[WestCoastFunding]

iam not worried a bit of how my company handles our merchants
i agree with your points however my worry is not about cojs being gone

its the fact that they go after cojs who will know what they are after next for example capping interest to merchants hurting how much we can upsell

May be off topic, but I Once saw a study that said financial companies spend 14-21% on marketing. By using ISOs you’re effectively outsourcing marketing (minus ISO relations salaries). With that having been said, there’s a case to be made that ISOs therefore are justified up to 21%. Sure the costs are passed on to the business, but if the funders were direct marketing, they’d be passing on similar costs.

[SmartAdvanced]

This is just simply not true

Do your research.

[J.Celifarco]

Here’s how I see it: 90% of these new D-F funders are going to disappear. The remaining D-F funders will get the rest of that market share. But, there collections process isn’t going to be nearly as effective as before. The remaining funders will heavily scrutinize brokers. The best funders will only deal with the most reputable brokers. Those reputable brokers will the a competitive advantage and many of these little fringe shops will disappear — giving the reputable shops even more market share.

Or better yet, things will go back to where they were 3-4 years ago before the scavengers (brokers and funders) flooded the space over the past few years.

this seems to be the way it looks. This scenario is going to be pretty close to what happens if COJ's get banned

[NoBigDeal]

Do your research.

I'm going based on deals that I've funded and used COJ's on. As well as deals that didn't have COJ's and just filed a UCC. I can safely say I haven't seen nearly as much of my money come back on the deals with the UCC's filed that I have with the COJ's

[fundingsmbs]

ISo's are a necessary evil for originations. behind closed walls management hates them (most of them) . But, most funder's have not been able to figure out the direct sales game on a large enough scale to cutoff the isos. If they did, they would. Many have boosted direct sales , however, to control more of their sales and prevent issues and defaults. What the ISO basically is, is, a free marketing channel for the funders, especially the ones who backdoor and never intend on paying the ISO with clever declination notices and than solicit the merchant anyways under a alias name. on renewals, if the account didn't perform well, they also shoot those deals to other funder's to monetize and not pay the ISO. The ISO has a lot to lose if they are spending alot of marketing money and not seeing ROI with funder's they submit to on new and renewals. Some companies have reduced renewals to 5 points, which, many ISO's cannot live off of with their marketing costs, or, inserted language in ISO agreements that claims they will get 70-80% of the upsell (but the upsell is controlled by renewals) which could yield even lower than 5 points. Some funder's have inserted language stating that if you don't fund anymore with them, they can take your whole book and not pay you! Even if you think they suck and don't like their offer's, your screwed. The broker has a tough challenge and the stacking has really helped them earn more commissions in this business. If ISOs were held to only work with let's say 2-3 companies that do first positions, they would be squeezed out. Some funder's also setup the ISO on a par pricing model knowing many will try and upsell the customer 12 points or higher and undercut them all day long. It's a lenders game today not broker.

[LYC]

Stacking will not go away if COjs do.

Stacking existed long before they started including COJs.

Many of the funders that popped up over the last 3-4 years, that have no idea what they are doing and only fund with a COJ as a security blanket will go away when their defaults go through the roof.

Let's not forget there were funders doing 2nds, 3rds, etc way before there were any COJs. Yellowstone and many others were funding long before there were any COJs. It will definitely limit the amount of options merchant's have, but lets not even begin to think that there won't be stacking without COJs.

[Collection Specialist]

This changes the mca marketplace totally.

Good UW's & Collections will become more of an asset than ever before

Agreed

[ryan $]

Stacking will not go away if COjs do.

Stacking existed long before they started including COJs.

Many of the funders that popped up over the last 3-4 years, that have no idea what they are doing and only fund with a COJ as a security blanket will go away when their defaults go through the roof.

Let's not forget there were funders doing 2nds, 3rds, etc way before there were any COJs. Yellowstone and many others were funding long before there were any COJs. It will definitely limit the amount of options merchant's have, but lets not even begin to think that there won't be stacking without COJs.

Ive been here 10 years. I remember before stacking ever existed. But werent COJs always there?
Maybe I transitioned to backend then back to sales when this shift happened, but i clearly remember, 1st positions only - then stacking and coj's

15 Years, smh, time flies

[WestCoastFunding]

Ive been here 10 years. I remember before stacking ever existed. But werent COJs always there?
Maybe I transitioned to backend then back to sales when this shift happened, but i clearly remember, 1st positions only - then stacking and coj's

15 Years, smh, time flies

I honestly don’t remember seeing a COJ until about 3 years ago — even from YSC. I also remember the days when 5-6 point upsells were considered a lot. I thought I was making out like a bandit.

[J.Celifarco]

COJ's came around in the last 3 maybe 4 years ago

[LYC]

Ive been here 10 years. I remember before stacking ever existed. But werent COJs always there?
Maybe I transitioned to backend then back to sales when this shift happened, but i clearly remember, 1st positions only - then stacking and coj's

15 Years, smh, time flies

COJs came in after stacking was already around. Granted there was almost none of the 7 position nonsense taking 80% of a merchant's gross going on before COJs, but I remember funding many deals without COJs. When COJs first came out, I was funding all my 2nds and 3rds with companies that didn't have COjs. Then slowly but surely COJs became the norm and all the B-C funders added them in.

[ryan $]

COJs came in after stacking was already around. Granted there was almost none of the 7 position nonsense taking 80% of a merchant's gross going on before COJs, but I remember funding many deals without COJs. When COJs first came out, I was funding all my 2nds and 3rds with companies that didn't have COjs. Then slowly but surely COJs became the norm and all the B-C funders added them in.

I remember Pearl not using COJs on 2nds, so yea I guess your right.

[J.Celifarco]

before cojs you never saw anything past 2nds and the rare 3rd. When coj's go away we will be back to that point I think.

[Franklin]

No, they're saying it because COJ is a trending phrase at the forefront of many ideal customers minds, so just like any converting keyword, a smart company will use it to drive more customer traffic to their offerings. That's smart business, not unethical.







www.UccRadar.com

It's like in war fare, when there's an international accord / treaty whatever, not to use a certain weapon, everyone stops using it.. but the wars still continue.. my point albeit a little dark example (especially for a friday) is that as long as every funder agrees not to use COJs, the playing field stats the same and the stacking will continue just the same. As long as COJs are allowed, everyone will continue to use them. Any funders advertising that they won't use a COJ right now, even though the majority of companies do.. are probably just trying to backdoor your deal to a COJ funder LOL

[Franklin]

That cost is completely true, and for some companies it's higher than that, particularly the large ones with heavy online advertising pay per click budgets that also spend on television and radio.

However, direct marketing in-house is usually much cheaper than relying on outside third parties or third party platforms.

Iso submissions is actually more expensive for the funder, (for the houses that correctly pay their Isos) in the beginning, as they eat up the majority of the commission/profit made on a deal initially. The benefit is a steady ongoing supply of business, which a funder needs because they're sitting on money that costs them and needs to be out working.

Added benefits are when the Iso disappears, either by going out of business, or not submitting another deal within 90 days, now it's the funder's deal, (some lenders, it's their deal automatically). If you receive 2,000 submissions a month, and 5% of the submission owners go dark, that's a lot of new customers being discovered every year.









www.UccRadar.com

May be off topic, but I Once saw a study that said financial companies spend 14-21% on marketing. By using ISOs you’re effectively outsourcing marketing (minus ISO relations salaries). With that having been said, there’s a case to be made that ISOs therefore are justified up to 21%. Sure the costs are passed on to the business, but if the funders were direct marketing, they’d be passing on similar costs.

[Fundingfordollars]

Ive been here 10 years. I remember before stacking ever existed. But werent COJs always there?
Maybe I transitioned to backend then back to sales when this shift happened, but i clearly remember, 1st positions only - then stacking and coj's

15 Years, smh, time flies

Ryan you are correct. A few first position lenders like Bankcard back in the day used COJs

[Happy Horse Shit]

Bravo Ryan----and there is the answer

[ryan $]

Back when it was just CC Split 1st Positions and all of my deals went to MCC - I feel like we had way more approval and funding ratio.

UCCs were gold. Going after mainly Advance Me's different filings.

We had a Huge book with MCC, I believe we were bigger than 2nd Source at one Point with MCC, this is before Next Level we were like MCC's GUYS. Cynergy Cash and Capital in Newington CT, A HUGE HUGE SHOP.

I almost wouldnt mind going back to that time, Like i Said DIfferent, but money to be made, I almost feel it was easier back then. Now you have merchants that are messes.

[WestCoastFunding]

Back when it was just CC Split 1st Positions and all of my deals went to MCC - I feel like we had way more approval and funding ratio.

UCCs were gold. Going after mainly Advance Me's different filings.

We had a Huge book with MCC, I believe we were bigger than 2nd Source at one Point with MCC, this is before Next Level we were like MCC's GUYS. Cynergy Cash and Capital in Newington CT, A HUGE HUGE SHOP.

I almost wouldnt mind going back to that time, Like i Said DIfferent, but money to be made, I almost feel it was easier back then. Now you have merchants that are messes.

Hell yeah, merchants are messes now. I miss the easy renewal back in the day. Since merchants weren’t overleveraged I was renewing a ton of $100k+ deals.

[Fundingfordollars]

Hell yeah, merchants are messes now. I miss the easy renewal back in the day. Since merchants weren’t overleveraged I was renewing a ton of $100k+ deals.

It was nice also building up processing residuals and maybe even leasing a few terminals every month.

[Davincinc]

This was a great industry before Isaac stern and John Braun teamed up to screw the rest of us. I would love to go back to the days before we all met them.

Is it only YS you hate? their are plenty of other funders that have provided horrible service and fees, backdooring issues, denied renewals, over taken clients with better/ or worse deals,

why are you stuck on YS and staff? Did you get caught backdooring, did you get fired? were is you malice coming from?

Just wondering

[Johndough]

The majority of you pikers are just jealous that you were never able to get close to John Braun’s level. Like the guy or hate the guy he funded more than all the pikers on this forum put together.

[WestCoastFunding]

The majority of you pikers are just jealous that you were never able to get close to John Braun’s level. Like the guy or hate the guy he funded more than all the pikers on this forum put together.

There’s a 100% chance this guy’s last name is “Braun”. And being that Braun’s sentence has been delayed so many years, there’s a 100% chance John Braun is a rat.

[Johndough]

There’s a 110% chance you don’t fund **** because you spend all day on DF being a massive piker.

[WestCoastFunding]

There’s a 110% chance you don’t fund **** because you spend all day on DF being a massive piker.

To think that you’d make up a screenname to defend some low-class snitch tells you just how pathetic you are. Braun is a pile of **** getting delay after delay by snitching.

Rather than defend yourself on a chat board, try making acompelling case to the press. Rat.