[Roc Funding]

ZoneFund!!!! Get the story correct regarding Roc Funding, no one at Roc, is tag teaming anyone. However why don't you give use a call 718-355-8944 come aboard as a partner AND SEE THE treatment you receive!!!!

And for further edification, ROC is not owned by PAR Funding. Thanks.

[WestCoastFunding]

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.

This is exactly right. If you submit to Credibly but your merchant decides to take a different funder’s offer, Credibly may very well contact your merchant and try stacking them through outside funders and their damn excuse is “leads are expensive”? No, assholes, the leads were expensive to the ISO.

I would love to hear from SBFA members if they are comfortable with this?

Hey, J Brown, you’re pretty active on here. Is Rapid Advance comfortable with these practices?

[Michael I]

This is exactly right. If you submit to Credibly but your merchant decides to take a different funder’s offer, Credibly may very well contact your merchant and try stacking them through outside funders and their damn excuse is “leads are expensive”? No, assholes, the leads were expensive to the ISO.

I would love to hear from SBFA members if they are comfortable with this?

Hey, J Brown, you’re pretty active on here. Is Rapid Advance comfortable with these practices?

http://sbfassociation.org/best-practices/ i do not see anything about no stacking . I wonder if credibly will stack rapid with someone else.

side note if stacking is ok why not do it yourself

[OC Funder]

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)

If you're going to call people out then you need to get your facts straight... that was Hyman Roth (talking about Moe Green)

[Chambo]

If you're going to call people out then you need to get your facts straight... that was Hyman Roth (talking about Moe Green)

you are correct....I should have edited

[Hedley Lamarr]

you are correct....I should have edited

Chambo knows and uses the edit button when needed.....

[WestCoastFunding]

http://sbfassociation.org/best-practices/ i do not see anything about no stacking . I wonder if credibly will stack rapid with someone else.

side note if stacking is ok why not do it yourself

Yeah, I’ve asked on the SBFA threads what’s the SBFAs stance on stacking, and no one has ever provided any sort of answer.

And you’re right, why does Credibly broker out files that stack their competitors but refuses to stack themselves?

[Hedley Lamarr]

Never gave an answer. I have seen them in factored deals and ABL deals with no inter-creditor.

[Zonefund]

Credibly sends stacks to Expansion also.

Yes, i forgot to add them

[WestCoastFunding]

As a general practice the bulk of our external deals are also 1st position, but there will be the occasional situation where the merchant has paid down their 1st position enough that affordability will allow us to obtain them a 2nd position...but we certainly do not market 2nd positions and we will not stack on our approved partners if they hold the first position)

This is Credibly admitting that if you submit to them, but find elsewhere, they will contact your merchant in the future and stack them — just not if they have a position with “approved partners”.

Why don’t you let us alll know who Crediblys “approved partners” are so we will know who your inside sales team won’t stack?

And once again, all you SBFA members, are you cool with Credibly’s practices? You guys sure are ****ing quiet.

[J.Celifarco]

This is Credibly admitting that if you submit to them, but find elsewhere, they will contact your merchant in the future and stack them — just not if they have a position with “approved partners”.

Why don’t you let us alll know who Crediblys “approved partners” are so we will know who your inside sales team won’t stack?

And once again, all you SBFA members, are you cool with Credibly’s practices? You guys sure are ****ing quiet.

Do you think credibly is the only place that does this? I think any funder with in house sales and a clause in the iso agreement that say they will contact after 90 days is doing this.. I give them credit for admitting it unlike most that will deny it

[WestCoastFunding]

Do you think credibly is the only place that does this? I think any funder with in house sales and a clause in the iso agreement that say they will contact after 90 days is doing this.. I give them credit for admitting it unlike most that will deny it

They’re the only one we’ve caught so far. Any 1st position funder that sends their ISOs deals to their inside sales team to stack other 1st position guys should be called out. Especially when the ISO is NOT being compensated and, potentially, their renewal book being hurt by it.

They know it’s not cool, that’s why they’re so evasive when answering. If it were cool, they’d come right out and admit it rather than spin.