[Sean Cash]

If you want to work towards revising, eliminating, or preventing regulation such as this, you should join/support one of industry's major trade groups. The only reason that MCA and non-bank business lending isn't banned in Illinois after what happened last year is because these groups worked tirelessly (and spent tirelessly) to prevent it. Your industry peers are spending big bucks and need your help.

There can even be such a thing as smart regulation but that doesn't happen if representatives from the industry don't show up or can't afford to show up.

[Sean Cash]

If you want to work towards revising, eliminating, or preventing regulation such as this, you should join/support one of industry's major trade groups. The only reason that MCA and non-bank business lending isn't banned in Illinois after what happened last year is because these groups worked tirelessly (and spent tirelessly) to prevent it. Your industry peers are spending big bucks and need your help.

There can even be such a thing as smart regulation but that doesn't happen if representatives from the industry don't show up or can't afford to show up.

If you'd like an introduction to them to find out how you can support the efforts, pm me.

[HDF]

The required fingerprinting for $100 on top is a blast! Imagine everyone on the phone and/or advising SMBs was required to be fingerprinted? Looks likely.

[HDF]

If you want to work towards revising, eliminating, or preventing regulation such as this, you should join/support one of industry's major trade groups. The only reason that MCA and non-bank business lending isn't banned in Illinois after what happened last year is because these groups worked tirelessly (and spent tirelessly) to prevent it. Your industry peers are spending big bucks and need your help.

There can even be such a thing as smart regulation but that doesn't happen if representatives from the industry don't show up or can't afford to show up.

No question. But even unrelated meltdowns by leaders (latest = CAN) hurts credibility enormously! We have to do better.

[Happy Horse Shit]

No question. But even unrelated meltdowns by leaders (latest = CAN) hurts credibility enormously! We have to do better.

The word interest would be the loophole. If one is "purchasing" future receivable at a discount there is no way "interest" as in the legal meaning could be applied to that type of transaction. In order to collect interest the lender would need to have given "consideration" to the business, and the business would have agreed to pay either a fixed or floating rate of "interest' on the remaining balance of the consideration. Purchasing credit card receivables at discount is not giving consideration of any kind, it is a commerce transaction. Just my fast two cents, as I do not have time to read through threads like this. But I think you are all pretty much overreacting.

Best Regards

[HDF]

The word interest would be the loophole. If one is "purchasing" future receivable at a discount there is no way "interest" as in the legal meaning could be applied to that type of transaction. In order to collect interest the lender would need to have given "consideration" to the business, and the business would have agreed to pay either a fixed or floating rate of "interest' on the remaining balance of the consideration. Purchasing credit card receivables at discount is not giving consideration of any kind, it is a commerce transaction. Just my fast two cents, as I do not have time to read through threads like this. But I think you are all pretty much overreacting.

Best Regards

Thanks for checking in. You might want to read through threads here. Most are well aware of that which you speak.

[Karen37a]

What he is referring to is the term "loan" , "interest" in the language of the paper ( and so called regulation ), and interest and "purchasing" receivables and that they might have to make changes in the wording to be specific to this industry ( and to be enforceable ) as we do not give "loans", so the terminology would be the loophole ( because there is an error ) for it to apply to Mca Advances.

Dodd Frank Regulations were partially halted today as well.


On a side note when I saw finance regulations in the past it pertained to any company you dealt with in that state and also if you worked in that state

[HDF]

We got it the first time. Your friends words are respected.
However legislators will correct their terminology in a snap when they need to unless the industry makes a good case right now and going further.

[Karen37a]

Hdf
So the case he is making ( and he knows way more than I do ). someone would have to place a rule or law on purchasing receivables which he thinks or states " should not be able to get done" and if it does, there is a loophole or reason it shouldn't come into play, or they are not in full understanding of the product and its mechanics

Receivables are set up in contracts framework and can be one single event or a pool, and its a Purchase

What I think the major problem is people /merchants/ new brokers "regulators" saying or misstating/thinking that these are loans, even for a brief moment. I must say "this is not a loan we are not a bank" 20 times a day.These are not loans, they are a sale of a portion of future credit or debit card or total sales

If someone misclassifies these in an effort to force regulation, that in and of itself is the major problem and what i was addressing months ago. And as I stated in the past over and over the only companies that are hurt by regulation are the A paper like Can, not the opposite.


They say cockroaches will inherit the earth.. not that I am a cockroach

[HDF]

I get it the third time.

We still MUST get ahead of this regardless of their distinct classification. Don't think for a second that there are not thousands of untrained brokers on the phone right now offering "lending" and "loans". Because they are.

[Karen37a]

And there are merchant calls/underwriting calls and contracts that are signed and it says it in big bold print " danger danger danger this is a high cost " "we are purchasing ..blah blah" ( I am exaggerating for effect, they do have disclaimers, some right on the face of the contract ) No one signs a contract by accident and sends it back and initials it all over the place.

Some of these merchants are con artists themselves. And the people who think regulation is a good thing STILL will never be able to sell if they knocked 3/4 of the competition out of the area because they cant sell.They cant get over the "i am not interested, take me off your list" section of the script

I tell these people on the phone." do not take this if you do not need it, then they call me 100 times a day asking for money when i said no or wait"... That contract could say anything on it, they want the money to help their immediate cash flow issue.


btw. I got a 91 on the series 7 after studying for 2 weeks, mortage exam in 1 week, insurance 3 weeks because it was so boring I kept putting the book down.. and have been fingerprinted etc to take an exam for hedge fund mgt Ria. So the speculation on me not passing an exam and that's why I do not want regulation is unfounded. It isn't smart business sense.

Ask trump about regulation he agrees. See you later off I go to work **


**main point, these are uncollateralized, doesn't make sense to bankrupt someone, your money goes bye bye **

[WestCoastFunding]

I still don't get being against any and all regulations - particularly Dodd Frank. The financial industry is held up by confidence. If confidence is lost you end up in financial crisis. Markets just don't handle themselves in banking. When a bank ****s up they don't just fail. They explode. And they take a lot of other financial institutions down with them. As their assets are sold in fire sale, financial institutions with similar assets see their balance sheets collapse. Naturally this leads to a run on the banks and you end up with a commercial paper blowout. End result: sudden stop in the economy. An example of this was the 2008 financial crisis. So why would we want to return to that? I can see having issues with some of the consumer protection stuff, but overall, why would anyone take issue with resolution authority? Would you prefer massive and never ending tax payer bailouts when financial institutions fail?

[Karen37a]

I read the old banking lending rules and laws in regards to "loans" and they look similar to the proposed ones. What specifically do people see or think that would change ? It says "loan" all over it, just like it use to

Did someone pass a law or rule defining "loan" and now has changed the framework of MCA in NY?? Something to the effect of " an mca is really a loan". I am not being sarcastic, I cant find it in the long pages of boring text.

I know that Mca are a purcahse of future recievables or a sale of receivables... to be treated as a purchase and sale agreement versus a loan, and to do that the sale must be without recourse to the seller.


Ive seen courts rule against Mca companies becuse of the structure of their contract or it being illegible. Not the structure of the advance or product.


Westcoast funding ...you are right. I am just tired of siting on the sidelines being 1000% ethical and preaching., no more preaching to the choir( but ill stay at 1000%)..let them eat cake

[WestCoastFunding]

Karen, that's why I'm not mad at broker licensing. The unethical guys will be weeded out, and us ethical types will take a larger market share.

[Happy Horse Shit]

I still don't get being against any and all regulations - particularly Dodd Frank. The financial industry is held up by confidence. If confidence is lost you end up in financial crisis. Markets just don't handle themselves in banking. When a bank ****s up they don't just fail. They explode. And they take a lot of other financial institutions down with them. As their assets are sold in fire sale, financial institutions with similar assets see their balance sheets collapse. Naturally this leads to a run on the banks and you end up with a commercial paper blowout. End result: sudden stop in the economy. An example of this was the 2008 financial crisis. So why would we want to return to that? I can see having issues with some of the consumer protection stuff, but overall, why would anyone take issue with resolution authority? Would you prefer massive and never ending tax payer bailouts when financial institutions fail?

Let me tell you about securities industry, originally there were little to no regulations. Then when trouble came and the stock mkt crashed the SEC was invented and the acts of 33 and 34 were created then the act of 1940 they were rigid, but they were workable. So then some nut case decided we need a Self Regulating Organization SRO-- called NASD originally now know as FINRA it was supposed to be helpful to broker dealers and clients--then it turned on the broker dealers made them the enemy. So they decided to keep writing rules and never stopped. They have added so many rules (so many unnecessary ones) they have driven independent small and medium firms out of business for the last 3 decades, not for being bad actors, but they have made it so expensive to conduct business that you can only survive by having massive broker dealers consolidation of the mid and small players. So believe me when I say mix money and regulation and it will never stop, every day they will propose rules and they will get them implemented, every rule means hiring more people to service the regulatory structure. I said enough, and I do not read these long and winding threads because most people here would rather bully someone asking a questions that they consider beneath them--why they can't just ignore the post I do not know, but they can't stop themselves from being nasty bastards in replying. As far as the 2008 debacle, it came courtesy of your Democratic Congressman Barney Frank--so unbelievable people named the act that followed after him as he was at the center of it all. Barney Frank made a public appeal to congress that it should be the right of every American to own his own home. So what did they do--they allowed Fnma and Gnma to start taking low document loans that were not vetted by anyone. You blame the banks? Hell they had this dangled in front of them. they were all in, they could package these no down payment no verification loans and sell them as fast as they could produce them. The Drive Through attendant at McDonalds who made 360.00 a week and was allowed to buy a house for 280k because why? Barney Frank decided it is a RIGHT of every American to own a home. Then the big banks repackaged the loans within a CDO type product where they combined bonds of all sorts from AA to CC and that pool was rated well above investment grade--these are complex products and they are only suited to institutional investors--it is buyer beware when dealing institution to institution as both parties are considered to be knowledgeable parties capable of researching any investment they buy. Of course everyone pointed fingers when things go wrong it is the American way--sue everyone and see what sticks. Then you heard the mortgage brokers were cheating and not submitting correct application --hell no doc loans and you are going to hold them responsible? Then they went after the rating agencies who they said should have known that those mortgages not backed by fnam and freddie were all crap. This standard created by the US govt was to accept low doc loans--so the rating agency is held responsible--but the son of a ***** Barney Frank is a hero for starting the whole **** ball of wax rolling down hill--unbelievable the way all three branches of the federal govt could spin it that this was all a greedy money grab by banks when they started the whole thing and did nothing to rein it in. Alan Greenspan knew very early that this was going to blow up but did he run out to a TV station and scream it from the pulpit--no--but when he thought the stock mkt was overvalued he made a point of making sure his opinion was heard world wide as the irrational exuberance speech. Where was he in 2006 saying this a dangerous thing to allow these undocumented loans to be packaged along with other securities in pools and re marketed as investment gradepaper, being sold to every mutual fund, and every insurance company who knew exactly what was in those pools, but hey they could buy protection in bond default swaps so what the hell party on. You can blame the regulators and the US government for the 2008 meltdown. The regulators were to busy running around checking to see if everyone got the correct breakpoints on their mutual fund purchases while they let Rome burn to the ground--and they were the ones that supplied the matches--enough I can't stand it when people tell me the banks caused the 2008 meltdown I want to grab them by the neck and tell them stop believing what the spin master are selling you--spin it hard enough and a lot of people will believe it as fact--like the Obama administration had no scandals lol. Benghazi was not a scandal? The sec of state operated a server that had sensitive data on it without permission and then denied its existence until someone hacked it and showed the world the email--then when it was revealed that Obama himself using a alias was communicating with Clinton on the server denied it was true (when he previously told the American public that he had no knowledge of the server) when the evidence was in the public domain. I am telling you believe no one who tells you how it was or is find the evidence and decide for yourself.

And for you nasty bastards on these threads
Strive to be the person your dog thinks you are--you will be better for it

[FundedBROTHA]

.......


shutup.jpgshutup.jpg

[Chambo]

That's an...um...interesting take on things

[J.Celifarco]

things that make you go hmmmmmmm

[Eagle Funding]

How many calls could you have made in the time of writing that paragraph

[CreditGuy]

[HDF]

And it never addresses the issue at hand. Amazing that we can complain about the past, agree to what is coming fast, yet allow it to happen without a coherent say in the matter. HHS writes from a right wing position but looks an awful like a CNN leftist crybaby clinging to paychecks long since cashed.

[WestCoastFunding]

Ohhh, so Dodd Frank is responsible for Benghazi. Makes a lot of sense.

Back in the real world, the financial industry is doing quite well under Dodd Frank. But let's say we get rid of Dodd Franks capital requirements. While this could potentially lead to lenders overleveraging themselves, it will increase bank lending. And an increase in bank lending doesn't help MCA brokers.

[Vfunding]

Funny thing about laws is only law abiding citizens care about them. Criminals by definition are breakers of the law. Like most regulation, one of the unintended consequences would be to limit and deter the good guys and the bad guys will continue business as usual. Guarantee you there are people reading this discussion right now who couldn't care less whether or not regulation is passed because they don't intend to comply with it. Thank you to all those working tirelessly to bring positive recognition to this industry. And thank you Daily Funder for being a platform and discussion board for (mostly) positive contribution by industry members.

[HFS]

Convert now while you can!

[Chambo]

§ 340. Doing business without license prohibited. 1. No person or
13 other entity shall engage in the business of making loans in the princi-
14 pal amount of twenty-five thousand dollars or less for any loan to an
15 individual for personal, family, household, or investment purposes and
16 in a principal amount of fifty thousand dollars or less to_an_individual
17 or__business for business and commercial loans, [and charge, contract
18 for, or receive a greater rate of interest than the lender would be
19 permitted by law to charge if he were not a licensee hereunder] except
20 as authorized by this article or_by_regulations__issued__by__the__super-
21 intendent and without first obtaining a license from the superintendent.
22 2. For the purposes of this section, a person or entity shall be
23 considered as engaging in the business of making loans in New York, and
24 subject to the licensing and other requirements of this article, if it
25 solicits loans in the amounts prescribed by this section [within this
26 state] and, in connection with such solicitation, makes loans,_purchases
1 or__otherwise_acquires_from_others_loans_or_other_ forms_of_financing,_or
2 arranges_or_facilitates_the_funding_of_loans, to individuals then resi-
3 dent in this state or_to_businesses_located_or_doing_business_in_this
4 state, except that no person or entity shall be considered as engaging
5 in the business of making loans in this state on the basis of isolated[,
6 incidental] or occasional transactions which otherwise meet the require-
7 ments of this section