[NEWCDAM]

most likely a white label "funder" and they dont want to get left holding the bag on the commission if the real lender does a clawback

That isn't our problem if we are doing what is necessary to make sure they stay on track and they are paid. Most brokers don't even do that. What are we working for, nothing? How do they get to breach their contract with us? They are in default with us! How do we enforce that like they are enforcing their contract with the merchant?! It's blatant disregard.

[simonwein12]

That isn't our problem if we are doing what is necessary to make sure they stay on track and they are paid. Most brokers don't even do that. What are we working for, nothing? How do they get to breach their contract with us? They are in default with us! How do we enforce that like they are enforcing their contract with the merchant?! It's blatant disregard.

Always ask around about the company & people before just signing up if you never heard of them before.

[ridextreme]

That isn't our problem if we are doing what is necessary to make sure they stay on track and they are paid. Most brokers don't even do that. What are we working for, nothing? How do they get to breach their contract with us? They are in default with us! How do we enforce that like they are enforcing their contract with the merchant?! It's blatant disregard.

Of course it's your problem. They stiffed you, didn't they?

It's not about making sure the merchants pay. It's trusting the funder to actually pay you.

Just use reputable funders, there's enough of them out there that we don't have to rely on these fly by night shops.

[diditevenfund]

Of course it's your problem. They stiffed you, didn't they?

It's not about making sure the merchants pay. It's trusting the funder to actually pay you.

Just use reputable funders, there's enough of them out there that we don't have to rely on these fly by night shops.

This is so spot on. It blows my mind how everyone wants to "give the funder a shot". Just use the real ones that are in banks often. Why risk your clients info and relationship sending to randoms?

[NEWCDAM]

This is so spot on. It blows my mind how everyone wants to "give the funder a shot". Just use the real ones that are in banks often. Why risk your clients info and relationship sending to randoms?

They got them the seemingly best terms and the merchant was happy. Reputable lenders weren't offering those terms to them. We really went above and beyond to get this deal done, and now are on the shortest end of the stick with a breached contract for hypothetical reasons.

But again my thing is, where is our real protection as a broker because apparently our simple contracts are basically meaningless to these lenders.

[BR-Nightmare]

Reputable lenders weren't offering those terms to them.

By the sound of that, it wasn't a good file then if Reputable FUNDERS are passing on it. Disclose the term of that deal

[Finance]

Good afternoon Newcdam,
To answer your question regarding safeguards aimed toward preventing this very outcome, you have no external safeguards outside of legal actions, legal actions that will end up costing you more than the very commission you're taking action to garner, and by the time you've spent thousands on said legal action, the 3 months will have passed and if your conviction in the client proves to be valid, you'll get paid. As a result of this reality, your only protection is internal, your internal adjudication regarding the funders you choose to place your files with.

You said this platform was your only means to funding the deal due to the terms checking off the required boxes to secure the transaction and had no other routes to take, forcing you to go in this direction, which ultimately holds the answer to your own question; if you're in a beggars can't be choosers scenario, is it conducive to give up on the deal and lose all opportunity of commission, or is it conducive to use whatever means necessary to secure the transaction despite the potentiality of getting stiffed on the commission? You chose the latter, which was correct, because even if you didn't get a commission, you achieved for a client what nobody else could, securing enough credibility for future transactions that will make you money.

But, the example above isn't nearly as drastic as your current scenario because you have a funder saying they will pay after 3 months vs the typical situation when someone gets stiffed where the "lender" completely disappears once the transaction finishes, which opens the door to a few questions you shouldn't ask the forum, but should instead ask to yourself:
Is failing to understand that mostly all lenders will be reluctant to pay a commission to a brand new ISO they've never worked with if a client immediately starts bouncing payments before the figurative ink on the contract dries and then proceeding to publicly shame the lender with name drops and transaction details that are specific enough for them to identify the transaction and further identify exactly who it is that's publicly shaming them conducive to your goal of receiving this commission? Or have you successfully decreased your likelihood of being paid whilst simultaneously burning your relationship with a resource that has proven the ability to provide something nobody else could essentially providing you the option to make money that would never have been made without them. Don't let hyper vigilance ruin your credibility because the only reason you should make a thread regarding this is if the client didn't immediately bounce payments and you still weren't being paid despite this. I'm a broker as well, but I understand the actions they took and would do the exact same thing they did, put yourself in their shoes. It doesn't matter if the client made up the payments, what matters is that the client immediately deviated from the agreement they just committed to before the ink even dried, ultimately invalidating everything from the start and giving everyone a bad taste in their mouth because I'm sure they've experienced the same scenario in multiples where they DID pay the commission and got double burned, so they learned from their mistakes and are hedging themselves against another iteration of what's already occurred with a different client and broker in the past.

[NEWCDAM]

Good afternoon Newcdam,
To answer your question regarding safeguards aimed toward preventing this very outcome, you have no external safeguards outside of legal actions, legal actions that will end up costing you more than the very commission you're taking action to garner, and by the time you've spent thousands on said legal action, the 3 months will have passed and if your conviction in the client proves to be valid, you'll get paid. As a result of this reality, your only protection is internal, your internal adjudication regarding the funders you choose to place your files with.

You said this platform was your only means to funding the deal due to the terms checking off the required boxes to secure the transaction and had no others routes to take, forcing you to go in this direction, which ultimately holds the answer to your own question; if you're in a beggars can't be choosers scenario, is it conducive to give up on the deal and lose all opportunity of commission, or is it conducive to use whatever means necessary to secure the transaction despite the potentiality of getting stiffed on the commission? You chose the latter, which was correct, because even if you didn't get a commission, you achieved for a client what nobody else could, securing enough credibility for future transactions that will make you money.

But, the example above isn't nearly as drastic as your current scenario because you have a funder saying they will pay after 3 months vs the typical situation when someone gets stiffed where the "lender" completely disappears once the transaction finishes, which opens the door to a few questions you shouldn't ask the forum, but should instead ask to yourself:
Is failing to understand that mostly all lenders will be reluctant to pay a commission to a brand new ISO they've never worked with if a client immediately starts bouncing payments before the figurative ink on the contract dries and then proceeding to publicly shame the lender with name drops and transaction details that are specific enough for them to identify the transaction and further identify exactly who it is that's publicly shaming them conducive to your goal of receiving this commission? Or have you successfully decreased your likelihood of being paid whilst simultaneously burning your relationship with a resource that has proven the ability to provide something nobody else could essentially providing you the option to make money that would never have been made without them. Don't let hyper vigilance ruin your credibility because the only reason you should make a thread regarding this is if the client didn't immediately bounce payments and you still weren't being paid despite this. I'm a broker as well, but I understand the actions they took and would do the exact same thing they did, put yourself in their shoes. It doesn't matter if the client made up the payments, what matters is that the client immediately deviated from the agreement they just committed to before the ink even dried, ultimately invalidating everything from the start and giving everyone a bad taste in their mouth because I'm sure they've experienced the same scenario in multiples where they DID pay the commission and got double burned, so they learned from their mistakes and are hedging themselves against another iteration of what's already occurred with a different client and broker in the past.

You must be with OnTap with all of these paragraphs Lol. Pay the broker. They breached our contract and there's nothing else to discuss.

IF A CONTRACT SAYS PAY WITHIN 7 BUSINESS DAYS AND THERES A 30DAY CLAWBACK, BUT INSTEAD RATHER PAY COMMISSION AT THE END OF THE CONTRACT BECAUSE THEY'RE SCARED, THEN THEY SHOULD CLARIFY THAT SO WE CAN MOVE ON AND NOT WASTE OUR TIME!! THEY CAME UP WITH THE CONTRACT SO THEY AGREE THAT IT'S THEIR LIABILITY AND RISK NOT OURS. WE HAVE DONE OUR PART.

OUR CLIENT PAYS DAILY REGARDLESS AND THERE IS NO DEFAULT. SO THE LONG PARAGRAPHS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH US. THE FUNDER HASN'T DONE RIGHT BY THEIR BROKER AND THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE. NOBODY WILL WORK WITH YOU IF YOU'RE DOING THAT!

[BR-Nightmare]

You must be with OnTap with all of these paragraphs Lol. Pay the broker. They breached our contract and there's nothing else to discuss.

IF A CONTRACT SAYS PAY WITHIN 7 BUSINESS DAYS AND THERES A 30DAY CLAWBACK, BUT INSTEAD RATHER PAY COMMISSION AT THE END OF THE CONTRACT BECAUSE THEY'RE SCARED, THEN THEY SHOULD CLARIFY THAT SO WE CAN MOVE ON AND NOT WASTE OUR TIME!! THEY CAME UP WITH THE CONTRACT SO THEY AGREE THAT IT'S THEIR LIABILITY AND RISK NOT OURS. WE HAVE DONE OUR PART.

OUR CLIENT PAYS DAILY REGARDLESS AND THERE IS NO DEFAULT. SO THE LONG PARAGRAPHS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH US. THE FUNDER HASN'T DONE RIGHT BY THEIR BROKER AND THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE. NOBODY WILL WORK WITH YOU IF YOU'RE DOING THAT!

It wasn't a reputable funder. You got screwed.

Next time do better research.

[Finance]

How disheartening to see you’re still void of common sense despite me breaking it down for you. No, I’m not with them, I’ve never even heard of them, this wasn’t about them, it’s about edifying you to teach you how to actually have enough knowledge and credibility in the future so you don’t end up in situations like this one. You said 3 months is the end of the deal? So it’s a 60 day deal with a new ISO whose client immediately started bouncing? It makes even more sense now. If you’re dealing with a lender that does 60 day deals, you think they aren’t going to hold back commissions until PIF if a client immediately starts bouncing? And your ignorance is so magnifying and potent that you fail to understand who you’re dealing with and further fail to understand lenders like that have absolutely no issue burning a new ISO if they see the ISO publicly shame them? And if it was a 60 day deal odds are it’s a default history client and you’re surprised after factoring in every aspect that they want to hold commissions on a client who immediately bounces payments? Are you serious? I guess some lessons must be experienced before they can be understood. I hope you learn, don’t be petulant and complain that you got mud on your shoes when you’re the one who chooses to work in the mud with 60 day deals. Your incontrovertible ignorance is exactly what got you here and despite receiving genuine advice, you remain engorged in that very same ignorance.

[diditevenfund]

They got them the seemingly best terms and the merchant was happy. Reputable lenders weren't offering those terms to them. We really went above and beyond to get this deal done, and now are on the shortest end of the stick with a breached contract for hypothetical reasons.

But again my thing is, where is our real protection as a broker because apparently our simple contracts are basically meaningless to these lenders.

Relationships ensure you get paid. Yeah they should do the right thing and pay you, but sticking to those with strong relationships really ensures no issues.

[Chambo]

That isn't our problem if we are doing what is necessary to make sure they stay on track and they are paid. Most brokers don't even do that. What are we working for, nothing? How do they get to breach their contract with us? They are in default with us! How do we enforce that like they are enforcing their contract with the merchant?! It's blatant disregard.

Until someone actually sues them for breach of contract, there is ZERO incentive to follow through on their end.

[Oxforddan]

Until someone actually sues them for breach of contract, there is ZERO incentive to follow through on their end.

Yea but OP doesn't have the kahunas to do it. Would rather just cry on here instead of doing something about it, then posting the outcome of the courts.