[Nunya]

Unpopular opinion: Hats off to Credibly for walking into the lion's den to answer questions, even if the responses aren't ideal. It's a welcome change from the constant barrage of 'send me your deals, we can get that done.'

And answering questions, though not all of them. Again, better than the WE FUND DOZENS OF DEALS SAME DAY DOUBLE DIGIT COMMISSIONS ALL NIGHT NO UNDERWRITING LOW DEPOSIT LOVE ALL INDUSTRIES DURRRRRRRRR.

[MX211]

BS

[Franklin]

Its no more riskier sending Credibly a deal then it is Ondeck or Kabbage or any other
big lender (actually Kabbage is riskier, because they clearly express they now
own the deal, as well as paying peanuts). Some companies also give much less than 90 days exclusivity.

As soon as a merchant makes it public that he's looking for money,
anyone who is spending significant revenue on acquisition or knows what they're doing, can and/or will
get access to that information.

One of my systems has the merchant tell us who they're working with, who they're being pitched by,
who they've worked with in the past, how many mailers they've recently received, how many calls a day they get, and other financial statistics about their business, before we're even discussing if they want a loan.


Most inside sales teams (at real companies) have considerable marketing budgets many times larger than the Isos submitting to the funder, so they're busy enough on their own stuff. And if you think
duplicate submissions are bad, duplicate leads are even worse, as they are way more prevalent.
Everyone here is working on the same merchants, unless your source is word of mouth referrals
from a close personal/business relationship, or you're providing a financial service outside of cash advance.











www.UccRadar.com - Are There Really Growing Trees filled with Merchant Cash Advance Leads?

[MX211]

Let's be clear, I am speaking of merchants that we obtain via lead buys. This is the main source of merchants that are funded through our internal team.... If that is the case, then yes we will contact the merchant down the road of course. If you are speaking about merchants that come through our ISO channel that receive an offer from us (which I am assuming you are) I have laid out your answer in my initial response. Again feel free to email me directly.

BS , gary.

[HDF]

They know EXACTLY how much they earn from stacking deals from ISOs that eventually or initially funded away. That's what they have an internal sales team for (along with "purchased leads" which is a convenient veil over their captive application pipeline. Purchased leads are mostly stacking opportunities as well. A specialty.). Another group with hands everywhere and can't answer simple questions.

[J.Celifarco]

I dont know why anyone has issues with anything he is saying here. After 90 days if you didnt fund the deal with them they have the right to do whatever they want. I dont even work with credibly so I have no reason to defend them except I dont see an issue with this practice. When someone submits a deal to them they are paying an underwriter to underwrite the file an admin to enter the data in their system and who know what other expenses they have. If the ISO decided to fund the deal at another bank it is not their responsibility to ensure that you are able to refi the merchant down the line.

If ISO's didnt shotgun deals to 10 different companies this wouldnt be an issue. Submit to the bank you plan on funding with and a backup. Most people on here should be able to look at a deal and have a clue what the banks they work with will be offering. There are 2 sides to this and as ISO's we need to realize these funders have overhead and are going to do what they have to to pay bills. As long as they are following what is laid out in their ISO agreement I dont see any issue with anything that Gary is saying

[HDF]

Ok John, fair enough. So if Kapitus "immediately" stacked a client of yours that you took to only 2 funders and you (& merchant) accepted a competing offer from Rapid rather than from Kapitus, you'd be fine with it?

[J.Celifarco]

I have never had that issue with those banks so the hypothetical situation doesnt apply. If I know a bank is going to contact my merchants that I dont fund with them after 90 days because that is in their ISO agreement then I am going to expect it. Credibly has it in their ISO agreement that they do, so now it is up to each ISO to decide if they want to work with them. They arent hiding what they are doing, they are being completely transparent about it

[J.Celifarco]

also you are saying immediately after funding, this is after 90 days. If you have good client control post funding you wont have this issue. Anyone doing it immediately after funding is breaking the terms of an iso agreement so that I would have an issue with

[WestCoastFunding]

I dont know why anyone has issues with anything he is saying here. After 90 days if you didnt fund the deal with them they have the right to do whatever they want. I dont even work with credibly so I have no reason to defend them except I dont see an issue with this practice. When someone submits a deal to them they are paying an underwriter to underwrite the file an admin to enter the data in their system and who know what other expenses they have. If the ISO decided to fund the deal at another bank it is not their responsibility to ensure that you are able to refi the merchant down the line.

If ISO's didnt shotgun deals to 10 different companies this wouldnt be an issue. Submit to the bank you plan on funding with and a backup. Most people on here should be able to look at a deal and have a clue what the banks they work with will be offering. There are 2 sides to this and as ISO's we need to realize these funders have overhead and are going to do what they have to to pay bills. As long as they are following what is laid out in their ISO agreement I dont see any issue with anything that Gary is saying

I will always have a problem with a 1st position funder (who lost out to another 1st position funder) sending that deal to get stacked by using their inside sales team as cover.

I wonder how Rapid feels about Credibly doing this, being they despise stackers. Here their direct competition may be hurting their portfolio.

[WestCoastFunding]

[QUOTE=J.Celifarco;118924They arent hiding what they are doing, they are being completely transparent about it[/QUOTE]

They haven’t been upfront. They’ve been evasive. A simple yes or no from them will work: do they stack their competitors if an ISO funds a deal submitted to them with a competitor.

If yes, the message they’re sending is this: if you submit with us but fund elsewhere, out inside sales team may very well stack you.

It’s one thing to use my lead and try and fund in house. It’s another to take my lead, stack my deal, compensate me zero, ruin my chance at renewal (while you potentially renew thru their stacker) and I get $0 in return.

[J.Celifarco]

They haven’t been upfront. They’ve been evasive. A simple yes or no from them will work: do they stack their competitors if an ISO funds a deal submitted to them with a competitor.

If yes, the message they’re sending is this: if you submit with us but fund elsewhere, out inside sales team may very well stack you.

It’s one thing to use my lead and try and fund in house. It’s another to take my lead, stack my deal, compensate me zero, ruin my chance at renewal (while you potentially renew thru their stacker) and I get $0 in return.

I understand where you are coming from completely. All I am saying is if it is in their ISO agreement that they can contact deals that dont fund after 90 days then expect them to contact them and try to get the deal funded. If you have a problem with that then choose not to work with them. This is why its important to understand each companies ISO agreement

[HDF]

I understand where you are coming from completely. All I am saying is if it is in their ISO agreement that they can contact deals that dont fund after 90 days then expect them to contact them and try to get the deal funded. If you have a problem with that then choose not to work with them. This is why its important to understand each companies ISO agreement

Which is what is trying to be hashed out here. Where do they stand? If they can't answer, there is a problem.

[HDF]

I have never had that issue with those banks so the hypothetical situation doesnt apply. If I know a bank is going to contact my merchants that I dont fund with them after 90 days because that is in their ISO agreement then I am going to expect it. Credibly has it in their ISO agreement that they do, so now it is up to each ISO to decide if they want to work with them. They arent hiding what they are doing, they are being completely transparent about it

Actually "immediately" was to mean at first chance. I wasn't clear. But once again, don't feed us BS as if this is a shooting gallery of imbeciles. They should leave that to Cresthill, the broker for Mantis.

[J.Celifarco]

he said if they dont fund the deal in 90 days their in house sales will contact them. I take that as they will doing what they have to in order to fund the deal no matter the position. I give him credit for being honest because I believe that will make some people not send them deals

[J.Celifarco]

I dont expect him to come out and say we stack deals but I believe that was what he implied. If its not then he can say its not but reading the comments that is what I took from it

[Sachip24]

I do apologize if my answer was evasive I truly thought that I was being clear in my response. I thought that "We try to stay in the 1st position game. On average our deals that fund external are 1st positions the bulk majority of the time and a larger majority come from lead buys not past ISO submissions that reply back to us down the road." That felt pretty clear to me, but to be more clear...1. our agreement says we can call after 30 days...we wait 3 times that time frame and we don't call we send a form email following up...if they respond great...if not we still dont call....#2 again we are focusing our efforts of the direct sales team to lead purchases because our partner relationships are of the utmost importance to us. #3 We have changed policies over the last 6 months to help solidify and solve for this issue by cutting off our direct sales team from submitting duplicate leads that come from partners if the partner submits first. #4 Yes there are many advantages to working with Credibly, if a partner does not agree to the terms of the agreement we welcome red lines to the agreement and we have many partners that we will never even email a decline of theirs from 2 years ago because we discussed expectations before the partnership went live. I will say the same to you, please email me directly if you want to discuss further I am trying to 100% transparent.

Thank you

If ISO relationship is so important to Credibly when you email their declines in 90 days do you CC the ISO who submitted the deal to you and include them in that email as well?... waiting 3 times the time frame sounds to me like a nice way of saying we wait until hopefully the ISO forgot about the submission.

[Chambo]

WOW, this is like a WWE tag team pile on here!

Bottom line (much like the whole Peak Solutions mess) is that you got your answer. "Join Credibly" answered...the way THEY wanted to answer. If the answer isn't good enough for you,...DO NOT SEND THERE. End of story. They aren't going to answer the question the EXACT WAY or with EXACT WORDING you want. So now what are you going to do? Go on for another ten pages demanding the answer your way?

[Chambo]

You KNOW they have a sales floor. You KNOW they take submitted & not funded files and sop/sell them. I would be surprised to find one fund out there that doesn't do/try this. Most of them do not have to though these days with all the multiple submission & back dooring that goes on...they just kind of sit back and the file will inevitably come back to them.

As far as killing you potential renewal? How is what they are doing ANY DIFFERENT from any other ABC ISO calling up merchant and stacking them? The merchant is still stacked. You going to cry to every ISO in American that your renewal got crushed because the merchant chose to sign the paper? It has happened to all of us at some point and time. It sucks, yeah,...but THIS IS THE LIFE WE HAVE CHOSEN. I DIDN'T QUESTION (a lil Moe Green right before Passover)

[WestCoastFunding]

As far as killing you potential renewal? How is what they are doing ANY DIFFERENT from any other ABC ISO calling up merchant and stacking them? The merchant is still stacked.)

There’s a pretty big difference between a 1st position funder sending an ISO submission to their inside sales to send out to stack their competitors, and some random ISO calling UCCs and stacking them. The biggest difference is NO ONE is sending ABC the merchant info.

Let’s go even further, if stacking deals using your inside sales team to send files to other funders is cool, why isn’t Credibly stacking their own deals?

Lastly, if Credibly wants to dance around answering specific concerns, that’s their right. But their evasive bull**** is noticeable. This could all be avoided by them just saying “we will not stack your submissions”. But they don’t.

[WestCoastFunding]

Isn’t Credibly part of the SFBA (Small Business Finance Association)?

Funny how the SBFA wants to institute best practices for brokers, while they have places like Credibly that is potentially stacking other members.

Maybe before lecturing brokers on best practices, the SBFA needs to look inward.

[HDF]

It is noteworthy that the big money that top funders supposedly spend on marketing, their internal brokers, and of course, in this case "leads" tugs on everyone's heartstrings apparently.

But the smaller ISO shop can submit their hard earned apps and leads and be told "you knew what you were getting into". Pardon us for asking a few questions.

[Zonefund]

Very valid point, as I stated in my response to WCF, 2nd positions are typically not a game we play in...we also do not work with any lender that requires Confession of Judgement as a rule. We try to stay in the 1st position game. On average our deals that fund external are 1st positions the bulk majority of the time and a larger majority come from lead buys not past ISO submissions that reply back to us down the road.

Again happy to discuss personally...just shoot me an email. Thank you for the feedback.

Confirmed you work w/ wall street funding, mantis, and a few other high risk lenders.

[Zonefund]

Translation: if you submit a deal to Credibly, but you end up funding with Rapid, there’s a 100% chance Credibly’s inside sales team will be contacting your merchant in the coming months. After finding out they’ve been funded with Rapid, Credibly’s inside sales team may try stacking them — denying the iso a renewal.

Tell me that isn’t a possibility?

Put fake numbers on your apps then shoot them to credibly, kapitus, rapidadvance. All 3 will call your fake number within 30-90 days. It has happened to me dozens of times. Don't trust any funder.

[WestCoastFunding]

Confirmed you work w/ wall street funding, mantis, and a few other high risk lenders.

Credibly sends stacks to Expansion also.