Which funding products does this apply to?

Merchant Cash Advance, MCA Reverse Consolidation. 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 A market average assembled from lenders who do not publish prices is a guess with a decimal point on it.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.

What a reverse consolidation costs and what it relieves

What a reverse consolidation costs, and what it actually relieves

Both sides of the trade are computable before you sign. Here is the arithmetic, with the money you keep during the crunch set against the money you pay after it.

By Find Me Funders research desk Updated 14 September 2026 1088 words 5 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.

The pitch is a lower weekly payment. The question the pitch does not answer is what the lower payment costs across the whole arrangement. Both numbers can be worked out in advance from figures you already have.

The worked example

Illustrative only — every figure here is invented to demonstrate the arithmetic, not taken from any funder's terms.

Where you start.Three advances debiting a combined 1,500 a day, five days a week: 7,500 a week. Combined remaining balances of 180,000. At that rate they finish in 24 weeks.

What is offered.A reverse consolidation that deposits 7,500 a week into your account for those 24 weeks — 180,000 in total, exactly covering the daily debits — and debits you 5,000 a week until it has collected 250,000, which takes 50 weeks.

What you keep, and when

Still the same illustration.

Weeks 1 to 24.The deposits cover the daily debits, so the only net money leaving is the new funder's 5,000 a week instead of 7,500. You keep 2,500 a week. Over 24 weeks that is 60,000 of cash retained during the period you were struggling.

Weeks 25 to 50.The original advances are finished and the deposits have stopped, but the 5,000 a week continues for 26 more weeks. That is 130,000 paid out in a period where, under the original schedule, you would have owed nothing.

The net.130,000 paid later against 60,000 kept now, for a total cost of 70,000. Check it the other way: under the original schedule you would have paid 180,000. Under this arrangement you pay 180,000 of daily debits plus 250,000 of new debits, less the 180,000 deposited, which is 250,000. The difference is the same 70,000.

So the exchange rate in this example is 130,000 later for 60,000 now. Whether that is worth it is a judgement. It is not a judgement anyone can make without those two numbers.

Run it on your own figures

You need four inputs, all of which you have:

The combined daily or weekly debit you are paying now.
The combined remaining balances, from a payoff or balance statement for each advance.
The new funder's weekly debit and the total it will collect.
The deposit amount and how many weeks it runs.

Then compute: weekly cash retained times weeks of deposits equals relief. Total new debits minus total deposits equals cost. Compare the two, and note the date the deposits stop, because that date is the beginning of the hard part.

When it buys real time

The arrangement works when three things are true. First, there is a specific, dated reason to expect cash flow to improve — a season that reliably arrives, a contract already signed, a receivable already earned. Second, the relief is large enough to matter against the actual shortfall. Sixty thousand across six months is meaningful if your gap is, say, 2,000 a week and useless if it is 9,000. Third, the business can carry the new payment after the existing advances finish and the deposits stop, out of ordinary operating cash.

If all three hold, you have bought time with a known price attached, and that is a legitimate trade.

When it extends the fall

The arrangement fails when the relief is smaller than the shortfall, when the improvement it depends on is a hope rather than a date, or when the payment after week 24 was never affordable in the first place. In that case what has happened, on the illustration above, is that the total owed has increased by 70,000, one more funder has a claim and a guarantee, no cheaper product will touch you while the stack is visible in your bank statements, and the point of failure has moved out by a few months.

It also fails on a shorter fuse than most people expect, because the deposits stop before anything else does. Miss the new debit and you are covering the full original load immediately, out of a business that is now smaller.

Two ways the arithmetic gets worse than the illustration

The worked example assumes the deposits and the original debits line up exactly. They frequently do not.

The originals run longer than the deposits.Suppose the existing advances take 30 weeks to finish rather than 24, because one funder reconciles you down and that schedule stretches. The deposits stop at week 24 regardless. For those six weeks you cover $7,500 a week of original debits out of your own cash and the new funder's $5,000 — $12,500 a week, from a business that took this deal because $7,500 was too much.

The deposits stop early.Read what obliges the new funder to keep depositing and what happens if it does not. Had deposits ceased at week 18 in the same illustration, you would have received $135,000 of deposits and would still owe the full $250,000 — a cost of $115,000 rather than $70,000, in a business that never got the relief it paid for.

Both risks live in the contract. Ask for the deposit obligation as a stated schedule with amounts and dates, and ask what remedy you have if a deposit is missed.

What to check in the document before the arithmetic matters

Is the deposit obligation unconditional, or subject to the funder's discretion or to conditions you could breach?
Does the new funder pay off the old positions, or fund you to service them? These are completely different transactions. In the second, the old agreements and their guarantees stay live and you remain the party in default if a debit fails.
Is there a new personal guarantee, and does it cover performance as well as payment?
What happens on one missed debit — acceleration of the whole collected amount, default fees, the guarantee?
Does the agreement stop you dealing with the existing funders directly? Some do, which removes the cheaper option below before you have tried it.
What gets filed? Another blanket UCC over receivables already pledged is a priority contest waiting for a bad quarter.

The comparison worth making first

Before signing anything, ask each existing funder for a payoff figure and for whatever adjustment their contract allows — a reconciliation if revenue has genuinely fallen, or a temporary reduced debit. Those conversations cost nothing and take a week. If they produce 1,500 a week of relief at no cost, that changes what the 70,000 in the example is actually buying.