Results 1 to 25 of 51
-
10-14-2020, 01:07 PM #1
Reputation points: 35870
- Join Date
- Jun 2019
- Posts
- 191
Question For Funders
Over the last few months, i'd estimate easily half of my new apps in from merchants who had previous advances, have had their payments lowered. A lot of these are very strong businesses that either were told by the funder they could lower the payments because of COVID (even though the bank statements show they didnt need to) or businesses that because of the shut down in April had to temporarily lower payements but that was months ago and their businesses have been back on track for a while already.
My question is, why are funders treating these deals the same as deals froma year ago that had payments lowered. Its not the same at all. Im having merchants that had great 12-18 month deals in the past, struggling to get anything besides the short term 100 day 1.49's. These businesses are more or less in the same financial situations they were a year ago, but because they lowered payments during the shutdowns, they cant get approved for anything normal. Why are funders not adjusting their guidelines for these situations? When i explain to the merchants why they arent getting the approvals they've come to expect most are dumbfounded.
I'd love to hear from some funders the thought process over here.
-
10-14-2020, 01:15 PM #2
Reputation points: 76187
- Join Date
- Jan 2018
- Posts
- 510
I can see a decline or short term offer if the merchant had lowered payments for awhile or are currently still on lowered but not if they lowered in April but have been on normal payments since
-
10-14-2020, 01:54 PM #3
Reputation points: 35870
- Join Date
- Jun 2019
- Posts
- 191
-
10-14-2020, 02:15 PM #4
Reputation points: 76187
- Join Date
- Jan 2018
- Posts
- 510
-
10-14-2020, 02:19 PM #5
Reputation points: 301165
- Join Date
- Jun 2015
- Posts
- 3,312
huge difference if they followed contract and used the specified percentage clause or had volume double and half payments because why not .
first case should not even be a question, they followed contract. the second case is where i can understand both sides
-
10-14-2020, 02:22 PM #6
Reputation points: 35870
- Join Date
- Jun 2019
- Posts
- 191
Because they do take paying it off seriously and have never missed payments. They also would gladly have the payments go back to normal if the Funder asks.Most dont even think of it cause why should they.
Listen im not talking about garbage paper over here, im talking about genuine A paper, people that have great businesses that pay their debts.
-
10-14-2020, 02:22 PM #7
Reputation points: 218103
- Join Date
- Feb 2017
- Posts
- 3,347
Do funders even have the guts to ask the merchants to re-up?
-
10-14-2020, 02:25 PM #8
Reputation points: 35870
- Join Date
- Jun 2019
- Posts
- 191
I mean a TON of businesses had no revenue for a month so they had to have payments lowered. If you want to blame them for not calling back the funder and having them make the payments go back to normal by all means blame them. But dont kid yourself and view these merchants the same as ones from a year ago that lowered payments. Theres a major distinction over here.
-
10-14-2020, 02:32 PM #9
Reputation points: 76187
- Join Date
- Jan 2018
- Posts
- 510
what funding companies are leaving merchants on lowered payments indefinitely?
-
10-14-2020, 02:39 PM #10
Reputation points: 218103
- Join Date
- Feb 2017
- Posts
- 3,347
pcfunder, have you ever heard about a company requesting a true-up after lowering payments?
If it's left to the merchant, they'd think that the lowering of payments was a given, and will continue until paid off.
Remember Winning? He got his PayPal extended to 10 years, and looks at it like the best thing since sliced bread. It might be, but who here told him that "you shouldn't do that"?
Do traditional banks that restructure loans even request that?
I'm sorry, but to blame the merchant is unfair.
-
10-14-2020, 02:46 PM #11
Reputation points: 76187
- Join Date
- Jan 2018
- Posts
- 510
I agree with all of that but if you want to continue to stay on a restructured deal, your going to have to deal with the consequences. One of those consequences just happens to be that it will be hard to get another position. I'm not blaming a merchant for wanting to stay on lowered payments but I don't understand why I should give them more money while they are on a restructured deal? The whole point of a 2nd position is based on being in good standing with the 1st position. If a merchant has a 1st position funding company calling them asking when they can get back on normal payments and all they are doing is lying about how they can't afford to be on normal payments and then they ask a 2nd position company to ADD another daily payment, it just makes no sense.
too many games, too much risk especially with a pandemic going on, and I think the most important cause of a decline would be that the merchant is starting to learn how to swindle a funding company without having a default put against them. They can easily call me 2 weeks after I fund and say "hey man coronavirus just killed me again can I lower payments?" and then my 100 day deal that you mentioned above ends up turning into a 200 day deal. I'd rather not have my 200 day deal turn into a 300 day deal once they restructure with me.
-
10-14-2020, 03:27 PM #12
Reputation points: 14091
- Join Date
- Mar 2019
- Posts
- 253
EPIC ADVANCE
Mark@epic-advance.com
-
10-14-2020, 08:33 PM #13
Reputation points: 91418
- Join Date
- Sep 2019
- Posts
- 402
-
10-15-2020, 03:09 AM #14
Reputation points: 64261
- Join Date
- Oct 2020
- Posts
- 126
-
10-15-2020, 10:05 AM #15
Reputation points: 1519
- Join Date
- Aug 2020
- Location
- New York, NY
- Posts
- 123
So there isn’t really a black and white answer for this one, it would depend on many many factors.
Seeing a file with lowered payments nowadays (mid/post Covid) would warrant many questions a funder needs to look at.
When were the payments lowered?
How much were they lowered?
Who initiated the lowered payments?
Are they still on lowered?
Did they already take new positions while they were on lowered?
Another important thing to look at is whom they lowered payments with, some shops potentially would push to lower payments for their merchants (meaning they'd call the merchant and offer lower payments) while some other shops would do everything they can to not lower payments, another thing to keep in mind is did the merchant actually need lower payments? (Based on rev and balances)
In other words, every funder needs to look at this on a case by case basis, depending on the file.
That said, most funders mid/post Covid would fund merchants that have been on lowered due to Covid, a lot would fund files that are still on lowered.Last edited by ClearFund; 10-15-2020 at 10:10 AM.
Underwriting Desk | ClearFund Solutions | New York, NY.
P: 855-543-2133 E: deals@clearfund.co W: www.clearfund.co
_____________________________
ClearFund is a Direct Funder
ISO inquires: partners@clearfund.co
-
10-15-2020, 04:20 PM #16
Reputation points: 67
- Join Date
- Aug 2018
- Location
- Clifton, NJ
- Posts
- 11
I havent come across anyone other than Paypal who actually lowered merchants payments without the merchant's request. Have you?
Regarding how Funders are viewing these types of deals, I think PCFUNDER was spot on.
At this time, RDM will consider the application if the merchant has been on a contracted payment for 4 weeks with all open positions, at which point we will underwrite the file as though they have not lowered at all. Feel free to reach out if you are not signed up.Ian Goldberg
Chief Risk Officer
FinTap
777 Passaic Ave, Suite 375
Clifton, NJ 07012
Phone: 973-685-2927
ian@fintap.com
www.fintap.com
-
10-15-2020, 04:39 PM #17
Reputation points: 301165
- Join Date
- Jun 2015
- Posts
- 3,312
first off you must not see a lot of paper because tons of merchants got calls from funders letting them know they can use specefied percentage and lower payments.
Curious how rdm gets around the legal aspect of interest rates if you consider specified percentage as a default?
-
10-15-2020, 04:58 PM #18
Reputation points: 67
- Join Date
- Aug 2018
- Location
- Clifton, NJ
- Posts
- 11
Hey Michael,
RDM also sent out notice to its merchants regarding hardship, however I was referring to funders who literally just lowered the payment for all or part of their portfolio once Covid hit. Regarding your question, can you clarify? To my knowledge, there is nothing illegal about declining to fund a file for any reason. But I don't fully understand what your asking.Ian Goldberg
Chief Risk Officer
FinTap
777 Passaic Ave, Suite 375
Clifton, NJ 07012
Phone: 973-685-2927
ian@fintap.com
www.fintap.com
-
12-22-2020, 10:49 AM #19
Reputation points: 30747
- Join Date
- Aug 2016
- Posts
- 486
I got busy and missed this thread.. But the things you all speak of, I did think about when trying to understand why Paypal would offer me such as extended term and how it could negatively effect me in the event I need more capital later. But that could be part of Paypal's long term plan as well... To give me what amounts to a Scarlet Letter.
Below originally posted at https://dailyfunder.com/showthread.p...l=1#post145571
-
12-22-2020, 10:55 AM #20
Reputation points: 30747
- Join Date
- Aug 2016
- Posts
- 486
Could you clarify this statement?
When a merchant does a cash advance is it Debt that the merchant has taken on, or did the Merchant sell a future receivable that is not guaranteed to actually be received? Sort of like a partnership... If I make money, you (MCA Company) make money. If I don't make money, you (MCA Company) don't make money. Like we are all in this together, just one big happy family.. This is how Paypal has made me feel during this entire ordeal. Which in turn has me made me a Paypal Disciple (stock holder).Last edited by Winning; 12-22-2020 at 11:09 AM.
-
12-22-2020, 11:30 AM #21
Reputation points: 35870
- Join Date
- Jun 2019
- Posts
- 191
-
12-22-2020, 11:56 AM #22
Reputation points: 30747
- Join Date
- Aug 2016
- Posts
- 486
Thanks, but I'm not trying to be right. Just want to make sure I have a clear understanding of what was explained to me when I created a thread about defaulting on a MCA's at
https://dailyfunder.com/showthread.p...l=1#post139782
Would love to understand PCfunders line of thinking when he posted the debt comment.Last edited by Winning; 12-22-2020 at 11:58 AM.
-
12-22-2020, 12:31 PM #23
Reputation points: 76187
- Join Date
- Jan 2018
- Posts
- 510
-
12-22-2020, 01:07 PM #24
Reputation points: 30747
- Join Date
- Aug 2016
- Posts
- 486
Post #4 in this thread.
https://dailyfunder.com/showthread.p...l=1#post146203
-
12-22-2020, 01:25 PM #25
Reputation points: 76187
- Join Date
- Jan 2018
- Posts
- 510
oohh
MCN was saying that a lot of these merchants who lowered payments didn't have to they just did it because the funding company was offering lowered payments to all merchants. Or they lowered in April because they had to but their business went back to normal and they decided to stay on lowered payments because they were able to get away with it.
I was saying that these merchants are asking to take on more cash advance debt by seeking a 2nd or 3rd position when it appears they aren't taking their current cash advance debt serious by getting back on normal payments when their business can handle it.
In retrospect, I can understand why some merchants would want to stay on lowered payments as long as the funding company doesn't declare a default but coming from someone who has been working with direct funders for a few years now, funding companies deal with a lotttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt of lies and games that both brokers and merchants play. After dealing with thousands of deals and plenty of defaults, its pretty clear as day that merchants will say anything to get a deal funded and brokers will do anything to get a deal funded. Take all of the "normal" risk that goes into a cash advance and add on top a merchant who lowered payments from a cash advance for 9 months even though their business is back to normal and they are seeking more money, its pretty clear that no one in their right mind should want anything to do with this deal. Save these type of deals for the funders who are desperate. You also have to take into consideration that the merchants cash flow is increased due to the payments being lowered, yet they are still seeking expensive capital.
Similar Threads
-
Question for Direct Funders out there - who do you use for your ach company?
By Access2Capital in forum Merchant Cash AdvanceReplies: 10Last Post: 01-09-2019, 04:28 PM -
Question Funders dont ask often
By wallerbusiness in forum Merchant Cash AdvanceReplies: 9Last Post: 11-03-2017, 11:05 AM -
MCA Funders Question
By Amity in forum Merchant Cash AdvanceReplies: 9Last Post: 06-29-2017, 01:39 PM -
Question: Funders versus Lenders
By bci in forum Deal BinReplies: 6Last Post: 06-09-2017, 01:15 AM -
Renewal Question for Direct Funders
By dailyPLUNDR in forum Merchant Cash AdvanceReplies: 17Last Post: 03-30-2016, 12:27 PM