Need a Funder or Vendor? START HERE

Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1

    Blade Funding-Same Day Commissions

    BLADE FUNDING IS CURRENTLY ONBOARDING NEW ISO SHOPS!

    WE TAKE GREAT PRIDE THAT WE HAVE 100% transparency policy with all of our ISO Partners! WE HAVE MANY HAPPY ISO SHOPS WE CURRENTLY WORK WITH THAT WILL VOUCH FOR OUR HONESTY AND INTEGRITY. (we will gladly provide contact info for references)

    If you or your team is interested in signing up please reach out to us via email moe@bladefunding.com or by phone 732-746-5103



    Funding Guidelines:
    Time in Business: 6+ Months
    2-7th Positions
    B-D Paper
    Up to 140 Day Terms
    Same Day Funding and Commissions.
    Flexible Guidelines, we will work with you based on what you need.

    Moe Neger

    ISO Relations
    Blade Funding INC
    O:732-285-4110 Ext 103
    D: 732-746-5103
    C:323-423-2742
    E: moe@bladefunding.com
    W: bladefunding.com
    Last edited by BladeFundingNJ; 06-15-2021 at 03:47 PM.

  2. #2
    Sam @ Blade is good people.

  3. #3
    Always a pleasure working with blade, can always rely on open communication and on time cm payments. as well they have bought out positions for us in the past once they have some pay history... all around great funders to work with.

  4. #4
    Always a good deal and flexibility coming from Blade.

    They'll come in and buyout everyone in a file once they are 60-70% in which is a huge sell for a stacked merch who wants to "consolidate".

  5. #5
    Member Reputation points: 13399 Finance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    27

    We had a great relationship with Blade for years until recently a client we funded with blade months back ended up getting in touch with us for help and sent us updated banks and guess what we found? Blade renewed them 4x in the course of the last 6 months for relatively large funding's all max points which accrued to about 30k in commissions that should've went to us over the course of each renewal, but we weren't even contacted ONCE about any of it. Upon learning about Blade's rapacity in this circumstance, we followed up with them (with an open/understanding outlook, we didn't jump to conclusions, we gave them the benefit of the doubt) with proof to substantiate the situation, and guess how they responded? They immediately denigrated us in an intractable manor, threatened us and maintained firm rigidity about not compensating us for the exuberant profit they just made from renewing OUR client 4x. It's funny too because we've been sending them deals and they completely stopped responding randomly, we were curious why and then this situation arose which gave us clarification as to why they stopped responding. I think this instance predicates that despite the nascent nature of our industry here, it's still the wild west and to make sure you don't put your full trust into everyone just because they're a lender.. I think the fact that it's unregulated and there aren't consequences to parasitic business practices such as this, some people would rather capitalize on their relationship with you in a poisonous manor for a quick buck rather than operate with integrity. I think it would be naïve to think otherwise in an unregulated industry and this situation exemplifies that. This isn't the first time we've had occurrences such as this, it won't be the last, and it's also not the first time anyone in this industry has heard, experienced, or witnessed a communique like this one. This toxic use of a contemporary's labor ie us the ISO in this scenario, will only facilitate dilapidation in the MCA industry. I'm not saying to not give Blade a shot, because we did fund a lot with them before learning about the under the table practices, but I'm definitely saying watch out and watch out from clandestine behavior like this. Not only from Blade, but from the entire nebulous industry we reside in.

  6. #6
    Member Reputation points: 13399 Finance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    27

    Be careful!
    Last edited by Finance; 07-15-2021 at 03:56 PM.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Finance View Post
    We had a great relationship with Blade for years until recently a client we funded with blade months back ended up getting in touch with us for help and sent us updated banks and guess what we found? Blade renewed them 4x in the course of the last 6 months for relatively large funding's all max points which accrued to about 30k in commissions that should've went to us over the course of each renewal, but we weren't even contacted ONCE about any of it. Upon learning about Blade's rapacity in this circumstance, we followed up with them (with an open/understanding outlook, we didn't jump to conclusions, we gave them the benefit of the doubt) with proof to substantiate the situation, and guess how they responded? They immediately denigrated us in an intractable manor, threatened us and maintained firm rigidity about not compensating us for the exuberant profit they just made from renewing OUR client 4x. It's funny too because we've been sending them deals and they completely stopped responding randomly, we were curious why and then this situation arose which gave us clarification as to why they stopped responding. I think this instance predicates that despite the nascent nature of our industry here, it's still the wild west and to make sure you don't put your full trust into everyone just because they're a lender.. I think the fact that it's unregulated and there aren't consequences to parasitic business practices such as this, some people would rather capitalize on their relationship with you in a poisonous manor for a quick buck rather than operate with integrity. I think it would be naïve to think otherwise in an unregulated industry and this situation exemplifies that. This isn't the first time we've had occurrences such as this, it won't be the last, and it's also not the first time anyone in this industry has heard, experienced, or witnessed a communique like this one. This toxic use of a contemporary's labor ie us the ISO in this scenario, will only facilitate dilapidation in the MCA industry. I'm not saying to not give Blade a shot, because we did fund a lot with them before learning about the under the table practices, but I'm definitely saying watch out and watch out from clandestine behavior like this. Not only from Blade, but from the entire nebulous industry we reside in.
    I love ur vocabulary tbh

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Finance View Post
    We had a great relationship with Blade for years until recently a client we funded with blade months back ended up getting in touch with us for help and sent us updated banks and guess what we found? Blade renewed them 4x in the course of the last 6 months for relatively large funding's all max points which accrued to about 30k in commissions that should've went to us over the course of each renewal, but we weren't even contacted ONCE about any of it. Upon learning about Blade's rapacity in this circumstance, we followed up with them (with an open/understanding outlook, we didn't jump to conclusions, we gave them the benefit of the doubt) with proof to substantiate the situation, and guess how they responded? They immediately denigrated us in an intractable manor, threatened us and maintained firm rigidity about not compensating us for the exuberant profit they just made from renewing OUR client 4x. It's funny too because we've been sending them deals and they completely stopped responding randomly, we were curious why and then this situation arose which gave us clarification as to why they stopped responding. I think this instance predicates that despite the nascent nature of our industry here, it's still the wild west and to make sure you don't put your full trust into everyone just because they're a lender.. I think the fact that it's unregulated and there aren't consequences to parasitic business practices such as this, some people would rather capitalize on their relationship with you in a poisonous manor for a quick buck rather than operate with integrity. I think it would be naïve to think otherwise in an unregulated industry and this situation exemplifies that. This isn't the first time we've had occurrences such as this, it won't be the last, and it's also not the first time anyone in this industry has heard, experienced, or witnessed a communique like this one. This toxic use of a contemporary's labor ie us the ISO in this scenario, will only facilitate dilapidation in the MCA industry. I'm not saying to not give Blade a shot, because we did fund a lot with them before learning about the under the table practices, but I'm definitely saying watch out and watch out from clandestine behavior like this. Not only from Blade, but from the entire nebulous industry we reside in.
    Dont have any experience with Blade but its usually the short sighted Funders who operate like this. Besides the stealing part Its a dumb business move even if the iso is one who doesnt produce alot. Word gets out . Before this post I was ready to give Blade a shot but I will pass unless they respond with a good explanation. there are great funders out there who value their isos and operate honestly . Can , Ufs , The fundworks , IOU , Silverline to name a few that I have had good experiences with.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Reputation points: 55949
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    574

    Quote Originally Posted by Finance View Post
    We had a great relationship with Blade for years until recently a client we funded with blade months back ended up getting in touch with us for help and sent us updated banks and guess what we found? Blade renewed them 4x in the course of the last 6 months for relatively large funding's all max points which accrued to about 30k in commissions that should've went to us over the course of each renewal, but we weren't even contacted ONCE about any of it. Upon learning about Blade's rapacity in this circumstance, we followed up with them (with an open/understanding outlook, we didn't jump to conclusions, we gave them the benefit of the doubt) with proof to substantiate the situation, and guess how they responded? They immediately denigrated us in an intractable manor, threatened us and maintained firm rigidity about not compensating us for the exuberant profit they just made from renewing OUR client 4x. It's funny too because we've been sending them deals and they completely stopped responding randomly, we were curious why and then this situation arose which gave us clarification as to why they stopped responding. I think this instance predicates that despite the nascent nature of our industry here, it's still the wild west and to make sure you don't put your full trust into everyone just because they're a lender.. I think the fact that it's unregulated and there aren't consequences to parasitic business practices such as this, some people would rather capitalize on their relationship with you in a poisonous manor for a quick buck rather than operate with integrity. I think it would be naïve to think otherwise in an unregulated industry and this situation exemplifies that. This isn't the first time we've had occurrences such as this, it won't be the last, and it's also not the first time anyone in this industry has heard, experienced, or witnessed a communique like this one. This toxic use of a contemporary's labor ie us the ISO in this scenario, will only facilitate dilapidation in the MCA industry. I'm not saying to not give Blade a shot, because we did fund a lot with them before learning about the under the table practices, but I'm definitely saying watch out and watch out from clandestine behavior like this. Not only from Blade, but from the entire nebulous industry we reside in.

    I don’t have any experience with Blade either, but I had to renew my subscription with thesaurus.com just to finish reading this post, and no one in the office appreciated THAT….
    Do you remember love? That time you funded your first deal over 40K.....

  10. #10
    After reviewing the factually inaccurate and self-serving statements in yesterday's defamatory post by United Business Funding LLC, Blade has no choice but to set the record straight.

    Unfortunately, UBF apparently seeks to use this forum to strong-arm Blade into submission on a private business dispute between two companies, which stems from Blade's discovery of what Blade believes were UBF's dishonest business practices.

    The true story is simple. UBF requested that Blade consolidate all positions of one of the merchants referred by UBF under an ISO Agreement. In exchange, that merchant was to give Blade exclusivity to avoid jeopardizing the consolidated position by overleveraging the merchant's receivables.

    Despite both oral and written representations and promises by UBF, and UBF's direct knowledge of merchant's agreement to take no additional positions other than with Blade, without any authorization or notice, UBF improperly brokered approximately six additional positions for the same merchant after Blade's consolidation thereby compromising the security of Blade's position. When the merchant was confronted, Blade was advised that UBF not only encouraged those additional positions, but in doing so expressly told Blade that UBF advised the merchant this was not a problem and was standard industry procedure. And so, it is quite ironic that UBF is the one warning this forum about "the industry."

    All of these actions by UBF are in direct beach of the ISO Agreement which expressly entitled Blade to all of the remedies Blade elected to take as a result of UBF's action. Blade was able to avoid further damage by terminating its relationship with UBF so it could deal with agents who value relationships and the agreements they sign and who don’t talk out of both sides of their mouth to enrich themselves at the expense of the funders like Blade, and thankfully there are a lot of those agents out there.

    Rather than accept responsibility for its actions and attempt to resolve the issues between UBF and Blade, UBF found it appropriate to, first, threaten Blade privately, and then when Blade refused to walk away from UBF's improper actions, took to this forum to defame and make false statements about Blade. This forced Blade to set the record straight. You reap what you sow.

    For anyone that is looking for the material evidence of what happened feel free to reach out us!

    SAM CHARLOP - CEO
    BLADE FUNDING INC
    O:732-285-4110 Ext 101
    F: 732-554-0879
    Email: sam@bladefunding.com
    Web: bladefunding.com

  11. #11
    Senior Member Reputation points: 86751
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    1,346

    two narratives, a dispute, and, a "nebulous industry" . where does this go from here

  12. #12
    Senior Member Reputation points: 18841
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    135

    So what I'm getting from this dispute:

    1) The broker got the merchant multiple positions after funding and tried to stack their original position (which I'm assuming was 1st position, right?), which is against the rules of the ISO agreement. This is bad business practice.

    2) The funder renewed the merchant multiple times despite those extra positions and never paid renewal commission, which is also against the rules of the ISO agreement. The only legal excuse for this would be if the ISO agreement was voided due to the brokers actions. I have no idea if this is the case.

    Unless one side is lying, it looks like there is a legitimate grievance from each. However, if Blade funding renewed the merchant even though the broker stacked them, is it as big of an issue as withholding commission?

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by mca2150 View Post
    So what I'm getting from this dispute:

    1) The broker got the merchant multiple positions after funding and tried to stack their original position (which I'm assuming was 1st position, right?), which is against the rules of the ISO agreement. This is bad business practice.

    2) The funder renewed the merchant multiple times despite those extra positions and never paid renewal commission, which is also against the rules of the ISO agreement. The only legal excuse for this would be if the ISO agreement was voided due to the brokers actions. I have no idea if this is the case.

    Unless one side is lying, it looks like there is a legitimate grievance from each. However, if Blade funding renewed the merchant even though the broker stacked them, is it as big of an issue as withholding commission?
    No,

    It seems from the narrative that Blade consolidated positions for this merchant and then the ISO restacked the merchant after it was consolidated for that ISO.

    As an ISO I have 2 years with blade consolidating and have been payed on every renewal after the consolidation, Blade takes over the file like I wrote in my first response here and to be an ISO who restacks a merchant whose file you just cleaned up is a "industry" killer.

  14. #14
    I agree, there’s always the possibility that the merchant took funding from a different ISO as well because I find it hard to believe the ISO would stack them with 6 positions after doing a consolidation with Blade knowing it would jeopardize their commission.

    Either way, the way I see it is:
    • If Blade’s guidelines are that important to them, why on earth would they renew the merchant continuously after? If they terminated their partnership with the ISO along with the client than I wouldn’t have an issue. What I have an issue with is the fact that it appears they used the stacking instance as a reason not to pay the ISO but still continued to fund that ISO’s merchant.

    In my opinion once you flex your guidelines and take action, that would mean you refrain from working with the merchant as well, not use it as a reason to not pay the ISO and continue funding that ISO’s client. That to me is something a low tiered money hungry funder would do. Without that ISO, whether they stacked them or not, you still continued to fund their merchant which means you’re making money from their merchant, which means it’s only fair to compensate them for it? Without them connecting you and that merchant you wouldn’t be making that money at all, so to me that’s pretty odd.

    If your wife cheats on you because you said another woman was good looking, do you blame yourself for saying she’s good looking which is what caused it or do you blame your wife for taking that drastic action as a response to a mild statement? And on a side note, do you blame that other man for doing it when he didn’t know she was married? Clearly not, it’s the wife’s fault.. but now they’re getting a divorce and she’s taking the kids.

  15. #15
    I look at things in black and white. If you've made money on the ISO's merchant, and are still making money on that merchant, you undoubtedly should be compensating that ISO for it as that's the right thing to do and the proper route to take as a lender.

    For me personally after seeing this situation, if I knew of any lender that operates in this manor, I'd be hesitant to work with them because I'd have to worry about my merchant doing something out of my control which would jeopardize my commission and diminish my efforts working to get the deal done. As we all know, these merchants are ALWAYS stacking themselves and working with 10 other people, why would I want to be held accountable for that when it's out of my control? That's literally the industry we're in!

    To use that as a reason not to pay someone just looks like the primary motives are to be greedy and shady because if the fact that they stacked mattered to Blade as much as they're making it seem, Blade wouldn't have continued to renew/work with that merchant. I would never work with a lender that operates this way.

  16. #16
    Banned Reputation points: 1977
    Join Date
    May 2021
    Posts
    34

    Quote Originally Posted by Horton435 View Post
    No,

    It seems from the narrative that Blade consolidated positions for this merchant and then the ISO restacked the merchant after it was consolidated for that ISO.

    As an ISO I have 2 years with blade consolidating and have been payed on every renewal after the consolidation, Blade takes over the file like I wrote in my first response here and to be an ISO who restacks a merchant whose file you just cleaned up is a "industry" killer.
    This is what I understood happened, in that case, I can see why Blade would do what they did. (not saying that funders not paying commission on renewals on deals is right, but if they bought out many positions on a file, and then that same ISO stacks the file right behind them with multiple positions, then blade might have a good point there...)

  17. #17
    Convenient time to void the iso agreement.
    doubt UBF would stack a deal 6x

  18. #18
    anyone work with blade? would anyone recommend? heard of them, curious here

  19. #19
    Senior Member Reputation points: 86751
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    1,346

    never heard of them or half the companies on here saying they are funder's on threads

  20. #20
    Long-time lurker on the forum that doesn't participate but I created an account and am posting after talking about this with the agent that was involved. I've known the agent from in the industry and out, straight as an arrow and has been in altfi for 10+ years.

    The deal was a long-standing client that UBF funded with with Blade in early 2020. Client is an established bakery with pristine history that consistently performed on all of Blade’s deals, along with 3-6 others that were in the account at any given time, leading up to the consolidation by Blade in February 2021. As with most consolidations, the client signed a “ no stack addendum;” UBF advised Blade that the client was against this and would likely stack but ultimately moved forward after being told that they would be eligible for a large refi with Blade once half-way paid.

    Six weeks after funding, the client requested additional funding through UBF. They brought the file to Blade, explaining their need for an early add-on to prevent the client from funding elsewhere, and Blade declined to fund. UBF told the client to wait for Blade’s 50% refinancing, or they would be in breach of contract and risk a suit or judgment by Blade. The client went elsewhere and received four additional deals from another broker(s), without UBF’s involvement.

    One month later, the client approached UBF again for more funding. UBF explained that Blade would likely not continue with funding and they would not be involved in a stack. The client received an additional position from another ISO. Around the same time, UBF noticed a decline in responsiveness by Blade; they were not responding to submissions or deal inquiries and did not provide a balance for this merchant when requested.

    Several more weeks pass and the merchant approaches UBF for more funding. At this point, UBF decides to seek a 6th position for the client rather than continue to miss on business for a (1) client that is continuing to breach contract with other ISOs, and (2) attempt to work with a funding source that has gone completely unresponsive, as Blade had at this point. The sixth position for this merchant was funded through Torro by UBF.

    About one week ago, the referral source that brought the file to UBF sent in updated banks for this merchant and was requesting payout by UBF for the four fundings that Blade provided to the client. The referral source stated that the merchant was told by Sam from Blade that he should deal directly with Blade because he can offer reduced rates on funding without any brokers involved. The agent from UBF reached out to Sam directly on his personal line requesting further explanation of the additional positions funded by Blade. The rep stated that, if Sam would not respond to discuss the situation, they would take the legal route; the following day, a letter was sent by Blade to UBF, effectively a cease-and-desist.

    Blade went against their own “no stack addendum” to provide additional funds to the client and UBF has lost the referral source on this client as well as commission on approx $400K in additional funding that was performed by Blade to the merchant directly. The agent that handled the deal and relationship is highly reputable and would not have compromised the deal or relationship to make a quick buck.

Similar Threads

  1. Legend Funding - Up to $350k in same day funding / next day commissions (B Paper)
    By LegendFunding - Joseph in forum Merchant Cash Advance
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-29-2020, 12:38 AM
  2. HFH CAPITAL FUNDING : MIA on responding to Commissions (3 Deals)
    By funding221 in forum Merchant Cash Advance
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-27-2020, 11:49 AM
  3. Commissions 8-12% of the funding amount
    By gld_factoring in forum Promotions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-25-2018, 01:26 PM
  4. Everest Business Funding Commissions Are Getting Hot!
    By chadtrattner in forum Merchant Cash Advance
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-15-2015, 03:19 PM
  5. New Era Lending/Strategic Funding-Not Paying Commissions?
    By BusinessLendingMadeSimple in forum Business Loans
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 09-23-2014, 10:39 AM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


INDUSTRY ANNOUNCEMENTS

BoA launches business loan marketplace
Quickbooks adds new LOC product
Dext Capital upsizes corp note


DIRECTORY