Activity Stream

This is an Unfortunate turn of events.

Sounds like your not a big relationship guy. Keep your head up.

Unless the site has paid traffic or SEO its getting legit zero hits and this would serve no use

Having a debated conversation about what is going on, in order to find out opinions of other brokers and lenders is not slander or defamation. This is in fact PUBLICITY which is notice or attention given to someone or something by the media, where they previously had none. Slander is the utterance of FALSE charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation. Defamation is the action of damaging the good reputation of someone. If you feel he is right, then his reputation is not damaged. We need to just start a Thread for vocabulary words at this point. We've defined the true meaning of "DEFAULT, SLANDER, PUBLICITY, and DEFAMATION" already. What new words will we come up with next?

Just curious.....does anyone know who owns or runs the fintalknow.com website? I consider myself a professional, seasoned marketer in the fintech space and I have never heard of this website until someone sent me the article on Centrex last week. I was never called or emailed for a comment or an interview which is standard practice when writing such articles. Thoughts? Cheers, Trey Markel VP Sales and Marketing (888) 622-5810 tmarkel@centrexsoftware.com www.centrexsoftware.com

This is exactly why there are rules and regulations. You simply cannot make decisions based on pride, fear, and other emotions that have no basis, if there is already a contract in place. Especially when the decisions you make can affect a livelihood and company. You don't know what damage holding one's commission is actually doing on the other end, and the fact the funder doesn't care is called "negligence".

If that is the case, your lawyer should have recommended you to not post anything on a public forum in regards to this as you could possibly set yourself up to be sued for possible defamation and slander.

You don't take broker business because you cant get over on them? Im confused by that statement... If a client bounced payments we would help you get paid up before your legal collections department would, so that's actually your loss I guess.

People like you are literally the reason i don't take broker business. Like Jason said.

Freddy.

Again, lol we maintain relationships and are actually working with some of the best lawyers in the US right now. We always make sure the best lawyers to work with us. Thats the problem you think we cant or cant afford it so you break contracts to try to be in control and think somebody won’t come for you. This is actually the wrong ISO to play with. Just because Im on here doesn’t mean nothing is being done outside of here. lol

You sound like you'd be a nightmare to deal with on any level. Plus the free email tag. You're clogging up the daily digest.

Again, None of our clients ever defaulted because we keep contact and encourage them to keep a good payment history. Which is why we maintain great relationships with both Merchants and Funders. This merchant trusts our instruction more than anyone, since we’ve been working with them since last year. They refused to even do a deal with another broker, or a funder without making sure our company benefit from it as well. There’s no reason we shouldn't get paid within our contracted clawback period. It took a-lot for the merchant to even get to a second position, thanks to us. No way should we be getting stiffed like this. Its basically like we have been working all these months for with them for no reason.

Yes the merchant did exactly that and has been paying since on time. The funder only pays on the 1st and 15th. The contract states we must get paid within 7 business days with a 30day clawback. They called me on the 1st and told me they cant pay me until he makes the missed payment and pays on time. He paid and is paying on time, but they still don’t want to pay. The clawback period is basically over, but now the funder just doesn’t want to pay until December when the term is over and he cannot just do that. They should've paid us today but would rather us get our lawyer involved, and pay us their share of profits on the deal at this point in fines for violating regulations they dont agree with.

Yikes.. Maybe this is what we needed to stop all the backdooring thats been going on. If Centrex wins this case, everyone owes them an apology. but until then get your popcorn ready

If there is no problem to solve, there is no use.

Yea but OP doesn't have the kahunas to do it. Would rather just cry on here instead of doing something about it, then posting the outcome of the courts.

Until someone actually sues them for breach of contract, there is ZERO incentive to follow through on their end.

The disconnect here is defining a default. Because you agree that the broker should not be paid on a default, right? So let's do it together. Here's the industry standard: The merchant agrees to remit X% of their daily gross revenue. That is estimated to be approximately $Y per day. If they don't do that, then they are reneging on their contractual sale of the gross revenue. Clawback and "not paying commissions" are actually the same thing. Either pay and take back, or don't pay. Most funders will pay you (the ISO) if the merchant does finish out without true collections. Here's your definition: If the company didn't sell/send it off to a third-party collections agency, it's still in 100% good standing. If the merchant bounced a payment and immediately called the funder and said "here's the missed payment", that might change things. Did they do that? Did you encourage the merchant to do that? If you don't have a contractual definition of "default", then you have to look at the industry standard. And as you have seen from the comments here, the "industry standard" is not what you thought. It would have been better to start the thread "here's what happened, is this considered a default and how can I convince the funder to pay the commissions before the end of the term?"

And the other way around, these rookie ISO reps who come here looking for easy leads are gonna be in for a big awakening too if they actually sign this guy lol.

Hopefully you learned your lesson and vet them before you start sending deals lol.

You put up a website because you anticipate eyeballs on it. The question you should be asking is: How do I convert those (after hours) eyeballs that DO see my website?... Do I hire someone for $6 an hour from the Philippians to sit on my site ready to answer any question and hopefully get them to send in a full package? 6pm - 9 am m-fri = 75hrs plus 48 on weekends is ~$750 a week Or do I use Ed's bot which is way more cost effective, faster and never even takes a coffee break?

If no one was on my side there wouldn’t be an entire list of regulation clauses and rules in our favor, nor would we have an inbox full of new funders to work with.

No one is on your side, everyone is looking at you like a clown. Quit crying keep dialing

Maybe if the record continues to play over and over, it will reprogram everyone's mind to realize they've been manipulated into believing lies; and brokers actually have contractual rights that can be enforced.

What is this consistent desire for us to change our line of work? Threatened we cannot possibly be right because that’s what you are used to? Literally just defined the word “default” for you and you still dont understand “stop payment” does not mean “default”. Not in any literary sense, and not in law.

Just fund another deal. You're like a broken record. No one is agreeing with you lol

Your customer DEFAULTED on their agreement. Even if they end up paying, they still did not pay on the agreed terms since they bounced a payment. The idea that because they are paying now makes them not a default is crazy. If a merchant stops on the first payment but 3 years later pays in full, that is still a default. With that being said you seem to know a lot about the law. Maybe you would do better in that line of work. Clearly this isn't for you.

News Flashhh*** Laws have changed for NY and CA recently. We are a NY ISO. We have claims under the CFDL, UDAAP laws, breach of contract, and tortious interference theories. Our clawback period is only 30days and there was never a legal default within that time period. The NY CFDL applies to any "commercial financing transaction," which includes MCAs, that are offered or provided to a "recipient" located in New York state. This means the law can reach beyond just New York-based funders and apply to out-of-state funders doing business with New York merchants or brokers. The NY CFDL contains specific requirements around the disclosures and contractual terms that must be provided to MCA brokers. For example, the law limits the duration of commission clawback provisions to up to 4months, and prohibits certain deceptive practices by funders towards brokers. The NY CFDL gives the New York Department of Financial Services the authority to investigate violations and impose fines of up to $2,000 per violation. If a MCA funder is found to have violated the broker-related provisions of the NY CFDL in its dealings with a New York broker, the funder could be subject to these civil monetary penalties. Not only that but can also be sued for untimely wages due to the broker. The funder is essentially purchasing labor services from our company, and we use that money to cover expenses and the wages of the workers providing the services. We have the right to dispute for up to 100% on the original commission amount plus lawyer fees as per contract. Not the funder telling us we will get paid in December. Lol You guys need to learn to respect your laws and brokers. Carry on with your busy days, hope fathers day was great.