[mcaguru]

Which rapid ? lately a few players using that name? Jeremy should be more concerned about losing clients to similar name companies. Jeremy seems very nice met him a few months ago at a cafe in Arizona..Chambo i don't think your doing justice to Mr Gilbert and Mr Brown they both deserve a better character description then you are painting.

[Cfairbank]

Which rapid ? lately a few players using that name? Jeremy should be more concerned about losing clients to similar name companies. Jeremy seems very nice met him a few months ago at a cafe in Arizona..Chambo i don't think your doing justice to Mr Gilbert and Mr Brown they both deserve a better character description then you are painting.

While I am sure they aren't thrilled about the other Rapids, losing customers doesn't put their capital at risk, the crazy stacks do -- think about it this way, Marcus: they give the merchant an 18 month deal at a 1.25 with a 2% origination fee, and then a stacker comes in with a 3 month, 1.45x, 10% fee and double dips after two months. That means that stacker is turning its capital NINE times before they turn theirs once (assuming the merchant isn't put out of business first, which is the most likely outcome) -- and the annualized cost of capital on the stackers deal that renews with the double dip? Over 610%, while the first position's annualized rate is 35%. Now explain to me why they, or any other first position lender, wouldn't put a ton of resources to STOP stacking.

And they aren't the only ones, there are several LARGE first position funders/lenders that are about to ramp their efforts to combat stacking as well. Even my company, while not in Dan Gilbert's ballpark when it comes to financial resources, raised and allocated significant capital (and resources) to fight this problem. Not only do we have a well known law firm EXCLUSIVELY engaged to address our stacked deals, but we have set aside capital that is explicitly allocated to go after funders (and other parties) that tortiously interfere with our contracts/fundings (i.e. stacked) and cause a deal to default -- and I know most of the stackers on this board have either received a letter from us or from our law firm about our stacking policy.

Regulation may not shut down stacking (even setting aside the clear breach of contract, my guess is that it will through the inability of the high rate stackers to support any form of ability to pay/suitability tests), but stacking is about to become a VERY expensive proposition. Especially once Rapid wins a case or two.