[ryan $]

LOL wow do you have the wrong company. First of all we are an ISO so doubt you can see us on any deal. Second of all ask anyone on this forum who knows us they know we don't touch these deals. We are 80% probably higher first position deals and nothing really over a second. So before assuming you know who I am you don't

To your other points there is no situation where a 4th, 5th or higher position in anyway helps the client. You are hurting the business more than they already are and putting a nail in their coffin for the hopes of making a little money. If you had a solution for the client that would actually help them then yes you should try, but 20k over 30 days at a 1.50 does not help someone. The best thing to tell that person is that another position will not help you and that they should look into other options. Dont try to justify these programs because there is no way that they can help any company ever. The couple of dollars you make on the file gives the entire industry a bad name and puts targets on all of our backs for regulators.

This isnt true.
One deal I remember off the top of my head, kept taking short term 1.49's over and over and over. Always paid back. And it worked for her.
Was a car dealer, that got a significant discount for paying cash for cars.
It worked for her. The high cost was justified, and she made it work.

There are scenarios where a 30 day 1.50 will work. And where the short term high cost is justified, with the associated risk.

In alot of scenarios renewing a 1st or 2nd, makes less sense than stacking, paying a factor on remaining balances already factored. Renewals shoot that remaining balance up higher than a 1.50 (1.36 x 2 = 1.72 on 50% of the Advance? - add that with the original 1.36 on 50% of the advance - and where do you end up? lets say someone renews 3 times, it gets even worse. You can argue that stacking makes more sense in some cases.