[excelcap]

Hello All -

Merchant source is a pretty big iso that funds heavy with LENDR and Libertas (hope yall are reading this) loves to triple fund and junk your files. We funded a good amount with them however we just got a file call us back for reduced payments after we checked the statements to try and work with the client it comes to light that not only did they triple fund 3 first positions on the same day they also felt it was appropriate to junk 5% across the board on all deals.

If any funder is funding with them (i am sure a lot are ) I would really reconsider your relationship with them.

Greedy iso's strike again. This industry needs to clean up and take out the trash before all funders will go direct and eliminate the need for isos completely.

[mca2150]

Merchant Source IS Lendr. They are one and the same.

[excelcap]

I am not sure that's the case - why would a funder willingly triple fund on their own paper and knowingly put a client at over 50% gross? doesn't sounds like a winning model to me. we are not talking about a 10k 60 day deal this is 6 figures over 12 months --

[mca2150]

I am not sure that's the case - why would a funder willingly triple fund on their own paper and knowingly put a client at over 50% gross? doesn't sounds like a winning model to me. we are not talking about a 10k 60 day deal this is 6 figures over 12 months --

I'm certain they are, just do some digging into the both of them. George left years ago but they are still linked. MSI is very high risk and I'm sure they have a reason for it.

[channin19]

I got the twisties doing the mental gymnastics required to get from George to Viking Funding to Lendr.

[fundingsmbs]

Hello All -

Merchant source is a pretty big iso that funds heavy with LENDR and Libertas (hope yall are reading this) loves to triple fund and junk your files. We funded a good amount with them however we just got a file call us back for reduced payments after we checked the statements to try and work with the client it comes to light that not only did they triple fund 3 first positions on the same day they also felt it was appropriate to junk 5% across the board on all deals.

If any funder is funding with them (i am sure a lot are ) I would really reconsider your relationship with them.

Greedy iso's strike again. This industry needs to clean up and take out the trash before all funders will go direct and eliminate the need for isos completely.

don't you do 1-4th positions? so you hop first position funders?

[excelcap]

we do not double fund unless the other funder is aware and have a 30-day rule in between funding. funding 3 first position deals behind all funder's backs is just another level of greed. The funders pay the brokers bills at the end of the day and putting someone at 50% gross always leads to a bad outcome. Brokers know it , Funders know it. Stacking someone a few months after they took a 1st pos. deal is a necessity and actually helps out the funders in previous positions a lot of the time TBH - But when a merchant is coached in a way that is directly against all iso agreements and causes the merchant to violate the agreements out the gate is just not justified any way you wanna slice it.

I would say that 30-40% of all problems with deals that we encounter have to do with the client journey. if the brokers were in the corner of the funders and not their pockets everyone would make a lot more money. The broker would retain the client longer , the funder would fund the client longer because the merchant would be able to sustain more funding for longer periods and not be choked out by the funding that was improperly provided that

[TheUnderwritingProdigy]

we do not double fund unless the other funder is aware and have a 30-day rule in between funding. funding 3 first position deals behind all funder's backs is just another level of greed. The funders pay the brokers bills at the end of the day and putting someone at 50% gross always leads to a bad outcome. Brokers know it , Funders know it. Stacking someone a few months after they took a 1st pos. deal is a necessity and actually helps out the funders in previous positions a lot of the time TBH - But when a merchant is coached in a way that is directly against all iso agreements and causes the merchant to violate the agreements out the gate is just not justified any way you wanna slice it.

I would say that 30-40% of all problems with deals that we encounter have to do with the client journey. if the brokers were in the corner of the funders and not their pockets everyone would make a lot more money. The broker would retain the client longer , the funder would fund the client longer because the merchant would be able to sustain more funding for longer periods and not be choked out by the funding that was improperly provided that

I agree 100%. We adhere to the 30-day rule between funding as well. Even if the original funder is aware and okay with us coming in right away w/the stack, it's not something we'll do because it sets a bad precedent for the merchant that it's just okay to turn around and stack fundings. I fund pretty aggressively so getting stacked right away throws all the #'s out the window and opens us up to much higher levels of default.

[Michael I]

I got the twisties doing the mental gymnastics required to get from George to Viking Funding to Lendr.

just go to his linkdin page and you see he was working at both companies for years at the same time .

[fundingsmbs]

https://debanked.com/2017/10/stackin...d-go-to-trial/

it was challenged at one point in time, but, it didn't appear to go anywhere because it is big business today, I agree. But first position funder's do not like it at all and contractually, they try and put clauses to charge a fee and default to merchant's who do it, but, they don't seem to do anything unless an actual default occurs. There isn't a monopoly on funding, it's been around since the beginning of time so it makes sense cases like this didn't become precedent. But, all of these ads and email promotions saying funding 1-6th position, funding defaults, etc etc really just send a message to brokers that it's ok to act recklessly.

There is a need for additional positions, and, Kabbage never paid off anyone and made an empire off their model before AMex purchased it, for example.

I agree what your describing this ISO did is egregious.

[Sizzle1738]

Hello All -

Merchant source is a pretty big iso that funds heavy with LENDR and Libertas (hope yall are reading this) loves to triple fund and junk your files. We funded a good amount with them however we just got a file call us back for reduced payments after we checked the statements to try and work with the client it comes to light that not only did they triple fund 3 first positions on the same day they also felt it was appropriate to junk 5% across the board on all deals.

If any funder is funding with them (i am sure a lot are ) I would really reconsider your relationship with them.

Greedy iso's strike again. This industry needs to clean up and take out the trash before all funders will go direct and eliminate the need for isos completely.

Tripple funded?!?!?!?!? That's impressive.