[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.