Stacking is a merchant taking an additional advance while an earlier one is still running, so two or more daily remittances draw on the same receipts. Funders object because it dilutes the receivables they purchased and raises default risk on a position already deployed. For brokers it matters because undisclosed positions are the fastest way to lose a submission and a funder relationship.
Stacking is the most loaded word in this industry and it describes something quite mundane: a merchant with more than one advance running at once.
A funder buys a share of future receipts. A second funder buying a share of the same receipts does not create new revenue — it divides what was already committed. The first funder underwrote a merchant whose receipts could carry one remittance and now has one carrying two.
Illustrative proportions. Nothing about the business changed across those three rows — only how much of its daily takings is already committed before it pays anyone else.
A merchant with one modest position and strong receipts taking a second, disclosed, at a price that reflects it, is an ordinary transaction. The problems are concentration and concealment rather than the number two.
What genuinely damages merchants is the fourth and fifth position, where remittances consume so much of the daily take that the business cannot operate — and each new advance exists largely to service the previous one. That pattern is visible in bank statements and it is what underwriters are scanning for.
A merchant taking an additional advance while an earlier one is still running, so two or more daily remittances draw on the same receipts. Funders object because it dilutes the receivables they purchased and raises default risk on a position already deployed.
No, but it is frequently restricted by contract. Many advance agreements limit additional financing while outstanding, some treat a new position as an event of default that can accelerate the balance, and some require notice or consent. Enforcement varies, and a clause existing is not the same as it being acted on.
There is no fixed number — it depends on how much of the daily receipts the existing remittances already consume. One or two disclosed positions on strong receipts is ordinary. The pattern that damages merchants is the fourth and fifth, where each new advance largely exists to service the previous one.
Yes, with disclosure and the right funder. Expect a higher factor and a smaller offer as arithmetic rather than negotiation, consider whether consolidation fits better, and place it with a funder that knowingly takes second and third positions instead of hoping one that does not will make an exception.
The bank statements. Daily or weekly debits to known funders are visible, and UCC filings are public. A position you disclosed is a pricing input; one the underwriter finds is a lost submission and a dent in your standing with them.
We will tell you straight up if we cannot help you. No commission deals, no free trials, no chasing you for three weeks.