[downtownfunding]

Just found out from the broker I send a lot of business to that the craphole funder he decided to give a chance to on one of my files is threatening my merchant. They promised to renew him at 50% and we've been holding all new business to see if they lived up to their word, because they took their sweet time paying the original commission on the deal and I didn't trust them. Merchant should be renewing today and they decided he has to wait another 20% to be worthy of their funding. This is a third position funding, they also told him that if he takes a renewal from his 1st or 2nd position, they will enact their 'no stacking fee' and charge him 25% of the original payback (not even the original funding amount).

First of all, this is cleary in violation of NY's (the funder is an NY company) new disclosure law. Second, I thought we were done with toughguy lenders like this looking to strongarm people but I guess when everyone thinks they can be a funder ripping people off with fees, you'll have riffraff like this trying to basically extort people, must be real easy when you promise someone funding then tell him he has to wait and if he can't because he believed what you told him, that too bad now you owe me even more usurious fees.

My question is can a merchant renewing an existing 1st or 2nd position even be considered stacking, since their position never changed?

[reversefunder]

This definitely doesn't seem okay.

Maybe try getting the funder to put that in writing so you can try to hold their feet to the fire?

[RickyR3712]

Just found out from the broker I send a lot of business to that the craphole funder he decided to give a chance to on one of my files is threatening my merchant. They promised to renew him at 50% and we've been holding all new business to see if they lived up to their word, because they took their sweet time paying the original commission on the deal and I didn't trust them. Merchant should be renewing today and they decided he has to wait another 20% to be worthy of their funding. This is a third position funding, they also told him that if he takes a renewal from his 1st or 2nd position, they will enact their 'no stacking fee' and charge him 25% of the original payback (not even the original funding amount).

First of all, this is cleary in violation of NY's (the funder is an NY company) new disclosure law. Second, I thought we were done with toughguy lenders like this looking to strongarm people but I guess when everyone thinks they can be a funder ripping people off with fees, you'll have riffraff like this trying to basically extort people, must be real easy when you promise someone funding then tell him he has to wait and if he can't because he believed what you told him, that too bad now you owe me even more usurious fees.

My question is can a merchant renewing an existing 1st or 2nd position even be considered stacking, since their position never changed?

stay away from them , switch login if they have . renew the first 2 and never speak or reach out to them again . They can not charge a stacking fee if they do not know about it

[closer129]

Just found out from the broker I send a lot of business to that the craphole funder he decided to give a chance to on one of my files is threatening my merchant. They promised to renew him at 50% and we've been holding all new business to see if they lived up to their word, because they took their sweet time paying the original commission on the deal and I didn't trust them. Merchant should be renewing today and they decided he has to wait another 20% to be worthy of their funding. This is a third position funding, they also told him that if he takes a renewal from his 1st or 2nd position, they will enact their 'no stacking fee' and charge him 25% of the original payback (not even the original funding amount).

First of all, this is cleary in violation of NY's (the funder is an NY company) new disclosure law. Second, I thought we were done with toughguy lenders like this looking to strongarm people but I guess when everyone thinks they can be a funder ripping people off with fees, you'll have riffraff like this trying to basically extort people, must be real easy when you promise someone funding then tell him he has to wait and if he can't because he believed what you told him, that too bad now you owe me even more usurious fees.

My question is can a merchant renewing an existing 1st or 2nd position even be considered stacking, since their position never changed?

If he renews with the first and second position companies technically he did not stack on the third position and should not be charged a fee unless he takes a fourth position. If anyone that should be charging stacking fees is the 1st and second position funders if anything. Funders like this give the good funders like myself and the industry a bad name and they should not be in this industry.

If a merchant stacks on us we do not always add the stacking fee unless the new payments affects our payment and they start bouncing payments on us. But laot of times when merchants are bounding payments from stacking and being over leveraged they default and we do not get it back anyway. Our first position deals work like a line of credit and our deals are usually alot shorter for the merchant to renew several times a year so they do not have to stack and get more money at a cheaper cost. Doing this way keeps tyhe merchants business healthy and the broker gets a commission 2-4 times a year from the same merchant the right way.


Scott Platto
Scott@tmrnow.com
tmrnow.com
212-220-9872

[rmckellar]

I am actually the broker here, I do a lot of business with Josh and Mario in the original post. Everyone thinks they can be a lender and are experts in this industry until you find out that they're just a racket for usurious fees, despite the fact that the recent disclosure laws and settled case law actually are the only enforceable precedents and something so absurd in writing can really come back and bite them. Did they promise to renew the guy at 50% and he's been waiting on a contract? Yeah. Did they threaten to charge that insane fee if he 'stacks' by renewing with a first or second-position lender who they themselves stacked on? Yeah, but anyone who has dealt with the funding side of this business knows that if a superseding position has not changed, the guy hasn't stacked. It's the most basic understanding of UCC-1 liens.

I am working on getting the file paid off so the merchant can get the funding he was promised, although the thought of expediting their return on capital is leaving a really bad taste in my mouth. Because the guy bounced 'a couple times' on a third position, 100 day deal. Big deal. If anyone wants to be taken seriously they wouldn't make such threats and wouldn't change their renewal policy arbitrarily. But we're talking about a company who couldn't even competently send a commission wire or ACH because the funds weren't in their bank account and they 'didn't realize they hadn't cleared'. Good thing Josh had asked me to hold any of his files from going to this lender until we saw how they handled the renewal. These guys would rather threaten fees that they can actually be sued over instead of having a pipeline of several million dollars of submissions each month coming to them.

It's their loss. In a week my company merges with a massive, industry-wide known company and had I not found out about their practices, I had planned on sending them any of our 3rd positions because I had liked the guy who runs their company. I am sure when they see who I've merged with that they will regret losing that dealflow.

When I told my partners last night about the 'stacking' fee for a merchant renewing an existing position, they said exactly what I was thinking: "Oh, it's just a racket to trap merchants and rake them over the coals with fees. They won't be around long". Which is why I won't even bother naming them, they won't be in business long at all. I should have known better when it took multiple weeks to receive the initial commission that these guys were waiting on right before Christmas.

[benkhay]

Renewing is not considered stacking smh

[Akanner]

I am actually the broker here, I do a lot of business with Josh and Mario in the original post. Everyone thinks they can be a lender and are experts in this industry until you find out that they're just a racket for usurious fees, despite the fact that the recent disclosure laws and settled case law actually are the only enforceable precedents and something so absurd in writing can really come back and bite them. Did they promise to renew the guy at 50% and he's been waiting on a contract? Yeah. Did they threaten to charge that insane fee if he 'stacks' by renewing with a first or second-position lender who they themselves stacked on? Yeah, but anyone who has dealt with the funding side of this business knows that if a superseding position has not changed, the guy hasn't stacked. It's the most basic understanding of UCC-1 liens.

I am working on getting the file paid off so the merchant can get the funding he was promised, although the thought of expediting their return on capital is leaving a really bad taste in my mouth. Because the guy bounced 'a couple times' on a third position, 100 day deal. Big deal. If anyone wants to be taken seriously they wouldn't make such threats and wouldn't change their renewal policy arbitrarily. But we're talking about a company who couldn't even competently send a commission wire or ACH because the funds weren't in their bank account and they 'didn't realize they hadn't cleared'. Good thing Josh had asked me to hold any of his files from going to this lender until we saw how they handled the renewal. These guys would rather threaten fees that they can actually be sued over instead of having a pipeline of several million dollars of submissions each month coming to them.

It's their loss. In a week my company merges with a massive, industry-wide known company and had I not found out about their practices, I had planned on sending them any of our 3rd positions because I had liked the guy who runs their company. I am sure when they see who I've merged with that they will regret losing that dealflow.

When I told my partners last night about the 'stacking' fee for a merchant renewing an existing position, they said exactly what I was thinking: "Oh, it's just a racket to trap merchants and rake them over the coals with fees. They won't be around long". Which is why I won't even bother naming them, they won't be in business long at all. I should have known better when it took multiple weeks to receive the initial commission that these guys were waiting on right before Christmas.

I love it when the funder who did the stacking wants to charge the merchant a staking fee for taking a refi from the guys that got stacked.
the first 2 funders prob did a better deal than the 3rd funder

Get the 3rd funder PIF and bring the deal to someone else that will pay you on time