[J.Celifarco]

John, one would argue that the refi business was lost once we only partially fulfilled their funding needs or declined them for additional funding. The stackers didn't take away the refi. They were able to fill a need that you couldn't. As first position funders, we need to be able to create a captive market where our merchants have no need to seek funding elsewhere because we can provide a complete funding solution. If there are holes in our game, you can't fault other parties from exploiting them.

Yes if the second position was given by one of the responsible stackers.. Generally thats not the case. Usually someone who come in blows the holdback % out of the water 20%-25%+ and put the merchant in a position they cant handle.. Most banks will still refi the first position if the second given was given resposible and the bank account is not suffering for it. My my experience this is usually not the case

[mcaguru]

I can write a book on the subject of merchants out smarting there obligations for example having signs on the registers that terminals not working

[AndyYSCISOdept]

I can write a book on the subject of merchants out smarting there obligations for example having signs on the registers that terminals not working

I used to love my merchants from Seattle because Id send my father to their business' to do "after funding site inspections" (covertly of course) and I kid you not one lady told my father their CC machine wasn't working then brought out a square plugin for her iphone to avoid the split...My father got this on video by telling her how cool it was yada yada and needless to say the merchant and I had words.