[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.

[RickyR3712]

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.

Funders listen to him. Pay 12 upfront like everyone does and give a couple of points on the backend if merchant fully pays. This way the broker has an incentive to keep merchant paying pass the 30 days.

[Michael I]

Funders listen to him. Pay 12 upfront like everyone does and give a couple of points on the backend if merchant fully pays. This way the broker has an incentive to keep merchant paying pass the 30 days.

great idea

[pcfunder]

Funders listen to him. Pay 12 upfront like everyone does and give a couple of points on the backend if merchant fully pays. This way the broker has an incentive to keep merchant paying pass the 30 days.

thats a game changing idea....

[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

[RickyR3712]

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

This is the truth. Claw back should only happen if the broker did something wrong.
Is this your claw back policy?

[Akanner]

This is the truth. Claw back should only happen if the broker did something wrong.
Is this your claw back policy?

To be fully honest, that is not my policy.

1. Very often it is very hard to find out what went wrong and why the deal went bad, especially if the merchant has gone MIA.
Every so often, you get updated docs and find out that you were double funded, stacked etc. Or eventually, you hear from the merchant that he defaulted on your MCA since the SBA or LOC he was promised never came.

2.I have a few isos that i have full trust in and if a deal comes bad every so often it can slide and not clawback a cm.
But there are other isos that pretty quickly you notice that all their deals go a bit sour and you see that they are just trying to shovel whatever they can at you (most deals are previous defaults, funding mtd that they knew about, hidden accounts). in a case of a day one default, we would be more inclined to take our cm back and either be more cautious with them or no longer fund for them.

Obviously, there are shops that fit between those 2 types.

[alexd12345]

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

I very clearly stated Im ok with a no stack no psf no false promises as a clause in the no clawback policy .

[alexd12345]

I very clearly stated Im ok with a no stack no psf no false promises as a clause in the no clawback policy .

I think if funders put the following into their iso agreement that if at any time there is irrefutable proof that an iso either lied to merchant, charged a psf or double funded/ stacked a merchant, the iso can be clawed back immediately, even without a default, it would cause alot less of this kind of activity and clean up this industry in a major way ! Als we ISos would not t have to be responsible for crappy underwriting.

[Akanner]

I think if funders put the following into their iso agreement that if at any time there is irrefutable proof that an iso either lied to merchant, charged a psf or double funded/ stacked a merchant, the iso can be clawed back immediately, even without a default, it would cause alot less of this kind of activity and clean up this industry in a major way ! Als we ISos would not t have to be responsible for crappy underwriting.

I hear, but i think that would be almost to impossible to enforce. Each clawback will be like a court case with each side presenting their evidence.
Also, the same brokers that will do the grey area tactics are not the type that will honor a clawback for getting caught. It will most likely lead them to fund side accounts, pull psf under entity and all sorts of other tricks to skirt getting caught.

I think a clear cut 30 day (usually 20 payments) policy is clear cut and leaves less room for debate. Sometimes you make it by one payment/day sometimes you lose it by one payment/day no matter if its a 40 day deal or 140 days. It can be like football; a game of inches.

An iso and funder can make up their own agreement or own deal by deal basis. whether it is a period of time or out of principle on the deal.

[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

[alexd12345]

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

LOL not sure what your point is but doing one thing right and being scummy in every other area doesnt do anything for you

[Michael I]

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

haha if you do not pay the cm you do not need to claw anything back

[ryan $]

haha if you do not pay the cm you do not need to claw anything back

They always paid me. My family can be tied to the Mafia, if you try. 70's and 80's. SO its hard for me to really hold a grudge for that.

The thing I disagreed with is renewal stealing, but once you know its just YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to reach out to merchants, then get renewal offers from PAR. It didnt happen.

Wide is Great, But i literally HATE HATE HATE, when I submit to them, get a better offer elsewhere and fund elsewhere, then 2 weeks later wide funds the same approval they issued me and I get no commission, but again, once you know they do this, its not an issue anymore.

[TheUnderwritingProdigy]

They always paid me. My family can be tied to the Mafia, if you try. 70's and 80's. SO its hard for me to really hold a grudge for that.

The thing I disagreed with is renewal stealing, but once you know its just YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to reach out to merchants, then get renewal offers from PAR. It didnt happen.

Wide is Great, But i literally HATE HATE HATE, when I submit to them, get a better offer elsewhere and fund elsewhere, then 2 weeks later wide funds the same approval they issued me and I get no commission, but again, once you know they do this, its not an issue anymore.

Why would you get commission in this scenario? You do know that the same files are generally submitted by other ISO's, right? Whoever gets back signed contracts first wins. If you never requested or closed contracts w/them because you funded elsewhere, then they got it submitted by another ISO and funded it with them, I don't see the problem...

[ryan $]

Why would you get commission in this scenario? You do know that the same files are generally submitted by other ISO's, right? Whoever gets back signed contracts first wins. If you never requested or closed contracts w/them because you funded elsewhere, then they got it submitted by another ISO and funded it with them, I don't see the problem...

Wide reaches out directly. No one mentioned other ISO's. Normally its an ISO's deal for 30 days.
2 Weeks..... Is frustrating.

Unless yea like where you stated there is no ownership to ISO whatsoever, its a free for all until contracts are signed. That has downsides though too though.

My POINT was more of every lender operates how they operate, and once you know how that is, and operate within their guidelines, most (not all) lenders are fine, Par Included. At least my experience with them