[WestCoastFunding]

Then stop commenting you do care. Lol. Anyone can click on your profile and see you comment negatively on everyone post and don’t stop. Stay in your lane.

I don’t quite understand your reaction. Let me get this straight: You want people to send you files but you don’t want to provide them info about your program? You want to come on here pitching it, but don’t dare ask questions?

**** out of here.

For 10 years you’ve been a damn lead reseller, and now all of the sudden you’re a Funder? Your lane is selling leads.

Once again, you keep saying you negotiate with the MCA funders to reduce total payback. DO YOU INFORM THE MERCHANT OR NOT? YES OR NO?

The fact you refuse to answer that tells the story. These morons come on here time and time again, pitching their products, but don’t want to explain how they work and address the grey areas.

But it seems clear as day, working with people who are trying to negotiate a lower total payback (without the merchant even ****ing knowing) has the potential to put ISO agreements at risk.

How is that not a reasonable question to ask? Address that rather than getting butthurt.

[MCN]

Sorry but product sounds shady AF. Has a single person here funded a deal with them and if so whats the process? Been hearing nothing but crickets.

If you want people to send you deals, be straightfoward and answer simple questions like a man. Its not rocket science. If you have nothing to hide, you'll give the answers, if you have something to hide, you'll deflect. So far its been deflections which tells me everything i need to know.

[Hedley Lamarr]

Your first clue would have been found if you looked to see if the business entity is still active.....

[RickyR3712]

@admin the fact that you are not banning someone who works out "discounts" from funders and than "deceives" the merchant by selling it at 25% instead of what it is truly is,means that you find this gray area to be white?
@funders on this site.Do none of you have the balls to come out and say if you are for or against this product?

[abfunders]

@admin the fact that you are not banning someone who works out "discounts" from funders and than "deceives" the merchant by selling it at 25% instead of what it is truly is,means that you find this gray area to be white?
@funders on this site.Do none of you have the balls to come out and say if you are for or against this product?

Ricky, do you have proof that they are not giving them a 25% APR loan? Or are you just assuming?
However, tell me what you think - is a client calling up a funder and telling them that they can "pay in full in return for a 10% prepayment discount" bad faith negotiations, while they are paying normally? The funder can always say "No." I have no way of knowing for sure what LendaBiz is doing, but that's the most I can figure based on the little information I had read. Unless you know something we don't know? You're making a lot of assumptions.

The "bad faith" negotiations that funders hate are when the merchants are not defaulting, and the merchant breaches their contract by stopping payments on the funder and force their hands to "settle." Funders are constantly settling with their defaults when it was done in good faith, and, yes, they offer prepayment benefits for 30-60-90 early payoffs. What's wrong with requesting for a little "give" to get paid off? Did I miss something? Chutzpah? Maybe. Illegal or immoral? I don't think so....

[WestCoastFunding]

Ricky, do you have proof that they are not giving them a 25% APR loan? Or are you just assuming?
However, tell me what you think - is a client calling up a funder and telling them that they can "pay in full in return for a 10% prepayment discount" bad faith negotiations, while they are paying normally? The funder can always say "No." I have no way of knowing for sure what LendaBiz is doing, but that's the most I can figure based on the little information I had read. Unless you know something we don't know? You're making a lot of assumptions.

The "bad faith" negotiations that funders hate are when the merchants are not defaulting, and the merchant breaches their contract by stopping payments on the funder and force their hands to "settle." Funders are constantly settling with their defaults when it was done in good faith, and, yes, they offer prepayment benefits for 30-60-90 early payoffs. What's wrong with requesting for a little "give" to get paid off? Did I miss something? Chutzpah? Maybe. Illegal or immoral? I don't think so....

For me, it’s really going to come down to how the funders react to this. Like Ricky said, if Rapid gets a call one day from some guy saying he’s representing a merchant that Rapid is servicing, saying he wants to work out to deal to pay they 80% of what is owed. Does Rapid hang up the phone and cutoff the ISO agreement? Or does Rapid say, “you know what, this is great because we eliminate risk and are able to put this money back out on the street immediately”?

I really don’t know the answer to that. I wish some funder would provide feedback on how this is viewed.

[RickyR3712]

Ricky, do you have proof that they are not giving them a 25% APR loan? Or are you just assuming?
.

You mean beside that they told me when i asked them and that they wont fund a first position?

[RickyR3712]

The "bad faith" negotiations that funders hate are when the merchants are not defaulting, and the merchant breaches their contract by stopping payments on the funder and force their hands to "settle." Funders are constantly settling with their defaults when it was done in good faith, and, yes, they offer prepayment benefits for 30-60-90 early payoffs. What's wrong with requesting for a little "give" to get paid off? Did I miss something? Chutzpah? Maybe. Illegal or immoral? I don't think so....

Again i agree this is what i call a gray area.I understand it is a funder choice and they are not being forced into it,but not one funder has yet to answer me thru emails or on here that they are ok or not ok with it.All responses were mainly stay away in till i hear back.

love how you are sticking up from them even though last time you did they cut you off.

[abfunders]

Again i agree this is what i call a gray area.I understand it is a funder choice and they are not being forced into it,but not one funder has yet to answer me thru emails or on here that they are ok or not ok with it.All responses were mainly stay away in till i hear back.

love how you are sticking up from them even though last time you did they cut you off.

<shrug>
Honest mistake on their part, they apologized in public. Accepting responsibility means a lot to me.
Anyway, I'm not sticking up for them. I'm a debater by nature, so I enjoy poking holes in arguments that I feel aren't sound.
But yeah, I think WCF is right, we really all want to hear how lenders are treating it, that will make all of the difference here.
However, we might have some difficulty - how many funders are going to respond? Would they risk their RTR down 10% regularly?

[WestCoastFunding]

The other grey area isn’t so much the reduction/rebate in payback that’s negotiated, but the fact the merchant isn’t made aware of it. I get it, without the consolidation the merchant is paying back 100% owed, but something just seems odd that the merchant isn’t made aware of the reduction — especially since I don’t even think merchants would give a crap as long as they get the consolidation.

Maybe they feel that after they negotiate the reduction the merchant will subvert them or something? I just don’t get it.

I legit ask these questions in earnest.

[RickyR3712]

Twice i had where a merchant was a couple of days in and wanted out.One funder said ok took their money back and felt like they dodged a bullet, the other said no you have to pay back the full amount and would not even offer a penny off

[RickyR3712]

The other grey area isn’t so much the reduction/rebate in payback that’s negotiated, but the fact the merchant isn’t made aware of it. I get it, without the consolidation the merchant is paying back 100% owed, but something just seems odd that the merchant isn’t made aware of the reduction — especially since I don’t even think merchants would give a crap as long as they get the consolidation.

Maybe they feel that after they negotiate the reduction the merchant will subvert them or something? I just don’t get it.

I legit ask these questions in earnest.

because they are doing 56% and marketing it as 25%.Even at 56% i have plenty of merchant that will pay the higher rate to get monthly.

[OC Funder]

Again i agree this is what i call a gray area.I understand it is a funder choice and they are not being forced into it,but not one funder has yet to answer me thru emails or on here that they are ok or not ok with it.All responses were mainly stay away in till i hear back.

love how you are sticking up from them even though last time you did they cut you off.

It would surprise me if you get encouragement to proceed from anybody in writing, especially since ISO agreements clearly demand you not market additional $ to funded merchants. I'm not saying anyone WOULD be against it if it works as advertised on this thread, I just wouldn't hold my breath for any reputable funder to go on a public forum and give the thumbs up.

[RickyR3712]

It would surprise me if you get encouragement to proceed from anybody in writing, especially since ISO agreements clearly demand you not market additional $ to funded merchants. I'm not saying anyone WOULD be against it if it works as advertised on this thread, I just wouldn't hold my breath for any reputable funder to go on a public forum and give the thumbs up.

True and by the fact that no one is publicly giving the thumbs down,also that admin is ok with them advertising on here seems like i might be wrong.