[Ryan Shiroky]

The bottom line... what it all boils down to... the only thing that is going to stop the Pearls of the world... is regulation... and thats when the commission runs get lite and the rates get low low and when "high risk" dies because it doesnt make sense to give a guy with a 482 FICO a 1.16 over 10 months... Stacking is going to seriously hurt this industry and it's going to happen... like it or not...

[Chambo]

My, My....what has happened to the tone of these boards? Sounds like a lot of jealous-laced feces being flung around like a bunch of wild monkeys. Everyone yelling and screaming and making no points...or good sense

[admin]

Yeah, let's please not attack members personally guys. We will have to delete posts if they cross the line.

[cashmaster]

Admin. Why was the proof that got posted about Isaac Stern stacking on the banks that fund his deals removed ? I believe stern should be exposed as the hypocrite he is. Isn't this board about discussions ? Unless. Stern has a equity stake in the DF? It seems Stern gets to use this board to boast about all the cash YSC makes - and kiss the ass's of all the banks he stacks on - Stern more proof will follow and of course it will be taken down.

[isaacdstern]

Cashmaster-best of luck to you out there...not sure why you hate me so much....did I do something to you personally?

[cashguy]

Cashmaster I saw the statement that was posted but what did it prove. And hay I'm impartial to issac or yellow. But what did you prove? There were five guys in what makes yellow different from MCC or ondeck

[funding pro]

I will add if you are going to come to a public forum and make accusations like this, it is very difficult for onlookers to question one's motives while the accuser remains anonymous. Personally I am completely impartial to all of these members, but having used forums for personal and professional use for many years, anonymous attacks come across as a very "amateur hour" form of communication. There was a continuous argument on a similar forum for a few years between a large advance provider (one who regularly comments here) and a disgruntled broker (who seems to have disappeared). At least in that case the broker making attacking accusations had his name, company name and email address in the signature of every post.

[funding pro]

I think he was trying to show that YS brokered the deal with one of those companies and then also funded them, but there was nothing in that post that showed that to be the case. At least that is how I interpreted it. There was really no way to tell who funded which deal when and who was the broker on each deal. Not to credit or discredit the post, it was just not cut and dry expressing his point.

[isaacdstern]

Cashmaster was trying to prove that ysc brokers a deal and then goes behind the funder and funds it again. All you proved here is that there is a lot if stacking going on...which we all know....ysc does not EVER fund behind a deal we broker!!! If anyone has proof showing otherwise please post it...either way have a great weekend everyone!

[Scott Williams]

I think Cashmaster is trying to say YSC stacks behind Ondeck. Isaac is saying they will not stack behind Ondeck when its their actual brokered deal but YSC will stack behind Ondeck if its another ISO's Ondeck deal.

Any bank statements showing YSC depositing funds behind Ondeck would be impossible to prove YSC was the broker on the Ondeck deal. Only Ondeck could verify that.

[Chambo]

Cashmaster was trying to prove that ysc brokers a deal and then goes behind the funder and funds it again. All you proved here is that there is a lot if stacking going on...which we all know....ysc does not EVER fund behind a deal we broker!!! If anyone has proof showing otherwise please post it...either way have a great weekend everyone!

I can vouch for that point....

[admin]

Simple guidelines

If you have qualms with another member:
it helps your credibility to say who you are.
it helps to get right to the point.
it helps if your end goal is to get your problem resolved, rather than just defame them.
it helps to do it from only 1 user account on the forum.

In the spirit of fairness, any member can post something that they feel supports their claims. To anyone still unsure as to why the referenced image was removed, it's because it potentially had identifying information about the merchant. We don't want a small business owner wondering why their bank statements are posted online in a forum. A summary of the image was typed up.

[Mmarano]

CHAMBO! When we going to Mortons!!! MORTONS! YOU OWE ME A STEAK BUDDY!

[isaacdstern]

Not now chief...im in the zone!!!!

CHAMBO! When we going to Mortons!!! MORTONS! YOU OWE ME A STEAK BUDDY!

[Mmarano]

Uncle Yitz, I think you owe me Some Mikes Bistro!

[isaacdstern]

not now boychick...its shabbos!!! lol

[J.Buferd]

The amount of hypocrisy on this thread is appalling. The same brokers who take a deal to one source only to turn around and contact that same merchant again a few months down the line to obtain a starter-type short-term advance or "loan" are shunning the practice???

YSC - so it's ok for you to stack on a deal if you didn't deal with the merchant on the original round of financing, but you admit to doing it if t wasn't originally your referral. If that practice is so okay, then why don't you implement it on those deals your originate (even though you claim otherwise, give me a break. Your agents promise more money in a few months without paying off the original balance, it's part of your sales pitch. You keep saying prove it, but why don't YOU prove otherwise if you're so squeaky clean on this matter? The practice originated from your offices, for goodness sake.)

And for those of you who say refer to the original contract, EVERY contract in the industry stipulates that a business owner cannot take out additional financing without paying off the original balance, just as it stipulates on every SBA loan that we go behind with MCAs. By participating in this thread, all of you are acknowledging that a stacked deal is illegal bc you are all aware that every contract a merchant enters forbids them from getting additional financing, and you continuing to facilitate this practice are knowingly breaking the law, your agent agreements, and aiding a merchant in defaulting on any previous obligations.

This is an open-and-shut case, there is no wiggle room here as far as the law is concerned. Why is it that the most "respectable" companies i.e. New Logic, SFS, MCC, Bankcard and a few others refuse to do it? Why is it that the newer companies like a Pearl, Genesis, Fora, Quickbridge, Business Backer, Everest, and countless others trying to build a solid book all over this practice? Anyone arguing otherwise is delusional or in serious denial. This practice is not kosher.

[J.Buferd]

And to the brokers who are hiding behind the fact that a grasshopper actually helps the merchant bc it's more cost-effective due to the fact that he/she doesn't have to pay off the original advance...how do you explain breaking the law and the contract they initially signed? How will you explain it if an original creditor decides to recall their entire balance at once bc they found out about the second position and sues for breach of contract? How will your stacked deal for a measley $10k to the merchant (of which $1k goes into your pocket) help the merchant when people are coming into their establishments repossessing business equipment? Don't try to justify your scumbag actions to yourself by claiming you're helping the merchant. You ever calculate the APR on a second-position??? Just bc a merchant doesn't pay off a balance when they're supposed to makes spiking their cost-of-funds miles above usury rates an acceptable practice? Learn about the business you're in and the products you sell. A halfway decent salesman can't claim ignorance when it comes to the legality of a second funding, you know it's a breach of every MCA contact in the industry (not even just in our industry but lending as a whole - no creditor wants another company coming in behind them and negatively impacting their ability to collect). It's an open-and-shut case, anyone claiming otherwise isn't event qualified to participate in this so-called "debate".

[Mmarano]

I don't think the banks being stacked on are going to take merchants out of business because of a 2nd position advance~~~(people are coming into their establishments repossessing business equipment?)~~~ -NEVER HAPPENING-. I think there are folks that can stack responsibly and some folks do it in a manner where they put merchants out of business. If any of the above merchants funding companies went after a merchant in that manner.. not only would it cause the merchant to not be able to pay back the primary advance, but it would also cost that company a Ton of money in legal. Thinking that a merchant is going to stand by and allow someone to put them out of business because they're paying on 2 deals at once is a mouthful AND quite frankly i think there is an appalling lack of perspective on what is happening in this industry. Tortious interference is NOT an open shut case, and for those companies with money for Legal.. would not only fight the person or persons doing the suing but would also defend the merchant in said case. Think about it, Advance company one funds 50k. advance two is 10k. both deals go bad. It's not so easy to prove that the layering caused the merchant going out of business or caused default.(In Court I'm saying) - so now, we go to court.. The primary advance company already has already lost money on the deal, now you want to throw good money after bad. AND.. God forbid you Sue a "smaller" stack type company and you don't realize or consider that they actually have some money... OH BOY.. That 50k default could cost 10's of thousands if not well in the 6 digits to fight in court... who losses here?? No company is going to put a merchant out of business for taking a second advance. If the deal does go bad.. Its a large risk to sue. Bottom Line.

[MCAVeteran]

I keep seeing all these posts from people frowning on stacking but nothing being done to change this practice. Why doesnt somebody go call anat levy and associates in cali who led the usury class actions and give then the names of the stackers and explain whats going on and maybe on a state level the change can begin...if you dont shake the tree, nothing will be done. For those who dont know about anat levy, google it! If the firm sees money in the case, they will pursue it-

[Chambo]

I keep seeing all these posts from people frowning on stacking but nothing being done to change this practice. Why doesnt somebody go call anat levy and associates in cali who led the usury class actions and give then the names of the stackers and explain whats going on and maybe on a state level the change can begin...if you dont shake the tree, nothing will be done. For those who dont know about anat levy, google it! If the firm sees money in the case, they will pursue it-

She is NOT an MCA's friend...for sure

[CO1]

http://www.greensheet.com/emagazine....0602&ad_id=143



This is who Anat Levy is!

[MCAVeteran]

You mean like the prohibited transaction clause on contracts that clearly outlines this is a breach? Both the funder and merchant who have entered into a additional funding who signed these agreements have breached the first place agreements that have this language.

[@jeannette]

Oh wow, in 2012 only 10.7% said stacking was OK...oh how the world has changed.

[RickyR3712]

So true