconds, thirds etc.. Personally, I have lost so many refi's because by the time I went to get them additional funding they were stacked on by other companies that if I had to choose I am hoping Rapid wins. It protects my refi business as well as would thin out the competition because if there is no stacking you will see a lot of ISO's disappear into the night because they dont know how to do 1st position deals