# My Issues ## 1. Soft credit inquiry policy was not verified > “Requesting options should be simple and should not damage the applicant’s credit.” > “Applying begins with a soft inquiry and does not affect the score. Explain whether and when a hard inquiry can occur.” The client material did not confirm the soft-inquiry policy or explain when a hard inquiry may occur. The brief treated the soft inquiry as required, so I stated that the initial application uses one. I added `{{APPROVED_HARD_CREDIT_INQUIRY_POLICY}}` for the missing hard-pull details. To complete this properly, we need confirmation of: - Whether every initial application uses only a soft inquiry - Whether a hard inquiry ever occurs - At what stage it occurs - Whether separate consent is required ## 2. The revenue minimums conflict > “Give the owner our real minimums in a compact checklist.” The general site facts say applicants need at least **$10,000 in monthly revenue**. The MCA-specific facts say businesses averaging at least **$7,500 in monthly sales over the previous three months** typically qualify. I used $7,500 because it was the product-specific figure, but the difference should be resolved. We need to know whether $7,500 is the MCA minimum, a typical qualification point, or an outdated figure. ## 3. No starting factor rate was provided > “At-a-glance view of our MCA: … Starting factor rate.” The client material gave a general factor-rate range of **1.1 to 1.5**, but did not state whether 1.1 can be promoted as the official “starting” rate. I listed the range rather than making a separate “starting at 1.1” claim. Confirmation that 1.1 is the advertised starting factor rate would satisfy the brief exactly. ## 4. The holdback range was missing > “For holdbacks, define the percentage, provide an approved typical range, and show why slower sales reduce the daily dollar amount.” No approved percentage holdback range was supplied. I explained the method using a clearly labeled 10% example and inserted `{{APPROVED_HOLDBACK_RANGE}}`. We need the minimum, maximum and typical holdback percentages Greenbox Capital actually offers. ## 5. The reconciliation policy was missing > “For fixed remittances, explain who that structure suits and how reconciliation works if actual revenue falls below the basis used at approval.” No actual reconciliation rules were provided. I explained the purpose of reconciliation but could not state eligibility, required proof, timing, calculation method or adjustment process. I inserted `{{APPROVED_RECONCILIATION_POLICY}}`. We need the agreement’s approved reconciliation terms and the customer process for requesting an adjustment. ## 6. The cost example was not based on an approved offer > “Then use one representative, approved offer to show…” No approved representative offer was supplied. I created an illustrative example using: - $50,000 advance - 1.25 factor rate - $62,500 purchased amount - 26-week collection period - $2,403.85 weekly remittance The math is correct, and the figures fall within the stated product ranges, but they were not provided or approved by the client. A real anonymized offer, or an approved standard example, would let us meet the brief properly. ## 7. The example could not show two exact sales levels under an approved structure > “Show the effect of two sales levels where mathematically appropriate.” Because the actual holdback range and an approved representative offer were missing, I did not tie the main cost example to two exact sales levels. Instead, I explained in a table how higher and lower sales affect percentage-based and fixed remittances. We need an approved percentage-based example with its holdback rate, expected sales and collection period to show exact results. ## 8. The complete fee structure and deduction timing were missing > “Name every fee that can affect the real proceeds or total cost.” The supplied facts listed: - A setup fee of at least $349 or 4% of the funding amount - A $75 US funding-disbursement fee The phrase “at least $349 or 4%” is not fully clear. I treated it as **4% with a $349 minimum**, but this needs confirmation. The material also did not say whether fees are deducted from the advance, added to the purchased amount or collected separately. Nor did it confirm that no other fees can apply. I inserted `{{APPROVED_FEE_DEDUCTION_TIMING_AND_COMPLETE_FEE_LIST}}`. We need a complete fee schedule, the exact setup-fee formula and an explanation of how each fee is collected. ## 9. The early-payoff discount terms were missing > “Finally, settle the early-payoff question… state our exact discount policy, if any.” The material says Greenbox Capital offers early-payoff discounts but gives no schedule, deadlines, formula or eligibility rules. I stated that discounts may apply and inserted `{{APPROVED_EARLY_PAYOFF_POLICY}}`. We need the exact discount amounts or calculation method and any conditions that can remove eligibility. ## 10. Card-processing document requirements were unclear > “Card-processing statements, if applicable.” The facts say applicants must accept debit and credit card payments, but do not confirm whether card-processing statements are always required. I listed them as documents Greenbox Capital “may also request.” We need to know when processing statements are mandatory and how many months must be provided. ## 11. Existing-advance approval rules were incomplete > “How existing advances and returned payments affect approval.” The client supplied limits for overdrafts, NSF events and negative-balance days, but did not state how an open MCA changes approval or whether second-position funding has added requirements. I advised applicants to disclose open advances and not stack funding, but could not give exact approval rules. We need limits on existing positions, balances, payment history and stacking. ## 12. Personal guarantee, UCC and collection rights were missing > “Explain, based on our agreement, the role of purchased receivables, any personal guarantee, and any UCC filing.” The material did not state whether Greenbox Capital requires a personal guarantee, files a UCC financing statement or has specific rights against guarantors. I explained that no pledged collateral does not mean no contractual protection and inserted `{{APPROVED_PERSONAL_GUARANTEE_UCC_AND_COLLECTION_TERMS}}`. We need the actual agreement terms covering guarantees, UCC filings, collection rights and which assets or parties may be reached after default. ## 13. Direct-funder and partner-use details were missing > “Also state whether we underwrite and fund directly. If we use partners for any product, explain that accurately.” The material did not say whether Greenbox Capital funds every MCA directly, uses funding partners, acts as a broker in some cases or charges broker fees. I inserted `{{APPROVED_DIRECT_FUNDER_AND_PARTNER_EXPLANATION}}`. We need the legal funding relationship, partner-use policy, broker-fee policy and identity of the post-funding account contact. ## 14. Hardship and missed-payment procedures were missing > “Tell the owner what to do before a payment bounces, what adjustments or support we can genuinely offer, and what rights the agreement gives us if remittances stop.” No hardship process, pause policy, adjustment options or missed-payment sequence was provided. I told the reader to contact the Funding Advisor before a return and request reconciliation, but I could not promise any specific relief. I inserted `{{APPROVED_HARDSHIP_AND_DEFAULT_PROCESS}}`. We need the actual options Greenbox Capital can offer, required documents, timing, returned-payment handling and default process. ## 15. Confession-of-judgment policy was missing > “Address the personal guarantee and confession-of-judgment question accurately.” The material did not say whether the agreement contains a confession of judgment or any similar judgment provision. I inserted `{{APPROVED_CONFESSION_OF_JUDGMENT_POLICY}}`. We need a direct yes-or-no answer, including any state-specific differences. ## 16. Credit-reporting practices were missing > “State whether successful remittances are reported and what events—such as collections or a judgment—could eventually appear on a credit record.” No reporting policy was supplied. I gave a general explanation but inserted `{{APPROVED_BUSINESS_AND_PERSONAL_CREDIT_REPORTING_POLICY}}` for the company-specific answer. We need to know: - Whether normal remittances are reported - Which business credit bureaus receive data - Whether personal bureaus receive data - What defaults, collections or judgments may be reported ## 17. State disclosure and licensing language was missing > “Use a current, legally approved list if naming states with commercial-financing disclosure laws.” > “The disclosures we provide in every state.” > “Licensing or registration statements.” No approved legal statement, registration details or state disclosure list was provided. I avoided naming individual disclosure-law states and used general language, then inserted `{{CURRENT_LEGALLY_APPROVED_DISCLOSURE_LANGUAGE}}`. We need legally reviewed language covering registrations, licenses, required state disclosures and which annualized cost figures are shown in each applicable state. ## 18. Some legal claims need legal approval > “Use current, legally reviewed language about state commercial-financing disclosure laws.” The page explains that a genuine MCA is a purchase of receivables, that conventional loan-rate caps may not apply in the same way and that regulators have challenged deceptive or abusive practices. These points follow the brief, but no approved legal copy was supplied. The final legal sections should be reviewed against Greenbox Capital’s agreement and current state law before publication. ## 19. Terms for other Greenbox Capital products were missing > “Then compare the MCA with the relevant products we actually offer, such as a working capital loan or line of credit.” The brief asked for amount, credit, speed and collateral comparisons, but no verified terms were provided for Greenbox Capital’s business loans or lines of credit. I inserted placeholders for: - Amount ranges - Credit minimums - Funding speeds - Collateral terms We need the current product names and approved terms for each product being compared. ## 20. Reviews and aggregate rating were missing > “Use four to six verified reviews, together with the real aggregate rating and review count.” No reviews, rating, count or approved review source were supplied. I inserted placeholders rather than inventing social proof. We need four to six approved verbatim reviews, plus each reviewer’s permitted name or identifier, business type where available, review date, source, current aggregate rating and review count. ## 21. The meaning of “70%–120% of approved sales” was unclear > “Advance range.” The client material says advances are “typically equal to 70%–120% of the approved business’s sales,” but it does not define the sales period. It could mean one month of sales, average monthly sales or another underwriting measure. I repeated the phrase as “Often 70%–120% of approved sales” without adding a timeframe. We need the exact sales period and calculation basis. ## 22. Funding-speed wording contains overlapping measures > “Fastest and typical decision time” and “Fastest and typical funding time.” The materials provide: - Decisions in 2–5 business hours - Funding in as little as one business day - Approval and deposit within 24 hours after selecting an option - A Funding Advisor response within one business hour It is unclear which times are fastest, typical or conditional. I used each where it best fit the process, but did not label a separate typical funding time because none was supplied. We need approved wording for the fastest and normal timelines, plus the cutoff times and conditions required to receive funds within one business day.