[EdwinS]

Yes, thank you for brining up the "funding call", with the broker being absent on the funding call, IS the exact setup of the fraud, conveniently setup by the MCA together with the broker. The funding call has no value if the broker is absent from the recorded funding call, so it is a scam setup by the MCA and the broker jointly, to intentionally distribute the "responsibility" factor, making it harder for anyone to be responsible. Because when the fraud is exposed, the broker is nowhere to be found, and the "MCA lender" conveniently says "we do not know what the broker told you, and you didn't say anything on the "funding call". What a perfect scam setup!

You see, the fraud works like this: In these scams, a major part of it is the broker convincing the merchant to not say anything during the "funding call". And during the funding call, the MCA asks "has anyone promised you anything else?". And who do you think "ANYONE" is referring to but the broker? So if that "anyone" IS the broker, why isn't the broker on the call at the same time with the merchant during the "funding call"? The answer is simple- because the funding call, IS the actual main part of the scam orchestrated by the MCA and the broker. It is intentionally done so, so the "blame" is offloaded completely on the merchant, while the main scam entities (the MCA and the broker) cover their tracks.

Therefore, we go back to my original post- The ONLY one responsible in this bait and switch, IS the actual source of funds that generate this toxic environment. This would be the "MCA" funding company along with investors hiding behind it. Hold these people responsible, and you will see how fast this bait and switch stops.

But of course, no one wants this to stop, as the bait and switch is the natural part of the operation, and they WANT their scam to continue, while "not being responsible".

[BR-Nightmare]

Yes, thank you for brining up the "funding call", with the broker being absent on the funding call, IS the exact setup of the fraud, conveniently setup by the MCA together with the broker. The funding call has no value if the broker is absent from the recorded funding call, so it is a scam setup by the MCA and the broker jointly, to intentionally distribute the "responsibility" factor, making it harder for anyone to be responsible. Because when the fraud is exposed, the broker is nowhere to be found, and the "MCA lender" conveniently says "we do not know what the broker told you, and you didn't say anything on the "funding call". What a perfect scam setup!

You see, the fraud works like this: In these scams, a major part of it is the broker convincing the merchant to not say anything during the "funding call". And during the funding call, the MCA asks "has anyone promised you anything else?". And who do you think "ANYONE" is referring to but the broker? So if that "anyone" IS the broker, why isn't the broker on the call at the same time with the merchant during the "funding call"? The answer is simple- because the funding call, IS the actual main part of the scam orchestrated by the MCA and the broker. It is intentionally done so, so the "blame" is offloaded completely on the merchant, while the main scam entities (the MCA and the broker) cover their tracks.

Therefore, we go back to my original post- The ONLY one responsible in this bait and switch, IS the actual source of funds that generate this toxic environment. This would be the "MCA" funding company along with investors hiding behind it. Hold these people responsible, and you will see how fast this bait and switch stops.

But of course, no one wants this to stop, as the bait and switch is the natural part of the operation, and they WANT their scam to continue, while "not being responsible".

I beg to differ here.

Brokers should not be on the Funding Call. Your just enabling the bad apples to take notes on how to coach future Merchants. It's as if to say the UW should be on your sales call to see how you are pitching the Merchant.

Because we all know a vast majority of these reps refer to themselves as the "funder/lender" making it seem like we, the actual funder/lender, are working FOR them.

[EdwinS]

yes, but what is enabling these brokers, is the MCA (and its investors) who are providing the funds and the illegal interest rate motivation which is hiding a loan behind fancy words like "future receivables"; therefore, the MCA and all of its investors are 100% liable for any damage to the merchant, due to any promises made by the broker (regardless of the "funding call" which is main part of the scam to being with conveniently setup by the MCA company).

There is no way around this, if you have real intent in stopping this toxic environment. Once the liability of all damages is shifted to the source of where funds are really coming from, then all of a sudden, this pattern will stop.

And while we are at it- let me see what you think is the responsibility of the "MCA lender" to check the background of the broker?

[BR-Nightmare]

yes, but what is enabling these brokers, is the MCA (and its investors) who are providing the funds and the illegal interest rate motivation which is hiding a loan behind fancy words like "future receivables"; therefore, the MCA and all of its investors are 100% liable for any damage to the merchant, due to any promises made by the broker (regardless of the "funding call" which is main part of the scam to being with conveniently setup by the MCA company).

There is no way around this, if you have real intent in stopping this toxic environment. Once the liability of all damages is shifted to the source of where funds are really coming from, then all of a sudden, this pattern will stop.

And while we are at it- let me see what you think is the responsibility of the "MCA lender" to check the background of the broker?

You're basing this off the initial post author who stated their Merchant was dooped by a "funder." A company no one has heard of that swindled the Merchant.

This wasn't your top funders doing this, it was a nobody. You continue to associate the wrong terminology to the product. This is easily going to turn against you.

9 times out of 10, the common denominator is a "company" (broker and/or funder) that no one knows who the **** it is.

Everyone has a right to their opinions, but your terms and associations to the product are incorrect. In this industry, as much as someone may fight for regulation or fight to abolish it, there is someone working twice as hard to do the opposite.

[syavask]

You're basing this off the initial post author who stated their Merchant was dooped by a "funder." A company no one has heard of that swindled the Merchant.

This wasn't your top funders doing this, it was a nobody. You continue to associate the wrong terminology to the product. This is easily going to turn against you.

9 times out of 10, the common denominator is a "company" (broker and/or funder) that no one knows who the **** it is.

Everyone has a right to their opinions, but your terms and associations to the product are incorrect. In this industry, as much as someone may fight for regulation or fight to abolish it, there is someone working twice as hard to do the opposite.

What surprises me the most is that the guy who owns Prime Funding Direct doesn't even try to hide.. usually, it's almost impossible to find anything about these types of "funders" or their owners, while in this case you just need to google the name and you'll see the face of this scumbag..

[syavask]

yes, but what is enabling these brokers, is the MCA (and its investors) who are providing the funds and the illegal interest rate motivation which is hiding a loan behind fancy words like "future receivables"; therefore, the MCA and all of its investors are 100% liable for any damage to the merchant, due to any promises made by the broker (regardless of the "funding call" which is main part of the scam to being with conveniently setup by the MCA company).

There is no way around this, if you have real intent in stopping this toxic environment. Once the liability of all damages is shifted to the source of where funds are really coming from, then all of a sudden, this pattern will stop.

And while we are at it- let me see what you think is the responsibility of the "MCA lender" to check the background of the broker?

You can't compare a legit funder with a scammer which no one has ever heard of before. My company does background on all the ISOs when signing them and I'm pretty sure any other legit funder does the same thing.

Regarding having brokers on a funding call, this just defeats the purpose of the call.. We usually use it to go over the contract, read the terms, fees etc, make sure merchant understands what they've signed and confirm that they haven't received any promises from the ISO (regarding LOC's, term loans, reduced payments etc.), if it turns out that the broker lied to the merchant, we'd cut them off, no discussion. Also just to clarify, in the MCA world, there's no such thing as "interest rate" or "loan", and that is explained to the merchants as well.

I fully agree with you that funders are 100% responsible when it comes to 20 days deals with the promise of a LOC or a term loan (I don't even think they work with brokers, probably have their own sales people), but you can't blame the whole industry for what those scumbags do, there are many many legit and honest funders out there.

[EdwinS]

Yes, you would cut them off because your fraud would be exposed now, so you cannot continue. The purpose of this fraud is that the MCA company has a broker who convinces a merchant to not say anything on the call, and then the funding call the MCA company takes its chances and preys that the Merchant does not say anything, because when the merchant does not say anything, now the MCA company has it recorded, and is able to "protect" the MCA company and it's investors. In the rare case that the merchant does say something, you cut the losses and do not do the deal. Do you see the fraud setup by this system? It is perfectly designed to try and protect the MCA and its investors, while shifting all the blame on the merchant, while conveniently the broker is missing from the equation. So it's a gamble the MCA/broker take together- they gamble on if the merchant follows the brokers advice and not say anything due to the fake promises or not.

The bottom line is If a merchant is promised a LOC, and has been convinced by the broker to not say anything on the funding call, and that LOC does not come through- the only 2 entities responsible are the broker and the MCA company, because as part of a "responsible/legit" MCA company, comes the responsibility to correctly filter out the ISO's you work with. The defense of "it's not my responsibility" simply does not work. Knowing your ISO and taking responsibility for the broker, IS the responsibility of the MCA company (especially if the broker is a known financial criminal).

But the MCA companies have these delusional assumptions that somehow, they are not responsible because of the their "funding call" where conveniently the one and only entity that has promised the fake deal, is absent from the call. The funding call has no value, if the broker is missing from the funding call. Actually that is part of the scam orchestrated by the MCA company- to intentionally have the broker be absent, which allows the MCA company to tell the merchant later on after the fraud is exposed "you didn't say anything during funding call, so it is not our responsibility"- oh yeah? What a convenient scam setup.

So the only way to correct this, is to hold the MCA funding company responsible for 100% of damages on the merchant regardless of any invalid funding call recording or MCA agreements signed, plus all kinds of punitive penalties until they learn their blistering lesson. a funding call without the broker, or an agreement without the broker on it, has no standing, and in fact, is part of the fraud operation intentionally setup to make sure the MCA company "is not responsible", and this fraud loophole setup must be stopped.

Even in the rare case that the MCA company is some kind of an innocent Saint and really is not involved in this scam with the broker, even in that case the MCA company is 100% responsible. Why? Because it is the MCA company task to know what brokers it is working with.