[abfunders]

I've been asked by more than one funder how to stop brokers from cheating merchants by telling them, "I guarantee you that I will get you more money."

I had some ideas:

1) Merchant interview - Ask them straight up, "Are you accepting this money because of another offer you were promised?" Tell them that double-funding is not allowed, and that if your broker promised them more money after this funding, that that is not guaranteed (especially if it's a default MCA).
2) Cut off brokers who do that. Get proof via email of the broker's promises / contracts (like I sent you with Chad). Then tell the broker what they did is fraud, and cancel their ISO agreement. Fund the merchant anyway if the merchant still wants it and don't pay the .
3) Start a list for lenders of bad brokers like DataMerch
4) Directly contact a list of lenders who you work with, send them the email chain (PDF) and tell them, "_____ has been blacklisted from working with Midnight, I recommend you double-examine the merchants that ___ brings you moving forward, and examine if you want to continue working with _____."

Lender in response:
I've sued many ISOs, for blocking clawbacks, and they switch enities and run off.
Second, interviews don't help - The broker is sometimes too good.
Third, I look at performance, if the deals pay, I fund them, because otherwise I can cut off every single ISO for potential fraudulent/unethical statements to the merchants

Since there is no accreditation and borrowers can lie about what they heard, is there any hope to figure out a way for the big lenders to start putting notes together on brokers and sharing them among yourselves?

[patrickw]

Great info.

My team brought few returns recently having too many advances. The broker promised to get them 5 years term monthly payments if they run it for 30-60 days bla bla.

[ADiamond]

Datamerch can be greatly improved but I stopped using the service because it seems like they do little to improve their data reporting.

A major start would be to offer other searchable data points other than just the EIN. Especially because you don't always have the correct EIN or a defaulted merchant may own multiple businesses - and defaulted with another entity.

[ryan $]

Datamerch can be greatly improved but I stopped using the service because it seems like they do little to improve their data reporting.

A major start would be to offer other searchable data points other than just the EIN. Especially because you don't always have the correct EIN or a defaulted merchant may own multiple businesses - and defaulted with another entity.

Plus, theres no verification. People TAG Good Merchants to keep them to themselves.

Or Ive seen Tagged for "Fraudulent" Bank Statements - Just because they were faxed and distorted a bit, bank verification proved otherwise.

[Nunya]

Plus, theres no verification. People TAG Good Merchants to keep them to themselves.

That's terrible.

[patrickw]

Plus, theres no verification. People TAG Good Merchants to keep them to themselves.

Or Ive seen Tagged for "Fraudulent" Bank Statements - Just because they were faxed and distorted a bit, bank verification proved otherwise.

wow! so far I got a lot of feedback from Lender, merchant using fake or fraudulent statements So you think some of them were actually good people? :O

[ryan $]

wow! so far I got a lot of feedback from Lender, merchant using fake or fraudulent statements So you think some of them were actually good people? :O

Yep. Ive Funded People - Perfect Payers where some lenders said fraud

[fundingsmbs]

databases are great if the data entered is accurate and correct. in the past, NAMAA was a database used by NAMAA members and "some members" listed a merchant as defaulted only to learn, they really never defaulted. So how do you build a database that is transparent and has everyone's interest in mind. blacklisting a broker because one funder is pissed at broker or had a one off situation is unfair and could lead to lawsuits against the funder and database by broker

4) Directly contact a list of lenders who you work with, send them the email chain (PDF) and tell them, "_____ has been blacklisted from working with Midnight, I recommend you double-examine the merchants that ___ brings you moving forward, and examine if you want to continue working with _____."

If a litigation attorney got a hold of this email and the broker is blocked from working in the industry due to "x" company sending that to other funder's, you opened thing's up to a very litigious scenario if it's proven wrong.

As a funder/company, you have to make a decision if you want to work with broker's. If you decide you need them to scale your company, it will come with risk. You will need to manage each ISO partner and determine case by case which partner's are aligned with your company and which one's aren't and cut those off that are not.

[The Chosen One]

Data merch is bull****. I've also funded multiple merchants that some lenders claimed fraud or fake statements. If I listened to them I would of left a ****load of money on the table.

What about the lenders that force a judgement just to keep a merchant for themselves or blacklist them?

I funded some these guys with my own money so I know first hand that data merch is a joke.

[Eagle Funding]

Data merch is bull****. I've also funded multiple merchants that some lenders claimed fraud or fake statements. If I listened to them I would of left a ****load of money on the table.

What about the lenders that force a judgement just to keep a merchant for themselves or blacklist them?

I funded some these guys with my own money so I know first hand that data merch is a joke.

What about the lenders that force a judgement just to keep a merchant for themselves or blacklist them?

This line needs to be addressed way more. Its getting insane with some of the companies out there who are begging for the merchant to make a mistake to file and then force their money down their throat non stop, never releasing the judgement even after a 5th round of funding from them after the judgement was placed.