The short answer
The useful measure is not the number of positions but the share of daily receipts they already consume. One position on a strong file is ordinary and two is placeable; beyond that the field narrows sharply, and a merchant whose existing remittances take a large slice of daily takings is close to unfundable regardless of how many separate agreements produce them.
Brokers ask this as a counting question and funders answer it as an arithmetic one. Three small positions on a business doing $200,000 a month is a different file from two large ones on a business doing $40,000, and the count is the same.
| Positions | Typical effect |
|---|---|
| 0 | Full field, best pricing |
| 1 | Ordinary. Most funders unaffected |
| 2 | Placeable, narrower field, worse pricing |
| 3 | Specialist funders, short terms, expensive |
| 4+ | Very limited, and usually the wrong product |
Do the arithmetic instead
- Add up every daily and weekly remittance across the statements.
- Express it as a share of average daily deposits.
- Add what your proposed advance would take.
- If the total leaves the business without enough to operate, it does not matter what any funder says — the deal defaults.
What to do with a two-position file
Disclose both up front. A funder who finds a position in the statements after you told them about one reads every subsequent submission from you differently, and the cost of that lasts far longer than the deal. Position the file to funders who write second and third position deliberately rather than hoping it slips through.