> Why would anyone agree to a 1.5% reduction in earnings to get their money now instead of tomorrow/2 days?
I have no idea. I don't live in that world. Sounds like some pawn-shop level need-for-cash to me.
But I do know that in business, factoring receivables is a thing. Dell used to expect vendors (such as Intel, but a lot of others too) to put their parts at the factory and then wouldn't take receipt of the part until it was picked from the bin for the purpose of placing it on the motherboard of a computer that had just been ordered and that they were now assembling. They'd essentially send Intel (or whoever) an email (well, EDI), and say: "Hey, we took receipt of your part. You can invoice us us net 60 now". Maybe it was net 30 - but I think it was 60. They worked out a deal where they'd send these through GE and GE would go to the manufacturers and say: "Dell owes you $10M in 60 days. You can have that (from us) in 30 days for a point and now for 2 points" (These were percentages, not basis points).
IF the vendor had been somebody that wasn't intel (and many were), waiting for 60 days (at least) after delivery of product to a site to get paid is a huuuge hicky on your balance sheet and a big factor in cash flow which constrains inventory turn over and growth.
Doing the volume and time shift of sums of money to allow mismatched transaction parties to match is a (the?) key thing that banks provide. They charge me - on whatever terms they like - to be able to close a transaction with a retail housing unit seller who expects 100% of the full amount today. My alternative would be to save up for 15 years. Most people don't want to do that.
I guess the issue here is that if someone doesn't want to pay 1.5% for that 48 business day hours (including holiday weekends), they'll wait. If they need the money, they'll take the hit.