MCA funding for businesses with multiple locations.

The entity-structure decision drives everything

Multi-location MCA funding starts with one question: who is the legal entity that will sign the contract? The answer determines maximum advance size, factor rate, cross-default exposure, and whether one slow store can drag down the rest.

Three common structures, with very different funding profiles:

• Single LLC, multiple locations: All stores operate under one EIN with one consolidated bank account. Funders underwrite the entity as a whole. Easiest to fund, highest aggregate amount.
• Holdco + subsidiary LLCs: A parent LLC owns each location-specific LLC. Funders can underwrite at either layer; most prefer the parent for size and the sub for isolation. Most flexible but requires more documentation.
• Independent LLCs per location: Each store has its own EIN, bank account, and operating agreement. No legal parent. Funders treat each as a standalone business. Most isolation, lowest per-deal amount, highest aggregate cost.

Single-LLC structure: aggregate revenue, aggregate funding

When all locations operate under one LLC, the funder reads one consolidated bank statement. A 5-location restaurant group doing $80K/month per store shows $400K in monthly deposits. The funder underwrites that $400K figure exactly like a single restaurant doing $400K/month.

Maximum advance typically lands at 100–125% of monthly revenue, so $400–500K on one deal. Factor rates trend toward A or B+ paper because:

• Higher absolute deposits attract better-tier funders
• 5 locations diversify revenue risk (one slow store doesn't kill the deal)
• Multi-year track record (the 5th location is rarely brand-new)
• Bigger deal sizes get pricing discounts — most funders publish tier pricing

The trade-off: one default obligation against the whole entity. If the deal goes sideways, the funder can pursue cash from every location simultaneously. There's no isolation.

Holdco structure: the best of both worlds (and the most paperwork)

The cleanest multi-location structure is a parent holdco that owns each location-specific LLC. Each sub keeps its own bank account, payroll, and books. The parent consolidates.

For MCA funding, this gives you options:

• Fund at the parent: Get one large deal underwritten on consolidated revenue. Personal guarantee is at the parent level. All cash from all subs is in scope.
• Fund at one sub: Isolate the deal to a specific location. Smaller advance, but the other locations are untouched. Useful for renovating or expanding one store.
• Fund at multiple subs in parallel: Run 2–3 smaller deals across different locations. Funders rarely allow this with the same funder, but you can mix funders if each deal is at a different sub.

Funders will ask for: consolidated financials (parent), individual P&Ls per sub, organization chart, operating agreements for each entity, and personal financial statement of the holdco owner. Setup-heavy but produces the most flexibility.

Independent LLCs: maximum isolation, maximum cost

Some merchants set up each location as a completely independent LLC with no legal parent. This is common for franchisees who started out one unit at a time.

For MCA funding, this structure has real downsides:

• Per-deal funding cap is low. Each LLC is funded on its own revenue — so a $80K/month store gets $80–100K, not the $400K an aggregated entity would.
• Aggregate cost is higher. Each MCA carries its own origination fee and pricing tier. Five $80K MCAs at 1.32 cost more than one $400K MCA at 1.27.
• Stacking risk gets messy. If you have advances at 3 of 5 locations, funders at the other 2 may decline you as a "controller of stacked businesses" even though the entities are independent.
• Personal guarantee is at every entity. Same owner PG, just signed 5 times. If 2 deals go bad, the funder can pursue you personally on both.

The one real advantage: a single location can default without legally affecting the others. In practice, your personal guarantee and reputation in the funder market make that isolation more theoretical than real.

Worked example: a 4-location quick-service franchisee

A franchisee owns 4 quick-service restaurants in Florida and Georgia. Each does $90K in monthly deposits. They want $300K for a 5th location buildout.

Scenario A — Single LLC: $360K monthly deposits, one application, underwritten as one entity. A B-paper funder offers $400K at 1.30 over 14 months. Daily ACH: ~$1,485/day across the whole portfolio. Total cost: $120K.

Scenario B — 4 independent LLCs, one deal per location: Four MCAs at $75K each (the cap on individual location revenue at this tier), each at 1.34 over 11 months. Aggregate funding: $300K. Aggregate daily ACH: ~$1,220/day across the 4 stores. Total cost: $102K — but the franchisee has spent the underwriting hours four times, has four separate contracts to manage, and has triggered "you control 4 funded entities" flags on every credit pull.

Scenario C — Holdco + 4 subs, fund at parent: Same as A on the numbers, but each sub remains legally isolated for any non-MCA purposes (lease defaults, slip-and-fall lawsuits, employment claims). Marginally better risk profile, same MCA cost.

Scenario A is usually the right answer if you're committed to the franchise long-term. Scenario C wins if you may sell off individual locations. Scenario B is rarely the right answer financially.

Mixed-concept portfolios: harder, but fundable

If your locations are different brands or concepts — say, two restaurants, a coffee shop, and a food truck — funders treat the portfolio with more caution. Underwriters will want:

• Separate P&L per concept showing each is profitable individually
• Consolidated balance sheet showing total debt and equity
• Concentration analysis (no single concept should represent more than 60% of revenue)
• Personal financial statement of the controlling owner

Expect a +0.03 to +0.05 factor uplift compared to a same-concept portfolio of similar size — funders price concept diversification as additional management complexity rather than as risk mitigation.

The hidden cost of multi-location MCA: ACH on every account

When the funder underwrites at a single entity, the daily ACH typically pulls from one designated bank account. But if you have separate operating accounts per location and you're funded at the parent, the funder may require:

• Daily sweep: all location accounts auto-sweep to a parent concentration account each evening. The funder pulls from the parent.
• Bank statement aggregation: monthly aggregation reports proving the consolidated cash flow continues to support the daily payment.
• Reconciliation rights: if one location closes or sales drop in one market, you may be able to invoke a reconciliation clause to lower the daily ACH — but only if it's in the contract.

What to ask before signing a multi-location MCA

• Which entity is the obligor? Get it in writing on the term sheet.
• Is there cross-collateralization or cross-default? If you're funded at the parent, can the funder pursue assets at the subs?
• What's the reconciliation policy? If one location closes, can the daily ACH be reduced proportionally?
• Can I add a new location without triggering covenants? Some contracts require funder consent for material business changes.
• What happens if I sell one location? Some contracts include change-of-control provisions that accelerate the balance.