You need to enable JavaScript to run this app.
By Travis Yule — CEO & Founder, Full Send Funding
Published 2024-04-15 · Updated 2026-09-30
The full mechanism: what a factor rate sets, the three ways remittance is collected, why a longer term costs no more, and the reconciliation clause to read before the rate.
In one sentence: A merchant cash advance is a purchase of future receivables in which the funder sets the remittance from your deposits and the term falls out of the division, so the price is fixed at signing and only the reconciliation clause decides what happens when revenue misses the estimate the debit was built on.
A merchant cash advance gives a business a lump sum today in exchange for a fixed, larger amount collected automatically out of future revenue by a scheduled ACH debit, over a term of four months to three years. It is the most widely used product in revenue-based small business funding, and the most misdescribed.
The misdescription is not mainly about the price. It is about what kind of thing an advance is. It has no interest rate, no maturity date and no amortisation schedule, so every instinct carried over from a loan returns the wrong answer — including that stretching the payments after signing adds to the cost, and that paying early saves money by itself rather than because the agreement says so. It has a purchased amount, a remittance and a reconciliation right instead, and those three decide everything an owner cares about. This guide covers the mechanics every advance shares; how a Full Send Funding merchant cash advance is structured is set out on its own page.
Whoever writes it, an advance runs in the same order:
An advance is not a loan. It is the purchase of a portion of your future receivables at a discount: the funder pays $50,000 today for $65,000 of revenue as it arrives, and the difference is its return. That structure is not a technicality invented to dodge lending rules. It changes four things you can observe:
Everything else follows from those four, and the second is where the confusion lives. A loan has a schedule — a payment, a rate and a date on which the last payment falls, any two fixing the third. An advance has a total and a rate of delivery, and the date is whatever falls out of dividing one by the other. The clause-by-clause reading of an advance agreement shows how the sale is built sentence by sentence.
The advance amount — what lands in the account. Check whether fees come out of it: a "$50,000 advance" with a $1,500 origination fee deducted is $48,500 of usable money against a payback calculated on $50,000. Run every comparison on the net funded amount; the conversion from a fee to the effective factor it creates is arithmetic, and we show it in full.
The factor rate — the multiplier that sets the total. $50,000 × 1.30 = $65,000. It is not an interest rate and cannot be set beside one without converting it. Our cost of capital runs from 4.5% to 45%, a total cost on the amount funded rather than an annual rate: a 1.30 factor is 30% cost of capital whether the money is out five months or fifteen. Given a file and a term, where the factor lands in that band is read out of the statements, which is why the factor itself is not the part of an offer that moves in a phone call.
The payback amount — the factor rate applied to the advance, in dollars. The number to negotiate and the number to compare between offers, because it is the only one that cannot be presented misleadingly. It is negotiated through its inputs rather than by haggling the multiplier: a smaller advance, or a shorter structure the deposits can carry, is a smaller payback in dollars.
The remittance — the amount and frequency of the debit. What you live with, and, as the next section shows, the number the funder sets first.
Read a term sheet backwards and the mechanism appears. The debit and the term are one decision, and underwriting makes it from the debit side: it finds a debit the deposits can carry, and the agreed term is what that debit implies.
Here is that sequence on a file we could price today. A wholesale distributor deposits $105,000 a month across most banking days, so average daily deposits over 21 banking days are $5,000. Underwriting sizes the advance inside the published 80% to 150% of monthly revenue and lands on $90,000, 86% of a month. At a 1.30 factor the purchased amount is $117,000. The example is worked in daily figures because remittance share is measured against average daily deposits. Daily payments are available on request, but they are not our preferred payment method.
Now the only question that matters: how much can leave this account every banking day without breaking it? The file carries no other position, its weakest normal week runs close to its average, and the remittance is set at 12% of average daily deposits — $600 a day. That share, the specified percentage, is what makes the arrangement a purchase of a stream rather than an instalment plan, and 12% is a normal, fundable share of deposits by the measure the fourteen real reasons applications get declined sets out.
The term is now arithmetic: $117,000 ÷ $600 = 195 banking days, about nine and a quarter months at 21 banking days a month. Nine and a quarter months is what the debit implies.
Which is why asking for a shorter term is often asking for a different answer from the one intended. Run the same file at four months: $117,000 ÷ 84 banking days is $1,392.86 a day, or 27.9% of $5,000 of daily deposits. That holds the factor at 1.30 to isolate the debit. Priced as a four-month structure the file would carry a lower factor. At the 1.20 this library uses for four months, $108,000 ÷ 84 is $1,285.71 a day, 25.7% of deposits, still more than this account can carry. Neither is a tighter version of the same deal; a structure the deposits cannot carry is what produces a decline rather than an offer. The business is not weak; the structure it asked for is one its deposits cannot deliver. At twelve months, priced at 1.32 — the twelve-month rung of the factor-by-term ladder this site's worked examples are priced from — $118,800 ÷ 252 is $471.43 a day, 9.4% of deposits, with more cushion than the file needs.
Choosing a term is choosing a remittance share. The months on the page are a quotient. Ask what percentage of your average daily deposits the debit represents, add every existing position to it, and judge the offer on that.
The term is an estimate, and an estimate is allowed to be wrong. Derived from projected receipts, it lengthens when revenue misses — the mechanism working, not a penalty and not a default. What must not happen is the debit holding still while revenue falls.
Sizing and affordability are different constraints, and the smaller binds. How much a business can actually borrow works a file where they disagree.
Out of revenue, until the total payback has been delivered, through one of three collection structures — and the difference between them is not cosmetic: it decides whether a slow Tuesday is a smaller remittance or a returned item.
Fixed daily or weekly ACH. The most common form today. A set amount leaves the business account on each banking day, or once a week, sized so the advance retires over the expected term. It presents as a debit from the funder's own ACH originator name — not yours, and not one that looks like a supplier — which is why an existing position is obvious to the next underwriter reading your statements, disclosed or not. Its virtue is predictability; its defect is that it does not fall on its own when revenue does, which the reconciliation right exists to correct. Daily or weekly is a cash-timing question read off the statements rather than chosen by preference; daily versus weekly payments works through both divisors.
True holdback. A stated percentage of each day's card receipts, taken at the processor. The original structure and the most genuinely revenue-linked: a slow day is automatically a small remittance, with no request and no conversation. Card money settles in batches rather than at the swipe, so the remittance tracks the settlement date and a long weekend bunches several days into one. And refunds and chargebacks reduce a day's receipts, so a heavy refund day is a light remittance day — behaviour a fixed ACH debit cannot reproduce. A holdback needs card volume, so it fits retail, restaurants and clinics far better than a contractor invoicing on net-30.
Split funding via the processor. A variant of the holdback in which the processor divides each settlement between you and the funder before the money reaches your bank. One consequence is worth knowing before you agree: it makes changing processors a contractual event rather than a business decision — requiring consent, and in a badly drafted agreement an event of default on its own.
Two moments get confused here. On an advance, time is priced in once, at signing.
While an offer is being priced, the term is one of the inputs to the factor: a structure that keeps the money out longer generally carries a higher factor than a shorter one on the same file, so a longer structure accepted at the term sheet is a larger payback, not a free one.
After you sign, the payback amount is a fixed dollar figure. Stretching the term — by reconciliation, by a slow quarter, by a structure adjustment agreed on the phone — does not add a cent to what you owe. It changes only how hard the remittance presses on each week's cash.
Once signed, the payback amount is fixed, so stretching the term does not increase what you owe. The chart holds the factor at 1.30 so that only the term moves. What the term changes is the daily remittance — which is the number that decides whether the structure is survivable.
A $50,000 advance at a 1.30 factor, at roughly 21 banking days a month. Arithmetic, not an offer — actual terms depend on underwriting.
The same $65,000 comes back either way. At four months it takes roughly $774 out of every banking day; at eighteen months, roughly $172 — and those two numbers describe two different businesses. The chart holds the factor at 1.30 so only the term moves; priced at the term sheet, the four-month version would carry a lower factor and the eighteen-month a higher one, which changes the dollars but not the point. The four-month version takes $774 out of every banking day, which only an account with deposits many times that size can carry alongside its own costs. At eighteen months the same payback is $172 a day, and on an account small enough for that to be a heavy load, affordability has stopped being the binding constraint, because sizing at 80% to 150% of monthly revenue would cap that business well short of $50,000 and never offer it the advance at all. Stretching the term buys room on the payment, not on the amount.
If the business can carry $774 a day, the shorter term ends the obligation sooner and at the lower factor. If it cannot, the shorter term is not cheaper — it is the version that causes a missed remittance, then a second advance to cover the first, which is the trap that does the most damage in this industry.
So the question at the term sheet is not "what is the shortest term I can take" but what daily number can this business absolutely carry in its worst normal week? Size the term to that, not to optimism.
Three things before the first debit are worth doing rather than discovering.
The receiving account has to be the business's. Before money moves, the account title is read against the legal entity name on the agreement, and the routing and account numbers off a bank document rather than a typed form. A transposed digit is a returned wire and a lost day, caught here or not at all. The realistic same-day timeline sets out every stage between approval and the wire, and why the same-day cutoff is 2pm ET.
The debiting account should be the operating one. The remittance was sized from the deposits underwriting read. Take it instead from an account the revenue does not flow through — a savings account, a holding entity, one swept to zero every evening — and nothing in the agreement changes, but the debit is now calibrated against a balance that is not the one paying it.
Ask for the first debit date in writing, before you sign. An ACH debit is originated a banking day or two ahead of the day it settles, so the first one does not usually land on the day the wire arrives. That gap is an operational artefact rather than a grace period, and it means the first calendar month often holds fewer debits than those after it. Budget from the steady state, not month one. On a Full Send Funding advance, the first debit is one payment period after the start date — a week later on a weekly schedule, two weeks on bi-weekly, a month on monthly, the next banking day on daily — and the date is printed in your agreement.
One more piece of arithmetic belongs here, because it catches people in month three. A daily structure does not remove the same amount every month: 21 banking days is a convention that averages out holidays, so a month containing 22 of them takes 22 debits — on the $600-a-day file above, $600 more than the month you planned from.
A fixed daily debit against contingent revenue is a contradiction unless something resolves it, and reconciliation is what does: the right to have the remittance adjusted when revenue falls short of the estimate the debit was sized against, on request and on production of statements. Read it before you read the rate. Three questions answer whether it is real:
On a Full Send Funding advance the answers are written down. If your sales slow, you can ask us to adjust your payments to your actual revenue; we answer a request within 5 business days. We send a default notice only if the agreement is breached — never because sales slowed — and it gives you 10 business days to put it right.
Take the distributor above, delivering $117,000 at $600 a banking day against $5,000 of daily deposits. Deposits fall by a third, to $3,333.33 a day. Holding the same 12% share, the reconciled debit is $400 a day — and $117,000 ÷ $400 is 292.5 banking days, just under fourteen months instead of nine and a quarter. The remittance moved. The term moved. The total did not move at all. The funder waits more than four and a half months longer for the same money, which is the risk it was paid its discount to bear, so asking for a reconciliation is not asking a favour. The same arithmetic on a restaurant file, beside the clause language that decides it, is in the anatomy of a merchant cash advance agreement.
Advances are legal throughout the United States, documented as purchases of future receivables. A purchase is not a loan, and state interest-rate ceilings are written about loans, which is the commercial reason the structure exists and the honest answer to why it prices as it does. But the label on the cover page is not automatically the characterisation a court will accept. Where the question has been litigated, courts have looked past the document to the substance, and the analysis has converged on three factors: whether the reconciliation provision is meaningful, whether the term is genuinely open rather than a fixed maturity, and whether the funder holds an absolute right to repayment if the business fails, including in bankruptcy.
In Davis v. Richmond Capital Group, LLC (N.Y. App. Div., First Department, 2021), claims that the agreements were loans subject to usury law were sustained on the strength of reconciliation provisions that were discretionary rather than meaningful, a funder that refused to permit reconciliation in practice, and the way daily payment rates had been set.[1] Courts increasingly ask not whether an agreement contains the three protections but whether they function — which is why reconciliation is a structural term rather than a customer-service one.
This describes how these questions have generally been analysed and is not legal advice. Characterisation is fact-specific and varies by state; the agreement you sign and current law in your jurisdiction control.
Separately from characterisation, disclosure is tightening, in a direction we support. Eleven states now require commercial financing providers to give a standardized cost disclosure before signing: five — Utah, Georgia, Florida, Missouri and Louisiana — require dollar figures, and Utah, Georgia and Missouri name the total dollar cost; two — New York[2] and California[3] — also require an estimated annual percentage rate. Commercial financing disclosure laws by state sets out each one and carries a point worth taking into any offer: every statute whose threshold that survey read switches off above a per-transaction ceiling, from $250,000 in Connecticut to $2,500,000 in New York, so a larger advance can fall outside a state's law entirely. Where no statute applies, the absence of a form is a fact about the law rather than about the price. Every offer we make states the total payback amount in plain dollars up front, in every state, whether or not the state requires it.
Two things we do not do on deals up to $2 million, worth asking any funder about directly: we do not file a UCC-1 lien against the business, and our agreements contain no confession of judgment. Both clauses are common in this industry, and both materially change what a bad outcome looks like — a confession of judgment most of all, because it is consent to a judgment entered without a lawsuit.
Applying with us does not: the application uses a soft credit pull only, which leaves no mark. Full Send Funding does not run a hard credit inquiry at any stage.
Repayment usually does neither harm nor good. Most advance providers do not report payment history to the consumer credit bureaus, so retiring an advance cleanly does not build a score the way an installment loan can. Full Send Funding does not report this funding to the commercial bureaus by default. Reporting is available on request rather than automatically — if you want the tradeline, ask before funding and we will tell you what we can report. If a business credit file is the goal, it takes deliberate steps, and we have written out the sequence.
A personal guarantee is a separate question from a credit pull. Most advances carry one, and in a well-drafted advance it guarantees your conduct rather than payment — the difference is often a single word and it matters enormously. Ours is a performance guarantee, signed by every owner of 20% or more: a promise that the business will perform the agreement honestly — deposits stay in the agreed account, nothing is diverted, the business is not closed or sold to dodge the remittance, and the information given is accurate — not a promise to repay if the business genuinely fails.
Four endings, and only one is planned for.
Delivered in full. The last debit is almost never a whole one: the final remittance is whatever remains. Ask for written confirmation that the purchased amount has been delivered and the ACH authorisation revoked, then check the next statement to confirm nothing further presented. If a UCC-1 was filed, ask for the termination rather than waiting for it to lapse — a stale filing blocks the next facility long after the money is repaid. On deals up to $2 million, we file none.
Renewed. The phone rings well before the last debit, because renewals rather than first advances are where a funder's economics live, and a clean first cycle does produce better terms. Read that offer carefully rather than gratefully: the balance rolled into it is remaining payback, not remaining principal, and the new factor applies to all of it. How funding renewals work has the arithmetic.
Paid off early. The purchased amount is the purchased amount unless the document provides otherwise. Ours are structured deal by deal rather than by a standard schedule: some agreements forgive all of the remaining cost, some half of it, some carry a custom prepayment step-down, on some renewals the outstanding balance is forgiven, and some carry no saving, so paying early settles the full remaining balance. There is never a prepayment fee: paying early never costs more than paying on schedule. Ask in the form "if I deliver the balance in full at day 90, what do I owe in dollars", and require the answer in the agreement rather than an email.
Falling behind. The ending nobody budgets for, where the order of operations decides how expensive it gets. Call before a payment is missed rather than after: a reconciliation request is a normal event, while a returned remittance is read by the next underwriter as a default in progress. What to do first when a payment is at risk sets out the sequence.
Where an advance earns its cost:
What it costs you in return:
Where it is the wrong tool:
The obvious answer is wrong in one common case. A business with a real bank relationship is told to wait for the cheap money, and usually that is right — but not when the opportunity is both priced and dated, because then the comparison is not the advance against the bank line but the advance against not doing the thing at all. Put the margin on the opportunity beside the total cost in dollars. The offer comparison tool puts competing offers on one basis.
For a given file and term the factor is read out of the statements and is not haggled the way a rate is; what moves at the term sheet is the amount, the remittance share and with it the term, the cadence, the debit day and the reconciliation language. Before signing anything — ours or anyone's — confirm eight things in the document:
Those eight are questions for the document. The questions for the company offering it — who funds the advance, what it charges, what happens when sales slow and whether you are told why on a decline — are in how to choose a merchant cash advance company.
We fund $5,000 to $10 million against monthly revenue of $10,000 or more, with a decision within 24 business hours and, on deals up to $2 million, funding within 24 hours of approval — one to three business days end to end. Same-day funding is possible on a clean file submitted before 2pm ET. Qualification starts at four months in business and four months of business bank statements, checking options uses a soft credit pull only, and on deals up to $2 million we approve 90% of complete applications that meet our requirements.
If a word in an offer is doing work you cannot see, the funding glossary defines every term this library uses, and the factor rate to APR converter puts a factor on a comparable basis with your numbers rather than ours.
Read more on merchant cash advances and revenue-based financing, see how underwriting actually sizes an offer, or apply once and let underwriting price every structure you qualify for.
The remittance figures are derived, not surveyed. The daily-debit chart divides the $65,000 payback on a $50,000 advance at a 1.30 factor across terms of four to eighteen months at 21 banking days a month, holding the factor fixed so that only the term moves: the four-month figure is $65,000 ÷ 84 ≈ $774 a day and the eighteen-month figure $65,000 ÷ 378 ≈ $172. The worked distributor file takes $105,000 a month of deposits over 21 banking days, a $90,000 advance at a 1.30 factor, and a remittance of 12% of average daily deposits. The four-month and reconciled cases each vary one input — the term, or the deposits — and the four-month case is also repriced at the 1.20 factor this library uses for that term; the twelve-month case is priced at 1.32, the twelve-month rung of the factor-by-term ladder the site's worked examples are priced from. The chart's values are recomputed by the site's arithmetic audit; each prose figure is shown with its arithmetic, or the inputs it is derived from, in the sentence that states it.
The legal characterisation section states the three-factor analysis as New York's Appellate Division applied it in the decision cited, and the disclosure section states the New York and California statutes from their primary texts; its range of per-transaction ceilings, $250,000 in Connecticut to $2,500,000 in New York, is quoted from the site's own state-by-state survey rather than from the statutes. Both are described in general terms: characterisation is fact-specific and varies by state, and this article is information rather than legal advice.
The structural descriptions — how each remittance mechanism behaves in a bad week, which clauses to read first — are the firm's own underwriting practice stated from the funder's side of the table.
A funder pays you a lump sum today in exchange for a fixed, larger amount of your future revenue — $50,000 for $65,000, say, set by a factor rate of 1.30. That larger amount is then collected automatically, usually as a fixed daily or weekly ACH debit from the business account, or as a percentage of card receipts, until the purchased amount has been delivered. There is no interest accruing on a balance; the total was fixed on day one.
It is documented as a purchase of future receivables rather than a loan, and that distinction carries real consequences: no interest accrues over time, repayment is contingent on revenue arriving, and there is no maturity date in the way a loan has one. But the label on the document does not settle it. Where the question has been litigated, courts have examined three factors — whether the reconciliation provision is meaningful, whether the term is genuinely open rather than fixed, and whether the funder has an absolute right to repayment if the business fails — and have looked at whether those protections function in practice rather than merely appear in the agreement. Characterisation is fact-specific and varies by state.
The share of each day’s card receipts a funder takes at the processor — also called the retrieval rate — in the original form of the product. A 12% holdback on a $4,000 day is $480; on a $1,200 day it is $144. Because it moves with sales automatically, it is the most genuinely revenue-linked structure — but it requires card volume, so it fits retail, restaurants and clinics far better than a contractor invoicing on net-30.
It depends on the moment. While an offer is being priced, yes: the term is one of the inputs to the factor, and a structure that keeps the money out longer generally carries a higher factor than a shorter one on the same file. After signing, no, and this surprises most operators. The payback amount is fixed, so stretching the term through reconciliation or a slow quarter does not add to what you owe the way extra months add interest on a loan. What changes is the daily remittance: the same $65,000 is about $774 a banking day over four months and about $172 over eighteen. Choose the structure your worst normal week can carry, not the shortest one on offer.
That is what the reconciliation clause is for. A well-drafted agreement lets you have the remittance adjusted when actual revenue falls short of the estimate the debit was based on, on request and on production of statements. Read that clause before you read the rate, and check three things: whether reconciliation is available on request or only at the funder’s discretion, what you must produce and how quickly they must respond, and whether a correctly reconciled slow period counts as a default. It should not. On a Full Send Funding advance: If your sales slow, you can ask us to adjust your payments to your actual revenue; we answer a request within 5 business days.
You can always retire it early, but it does not automatically save money the way prepaying a loan does — the purchased amount was fixed at signing, so unless the agreement provides for a discount, early payoff means delivering the same total sooner. Ask specifically whether early payoff reduces the payback amount, get the answer in the document rather than in conversation, and treat a vague reply as a no. At Full Send Funding, early payoff is structured deal by deal rather than by a standard schedule: some agreements forgive all of the remaining cost, some half of it, some carry a custom prepayment step-down, on some renewals the outstanding balance is forgiven, and some carry no saving, so paying early settles the full remaining balance. There is never a prepayment fee: paying early never costs more than paying on schedule. Whichever applies to yours is set out in writing before you sign.
Yes, throughout the United States. Because an advance is a commercial purchase of future receivables rather than a consumer loan, it is not governed by consumer-lending rules such as state usury caps, though courts have let usury claims proceed against agreements whose reconciliation right was discretionary rather than meaningful. Regulation is tightening in a direction we support: eleven states now require a standardized cost disclosure before signing. Utah, Georgia, Florida, Missouri and Louisiana require dollar figures, and Utah, Georgia and Missouri name the total dollar cost; New York and California also require an estimated annual percentage rate. We state the total payback in plain dollars up front in every state, whether or not the state requires it.
Applying with us does not — we use a soft credit pull only, which leaves no mark. Repayment usually does neither harm nor good, because most advance providers do not report payment history to the consumer credit bureaus, so retiring an advance cleanly does not build a score the way an installment loan can. Full Send Funding does not report this funding to the commercial bureaus by default, so repaying it does not build a business credit file on its own. Reporting is available on request rather than automatically — if you want the tradeline, ask before funding and we will tell you what we can report. Building a business credit file otherwise takes deliberate steps beyond repaying an advance.
The advantages are access and fit: an advance qualifies on revenue rather than on collateral and a long credit history, its cost is fixed in dollars at signing and does not grow with time, and it earns that cost when an opportunity is time-boxed and its margin clears the cost, or as a bridge while credit rules out cheaper products. The disadvantages are that it costs more than a bank loan of the same size and term, a fixed debit does not fall on its own when sales do (relief comes from reconciliation, on request), it invites stacking, and it carries a personal guarantee: ours comes from every owner of 20% or more and, on an advance, covers performance rather than payment.
The total payback in dollars rather than the factor rate; the exact debit amount and frequency against your worst normal week; the reconciliation clause; any fees taken out of the wire; how early payoff is treated; whether a UCC-1 lien will be filed and whether it is blanket or specific; whether the agreement contains a confession of judgment; and what the personal guarantee actually guarantees — conduct, or payment. On deals up to $2 million we file no UCC-1 and use no confession of judgment, and on an advance our guarantee covers performance, not payment.
From the bank statements, before the term is discussed. Total deposits divided by banking days gives average daily deposits, and the remittance is set at a share of that figure which the account can carry alongside anything already debiting it, then tested against the weakest normal week — on an uneven account that week, not the average, sets it. On a business depositing $105,000 a month — $5,000 across 21 banking days — a debit set at 12% of deposits is $600 a day. How large a combined share an account can carry is judged against the whole file rather than a fixed cut-off. The term is then the quotient: a $117,000 purchased amount at $600 a day is 195 banking days, about nine and a quarter months.
No, and that is a structural feature rather than a drafting quirk. A loan has a maturity date on which the last payment falls. An advance has a purchased amount and a rate of delivery, and the expected term is simply one divided by the other — a projection from your revenue, not a promise in the document. If receipts run below the estimate the delivery takes longer; if they run above it, it finishes sooner. A genuinely fixed repayment date is one of the things courts look at when deciding whether an agreement is really a purchase or a disguised loan.
Usually not on the day the money arrives. An ACH debit is originated a banking day or two before it settles, so the first remittance typically presents shortly after funding rather than the same day. Ask for the exact first debit date in writing before you sign, because it is an operational detail rather than a term of the deal and it is the one people are surprised by. On a Full Send Funding advance it is one payment period after the start date — a week later on a weekly schedule — and the date is printed in the agreement. One practical consequence: the first calendar month of an advance often contains fewer debits than every month that follows, so budget from the steady state rather than from month one.
Under split funding the card processor divides each settlement between you and the funder before the money reaches your bank, so the remittance moves with card volume automatically. A fixed ACH debit takes a set amount from the business account on each banking day or each week, whatever sales did. The practical difference is what happens in a slow week: a split falls on its own, while a fixed debit falls only if reconciliation is requested and granted. The trade is control — a split arrangement usually makes changing card processors a contractual event needing the funder's consent.
Travis Yule worked in business funding before starting Full Send Funding in 2021, and has more than five years in business funding in all. He leads the company from Middle Grove, New York, and writes about working capital from the underwriting side of the table — what the numbers actually have to say before a business gets funded.