[nwarshaw]

I see a lot of talk about change, adapting to change, etc. How much change would you be willing to accept?

As an example:

Would you sign a 1st right of refusal with a large funder?
Would you go through a funders certification course to become registered as an approved vendor/broker?
Would you sign a funders promise guidelines? To not xyz, or to always xyz - centered around stacking and disclosure
Would you let commission rates fluctuate based on you broker default %, loaded and shared in an industry database?
Would you pay an annual fee for the right to carry a product or brand?
What if the association had a license, and funders only allowed licensed brokers - would you pay to get a license from the association, would you take classes and a test?
(think real estate agent, think insurance broker)

[ghop]

I see a lot of talk about change, adapting to change, etc. How much change would you be willing to accept?


(think real estate agent, think insurance broker)

Nathan Warshaw
President
Warshaw Consulting
770-704-7876
770-500-2437
nawarshaw@gmail.com

think not using a gmail account if you wanna be taken seriously
funders promise guidline? funders who don't "opt in" will be stacking them regardless...welcome to capitalism bud

[OC Funder]

Nathan Warshaw
President
Warshaw Consulting
770-704-7876
770-500-2437
nawarshaw@gmail.com

think not using a gmail account if you wanna be taken seriously
funders promise guidline? funders who don't "opt in" will be stacking them regardless...welcome to capitalism bud

I think most of us know who Nathan Warshaw is, regardless of which email he chooses to use. Anyone who has funded real volume in this space knows that name.

For years I have heard lenders lament the activity their brokers engage in... stacking, gauging merchants with additional fees, unscrupulous marketing techniques, etc. There has never been any real consequences for this behavior, which I think is why so many fear future regulation. However, it seems like there is a shift by some of the larger funders to clean up the space. I know On Deck has recently terminated their relationship with dozens of partners, and CAN has become extremely selective about signing up new brokers. I hear other players are reevaluating who they partner with as well. It wouldn't surprise me if minimum monthly requirements become regular to keep relationships.

Even with all the money and technology currently available, brokers still make up a majority of the volume funded and I don't think this will change anytime soon. However, the barrier to entry is definitely higher than it used to be.

[happysales]

I think this field is following the trajectory of the mortgage business- before and after the real estate crash. Every stockbroker who lost his license and thousands of people with no sales ability and big dreams rushed to sell mortgages. Brokers were bringing on anyone with a pulse. Most people made a little money from clueless buyers.

Once the market corrected itself most of these people-both the owners of poorly run broker shops and the useless sales people took their greed, dishonesty and lack of ability or common sense and went on to dream of huge commissions in other fields (including this one)

But the smart, honorable, skilled brokers and sales people survived, changed with the times, adjusted to a buyers market, used hard work, innovative thinking, new technology to whatever degree they could afford to, and thrived. If they decided to get out they leveraged their experience and are doing well at something else-some in this business.

People can buy a house or get a cash advance or a loan without a broker and more people will-technology definitely makes it easier, but still not as easy as finding a knowledgeable broker who understands what you want, what you qualify for, helps you to make a realistic and educated decision and coaches you on what you need to do to qualify for what you want down the road if you aren't eligible now. I think the broker shops who can do this, hire carefully and train their staff to do this quickly and efficiently will probably survive.

[WhoisKingsley]

Change is good but you don't need to reinvent the wheel. I understand brokers are shopping contracts but your 1st rights of refusal have to be real good and you need to build a relationship before you make that decision. I think it should be up to the discretion of the lender/broker before making that decision. Any training a lender can offer at a fee or exaggerated UW guidelines are a plus and I think any broker should sign to promise to keep the integrity of the business. A disclosure should be made if you are working with a direct lender vs. a rep for a company (i.e. All of the overused titles)- a set % should be worked on depending on what the broker has to offer. You pay junk, you get junk. I don't believe it will ever get to the point where you would need a license to be a "Broker" but I do believe if you have a company with UW on hand and can make decisions to assist and syndicate, there should be. Just my opinions