[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.