Results 51 to 60 of 60
-
08-12-2020, 12:06 PM #51
- Join Date
- Jun 2015
- Posts
- 754
https://youtu.be/kXYshW1FL5s
Wow. So corporate so professional!
Doesn’t look like a criminal to me.
-
08-12-2020, 12:20 PM #52
- Join Date
- Jun 2014
- Posts
- 541
This seems very analogous to how New Car Dealer groups have used the state level Dealership Laws to make it more expensive and harder for B-Lot Used Car Lots & BHPH Lots to operate. Is this not largely an outgrowth of ILPA's/RLBC efforts to introduce regulation into the marketplace that favors their members' products and the expense of the MCA side of the business?
-
08-12-2020, 01:29 PM #53
There is an argument to be made about the distorted incentives in our industry which lead many to poor decisions and abused merchants. It's also wrong to collectively punish an entire industry every bit as much as to ban casinos because some gamblers don't know when to stop but they keep making their bets. Regulation is tricky because it's hard to balance the benefits with risks for abuse and therefore best not left to politically appointed bureaucrats that have no nexus to the industry. These issues require a scalpel used by experts that have skin in the game, not an axe used by idiots imho.
-
08-12-2020, 01:52 PM #54
- Join Date
- Mar 2014
- Location
- Florida
- Posts
- 2,921
Dave Lambert, Business Development
dave@fcbankcard.com
Merchant Services Consultant
High Risk Merchant Payment Solutions
SBA 7(a) Loans & Short-Term Funding
T/VM: 727-291-7890
Office: 727-233-1111
Skype: fc-financial
-
08-12-2020, 02:42 PM #55
- Join Date
- Feb 2018
- Posts
- 1,349
good previous point on first position funders who have a direct sales arm that sends deals to the very companies who are under a microscope in order to generate revenue- there is a level of hypocrisy in this. they want to say oh, we don't stack but we sure as hell well send stackers paper to make money. no need to name names but yes, a large % of revenue for funders is brokering out deals.I have heard as high as 40% of paper flows out to high risk, stackers from first pos funders. So, on one end, you have these companies lambasting high risk funders as bad apples, yet, they themselves send them deals to make money. You cant cast a stone and in the same breath accept commissions from the bad apples. whether you want to classify a funder as A, B, F, Z, Q, everyone is in the same industry. so, regulation has to address everyone across the board. also, using a middle man bank to export rates above usury, does that really make you better than those who don't? no. it just means a loophole was found and those companies executed that loophole. its still an expensive loan.
-
08-12-2020, 03:48 PM #56
- Join Date
- Mar 2014
- Location
- Florida
- Posts
- 2,921
Dave Lambert, Business Development
dave@fcbankcard.com
Merchant Services Consultant
High Risk Merchant Payment Solutions
SBA 7(a) Loans & Short-Term Funding
T/VM: 727-291-7890
Office: 727-233-1111
Skype: fc-financial
-
08-12-2020, 03:56 PM #57
- Join Date
- Mar 2015
- Location
- Boynton Beach
- Posts
- 3,471
Kevin Henry
VP-Business Development
Seacoast Business Funding, a division of Seacoast Bank
561-850-9346
Kevin.Henry@SeacoastBF.com
1880 N Congress Ave., Suite 404
Boynton Beach, FL 33426
-
08-12-2020, 05:25 PM #58
- Join Date
- Jun 2014
- Posts
- 541
Yes, but if a bank's client is staying within their covenants, generally banks accept they have a right of first refusal if future financing isn't going to take a borrower out of covenant. As example, purchase money equipment financing, etc. Most of the early anti-stacking clauses in the UCC language and ISO contracts alike were written such that the merchant had no right to gain any additional business credit, whether they were paying their senior lender or not. Banks understand covenants and different positions in the capital stack and don't generally take the position they hold their customers captive.
-
08-13-2020, 05:20 AM #59
- Join Date
- Mar 2015
- Location
- Boynton Beach
- Posts
- 3,471
This is partly correct, but 99.9999% of the time an advance is taken without anyone checking with the UCC holder for permission. If there was a first right of refusal that was passed and allowed someone to obtain capital away from their original facility a inter-creditor or subordination agreement would have to be put in place. That NEVER....NEVER happens. I have never ever seen a subordination or inter-creditor agreement in place for a cash advance .... We have had clients come to us to replace their current LOC, ABL, or factor because they stacked an adavance or multiple advances with no agreements in place. There have been too many occasions to count where the stacking was so bad there was not enough availability on assets to pay off all the advances. We have put forward proposals in these instances and asked for subordination agreements and/or inter-creditor agreement from the staking advance companies and they flat our refused to enter them.
Kevin Henry
VP-Business Development
Seacoast Business Funding, a division of Seacoast Bank
561-850-9346
Kevin.Henry@SeacoastBF.com
1880 N Congress Ave., Suite 404
Boynton Beach, FL 33426
-
08-13-2020, 07:54 AM #60
- Join Date
- Jun 2014
- Posts
- 541
Fully agree that many in the industry don't respect or appreciate the rules of the road set out in Article 9. But many of the first generation anti-stacking language efforts took the position that the acquisition of percentage of merchant's receivables translated into ownership of the merchant's ability to access any credit, full stop, which is just not how it works.
This thread originated with an FTC commissioner's apparent comment that he wants to regulate the MCA industry out of existence. Many point to the Dodd-Frank as the driving regulatory force creating the void the MCA industry filled. The question all sides need to answer is how will future regulation allow the the bottom quarter of the US small business risk pool to access credit markets? Not many banks are focused on these clients, but should they have access to credit? So to Chambo's earlier point is this an effort to clear out bad actors in our back yard or will it turn into a situation where regulators apply blunt sword style regulation to the MCA industry and other non-bank providers of credit and purposefully or unwittingly regulate which small businesses can or can't have access to credit?Last edited by BB_Cooper; 08-13-2020 at 08:52 AM.