The broker called the transaction a renewal. The funder preferred top-up. The agreement itself, on its first page, recorded a new purchase of future receivables. A lawyer reading all three documents would reach for a fourth word: refinancing, at a price the original advance never carried, dressed as fresh working capital.
Renewals are the engine of the MCA business, and the industry does not hide this from itself. Once a merchant has repaid some portion of an advance, the funder or the broker returns with an offer: retire the remaining balance, take new money, sign a new agreement covering both. The pitch arrives wrapped in the language of benefit, more capital, a fresh start, one simple payment. What the merchant signs is a refinancing of a balance that was priced once already (paid for once already, if we are being exact), now priced again at a fresh factor rate.
The mechanics are plain once you set them on paper. Take a business that accepted a $100,000 advance at a 1.40 factor rate, which obligated it to repay $140,000. Six months in, the business has repaid $80,000, and $60,000 remains. The broker proposes a renewal: a new $120,000 advance at a 1.35 factor rate, of which $60,000 retires the old balance and $60,000 arrives as working capital. The repayment obligation on the new agreement comes to $162,000.
Hold those two figures next to each other. The business received $60,000 it did not have before, and it committed to repay $162,000, of which $60,000 did nothing but replace the old balance. That leaves $102,000 as the price of $60,000 in new funds: an effective cost of 70% on the net new money, collected through daily withdrawals over the following six to twelve months. A 1.35 factor rate sounds modest at the kitchen table. The effective rate on the money that reached the account is the figure that should govern the decision, and it almost never gets computed.
The Fee on Money You Never Receive
The inflation has a single source: the factor rate applies to the full funded amount, and the payoff portion counts as funded even though the merchant never touches it. In the example above, the funder charges its fee on the $60,000 that travels straight back to the funder, which means the business pays a premium to refinance the funder's own receivable. The broker collects a commission on the full amount as well, payoff included. A broker paid this way has every reason to propose a renewal at the earliest plausible moment, and most do. I have read renewal files where the outreach began before the first advance reached its halfway point.
And one renewal rarely stays one. A business that renews three times across eighteen months may have collected $150,000 in actual new capital while obligating itself to repay $350,000 or more, each layer charging a fee on the layer beneath it. Whether any single renewal in that chain looked unreasonable at signing is a fair question, and I do not have a tidy answer; each one resembles the last. The chain is what ruins the business, not the link.
Top-Ups and the Net New Capital Problem
A top-up is a renewal with a larger check attached: the new advance exceeds the payoff, so the merchant sees additional money and hears a different sales script. The economics underneath do not move. The factor rate still applies to the full funded amount, the effective cost on the net new portion still runs above the stated rate, and the broker still collects a full commission on a transaction that is mostly old debt under a new caption. There are funders who handle this honestly, though the list is shorter than the industry claims.
Many funders run the outreach on a schedule. When repayment crosses a set threshold, typically 50% to 70% of the original advance, the file moves to a renewal desk and someone calls the merchant before the merchant has asked for anything. The timing is calculated. The call lands while the daily withdrawal is still squeezing the account, while the owner is still tired, and while new money sounds like relief rather than what the agreement will make it: a more expensive version of the debt already in place.
Evaluating a Renewal or Top-Up Offer
Run the arithmetic before any signature. Net new capital first: the total funded amount minus the payoff of the existing balance. Then the total repayment on the proposed agreement. Subtract the net new capital from the total repayment and you have the true cost; divide that cost by the net new capital and you have the effective percentage on the money that will land in your account. In most of the files we have reviewed, though the sample is ours and not a regulator's, that percentage exceeds the factor rate on the original deal, and the gap is not small.
Then annualize it. Take the daily payment and the projected payoff period, estimate an annual percentage rate on the net new funds, and set that figure beside a business line of credit, an SBA product, equipment financing, invoice factoring, whatever your bank will quote you in writing. The renewal will sit at or near the top of that list nearly every time. No broker performs this comparison for a client, and the commission structure explains the omission better than any conversation could.
An attorney or a financial advisor can read a renewal offer in minutes and tell you whether it improves your position or erodes it. The consultation costs a fraction of the premium hiding in the offer, and a first conversation assumes nothing; it is where the diagnosis begins. Most owners do not place that call until the second or third renewal. I understand why. The paperwork looks like the paperwork they have already survived once.
Stacked positions complicate the analysis, and the order in which you address them matters; on that subject, see our guide to prioritizing and settling stacked MCA positions.
Reading an MCA Offer Before Signature
Every offer arrives urgent. Approval took an afternoon, the summary fits on a single page, and the agreement behind it runs to forty. Whatever the summary left out, the forty pages remember.
