[Sean Cash]

So the questions remains: what do you communicate to the merchant to deter them from taking those calls made after your submission? Again, I have my personal techniques and usually have to elaborate as to my cautioning them without saying: "Hey, if you get a phone call let me know because someone is going behind my back." It would almost ruin our credibility and trustworthiness with having their file.

I imagine this kind of situation arises a lot in the mortgage business.

[Scott Williams]

The mortgage industry use to keep wholesale and retail more separate than our space. Its understandable that brokers are worried about losing deals when so many lenders have in house retail and wholesale combined with our industry.

[Chambo]

So the questions remains: what do you communicate to the merchant to deter them from taking those calls made after your submission? Again, I have my personal techniques and usually have to elaborate as to my cautioning them without saying: "Hey, if you get a phone call let me know because someone is going behind my back." It would almost ruin our credibility and trustworthiness with having their file.

if the other caller is offering the same dela as you at a lower rate and no closing fee? what's he or she going to do?

[MCAVeteran]

it is very very hard for a retail and wholesale model to exist in tandem without channel conflict. The wholesale model brings alot of business with no upfront marketing expense to a funder (pay on funded deals only model) and puts the marketing cost burden on the broker. The retail model carries a fixed overhead of salaries/draws benefits to the employees and a marketing cost to the funder to bring in deals whether it be ppc/direct mail/telemarketing. in a perfect world, the funder wants both channels, however, stories like this will continue to pop up as both models are carried out. the retail model allows more control of your sales while the wholesale model allows for less upfront expenses to bring in the business but the challenges of forecasting your sales with a indirect channel who doesnt have to send you any business.

[Finance1]

I imagine this kind of situation arises a lot in the mortgage business.

It sure did but not because of retail channel going behind broker's backs. It happened extensively because of trigger leads. Credit bureaus sold fresh daily lists of every consumer who had a mortgage credit inquiry. It was easy to explain to clients though because we knew their phones would ring or mailboxes would fill up with the "you better get a second opinion stuff". All I had to say was the credit bureaus are selling the fact that your credit got pulled by a mortgage company to every telemarketer or direct mail company on earth. To the tune of $1-2 a pop. It's big business. Well, at least it was big business back when there were mortgage brokers. lol

Before any lightbulbs go off...I already talked to experian a year ago. Trigger leads for biz credit pulls simply don't work for our industry. Mortgage inquiries are coded and biz credit pulls aren't coded. Sure, you could probably buy them for 1-2 bucks a pop but the roi stinks.

[Quickfunder]

if the other caller is offering the same dela as you at a lower rate and no closing fee? what's he or she going to do?

That's the nature of any business and I don't begrudge any merchant who gets a better deal. But that's what happens with the pool of prospects is nothing but UCC leads who have done this 5-6 times, etc.

[Quickfunder]

Can lenders blame us when we double/triple+ submit to get the deal. I don't even think lenders try to hide that they are soliciting behind your back. They will decline and give the worst reason why - but in any case it's not like we don't have other lenders to take it to. So in the end, the lender originally submitted to just ends up wasting everyone's time in a turf-war of constant under-cutting. I watch as they battle it out, clueless as to what options the merchant ultimately has because there are so many people interfering at that point. You guys bring up good points on preventing this by communicating to the merchant. But I'll always be working with more than one lender to ensure that if someone does go behind my back ... then they still won't get the deal.

Case in point. A lender this week declined two of my deals. But both merchants have strong approvals with other banks (hence sending to me to compete). When I prompted as to why they got declined, I was told bad credit.

Bad credit. Right.

[sbroman]

I will not continue to engage this thread after this post, but I will say this. If you think that any of the many funding companies that have raised 10s of millions of dollars, spent years building their marketing campaigns, reputations, and wholesale efforts to drive new business partners would then simply steal a deal from one of the partners they have fought to acquire than I don't what to tell you.

Why would any company steal one deal from an agent? Because that one deal is the end of the relationship, period. if you want to come on here and bash a competitor just for the sake of doing it, than OWN it. Put your name on it and lay it all out there. The truth of the matter is, when you go after the low hanging fruit or when merchants go to your website they are going to 5. No one can stop a merchant from shopping, all you can do is try to get better leads and build stronger relationships. It saddens me that threads like this still exist in a forum where the goal is to spread industry awareness and to share information.

[Sean Cash]

Seth, I think there's always going to be paranoia. It's probably better if situations get aired out here where funders at least have a chance to respond. I know everyone wants to think a lead is exclusive even if they generated it and even if the client promises they're speaking to NO ONE ELSE.

If the lead was purchased, they're talking to other people.
If the lead came from the Internet, they're talking to other people.
If the lead came from a UCC, telemarketing, mail, or face to face, they're talking to other people.

This is the age of information. The second a merchant is done speaking with you, they are going online and checking you out to make sure you're legit and/or to find out if there's anything better.

Sure there will always be a percentage of people in small town America who will forego the Internet, take you at your word, and never give a 2nd thought about other options, but they are the minority.

You are always competing and you should acknowledge that in your conversations with the merchant. "I really appreciate your business", "Thank you for choosing me", "I know you have a choice of who you work with and I want you to know that your satisfaction with my service is very important to me." etc.

In the immediate post-recession, the messaging may have been different. You could get away with saying "I'm the only person that can get you funded. No one is lending now." But you know what? Today, the alternative space is huge and everyone is lending.

Your client is going to see the RapidAdvance TV commercial or the million displays of business loan ads in their search results, gmail, and across the web due to retargeted advertising. You are competing. Even if a funder did engage in funny business, you should be well prepared to deal with competition of any kind. You are always competing. Just win the damn deal.

[Quickfunder]

I wasn't referring to a general occurrence so much as a specific incident.

Further, I'm not aware of too many independent agents who have actual websites, let alone ones that look genuine. Each time a merchant tells me they are dealing with a broker, the e-mail will almost inevitably not be connected to any Funding-related website (we're talking Yahoo, Hotmail, Gmail, etc.), and the phone-number is an assigned Google Voice number. I can't think of one instance in which I've been able to come across a broker's actual website and not have it be just a standing .gif screenshot ripped from a legitimate Funding Source's website.

In other words, these are the the guys I'm not worrying about.

I will say, Sean, that having worked for a lender's in-house Sales Office myself, that I know it's not just considered expected to funnel deals out... It's your job. You want that extra bonus at the end of the week? Close the deal. You want to reach that high monthly quota, get another bonus? Close the deal. If you don't, you're not a "team-player".

As for all the competition you mention, the merchants are welcome to it in my opinion. Am I really going to get upset that someone out there is offering cheaper money or making my job harder? I call that *capitalism*. And I hope it keeps happening to give Small Business in this country the break they need. I'm sure paranoia is just part of this industry, but in some cases legitimate concerns are warranted ... and nothing is wrong with general curiosity of course.

I don't know if Seth can or cannot account for the phone-call I received. What I do know is that my only resort is to submit upwards of up to 3 lenders or more and know what the real numbers are among all them. It puts me as the agent in control of the deal instead of the merchant, who might not have a problem settling for a better deal without me. If I can pitch a bank one thing, pitch the second another, and close the deal with the 3rd all on the suspicion that I might have gotten screwed on a false decline, oh well. I can spot these back-channels a mile away. What always cracks me up is getting an e-mail from the original lender who declined and asking, "Just out of curiosity, what rate is that merchant getting with your 2nd lender? It seemed like such a unique deal!!"

[AMERICApital1]

I retract my previous post as I was under the impression mcc and nlf were the same entity in how they operate. I now understand the difference after a phone conversation and it was clearly my mis understanding on how the two entities differ and not understanding the full agreement set forth.

[155refi10psf]

Prior to establishing a long term relationship with a few ethical lenders I submitted each deal to all the lenders I could find. On the app I switched the merchants phone and email to same area code VoIP numbers from my phone system and gmail accounts that forwarded to the actual merchants phone/email you'd be surprised who's backdooring and where the handoffs are going. im sure it's not policy just rogue employees. Bottom line is most smaller lenders don't have the long term vision to remain ethical and all larger banks have holes in there risk management controls and lack proper measures to eliminate the dissemination of merchant documents containing ss#s.

[MCAVeteran]

I'm sure if the applicants found out how many funders or brokers are reviewing their personal data and banking information from what they believed was going to actually review their data , some privacy act laws are being breached. Sooner or later, this game will get caught and those doing it will be exposed.

[Chambo]

I will not continue to engage this thread after this post, but I will say this. If you think that any of the many funding companies that have raised 10s of millions of dollars, spent years building their marketing campaigns, reputations, and wholesale efforts to drive new business partners would then simply steal a deal from one of the partners they have fought to acquire than I don't what to tell you.

Why would any company steal one deal from an agent? Because that one deal is the end of the relationship, period. if you want to come on here and bash a competitor just for the sake of doing it, than OWN it. Put your name on it and lay it all out there. The truth of the matter is, when you go after the low hanging fruit or when merchants go to your website they are going to 5. No one can stop a merchant from shopping, all you can do is try to get better leads and build stronger relationships. It saddens me that threads like this still exist in a forum where the goal is to spread industry awareness and to share information.

Why Seth? I have two words for you.....Mitch Levy

[Chambo]

In the interest of other peoples' relationships, I have altered my post