Which funding products does this apply to?

Merchant Cash Advance, Working Capital, Revenue-Based Financing. Each has its own page listing the funders in this directory that offer it and what each one publishes about its terms.

Are the figures here quotes?

No. Every worked example is labelled illustrative and exists to show the arithmetic. What a particular lender charges is on that lender's page, where it publishes it at all.

The Find Me Funders research desk. Some drafting is AI-assisted, and every page that is says so at the top, including whether a person has checked its claims yet.

How do I know a figure here is right?

Where a page carries the green notice, its claims were checked against the sources listed at the end and a reviewer is named. Where it carries the amber one, nobody has verified it yet and you should confirm anything you plan to act on.

Are the examples real deals?

No. Every worked example is labelled illustrative and exists to show the arithmetic. What any particular lender charges is on that lender's page, where it publishes it.

Why do you never say what a typical rate is?

Because we cannot source it. A market average assembled from lenders who do not publish prices is a guess with a decimal point on it. Where a lender publishes a figure, we show that figure and say where it came from.

Is this financial or legal advice?

No. It is general information about how these products work. Outcomes depend on your contract and your state, and a lawyer or accountant licensed where you are is the person to ask about your situation.

Can I reuse this content?

Quote a paragraph with a link back. Do not republish whole articles.

Negotiating with two funders at the same time

Offer both the same arithmetic on the same day, make each offer conditional on the other, and assume everything you say to one reaches the other.

By Find Me Funders research desk Updated 14 September 2026 969 words 4 min read

Drafted with AI assistance. Not yet independently checked. Nobody has verified the claims on this page against a source, so treat the figures and legal points as a starting point rather than as settled, and confirm anything you are about to act on. How we check things.

Run both conversations in parallel, from one set of numbers, with both offers conditional on each other. Sequential negotiation with multiple creditors fails in a specific and predictable way: the first agreement consumes the relief, the second creditor declines, and you have given away your only concession for nothing.

Start with the pool

Before you talk to anyone, compute the total amount available for debt service each month. One number, from bank statements, honestly derived.

Illustrative only —two positions. Position A: $31,500 remaining, $620 per business day. Position B: $18,500 remaining, $420 per business day.

Combined daily: $1,040
Combined monthly outflow: about $22,537
Monthly cash the business can actually support for debt service: $13,000
Gap: $9,537 a month

That $13,000 is the pool. Everything you offer comes out of it, and offering more than it in total is how a restructure fails in month three.

Allocate pro rata

The defensible allocation is by share of outstanding balance.

Total owed: $50,000
A's share: 31,500 ÷ 50,000 = 63% → $8,190 a month → about $378 a business day
B's share: 18,500 ÷ 50,000 = 37% → $4,810 a month → about $222 a business day

Check the term this produces. At $378 a day, A's $31,500 clears in about 83 business days. At $222 a day, B's $18,500 clears in about 83 business days. Both finish together, which is not a coincidence — pro rata allocation by balance produces equal terms — and it is a point worth making to both creditors, because each can see it is not being treated worse than the other.

Pro rata is not the only defensible rule. Allocating by remaining term, or by remittance share, produces different splits. What matters is that you use one rule, apply it to both, and can explain it in a sentence.

The rules of running both at once

Same information, same day.Send both the same package: statements, debt schedule showing both positions, thirteen-week forecast, and the proposal. Each creditor should see that the other exists and what the other is being offered.

Make each offer conditional.Write it into the proposal: "This proposal is conditional on the holder of the other position agreeing to equivalent terms. If they do not, this proposal is withdrawn and we will revert to you with a revised plan." This single sentence prevents the failure mode described at the top. It also tells each creditor that the other is not getting a better deal behind their back.

Never offer one more than the rule gives.The moment you deviate, you have to defend the deviation to the other, and you usually cannot.

Assume everything is shared.Funders in this market talk to each other, and brokers talk to everyone. Two proposals with different numbers is the fastest way to lose both.

Keep one written record.Same email thread structure, same attachments, same figures. If you have to reconstruct who was told what, you will need it.

What each creditor is actually deciding

Not whether they like you. Whether this proposal produces more recovery than the alternative available to them.

A first-position creditor with a UCC-1 on all assets and a personal guarantee has a different alternative from a second-position creditor behind them. The junior creditor often has more reason to agree, because enforcement by the senior creditor leaves them with little. Say that out loud, politely, with the position sizes in front of you.

Both are also weighing whether your numbers are credible. A proposal that allocates every available dollar and leaves the business with no buffer is not credible, because it will fail. Build in visible headroom and point to it.

The sequence

Week one. Pull statements. Build the debt schedule and the thirteen-week model. Compute the pool and the pro-rata split.
Week one, same day. Send identical packages to both, each naming the other position and the conditional structure.
Week two. Take calls. Answer the same four questions for both: what happened, why it ends, what else you owe, what you are contributing.
Week two or three. Get both responses in writing before agreeing to either.
Week three. If both agree, execute both documents on the same day if you can, and check that neither document contains terms inconsistent with the other.
Ongoing. Report to both on the same schedule. A monthly one-paragraph update with the bank balance and the payment record costs nothing and materially reduces the chance of a surprise.

What to have ready

Payoff quotes for both positions. A debt schedule that includes every obligation, not only the two you are negotiating. A thirteen-week model with the trough visible. The pro-rata arithmetic written out so you can show it. And a decision, made in advance, about what you will do if one agrees and the other does not — that scenario has its own arithmetic and you should not be working it out on a call.

What to refuse

Refuse to agree with one creditor before you have the other's written position. Refuse to sign a document that contains a covenant you cannot satisfy because of the other agreement — for example, a restriction on payments to other creditors that conflicts with the deal you just made. Read both documents side by side before executing either.

And refuse to conceal one position from the other. It is on the bank statements you are handing over.

What each creditor may do, what their documents contain, and what a restriction on payments to other creditors means all depend on the specific agreements and on the state law they select. This describes how these negotiations usually run and is not legal advice; a multi-creditor workout is worth professional help.