[TopTier]

Need people's thoughts here...

Merchant/Deal #1 Funded for $30,000
We were paid commission
Payment issues are happening, 3 Bounced payments, we have been in touch with Merchant (their daughter is in hospital and she is spending alot of time away from work visiting, caring for grandchildren, etc)

Merchant/Deal #2 Funded for $30,000
We were paid Commission
Deal renewed for $95,000 Commission is owed

We were told to get Merchant/Deal #1 "back on track" before commission is released for deal #2. After a back and forth we proposed just treat deal #1 like a Default and issue us the difference in commission for Merchant/Deal #2.

Funder does not want to do this.

Merchant/Deal #2 Called in to adjust payment - they tried using this as a reason not to pay us, we had Merchant IMMEDIATELY call back and rescind his request to lower/adjust payment. *This all happened quickly, a lower payment was never agreed on and wasn't processed whatsoever, so the payment was never lowered.

My opinion is deal #1 and Deal #2 have nothing to do with each other, In reality I feel we should be issued full commission for Deal #2 and in the event that Deal #1 does fully default and is sent to legal, then Deal #1 Commission should be clawed back.

I also believe it is more than reasonable for us to have proposed just acting as if Deal #1 is in fact a default, deducting the commission/clawback from Deal #2 Commission and sending us the difference, and working out deal #1 as it progresses.... either having the clawback stick and/or getting the deal back on track and being reissued commission once Deal pays in full.

What is everyone's thoughts here? Am I completely unreasonable?

[Johndough24]

Need people's thoughts here...

Merchant/Deal #1 Funded for $30,000
We were paid commission
Payment issues are happening, 3 Bounced payments, we have been in touch with Merchant (their daughter is in hospital and she is spending alot of time away from work visiting, caring for grandchildren, etc)

Merchant/Deal #2 Funded for $30,000
We were paid Commission
Deal renewed for $95,000 Commission is owed

We were told to get Merchant/Deal #1 "back on track" before commission is released for deal #2. After a back and forth we proposed just treat deal #1 like a Default and issue us the difference in commission for Merchant/Deal #2.

Funder does not want to do this.

Merchant/Deal #2 Called in to adjust payment - they tried using this as a reason not to pay us, we had Merchant IMMEDIATELY call back and rescind his request to lower/adjust payment. *This all happened quickly, a lower payment was never agreed on and wasn't processed whatsoever, so the payment was never lowered.

My opinion is deal #1 and Deal #2 have nothing to do with each other, In reality I feel we should be issued full commission for Deal #2 and in the event that Deal #1 does fully default and is sent to legal, then Deal #1 Commission should be clawed back.

I also believe it is more than reasonable for us to have proposed just acting as if Deal #1 is in fact a default, deducting the commission/clawback from Deal #2 Commission and sending us the difference, and working out deal #1 as it progresses.... either having the clawback stick and/or getting the deal back on track and being reissued commission once Deal pays in full.

What is everyone's thoughts here? Am I completely unreasonable?

You're toptierfinancial?

[FCF Fund]

Deal #1 and #2 are not correlated and should be treated as such and in the spirit of the iso agreement.

Funders need to learn how to UW their ISO better, If you don’t trust your ISO then why do biz with them? Why even have an agreement you won’t honor when convenient.

[Johndough24]

It sounds like you don't read your iso agreements. If a deal defaults you can be liable for the funded amount that was lost. You mentioned being in the space for a while so I did some digging and I guess you can only work with certain funders due to have a **** reputation and background.

What you'll be getting is **** run of the mill funders here. The same way the ****tiest isos are on dailyfunder, it's vice versa.

[Johndough24]

Deal #1 and #2 are not correlated and should be treated as such and in the spirit of the iso agreement.

Funders need to learn how to UW their ISO better, If you don’t trust your ISO then why do biz with them? Why even have an agreement you won’t honor when convenient.

Some iso agreements hold the iso liable for things like this. He just didn't read it.

[TopTier]

Some iso agreements hold the iso liable for things like this. He just didn't read it.

On what planet if a deal defaults and the funder is out say $30,000....
Would the ISO then owe $30,000 - Unless there was some type of fraud involved on the ISOs part (carroting or something)

[TopTier]

Also, Deal #1 has missed 3 payments (not in a row). They make one, Bounce one, Make one, Bounce one - 3 Bounces in total.

[FCF Fund]

Liable if there was intentional damage like they coached the merchant to stack and default and it’s proven. Otherwise it’s a normal default clawback.

If the ISO agreement holds ISO liable for ALL matters related to a default then that’s another story and is rare, don’t even think that’s enforceable.

[TopTier]

Liable if there was intentional damage like they coached the merchant to stack and default and it’s proven. Otherwise it’s a normal default clawback.

If the ISO agreement holds ISO liable for ALL matters related to a default then that’s another story and is rare, don’t even think that’s enforceable.

Yea that's exactly what I said, I agree if there was any shadiness on brokers part - they should absolutely be liable.
There was no shadiness.

I should also add this is a new relationship with a Funder, however we followed our ISO Rep from another funder, to their new job... whom we have been working with for maybe 7 years.

Also, JohnDough - We aren't limited to working with anyone.
These both are high risk deals....which required a high risk funder.
You seem to attack alot of people, with seemingly no knowledge about them whatsoever, you tried railroading Raddisson for no reason when I find them extremely easy to work with. I have no time for responses which go off in weird directions. The ****tiest ISO's are on Dailyfunder, lol. Honestly have a great life, hope things get better for you.

[Cash Advance Kid]

Also, Deal #1 has missed 3 payments (not in a row). They make one, Bounce one, Make one, Bounce one - 3 Bounces in total.

I'm not sure what your ISO agreement looks like, my usual experience with them is clawback if the M default's within 30 days.

An NSF isn't a default, if they're having payment issues and are not in default they should request a reconciliation (if applicable). Keep it out of default as long as possible to get out of the clawback period.

[Jack Prestige cap]

In my experience, there a few factors to take into consideration.

which funder you got the deals done with
the broker
and the merchant.

ive seen things like this happen all the time. and its pretty easy to avoid this particular situation, even if the iso agreement states you have to give back the commissions
for the funder, if you have a relationship with a funder where you are funding alot deals, you treat their money like its your money, and in cases where deals go bad you help the funder collect and do what you can to make sure he gets paid. i can see this not being an issue.

i dont know you or what type of practices you use to close deals, but if youre the type of broker where you coach merchant, do shady things and not really care for the deal, things like that, funders can see that track record and in this case have no hesitation to clawback commissions.

and then theres the merchant, if the merchant is trying to actively make payments and like i mentioned before you as the broker are helping the funder to collect, making sure everyone is staying in contact and just overall putting in effort to make sure the deal preforms then this wouldnt normally happen in this particular case to lose commissions or worry about your commissions.

in summary, ive seen funders be lenient towards brokers in these particular situations when theres a good relationship between the two.
if you were one of my isos, id take a shot at starting a relationship and id offer to let you keep the commissions on condition you help keep the merchant on track, however if it gets to a point where the merchant is defaulting with no communication or efforts to making it work, the clawback will take place.


Also Mr johndough24 keep your nasty comments to yourself man. focus on closing deals rather just knocking on everyone on here, some of us actually respect this space for what its meant for and its members like you that make is so cringing!

[DonMcGrath]

It sounds like you don't read your iso agreements. If a deal defaults you can be liable for the funded amount that was lost. You mentioned being in the space for a while so I did some digging and I guess you can only work with certain funders due to have a **** reputation and background.

What you'll be getting is **** run of the mill funders here. The same way the ****tiest isos are on dailyfunder, it's vice versa.

Many of the Top Isos in this space are on this forum, but most observe, rather than post.... like silent floating fortresses, ready to rain atomic fire power, should they find their kingdom threatened, by a loafing interloper with loopy life lessons that shine a lackluster light on languishing interests of success.

[TopTier]

Many of the Top Isos in this space are on this forum, but most observe, rather than post.... like silent floating fortresses, ready to rain atomic fire power, should they find their kingdom threatened, by a loafing interloper with loopy life lessons that shine a lackluster light on languishing interests of success.

Papoose vibes, lol