The 60-second answer
A vintage in MCA usage is the calendar year a cohort of advances was originated. Funders track each vintage separately — its cumulative defaults, its renewal rate, its average ticket size, its industry mix. The performance of recent vintages is the single largest input into pricing decisions on new originations today.
In 2026, the active vintages on most funder books are 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025. They each have a different performance profile. A funder heavy in 2022 paper is repairing. A funder heavy in 2024 paper is confident. The mix shapes your factor rate.
How vintage tracking actually works inside a funder
When a deal closes, it's tagged with its origination month and year. From that moment, all monthly portfolio reports break performance out by vintage cohort. The typical report includes:
- Cumulative net losses for each vintage as a % of advances written.
- Default rate by month-on-book — the aging curve.
- Renewal take-up rate — what % of merchants in each vintage renewed.
- Realized yield versus underwritten yield.
- Charge-off recovery rate — what % of defaulted dollars were ultimately collected.
That report goes to the GP's risk committee, to the warehouse lender's monthly servicer report, and to the LP advisory committee. Each audience reads it with different objectives. The merchant rate sheet is set largely by what the risk committee sees.
The current vintage report card (mid-2026)
2022 vintage — the bad year
2022 advances were underwritten during a period of post-COVID merchant optimism but were then exposed to 2023 inflation, Fed rate hikes, and the small-business cash crunch. Cumulative net losses on the 2022 vintage industry-wide are running roughly 12–15% — significantly higher than the 8–10% underwritten loss assumption. Most major funders are either fully reserved against this vintage or still adding to reserves.
The merchant impact: any funder with heavy 2022 exposure is rebuilding capital and is more conservative on new originations than they otherwise would be. If you're being quoted by such a funder, expect tighter underwriting and a less competitive factor.
2023 vintage — the recovery year
2023 advances were originated under tighter underwriting standards because the 2022 experience was already visible. Cumulative net losses on the 2023 vintage are running roughly 9–11% — closer to underwritten expectations. Renewal take-up on 2023 paper has been notably high, which is a strong yield signal because renewals carry near-zero acquisition cost.
2024 vintage — the best-performing year so far
2024 was originated into a recovering small-business environment with the tightest underwriting since pre-COVID. As of mid-2026, the 2024 vintage is running at underwritten loss assumptions or slightly below. This is the cohort funders are most confident about — and it's the cohort whose strong performance is funding aggressive pricing on the current 2026 originations.
2025 vintage — early innings
Most 2025 paper is still in the first 9 months of life, which means default data is immature. Early indicators (NSF rates, first 60-day payment performance) are positive, but the real story doesn't show until months 5–7 of life. Funders are pricing 2026 originations partly on the assumption that 2025 will be at least as good as 2024.
How vintage shapes funder behavior toward you
If their recent vintage is performing well
- Pricing on new originations is competitive (closer to floor).
- Longer terms (12–15 month paper) become available again.
- Underwriting on borderline files gets a bit more flexible.
- Renewal offers come in with attractive discount structures.
If their recent vintage is underperforming
- Pricing tightens by 0.02–0.06 on the factor.
- Terms shorten by 60–90 days.
- Underwriting tightens on industries that contributed to the loss spike.
- Stacking policies tighten (more "no stacking" overlays).
- Renewal offers come in smaller or at less favorable terms.
Why vintage matters more for some funders than others
A funder's sensitivity to vintage performance depends on three things:
- Book concentration in any single vintage. A funder with 60% of capital in 2022 paper is much more exposed than one with capital spread evenly across four vintages.
- Warehouse lender covenants. Senior bank lines have covenants tied to cumulative net losses. A vintage breaching a covenant forces immediate underwriting tightening to protect the warehouse facility.
- LP renewal cycle. If the GP is currently raising the next fund, every vintage's performance is being scrutinized by prospective LPs. Funders mid-raise usually behave more conservatively to keep the headline numbers clean.
How to spot vintage stress externally
- Securitization deal performance. If a funder has an MCA-backed ABS in the market, Kroll/DBRS/Fitch ratings reports publish updated vintage loss data quarterly. Look for downgrade notes or "credit watch negative" actions.
- Industry chatter. When a funder's vintage is in trouble, brokers know within weeks. Asking your broker "is anyone tightening right now?" usually surfaces the list.
- Funder communications. A funder that suddenly publishes new "verticals we no longer fund" or "credit guidelines update" notices is responding to vintage stress. The communication is the signal even if the cause isn't named.
Vintage and macro overlay
Vintage performance doesn't happen in a vacuum. A bad vintage may be partly attributable to the operator's underwriting and partly to the macro environment that vintage hit. A funder being responsible about its vintage analysis distinguishes between the two. A funder that conflates them and overcorrects can end up under-pricing competitive merchants for two or three years too long, missing the recovery.
The merchant takeaway: a funder with discipline around vintage attribution is a better long-term partner. They'll re-loosen pricing when the data supports it. Funders that tighten reflexively and stay tight long after the cause has passed are partners you don't want.
What to ask
- How is your most recent vintage performing relative to underwritten expectations? A vague answer ("it's tracking well") is a yellow flag. A specific answer ("our 2024 vintage is running 90 bps below underwriting") is a strong sign of an operator who watches their book.
- What's the loss assumption built into the pricing you're offering me? This question forces the broker to engage with the underlying math.
- Has your underwriting changed in the last 90 days? A "yes" with no stated reason usually means a recent vintage went sour.
Frequently asked questions
- What is an advance vintage versus a fund vintage?
- Fund vintage is the year the underlying LP capital was raised. Advance vintage is the year a specific cohort of merchant cash advances was originated. A single 2022 fund may have a 2022 advance vintage, a 2023 advance vintage, and a 2024 advance vintage — three separate cohorts inside one fund.
- Why does advance vintage drive my rate this year?
- Because funders watch their vintage performance like a hawk. If the 2023 vintage is showing a higher default rate than expected, the funder is bracing for more losses through 2026 and will tighten new-merchant pricing to rebuild buffer. If 2023 is performing well, the funder has confidence to price aggressively.
- Which vintages are performing best right now?
- As of 2026 mid-year, the 2024 vintage is the best-performing in the industry — originated into improving small-business conditions and benefiting from tighter underwriting after the 2022-2023 default spike. The 2022 vintage is the worst-performing, hit by inflation, rate hikes, and tighter merchant cash flow.
- Can a single funder have a great 2024 vintage and a bad 2022 vintage?
- Yes, and most do. Each cohort is underwritten under different conditions and tracked separately. The funder's overall behavior toward you reflects the weighted-average performance of their active vintages. A funder with heavy 2022 exposure and light 2024 exposure prices tighter than one with the inverse.
- How do I read vintage performance externally?
- Securitization deals are the cleanest source — Kroll, DBRS, and Fitch publish ratings reports on MCA-backed ABS deals, and those reports include vintage-level cumulative net loss tables. Industry conferences (SFNet, MCA Conferences) also share aggregated vintage data. Brokers who write across many funders are the third source.