[J.Celifarco]

How so? if your first position purchased part of your receivables, for example 25% specified percentage. Don't you have 75% left over to work with and negotiate with? how is it a ponzi scheme, these aren't loans by the way, it seems you dont understand this since your calling them lenders, and they also didn't purchase your whole business, they are purchasing a percentage of your receivables not all of them.

If the funder is stupid enough to take the risk and the business owner decides they need it what makes you better than anyone else to decide this.

Except that you are leaving them no money to run their business. What type of profit margin do you think businesses work on? If you are taking more money then they make after paying bills you are by definition hurting the business not helping.

[FlexibleCapitalSolutions]

Except that you are leaving them no money to run their business. What type of profit margin do you think businesses work on? If you are taking more money then they make after paying bills you are by definition hurting the business not helping.

I am not disagreeing with you in certain scenarios, I see your point, but at the end of the day no-one is forcing these people to take it, and as long as everything is fully disclosed shouldnt the business owner have the right to make their own decisions?

I think were arguing two different things. You're arguing the math on hypothetical/imaginary scenarios based on your experiences, I am arguing against your absolute/blanket statements and against your desire to take options away from other grown adults who should have the right to make their own decisions. (as long as everything is fully disclosed)

[J.Celifarco]

I am not disagreeing with you in certain scenarios, I see your point, but at the end of the day no-one is forcing these people to take it, and as long as everything is fully disclosed shouldnt the business owner have the right to make their own decisions?

I think were arguing two different things. You're arguing the math on hypothetical/imaginary scenarios based on your experiences, I am arguing against your absolute/blanket statements and against your desire to take options away from other grown adults who should have the right to make their own decisions. (as long as everything is fully disclosed)

Will never agree with knowingly selling someone something that I know will hurt their business. Especially when I know it is these programs that have put a target on the industry as a whole and will lead to regulations that could ultimately destroy the industry. Its not worth it for me or for the business owner

[SmartAdvanced]

Will never agree with knowingly selling someone something that I know will hurt their business. Especially when I know it is these programs that have put a target on the industry as a whole and will lead to regulations that could ultimately destroy the industry. Its not worth it for me or for the business owner

The craziest deal I've seen was a public traded company, they took about $10M in MCA, with over 20 positions, and in the end got a bailout, paid everyone off, never looked back. They're up more than 200% since then!!

[FlexibleCapitalSolutions]

Will never agree with knowingly selling someone something that I know will hurt their business. Especially when I know it is these programs that have put a target on the industry as a whole and will lead to regulations that could ultimately destroy the industry. Its not worth it for me or for the business owner

Well what really put a target on this industry's back is not the actual deals, its the way some funders in this industry acted throughout their business dealings with merchants and as far as you never agreeing and never being willing to offer something like this, I am on the same page, I stay away from offering these but I like knowing that its based on my decision not to do so..... not another grownup who is not in my shoes deciding that I am not allowed.

[Joseph Pak]

A broker should help the merchant not stress the business.

Just like a Doctor shouldn't prescribe drugs that wont help the patient ...............Look what happened to Michael Jackson.

[Yankeeman07]

Well what really put a target on this industry's back is not the actual deals, its the way some funders in this industry acted throughout their business dealings with merchants and as far as you never agreeing and never being willing to offer something like this, I am on the same page, I stay away from offering these but I like knowing that its based on my decision not to do so..... not another grownup who is not in my shoes deciding that I am not allowed.

My 2 cents worth - Look up the definition of "Tortious interference" Funder #1`has purchased 100% of future receivables until they are repaid,
in a Merchant Cash Advance Contract.

[ryan $]

My 2 cents worth - Look up the definition of "Tortious interference" Funder #1`has purchased 100% of future receivables until they are repaid,
in a Merchant Cash Advance Contract.

Uhm, No. They Purchased a Percentage, not 100%, that's ridiculous.

[Kevin Henry-Seacoast]

Uhm, No. They Purchased a Percentage, not 100%, that's ridiculous.

If the client has already pledged the assets under a security agreement and a lender/factor/funder has filed a UCC on the assets of the business, you would be interfering with the relationship even if you entered an agreement to purchase 1% of any or future receivables.

[Yankeeman07]

Uhm, No. They Purchased a Percentage, not 100%, that's ridiculous.

A MCA funder is purchasing 100% of "Future Receivables" and the repayment is a % of the daily/weekly/monthly receipts.
Whatever terms the contract states.

A true MCA, not an MCA disguised as a Loan (Consult an Attorney) the devil is in the details of the contract.

My niche market is "Credit Card Splits" - The funder I work with is purchasing 100% of the "Credit Card Receipts"
until the Full Purchase is repaid. No Stacking allowed and included is a hefty "No Stacking Penalty"