[funding247]

Anyone have issues with Coconut Funding having merchants sign a retainer charging them for services whether or not they get them funded and then filing on merchant if they don't pay that and adding 10K legal fees? Industry is worse off for having people like that IMO.

[BR-Nightmare]

Anyone have issues with Coconut Funding having merchants sign a retainer charging them for services whether or not they get them funded and then filing on merchant if they don't pay that and adding 10K legal fees? Industry is worse off for having people like that IMO.

Yes, please search coconut funding on the top right and read those threads

[fundinggrasshopper]

Many high-risk funders explicitly state in the fee appendix of their agreements that the UW fee, risk assessment fee, whatever you want to call it, is non-refundable even if they don't originate the advance. In my experience, it is explicitly stated in the beginning of the fees section, not buried in fine print... If the signee blocks / reverses it, they are within their rights to file.

Regardless of anybody's individual opinion towards that & it's effect on the industry, it's the merchant's sole responsibility to read what they are signing.

Just MY opinion.

[TeamFund]

Coconut funding are the worst in the industry. Their past model of screwing people didn’t work so it seems they came up with a new scam. Stay far far away. They’ve been hurting funders and merchants and brokers since at least 2015. Surprised they are still around.

[goldenhippo80]

Anyone have issues with Coconut Funding having merchants sign a retainer charging them for services whether or not they get them funded and then filing on merchant if they don't pay that and adding 10K legal fees? Industry is worse off for having people like that IMO.

https://dailyfunder.com/showthread.p...hlight=coconut

[BR-Nightmare]

Let me ask this to all the Brokers here.

Please, I beg of you....

What is your PSF that you're charging the Merchant covering?? What are the services you are doing by simply submitting the deal that will PAY YOU COMMISSION UPON FUNDING??

[goatFunding]

Let me ask this to all the Brokers here.

Please, I beg of you....

What is your PSF that you're charging the Merchant covering?? What are the services you are doing by simply submitting the deal that will PAY YOU COMMISSION UPON FUNDING??

The Same thing your bank fee is covering. Please stop with this.

You can always tell which funders/UW's worked their way up from sweating in a broker shop making 600 phone calls a day on phone burner.. not knowing when they will close their next deal...closed .. taught themselves the ins and outs... worked hard.. Got themselves a nice UW position.... after a lot blood sweat and tears.. those underwriters are usually more understanding of a reasonable PSF.

UW's that came in with salary.. learned how to run clear reports, review statements, send wires and curse a bunch... usually are not as forgiving..

If your not running a backdoor shop, and you dont have an internal sales team...

ISO's are your livelihood.

Try to actually understand their perspective... instead of coming here daily to vent how terrible they are.



You don't eat without them.

[Michael I]

Let me ask this to all the Brokers here.

Please, I beg of you....

What is your PSF that you're charging the Merchant covering?? What are the services you are doing by simply submitting the deal that will PAY YOU COMMISSION UPON FUNDING??

You have been in this industry for awhile . How many iso shops that you know went out of business. What ever number you think times it by 10 for the real number .
The cost of bringing deals goes up daily so you got to make what ever that particular funder allows and merchant is willing to take
But the better question is why funders need to charge fees ?

[goatFunding]

you have been in this industry for awhile . How many iso shops that you know went out of business. What ever number you think times it by 10 for the real number .
The cost of bringing deals goes up daily so you got to make what ever that particular funder allows and merchant is willing to take
but the better question is why funders need to charge fees ?

this

[BR-Nightmare]

The Same thing your bank fee is covering. Please stop with this.

You can always tell which funders/UW's worked their way up from sweating in a broker shop making 600 phone calls a day on phone burner.. not knowing when they will close their next deal...closed .. taught themselves the ins and outs... worked hard.. Got themselves a nice UW position.... after a lot blood sweat and tears.. those underwriters are usually more understanding of a reasonable PSF.

UW's that came in with salary.. learned how to run clear reports, review statements, send wires and curse a bunch... usually are not as forgiving..

If your not running a backdoor shop, and you dont have an internal sales team...

ISO's are your livelihood.

Try to actually understand their perspective... instead of coming here daily to vent how terrible they are. You don't eat with out them

Learn their pain points..

Easy tiger,

You are more than welcome to charge for services. But don't lie to the Merchant and say you underwrite the deal, you run the credit when you actually don't, and analyze the bank when you don't. And your charging max points on the deal!

If you're sending your ACH form after funding, that's a dick move too. Just like adding it to my contract as if we forgot to put it there for you.

Again if you are looking to offset some costs, I get it. It's how it's presented to the Merchant that's the problem.

[BR-Nightmare]

You have been in this industry for awhile . How many iso shops that you know went out of business. What ever number you think times it by 10 for the real number .
The cost of bringing deals goes up daily so you got to make what ever that particular funder allows and merchant is willing to take
But the better question is why funders need to charge fees ?

I'll ask you this in return, if you're not syndicating and I'm taking all the risk, how do I offset my losses with deals that go bad or modify their payments? Hence an upfront cost.

[goatFunding]

Easy tiger,

You are more than welcome to charge for services. But don't lie to the Merchant and say you underwrite the deal, you run the credit when you actually don't, and analyze the bank when you don't. And your charging max points on the deal!

If you're sending your ACH form after funding, that's a dick move too. Just like adding it to my contract as if we forgot to put it there for you.

Again if you are looking to offset some costs, I get it. It's how it's presented to the Merchant that's the problem.

Sounds like we are on the same page then.

Never have I ever done any of the above.

My fee form comes separately via Docu before they get the contract in most cases. Never with the contract.

I make sure to tell them, verbally and via text or email that our fee is separate from the funders' origination fee.

I do not consider myself to be a saint, but I guess compared to the industry I am.

[Michael I]

I'll ask you this in return, if you're not syndicating and I'm taking all the risk, how do I offset my losses with deals that go bad or modify their payments? Hence an upfront cost.

I dont want to get personal , but i syndicate on nearly all my deals and have more than ten times my money without getting any funder fees.I do get having control of the deal makes default way lower. ( national at one of the past broker fair threw a number on how much less their defaults are on in house deals vs iso deals)
but bottom line the underwriting is off if you cant make money without those fees

[BR-Nightmare]

Sounds like we are on the same page then.

Never have I ever done any of the above.

My fee form comes separately via Docu before they get the contract in most cases. Never with the contract.

I make sure to tell them, verbally and via text or email that our fee is separate from the funders' origination fee.

I do not consider myself to be a saint, but I guess compared to the industry I am.

I respect your process then, no hard feelings...

You have to understand for the amount of brokers I deal with, I do find the bad apples, there are ALOT of them.

If a deal I worked defaults due to a Merchant being swindled by the broker for something as discussed above, I take offense to it.

[goatFunding]

I'll ask you this in return, if you're not syndicating and I'm taking all the risk, how do I offset my losses with deals that go bad or modify their payments? Hence an upfront cost.

You are not taking all the risk. We already have taken significant risk before the file ever got to your desk. We spent 10's of thousands of dollars a month in marketing, to generate the deal.
Our reward is typically 15-25% of RTR leaving you with the bulk upside, and hopefully some awesome money on money renewals.

[goatFunding]

I respect your process then, no hard feelings...

You have to understand for the amount of brokers I deal with, I do find the bad apples, there are ALOT of them.

If a deal I worked defaults due to a Merchant being swindled by the broker for something as discussed above, I take offense to it.

thats fair.
I guess that's why I have a 4.7 rating on Trustpilot

I am pro-regulation. Weed out the brokers you speak of.

[NoBiggie]

You have been in this industry for awhile . How many iso shops that you know went out of business. What ever number you think times it by 10 for the real number .
The cost of bringing deals goes up daily so you got to make what ever that particular funder allows and merchant is willing to take
But the better question is why funders need to charge fees ?

In the same sense a good paying merchant pays a higher cost of capital to subsidize all the merchants who end up defaulting, the same thing is a funder charging fees to defray the cost on all the submissions they processed, scrubbed, underwrote, man power, final review, on deals that didn't end up funding for whatever reason.
It's a way to make up costs

[FundingGuy]

Anyone have issues with Coconut Funding having merchants sign a retainer charging them for services whether or not they get them funded and then filing on merchant if they don't pay that and adding 10K legal fees? Industry is worse off for having people like that IMO.

I did worked with them, Jack and Rob Pearlman, they are totally scam, I fund a merchant with them, posted about it before as well.
The worst part it, two of my other merchant sign agreement with them, but coconut didn't fund them so after a week or so Jack emailed me that they would like to charge these 2 merchant a placement fee of $899 each, Funk..
with out providing any service they wanna charge them and even ask for my permission
(maybe was planning to charge under my name) btw I refused that, don't know they charged them after that or not

Long thing short they are a *Scammer*

[sweetleadz]

I respect your process then, no hard feelings...

You have to understand for the amount of brokers I deal with, I do find the bad apples, there are ALOT of them.

If a deal I worked defaults due to a Merchant being swindled by the broker for something as discussed above, I take offense to it.

*Scammer*

[BR-Nightmare]

*Scammer*

Me?

[sweetleadz]

Me?

no not you !!! coconut

[geegums]

am I reading this right that they never funded this guy and went after this merchant for $10,000 for not paying their $299 underwriting fee?

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nys...vXUzne0R2iCg==

[Loading]

10,000 DEFAULT FEE for not paying $299 "after Coconut expended considerable time and resources in performing its
services"

No words

[dollarbillz]

looks like he blocked the 299 fee and they added a 10k ro8 fee. scum of the scum

[Chambo]

Scenarios like what has been described is why NY AG has decided to get involved.