Originally Posted by
abfunders
So I've been that guy. I set up a factor for a client, then he came to me for a "1st position MCA" (his words) a few weeks later. Then a month later came and asked for "more money." Guess what? He had stacked himself twice already. I found a 4th position. He came back to me for a 5th, I couldn't close it, but then he came back again and Everest funded him - the exact same offer that I given him on the 5th!
Was I supposed to sit around and advise him "no, it's bad for your business"? He knew exactly what he was doing, I think he liked seeing my eyes roll with what he did. (He obviously had another broker.) He did not default, he felt that the cost of money was expensive, but worthwhile to use the build the business in the right way.
If I was given a "do not stack" clause on the ISO contracts, then that's one thing (the other broker did, BTW). But if the client demanded more money, he'll find it from someone.
Is it unethical to let the business owner decide for himself? Brokers aren't "advisors", otherwise the company would pay us salary. We are matchmakers (at least that's what I do). We shouldn't be pure salesmen either, but that's a problem with boiler rooms. Par was very aggressive in general, but they were definitely very aggressive when it came to their no stacking clauses with merchants. The part that will make the lending industry harder to make a buck for many brokers? If the feds or states force disclosures of fees, to forcibly give the client all options (very very hard to understand how - qualified for SBA doesn't mean they want an SBA - at least with a mortgage broker, there's only one type of loan, a mortgage), or whatever else is forced upon real estate brokers.
Reply With Quote
