MyPOS teams with YouLend to simplify SME financing
myPOS, the award-winning fintech platform for European SMEs, has teamed up with YouLend, the preferred global embedded financing platform for leading e-commerce, technology and payments providers, to launch a new service in France.
0
Through this collaboration, eligible myPOS clients can access revenue-based financing directly on the all-in-one fintech platform. They will enjoy a flexible repayment structure, where merchants can pay back by allocating a percentage of the funds received from card payments processed on myPOS.
The funding is available only to myPOS clients meeting certain criteria: for example, being an active myPOS merchant for 12 consecutive months. Those that qualify can secure an offer and receive funding within just one day.
'After the opening of our third French showroom in Lyon, myPOS is further strengthening its commitment to supporting merchants across France. The new partnership between YouLend and myPOS equips entrepreneurs with the resources they need to succeed. By joining forces, we're delivering faster, more flexible solutions that enable business owners to focus on growth rather than navigating complex financial processes,' commented myPOS Director Lending Services Tony Stoychev.
Luuk Visschedijk, Head of Global Partnerships at YouLend, added: 'We are excited to help augment the core offerings of myPOS by providing a world-class financing solution for their merchants in France, and soon many other markets. By working together, we're not only simplifying the financing process, but also empowering business owners to make smarter financial decisions and focus on scaling with confidence.'
The roll-out in France will be followed by collaborations in other markets to further support European SME growth by enhancing cash flow management and offering a comprehensive, one-stop financial solution.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
17 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Would you pay £575 for a Britney Spears tour T-shirt?
The Balenciaga portion of that doesn't seem to be too seismic – 4 per cent according to Kering – which is a saving grace considering what has come before; a 2023 controversy that almost destroyed the house. First of all, a campaign featuring children holding teddy bears in leather bondage gear. Weird, but not unexpected in Balenciagaland. Then the truly mind boggling follow up; a campaign featuring Isabelle Huppert and some product placed amongst some seemingly innocuous objects. Except on closer inspection – via ever-present social media sleuths – one stack of documents were Supreme Court rulings on child pornography, and another featured a diploma with a name that happens to also be that of a convicted abuser. The result was a Balenciaga bomb going off at the heart of the Kering conglomerate, with celebrity denouncements from avid fans like Kim Kardashian, who said on her Instagram stories and on Twitter that she was 'shaken' by the images, and subsequent apologies from the house. Then CEO Cédric Charbit said at the time; 'I want to personally reiterate my sincere apologies for the offence caused and take my responsibility.' The statement pointed out that a third party prop's company supplied the materials on the shoot in question. In March this year, it was announced that Demna Gvasalia would be leaving Balenciaga. His destination, however, was a curveball; Kering choppering him into Gucci, its spangly jewel in the crown, a house of hi falutin glamour and those distinctive double G branded bags. Granted, Demna knows how to create buzz with logomania – although how much design nous it takes to emblazon your brand name across everything and anything is debatable – but Gucci's signature sense of seduction, throughout all of its iterations from Tom Ford to Alessandro Michele, isn't something Demna's dark arts dabble in. His is a deliberately jarring, quirky-ugly aesthetic that doesn't seem to tally with what Gucci stands for. Time will tell whether the house that once sold us must-have bags and defined the 1990s (and early 2020s) fashion is ready for a darkly turbulent aesthetic. Granted, Balenciaga couture can make some exceptionally beautiful clothes – as exhibited on the Cannes red carpet by Balenciaga ambassador Isabelle Huppert – but that's the rarity rather than the rule. Balenciaga is set to be taken over by Pier Paolo Piccioli, an Italian designer known for his sense of romance and feminine exuberance.
The Guardian
24 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on the Conservatives and international law: a party trapped inside its own destructive obsessions
Kemi Badenoch's announcement of a Conservative party inquiry into a British withdrawal from the European convention on human rights (ECHR) should fool no one. The working party under the shadow attorney general, David Wolfson, announced on Thursday, will not look dispassionately at whether the UK should withdraw. It will merely try to say why and how. The policy of withdrawal itself is almost, to coin a phrase, oven-ready. This back-to-front policymaking process exemplifies the party's rudderless drift under Mrs Badenoch. Tory policy is not now in the hands of the leader or the shadow cabinet. It is in the hands of Reform UK and the opinion polls. Mrs Badenoch is a follower of events. Hers is the approach of someone still trapped in a party bubble which is consumed by the belief that withdrawal is the key to regaining the Conservatives' squandered popularity. This is nonsensical politics for the Tories. But it is also dangerous for Britain. The UK's long commitment to international law is a cornerstone of this country's soft power standing in the world. Labour's reassertion of this approach, with its clear signal to the world that Britain can again be trusted as a partner, has generated national benefits since the party returned to office last year. This does not mean that every aspect of international law (of which the ECHR is part) is unchallengeable or holy writ. The primary responsibility for the rule of law and for human rights is at the national level. The states that signed international covenants and treaties after 1945 'did not give an open-ended licence for international rules to be ever more expansively interpreted or for institutions to adopt a position of blindness or indifference to public sentiment in their member states'. Those words come from the current attorney general, Richard Hermer. They were part of his lucid and balanced lecture on security to the Royal United Services Institute last week. To judge by the fury it unleashed among the Daily Telegraph and Spectator writing classes, you might think that Lord Hermer had insisted that only lawyers like him could solve the world's conflicts and injustices, and that anyone who disagreed with him was a Nazi. Lord Hermer said no such things. Those who read his lecture will instead find an explicit attempt to depolarise the debate. He criticises as 'romantic idealists' those who treat international law as the reign of universal moral principle and who abhor all concession to nation-state interests. But he also denounced the 'pseudo-realists' who argue, amid the current unravelling of the post-1945 order, that nation-state interests can now take precedence over law. This, he said, was Russia's argument in Ukraine (he was too craven to mention that it is Donald Trump's philosophy of government too). British politicians drawn to this exceptionalist thinking in the name of realism risked committing 'deeply unserious acts in a deadly serious age'. To leave the ECHR would be just such an act. But its consequences would be desperately serious. It would give succour to authoritarian rulers on all continents. It would drain Britain's reputation for reliability again, as Brexit did. And it would achieve none of the goals in national security, criminal justice and migration control that its supporters imagine. Lord Hermer is right that serious problems can ultimately only be resolved through negotiations, driven by politics, which are then knitted together in laws that must be upheld. You cannot have one without the other.
Telegraph
32 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Zia Yusuf's departure is a blow to Reform
Zia Yusuf's resignation has cast further doubt over Reform's viability as a serious political party, rather than a vehicle for protest votes. In the 11 months since the General Election, Nigel Farage's party lost one MP to a defection, and now seen its Chairman resign in obvious exasperation after publicly criticising the party's newest MP. This will come as a welcome reprieve for Kemi Badenoch and the Conservative party as they attempt to redefine themselves in the wake of last year's election defeat. Sir Keir Starmer, too, will be relieved by the easing of pressure to his Right. For Reform, however, this is a serious blow. The party styles itself as the de facto Opposition and the government in waiting, yet its track record to date suggested that it could struggle to make the transition from protest to power. The question mark hanging over Reform was whether it could professionalise itself, find message discipline, bring in a lot more top level talent, contain the large personalities it has attracted, and present voters with a fully fleshed-out vision for governing Britain. Over the last year, the party has made stunning progress at the polls and appeared to be making strides towards meeting these developmental milestones. Yet yesterday's drama at the top of the organisation has underlined just how much work there is still to do. This may not matter too much in the short run, where Reform's status as repository for protest votes appears assured regardless of personnel turnover. Over the next four years, however, a reputation for infighting and turmoil could put a hard ceiling on Reform's ambitions. Mr Farage's statement on Mr Yusuf's resignation appeared to indicate that he recognised this; the Reform leader was conciliatory and credited Mr Yusuf's work as being a 'huge factor' in the party's local election success. His task is now to rapidly find a competent successor to continue the development of his party, and to show that he is capable of building and retaining a team which can maintain a united front. While there is a long wait for the next election, the public is crying out for change which Sir Keir's Labour party is evidently incapable of delivering. Ms Badenoch must use this window to demonstrate that she has the radical ideas necessary to fundamentally reshape Britain; Mr Farage, that he can build a professional team which can turn a protest party into one capable of governing.
