[TheUnderwritingProdigy]

ISO's that don't charge PSF's on top of being paid 12+ points. Stop being greedy. You're screwing up the renewal for everyone.

I also hate ISO's that never respond during underwriting when I request a MTD or have a general inquiry about the business.

[Michael I]

ISO's that don't charge PSF's on top of being paid 12+ points. Stop being greedy. You're screwing up the renewal for everyone.

on that topic , can you explain to me why funders have to charge a psf fee or whatever they want to call it. Term ,rate i get they do based on how risky the feel it is but than why add 5-10% in fees on top on that?

[TheUnderwritingProdigy]

on that topic , can you explain to me why funders have to charge a psf fee or whatever they want to call it. Term ,rate i get they do based on how risky the feel it is but than why add 5-10% in fees on top on that?

Origination fees are standard for 99% of funders, so it wouldn't make sense to be the only one not charging one. Most "good" ISO Shops that don't suck and submit trash don't charge PSF's.

[Akanner]

Origination fees are standard for 99% of funders, so it wouldn't make sense to be the only one not charging one. Most "good" ISO Shops that don't suck and submit trash don't charge PSF's.

I agree that most funders charge an origination fee but i don't agree that the reason is because "why not charge if everyone else is charging".

The O / UW Fee is for funders to cover some of their upfront costs and to possibly cover some of the broker's upfront commission.
Brokers make an upfront risk free commission, while day one the funder is in the hole the funding amount + the commision.

[TheUnderwritingProdigy]

I agree that most funders charge an origination fee but i don't agree that the reason is because "why not charge if everyone else is charging".

The O / UW Fee is for funders to cover some of their upfront costs and to possibly cover some of the broker's upfront commission.
Brokers make an upfront risk free commission, while day one the funder is in the hole the funding amount + the commision.

In a perfect world, ISO's shouldn't be paid at all until the deal pays off. None of this 30 day BS. If I'm in the hole $10k on a deal after 30 days and the merchant decides to stop payment, the broker should be entitled to nothing IMO.

[pcfunder]

In a perfect world, ISO's shouldn't be paid at all until the deal pays off. None of this 30 day BS. If I'm in the hole $10k on a deal after 30 days and the merchant decides to stop payment, the broker should be entitled to nothing IMO.

every broker would find a new job

[Akanner]

In a perfect world, ISO's shouldn't be paid at all until the deal pays off. None of this 30 day BS. If I'm in the hole $10k on a deal after 30 days and the merchant decides to stop payment, the broker should be entitled to nothing IMO.

I agree to this to a certain extent.
By doing this, brokers will be forced to work and follow up with clients to ensure they are paying. Minimizing stacking, double funding, and excessive PSFS.

No chance it would fly in reality though

[ryan $]

I agree to this to a certain extent.
By doing this, brokers will be forced to work and follow up with clients to ensure they are paying. Minimizing stacking, double funding, and excessive PSFS.

No chance it would fly in reality though

Deals used to be paid in upfront commission and when the deal was paid off. 6 and 6 Points Split.
Literally everyone started competing, then it all became upfront commission, Higher upfront Fee's. ETC.

[alexd12345]

In a perfect world, ISO's shouldn't be paid at all until the deal pays off. None of this 30 day BS. If I'm in the hole $10k on a deal after 30 days and the merchant decides to stop payment, the broker should be entitled to nothing IMO.

lololol! its a risk/reward decision. The reward is far greater as a funder! Which is why there are funders at all. I am a broker not an underwriter. Please do not make me responsible for your sub-par underwriting skills. I don't work with any lender whos claw back period exceeds 30 days ( not 30 business days 30 regular old days).We work really hard to get deals submitted and performance on a deal should not be the brokers responsibility( obviously if the broker double funded or took a large PSF that is a different story and deserves to be clawed back) ! In a perfect world there would be no clawbacks for honest,hardworking non-psf charging, non -stacking ISOS!!

[pcfunder]

lololol! its a risk/reward decision. The reward is far greater as a funder! Which is why there are funders at all. I am a broker not an underwriter. Please do not make me responsible for your sub-par underwriting skills. I don't work with any lender whos claw back period exceeds 30 days ( not 30 business days 30 regular old days).We work really hard to get deals submitted and performance on a deal should not be the brokers responsibility( obviously if the broker double funded or took a large PSF that is a different story and deserves to be clawed back) ! In a perfect world there would be no clawbacks for honest,hardworking non-psf charging, non -stacking ISOS!!

Yah I agree that the weight of performance should not really be put on the broker AS LONG AS brokers don't do things to actively ruin performance. Being and acting shady makes a merchant completely second guess what they are getting into and they probably are way more willing to default if the sales rep acts shady. As long as a broker understands to treat merchants right, to not hide fees, to be honest and up front about the entire program, to not promise BS, and to just generally be an all around good sales rep when a merchant needs it then I don't care if a mistake happens and the merchant defaults.

the problem I notice is that a lot of brokers dont treat MCA like a sales job they treat it like a numbers job. Call 300 merchants and hope that they want money. Force the program down their throat and on to the next. Force another program down their throat and on to the next. 30 days has passed, sweet I dont need to worry. Honestly regardless of bad credit, regardless of negative days, regardless of debt and legal issues if someone called me cluelessly shoving MCA down my throat until I'm desperate enough, I would probably be like **** this guy and this program im out too.

[Akanner]

lololol! its a risk/reward decision. The reward is far greater as a funder! Which is why there are funders at all. I am a broker not an underwriter. Please do not make me responsible for your sub-par underwriting skills. I don't work with any lender whos claw back period exceeds 30 days ( not 30 business days 30 regular old days).We work really hard to get deals submitted and performance on a deal should not be the brokers responsibility( obviously if the broker double funded or took a large PSF that is a different story and deserves to be clawed back) ! In a perfect world there would be no clawbacks for honest,hardworking non-psf charging, non -stacking ISOS!!

In a perfect world i would agree with you. there would not be a need for CB since brokers are acting in good faith and the onus is on the UW. Unless an unforeseen circumstance were to occur like a natural disaster or a merchant suddenly having no income a deal should not default. And if it does, one cannot blame the broker.

But since we do not live a perfect world. An UW can make a great decision and fund a deal and it can go bad due to PSF, Stacking, double funding, lying to a merchant etc. Therefore causing a funder to want a commission back

[Michael I]

l. I don't work with any lender whos claw back period exceeds 30 days ( not 30 business days 30 regular old days).

I also have the same rule especially for the ones that do the 40-80 day deals . If you are giving a merchant a 12 month plus deal than I would be ok with a longer clawback .

[ryan $]

lololol! its a risk/reward decision. The reward is far greater as a funder! Which is why there are funders at all. I am a broker not an underwriter. Please do not make me responsible for your sub-par underwriting skills. I don't work with any lender whos claw back period exceeds 30 days ( not 30 business days 30 regular old days).We work really hard to get deals submitted and performance on a deal should not be the brokers responsibility( obviously if the broker double funded or took a large PSF that is a different story and deserves to be clawed back) ! In a perfect world there would be no clawbacks for honest,hardworking non-psf charging, non -stacking ISOS!!

PAR did No Clawbacks qwith Preforming ISOs and were HATED BY SO MANY

[DTFdowntofund]

I agree that most funders charge an origination fee but i don't agree that the reason is because "why not charge if everyone else is charging".

The O / UW Fee is for funders to cover some of their upfront costs and to possibly cover some of the broker's upfront commission.
Brokers make an upfront risk free commission, while day one the funder is in the hole the funding amount + the commision.

This.

There can be a multitude of intent when it comes to the set up fees, but to address the reality that "we all play this game to get paid", it can be understandably justified in the amount of overhead it cost the company to not only accept, process and execute the deal.. but in the event of a default, it will at the very least manage to cover cost and the rep's compensation. But at the same time, I'm sure we all know folks who really take advantage here.

[TheUnderwritingProdigy]

This.

There can be a multitude of intent when it comes to the set up fees, but to address the reality that "we all play this game to get paid", it can be understandably justified in the amount of overhead it cost the company to not only accept, process and execute the deal.. but in the event of a default, it will at the very least manage to cover cost and the rep's compensation. But at the same time, I'm sure we all know folks who really take advantage here.

Just curious, and I mean no shade, but how do you have time to get any work done when you're commenting in depth, back and forth on seemingly every single post on here?

[pcfunder]

Just curious, and I mean no shade, but how do you have time to get any work done when you're commenting in depth, back and forth on seemingly every single post on here?

it honestly probably not as hard as youd think

[DTFdowntofund]

Just curious, and I mean no shade, but how do you have time to get any work done when you're commenting in depth, back and forth on seemingly every single post on here?

So I skim the board occasionally, and if I have something specific to say I do.. and then move on. I know what I say is always on point and very succinct , but I type 90WPM and the thoughts come very rapidly and organically so it takes a fraction of the time you would think.

On the flipside, I couldn't tell you how many times you've posted today, this week, or about what.

[Michael I]

Origination fees are standard for 99% of funders, so it wouldn't make sense to be the only one not charging one. Most "good" ISO Shops that don't suck and submit trash don't charge PSF's.

so basically you believe that the guideline of what is called greedy is based on what is standard ?

[TheUnderwritingProdigy]

so basically you believe that the guideline of what is called greedy is based on what is standard ?

The fact that the merchant's generally always get pissed once the PSF hits from the ISO. If you want to **** up the renewal game by taking another 5-10% PSF, you're doing it wrong.

[Michael I]

The fact that the merchant's generally always get pissed once the PSF hits from the ISO. If you want to **** up the renewal game by taking another 5-10% PSF, you're doing it wrong.

if what you are saying is that merchant always need to be aware that i 100% agree but that is not a greedy issue . Merchants get upset about all parts of the loan, the term the rate and then getting the docs and seeing that they are not even getting the whole amount.
My question to you is what is the guidelines of greedy ?

[Josh1810]

lol!

[Josh1810]

origination fees are standard for 99% of funders, so it wouldn't make sense to be the only one not charging one. Most "good" iso shops that don't suck and submit trash don't charge psf's.

lol

[NoBiggie]

on that topic , can you explain to me why funders have to charge a psf fee or whatever they want to call it. Term ,rate i get they do based on how risky the feel it is but than why add 5-10% in fees on top on that?

sell rate is for the funders investors (less upfront commissions and defaults). "psf fee" is for operational costs (UW's, admin's, rent etc.)

[ryan $]

on that topic , can you explain to me why funders have to charge a psf fee or whatever they want to call it. Term ,rate i get they do based on how risky the feel it is but than why add 5-10% in fees on top on that?

This is a for profit business. Quite simply.