[mcaguru]

This is my last contribution to this discussion: again, rate is not the problem -- I get the risk of the high risk space, and we've done some tests to see if we can disrupt that space with our product. If folks weren't cycled through renewals, we wouldn't even be having this discussion -- paying 1.45 one time for something that will drive revenue or to help build credit to be able to qualify for more sustainable financing is completely legitimate. .

Carl, i hear you the issue that the free market folks will say is when does it end??, meaning you are clearly saying its legitimate sometimes for a 1.4+ rate (and in fact under the right circumstances actually funding at those rates!) whats if tomorrow Warren Buffets daughter with Melinda Gates put together a company and a think tank group of the top economic professors and decide nothing over a 1.11 should be acceptable and throw a billion at the project proving the case and (also funding merchants) Does Carl at Breakout Capital now need to follow the findings ? After all they will show with graphs and charts how a breakout or ondeck product anytime over 1.20 is doing harm?!

My point is for evry Carl pointing at a High Risk funder there is a Garl or a Tom or Melinda out there that will be pointing at a breakout capital kind of company saying its unacceptable to fund your product in your manner ..