[funding pro]

Most of the larger and established funding companies have their parameters and they stick to them. It would be naïve to think they should act in a way different from their core principals and funding criteria because a merchant needs money and someone else is willing to give it to them. I think most funding companies will listen, at the very least, and in some cases will provide exceptions if it makes sense, but the threat of a stacker should not make a company waiver from their underwriting guidelines. That train of thought should apply to the good merchants. As for the bad ones, there is obviously no point in throwing good money after bad.

[Chambo]

Most of the larger and established funding companies have their parameters and they stick to them. It would be naïve to think they should act in a way different from their core principals and funding criteria because a merchant needs money and someone else is willing to give it to them. I think most funding companies will listen, at the very least, and in some cases will provide exceptions if it makes sense, but the threat of a stacker should not make a company waiver from their underwriting guidelines. That train of thought should apply to the good merchants. As for the bad ones, there is obviously no point in throwing good money after bad.

SFS (in special cases), TBB, BFS and MCC all do this already, always have. Nothing new
Sean, how can you, as former head UW at MCC, not have chimed in?