Activity Stream - DailyFunder Forums

Sort By	Time	Show
Recent Recent Popular Popular	Anytime Anytime Last 24 Hours Last 24 Hours Last 7 Days Last 7 Days Last 30 Days Last 30 Days	All All Photos Photos Forum Forums Articles Articles Blog Blogs

Today, 12:57 PM

Finance replied to a thread Ontap capital: Scamming brokers - breach of agreement in Merchant Cash Advance

Good afternoon Newcdam, To answer your question regarding safeguards aimed toward preventing this very outcome, you have no external safeguards outside of legal actions, legal actions that will end up costing you more than the very commission you're taking action to garner, and by the time you've spent thousands on said legal action, the 3 months will have passed and if your conviction in the client proves to be valid, you'll get paid. As a result of this reality, your only protection is internal, your internal adjudication regarding the funders you choose to place your files with. You said this platform was your only means to funding the deal due to the terms checking off the required boxes to secure the transaction and had no others routes to take, forcing you to go in this direction, which ultimately holds the answer to your own question; if you're in a beggars can't be choosers scenario, is it conducive to give up on the deal and lose all opportunity of commission, or is it conducive to use whatever means necessary to secure the transaction despite the potentiality of getting stiffed on the commission? You chose the latter, which was correct, because even if you didn't get a commission, you achieved for a client what nobody else could, securing enough credibility for future transactions that will make you money. But, the example above isn't nearly as drastic as your current scenario because you have a funder saying they will pay after 3 months vs the typical situation when someone gets stiffed where the "lender" completely disappears once the transaction finishes, which opens the door to a few questions you shouldn't ask the forum, but should instead ask to yourself: Is failing to understand that mostly all lenders will be reluctant to pay a commission to a brand new ISO they've never worked with if a client immediately starts bouncing payments before the figurative ink on the contract dries and then proceeding to publicly shame the lender with name drops and transaction details that are specific enough for them to identify the transaction and further identify exactly who it is that's publicly shaming them conducive to your goal of receiving this commission? Or have you successfully decreased your likelihood of being paid whilst simultaneously burning your relationship with a resource that has proven the ability to provide something nobody else could essentially providing you the option to make money that would never have been made without them. Don't let hyper vigilance ruin your credibility because the only reason you should make a thread regarding this is if the client didn't immediately bounce payments and you still weren't being paid despite this. I'm a broker as well, but I understand the actions they took and would do the exact same thing they did, put yourself in their shoes. It doesn't matter if the client made up the payments, what matters is that the client immediately deviated from the agreement they just committed to before the ink even dried, ultimately invalidating everything from the start and giving everyone a bad taste in their mouth because I'm sure they've experienced the same scenario in multiples where they DID pay the commission and got double burned, so they learned from their mistakes and are hedging themselves against another iteration of what's already occurred with a different client and broker in the past.