[rdgllc]

I won't name the lender just yet (let's call them Lender A). I funded a renewal with Lender A. It was a very smooth funding, and this has been a repeat client several times. It was a smooth process until it comes time to get paid. I get an email two days after funding being told that this lender is no longer able to release commission without a California Lender/Broker license. Now, every lender is different. Some are known to require it and decline the submission upfront unless the license is on file (Rapid, QuarterSpot, Kapitus, etc.) and others don't require it. Lender A decided to make no mention of this requirement at all during the renewal and funding process until AFTER the deal was already done. Now I'm out several thousands of dollars and I can barely get anyone to communicate with me at the company (this is a very well known lender as well).

Am I out of place to think this is wrong on their part?

[ryan $]

I know LoanMe does this. They will Fund the deal like everything is fine, then BAM, No Commission.

I do find it odd being a renewal though, like they paid you on the initial funding? Correct?

[rdgllc]

I know LoanMe does this. They will Fund the deal like everything is fine, then BAM, No Commission.

I do find it odd being a renewal though, like they paid you on the initial funding? Correct?

Yep. That's fine that they changed their policies, but my beef is that they didn't want to say anything until the deal is funded and locked in with them again. Then they decided to address the license. I would have placed the file elsewhere if they weren't going to pay me.

[JohnT.]

Yep. That's fine that they changed their policies, but my beef is that they didn't want to say anything until the deal is funded and locked in with them again. Then they decided to address the license. I would have placed the file elsewhere if they weren't going to pay me.

Sounds like QS, Ive been hearing of ISO in similar situation with them. I did also ask was there any email notification to the CA Lic and they said yes, timing was off for some and others they were notified ahead of time. Are you sure you didnt get an email notification regarding this in spam etc?

[Michael I]

find someone with a license and have them send it to him and than him to you. pay him a couple of hundred for the help

[rdgllc]

Sounds like QS, Ive been hearing of ISO in similar situation with them. I did also ask was there any email notification to the CA Lic and they said yes, timing was off for some and others they were notified ahead of time. Are you sure you didnt get an email notification regarding this in spam etc?

I'll double check but I find it strange that two days after funding I would then get a mass email from their BizDev VP to the ISOs. I addressed this to them directly and they made no mention of any other wide email announcement sent. If they did then I wouldn't have a case. I'm not unreasonable.

[rdgllc]

find someone with a license and have them send it to him and than him to you. pay him a couple of hundred for the help

I just didn't like the lack of upfront communication from the lender and didn't know if this was a common thing people were seeing.

[happyman]

At this point I think you should feel obligated to say who the Lender is, so that we can avoid using them in the future. It just seems like another example of some Lenders being predatory.

[brokerCompany]

Not ok. Funders need to be transparent.

[LondonNyc]

Yep. That's fine that they changed their policies, but my beef is that they didn't want to say anything until the deal is funded and locked in with them again. Then they decided to address the license. I would have placed the file elsewhere if they weren't going to pay me.

If you respect the person, you let them know upfront what's going on. They should have told you (Unless the renewal dept handled it and was not aware.....maybe)

[FinancialSwissArmyKnife]

Who's the lender!?

[Wheetie]

I know LoanMe does this. They will Fund the deal like everything is fine, then BAM, No Commission.

I do find it odd being a renewal though, like they paid you on the initial funding? Correct?

They will pay you on Cali deals, just after 30 days or the beginning of the month or something like that.. funded a couple with them

[rdgllc]

Who's the lender!?

It's Quicksilver.

I'm not trying to cause problems. Just wanted to get the industry's opinion on the matter.

I went back in my emails to see if there was any notice sent out previously that I missed, and I didn't find anything. The only thing I found was the BizDev VP at the time asking me if I was licensed when I renewed this same merchant several months ago (again it was brought up AFTER the funding). I stated I was in process with the license and provided proof of that and they paid me.

I guess this is my fault now that I think of it. I should have asked them first before proceeding with the renewal, but they conveniently didn't say anything either until it was funded. That's my issue that I have right now.

[Steven_O]

It's Quicksilver.

I'm not trying to cause problems. Just wanted to get the industry's opinion on the matter.

I went back in my emails to see if there was any notice sent out previously that I missed, and I didn't find anything. The only thing I found was the BizDev VP at the time asking me if I was licensed when I renewed this same merchant several months ago (again it was brought up AFTER the funding). I stated I was in process with the license and provided proof of that and they paid me.

I guess this is my fault now that I think of it. I should have asked them first before proceeding with the renewal, but they conveniently didn't say anything either until it was funded. That's my issue that I have right now.

They literally just sent this message out Weds 9.18 from Quicksilver... I've bumped into a couple of issues with that company. They've negotiated their own renewal deals (at their own discretion without letting me know), they like to speak to you like you're a schmuck, and maybe at one point they were doing big things... but it seems to me that something smells fishy with this company. Just my humble opinion. Cut them out of your roster, you'll do better.

[JohnT.]

It's Quicksilver.

I'm not trying to cause problems. Just wanted to get the industry's opinion on the matter.

I went back in my emails to see if there was any notice sent out previously that I missed, and I didn't find anything. The only thing I found was the BizDev VP at the time asking me if I was licensed when I renewed this same merchant several months ago (again it was brought up AFTER the funding). I stated I was in process with the license and provided proof of that and they paid me.

I guess this is my fault now that I think of it. I should have asked them first before proceeding with the renewal, but they conveniently didn't say anything either until it was funded. That's my issue that I have right now.

Knew it was QS lol...few of my ISO had this issue with them on CA lic regulations.

[rdgllc]

They literally just sent this message out Weds 9.18 from Quicksilver... I've bumped into a couple of issues with that company. They've negotiated their own renewal deals (at their own discretion without letting me know), they like to speak to you like you're a schmuck, and maybe at one point they were doing big things... but it seems to me that something smells fishy with this company. Just my humble opinion. Cut them out of your roster, you'll do better.

Exactly! I got the same email on 9.18.2019. And I funded this deal on 9.16.2019. And I'm not getting paid. All my calls and emails are being dodged also.

[WestCoastFunding]

Exactly! I got the same email on 9.18.2019. And I funded this deal on 9.16.2019. And I'm not getting paid. All my calls and emails are being dodged also.

They aren’t answering because they’re too busy spamming me 75 times a day.

[Quicksilver Capital]

My info is below

Feel free to reach out

[rdgllc]

My info is below

Feel free to reach out

Michael - thank you for the conversation.

The situation is being rectified appropriately. I appreciate your open-door policy.