[Back Pocket Funder]

whos man is this? This file barely qualifies for the offer hes pushing and hes telling the guy in 4 months he will be in banking getting way better terms? Listen i understand if its a bankable client who qualifies for financing like that however saying it to everyone needs to stop. Get these idiots off the phones, it is screwing business owners over when they fall for this bs.

[EdwinS]

Any lender funding the deals of this guy, is 100% responsible for all the promises made to the merchant- and also liable for any damages the merchant may face when the promises do not come through.

[Byxentech]

Well said. Every file is different, and clients deserve honest guidance.

[UWJohn_Doe]

Any lender funding the deals of this guy, is 100% responsible for all the promises made to the merchant- and also liable for any damages the merchant may face when the promises do not come through.

Not necessarily, how are they responsible if they are not aware? The POS Broker should be responsible. Do you know how many of these clowns that do this and tell the Merchants to keep their mouth shut or sell it in a way to keep the funder from not knowing?

So if you pitch a Merchant this bs and the funder is not aware, the funder funds it and then you do you and ghost the Merchant after clawback period so you can keep your commission, the Merchant stops payment and then tells the funder what happen, it's still the funders fault?

[EdwinS]

Yes, the source of funding is always at fault- it is their greed that is creating the problem, and it is them who are enabling this environment to blossom. All the merchant's damages from the missing LOC must be paid in full. Majority of the funders are in bed with the brokers and know them, and intentionally use them to close the MCA deals that they cannot sell directly due to the ridiculous/illegal rates. so they use these brokers to give the false promises, and they plant a bogus "funding call" where the broker is missing from the call (imagine that), so supposedly to look like some kind of an angel "who did not know" and so to corner the merchant to be left with all the liability. It's a big scam, and the only way to solve it, is to hold the source of funds directly liable- you do that, and see how fast the system corrects itself.

[bizbroker]

Saw it 2 times this week and the funder was Star Advance AkA Yes Cap

[abfunders]

Edwin, with all due respect, a blind eye isn't always a scam.
If you blame the funding source, the brokers will do it more, because they're never liable.
What may help stop it is if funders required some form of due diligence and would know and then sue the brokers of they can prove malicious intent to encourage tortuous interference. But the bad/new funders don't do that.

[EdwinS]

In the most of the scams, the lender is in bed with the broker, which is why you have a one-way funding call with the broker conveniently not on the call to say I have not promised anything- this one-way funding call is intentionally setup to corner the merchant where the merchant is taking all the liability- a big plan orchestrated with the lender and broker together- just in case something goes wrong- the broker just goes missing, and the lender says "we have no idea what was promised you". it is the Funders job and responsibility to not have a "blind eye"- they don't get to say "oh we did not know".

We will proof this in the Federal court on our current case, and hopefully that'll be a small part of us helping fix this corrupt industry, backed by spineless lenders who all they can say is "we did not know", instead of stepping up to the plate and take the blame and pay for the damages.

And how about if I told you the "direct lender" had placed un-authorized INC5000 logos on their page to give false sense of security? How about if the broker they used was an actual known financial criminal (with actual prison time served)? How about if I told you the funder had used its internal ISO disguised under a different name to try and sell the same advance for over 3 months, but could not since the merchant wanted a LOC, and so they had to re-appear using a broker "promising" to the merchant what he wanted to close the sale? How about if I tell you when the funder was alerted about the missing promise, the same internal ISO now tried to help the merchant by offering a BOFA Term loan (by sending actual application of BOFA logo), and then only to delay the application and try to sell another advance "while we wait for BOFA"? Of course, BOFA was subpoenaed later and NOTHING was filed.

What if I told you when the funder was being served the lawsuit, their "servicing agent" location was not reachable? Yes, the same scam "direct funding" company who had over 700 lawsuits against it's own small business clients.... it itself is not reachable to take a lawsuit like a man- all of a sudden become little mice.

So yes, they are all in it together and judgement day will come.

Until then, if there are any lenders who are implementing a one-way funding call where the actual mastermind of the bait and switch is missing, then by definition it is a coordinated scam by the funder and the broker- and so the source of funds must pay for anything promised that does not come through and caused damages. And just the question "has anyone" promised anything- think about it for a second of how stupid that sounds- who is ANYONE besides the broker? IF you have to ask that question about a broker then you should not be working with that broker, unless.... you are coordinating a scam with the broker.

IT's clear as the clear sky.