[J.Celifarco]

LOL, is On Deck still not profitable? Probably a question for another thread but what's going on over there that they can't get in the black?

NO

[J.Celifarco]

Rookie here. It was a tax lien. A tax lien that they had all paperwork for on day one and one that they claimed was acceptable. In short, they lied. I guess the rookie blunder (I've been doing this for years) was believing I was dealing with a professional.

how big was the tax lien compared to the deal size?
are they in a payment plan?
if they are in a payment plan is there proof of payments being made?

[GoodCustomerService]

The shot gunning is creating all of this. You send a deal to 5 funders and now its guaranteed to get stacked. No matter how good your relationship is with the merchant. Lenders tell you 2 weeks before a deal is free game, but 2 weeks is an eternity if your Bob's Gift Shop needing money to pay your bills. So better to send it over to a buddy ISO and have them send it to another buddy who's a funder, syndicate on the deal, take a piece of YOUR commission, and have you holding your d*ck asking "WTF JUST HAPPENED? NOW THE MERCHANT WON'T TAKE MY CALLS?" And to top it all off, the A paper bank that declined it post signed contracts just dodged a major bullet by not funding this guy but then still have to take tremendous crap from you. So wrong.

[Christian]

The shot gunning is creating all of this. You send a deal to 5 funders and now its guaranteed to get stacked. No matter how good your relationship is with the merchant. Lenders tell you 2 weeks before a deal is free game, but 2 weeks is an eternity if your Bob's Gift Shop needing money to pay your bills. So better to send it over to a buddy ISO and have them send it to another buddy who's a funder, syndicate on the deal, take a piece of YOUR commission, and have you holding your d*ck asking "WTF JUST HAPPENED? NOW THE MERCHANT WON'T TAKE MY CALLS?" And to top it all off, the A paper bank that declined it post signed contracts just dodged a major bullet by not funding this guy but then still have to take tremendous crap from you. So wrong.

So much to say with so little knowledge of the deal. This springs to mind, "better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." How you can talk about lenders "dodging bullets" without even knowing the fist letter of the first name of this business is beyond me.

[PRIMO CASH]

So much to say with so little knowledge of the deal. This springs to mind, "better to remain silent than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." How you can talk about lenders "dodging bullets" without even knowing the fist letter of the first name of this business is beyond me.

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt.....

[Christian]

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt.....

Edit is my friend.

[anonymous]

Can anyone tell me why some companies only seem to half-underwrite before issuing loan agreements? I just had a huge deal with Rapid Advance for which I gave them every conceivable document before docs, that they then declined after signing, right before funding, by giving me a bunch of nonsense reasons that were each provably false. Each time they gave me a reason for the decline, I overcame it, only to meet a new reason. They finally declined it siting a reason that they had the information on from day one (wasting tons of my time). I understand when a funder doesn't want a loan, but why not make that decision before approving it and issuing docs. Why waste everyone's time? Or do we need to now tell borrowers that signing a binding loan agreement only means something if the lender wants it too. Seems like a crappy way to do business. Sorry Rapid, but I can't help myself on this because you made me look unprofessional.

Trying to figure out how this turned into a 6 page post? Lenders complete the more intensive underwriting after receiving signed contracts, the end. Some more than others, this is elementary stuff.

If lenders kill deals for reasons you don't find acceptable, send your business elsewhere. It's not like there is a shortage of lenders out there.

[MaxAdvance]

Trying to figure out how this turned into a 6 page post? Lenders complete the more intensive underwriting after receiving signed contracts, the end. Some more than others, this is elementary stuff.

If lenders kill deals for reasons you don't find acceptable, send your business elsewhere. It's not like there is a shortage of lenders out there.

I 100% agree with you. For some responding to this post and many others it really is an opinion piece, and that's necessary. But there really are some people who let these things consume them. It's all mind over matter guys, if you're dealing with a lender and you guys aren't hitting it off just remove them from your outsource list and you never have to deal with them again. But some of you are beasts, and some of us are striving to be just that, and we deserve to not give relevancy to irrelevant situations because we are in control of those situations. Don't let the back and forth between ISOS, Lenders, the Forums, or even your least favorite Aunt (I still love you Aunt Regina!!) take away from your hustle and grind and passion for what you do. At the end of the day we're all independent, if we can forge an equally beneficial partnership, then wonderful. If not, it's been real but goodbye. Outside of that we only have 8 business days left in the month (7 if you celebrate Yom Kippur)...get it together.

[J.Celifarco]

I 100% agree with you. For some responding to this post and many others it really is an opinion piece, and that's necessary. But there really are some people who let these things consume them. It's all mind over matter guys, if you're dealing with a lender and you guys aren't hitting it off just remove them from your outsource list and you never have to deal with them again. But some of you are beasts, and some of us are striving to be just that, and we deserve to not give relevancy to irrelevant situations because we are in control of those situations. Don't let the back and forth between ISOS, Lenders, the Forums, or even your least favorite Aunt (I still love you Aunt Regina!!) take away from your hustle and grind and passion for what you do. At the end of the day we're all independent, if we can forge an equally beneficial partnership, then wonderful. If not, it's been real but goodbye. Outside of that we only have 8 business days left in the month (7 if you celebrate Yom Kippur)...get it together.

well said and all true

[John Galt]

Can anyone tell me why some companies only seem to half-underwrite before issuing loan agreements? I just had a huge deal with Rapid Advance for which I gave them every conceivable document before docs, that they then declined after signing, right before funding, by giving me a bunch of nonsense reasons that were each provably false. Each time they gave me a reason for the decline, I overcame it, only to meet a new reason. They finally declined it siting a reason that they had the information on from day one (wasting tons of my time). I understand when a funder doesn't want a loan, but why not make that decision before approving it and issuing docs. Why waste everyone's time? Or do we need to now tell borrowers that signing a binding loan agreement only means something if the lender wants it too. Seems like a crappy way to do business. Sorry Rapid, but I can't help myself on this because you made me look unprofessional.

Seriously, the industry often gives "soft quotes", "conditional approvals" etc. Companies like Can, Rapid, Cresthill, Trinity - too many to list. They just don't bother to tell the lowly ISO that its only an indication of interest until the 11th hour and a senior underwriter kills the deal. You have to understand they are getting apps from boiler rooms that will lie, clip and paste lies, misrepresent to the customers etc. Some companies will actually quote and its done, but not that many. Never tell your client it's approved until the money is on the way. You'll sleep better.

[FUNd]

Seriously, the industry often gives "soft quotes", "conditional approvals" etc. Companies like Can, Rapid, Cresthill, Trinity - too many to list. They just don't bother to tell the lowly ISO that its only an indication of interest until the 11th hour and a senior underwriter kills the deal. You have to understand they are getting apps from boiler rooms that will lie, clip and paste lies, misrepresent to the customers etc. Some companies will actually quote and its done, but not that many. Never tell your client it's approved until the money is on the way. You'll sleep better.

Problem with that strategy is the clown down the block is telling them they are approved, so why are they going to stick around for your semi-flaccid offer?

[MCNetwork]

Because the clown down the block is also dealing with a semi-flaccid offer disguised as a fully engorged one. Everyone is in the same boat.

[FUNd]

Because the clown down the block is also dealing with a semi-flaccid offer disguised as a fully engorged one. Everyone is in the same boat.

Right, and the other guy now has the full attention of the client when the hard approval does come in, unknown to the client, who's thought he's been approved all along anyway. The clown down the block (liar), was 1st to the table in the client's eyes, and sometimes, that's the difference between winning and losing.

[skideeppow]

Can anyone tell me why some companies only seem to half-underwrite before issuing loan agreements? I just had a huge deal with Rapid Advance for which I gave them every conceivable document before docs, that they then declined after signing, right before funding, by giving me a bunch of nonsense reasons that were each provably false. Each time they gave me a reason for the decline, I overcame it, only to meet a new reason. They finally declined it siting a reason that they had the information on from day one (wasting tons of my time). I understand when a funder doesn't want a loan, but why not make that decision before approving it and issuing docs. Why waste everyone's time? Or do we need to now tell borrowers that signing a binding loan agreement only means something if the lender wants it too. Seems like a crappy way to do business. Sorry Rapid, but I can't help myself on this because you made me look unprofessional.

Happens all the time. Total bull**** but it just happens. Been in the industry for 10 years and it is the worst part about it.

[skideeppow]

Happens all the time. Total bull**** but it just happens. Been in the industry for 10 years and it is the worst part about it.

Its been said a couple times here, develop a relationship with a funder, and i would recommend someone smaller, who appreciates your business and you can get on the phone to talk with. Christina, that type of thing happened to me all the time. I just gave up with the larger guys. Sometimes they get the stuff done quickly and cleanly, most of the time they don't. I have given CAN all the chances i could afford. They are a total ****ing disaster. I barley submit anything there anymore.
Try CFM, Arcarious for smaller deals. You can talk to these guys and rationalize certain situations. I just had another deal that CAN totally ****ed me on and i wont even bother to vent about it here. They and the other large guys are for larger ISo's who are pumping lots of stuff out. I am at 1.5 mill for the month and just submit to the smaller funders. I feel your pain but its has happened to all of us.

Live and learn.

[CLucas]

What I wish underwriting could understand is offering an approval having merchant sign contracts, sends a strong message to merchant things are in progress, ISO's communicate the message everything is moving forward then bam if no funding occurs, underwriters have no idea the damage it does to the ISO, the ISO not the company instantly becomes the liar. I am not blaming anybody, as I am sure I will be attacked, however I am asking to put the shoe on from merchants perspective, and just maybe solutions may evolve. To make it better for parties and ultimately close more deals.

[Chambo]

What I wish underwriting could understand is offering an approval having merchant sign contracts, sends a strong message to merchant things are in progress, ISO's communicate the message everything is moving forward then bam if no funding occurs, underwriters have no idea the damage it does to the ISO, the ISO not the company instantly becomes the liar. I am not blaming anybody, as I am sure I will be attacked, however I am asking to put the shoe on from merchants perspective, and just maybe solutions may evolve. To make it better for parties and ultimately close more deals.

Not as damaging if you explain to the merchant up front,,they are NOT approved yet, as final review still hasn't taken place

[jotucker1983]

If my merchant passes my lender's initial underwriting procedure in terms of quoting (to where numbers are generated), I indeed inform the merchant that he's approved, but it's pending the final verification process.

If things come up in the final verification process that he can't provide documentation for, or if there's a huge lien the comes up that he didn't tell me about, or if there's a side advance balance we didn't find (and he didn't tell me about), then the deal could potentially be killed.

I would think that if you explain the process in full to the client upfront (from start to finish), then you can preserve your "good standing" with said client so that if they are declined, they would have no issue with you touching base in a couple of weeks/months to try again.

[cardinalequity]

CLucus: I agree 100% and I'm sure most if not all in the space have experienced this at some point. However I'd add that focusing on something we can't control is counter productive and not lucrative within the context of this conversation. I'd suggest focusing on what we can control which is the product knowledge of the funders you submit to consistently. For example if you're submitting to a lender with the old Fast Business Funding model you should know before hand that it's pending credit and background check. So when presenting the offer you should explain this to them and probe and/or discover if there is anything to be surprised by after contracts are signed. (This actually should have been done in the discovery part of the sales process) The point is that understanding the funder better and the merchant makes for a better match and allows you to set better expectations without looking like the bad guy.

Understand your funders well and build strong relationships with them. Try to understand the product as well as if you worked within the company, this will allow you to manage expectations and eliminate unnecessary stress.

What I wish underwriting could understand is offering an approval having merchant sign contracts, sends a strong message to merchant things are in progress, ISO's communicate the message everything is moving forward then bam if no funding occurs, underwriters have no idea the damage it does to the ISO, the ISO not the company instantly becomes the liar. I am not blaming anybody, as I am sure I will be attacked, however I am asking to put the shoe on from merchants perspective, and just maybe solutions may evolve. To make it better for parties and ultimately close more deals.

[cardinalequity]

FUNd: Agree and I'd add that if you know the offer seems ridicules or unrealistic based on the funder they told you they had an offer from, then tell them.
My experience in situations where I know what they were offered wasn't going to fly or that it was a funder notorious for a bait and switch is positive. I tell the merchant
that the likely hood of what they described was unlikely based on what I know about their situation as well as their financials. Inevitable they go with what you call the liar and it doesn't work out for them. They come crawling back and I seem like the Wizard of Oz, because I foresaw the situation. Ultimately I fund them and they stick with the person that seems like the expert in the field long term. This isn't 100% full proof however effective because you clearly come out being the honest and knowledgeable expert in the field. You never have to tell them I told you so because the gratification of hearing it in their voice is enough.

Right, and the other guy now has the full attention of the client when the hard approval does come in, unknown to the client, who's thought he's been approved all along anyway. The clown down the block (liar), was 1st to the table in the client's eyes, and sometimes, that's the difference between winning and losing.

[CLucas]

Okay think about this again I am blaming anybody but rather sharing a perspective. Pending approval is for a robot to understand not humans, especially when the merchant takes time to provide all documents requested, the question is from the merchant if you can for a moment switch shoes, (Don't worry it won't hurt trying nobody will know and you dont have to admit it) So for a moment think about the process a merchant goes thru, how would you preceive the outcome ? All docs requested you provided! Do you think pending final approval, might loose its meaning? Think about how you would feel? Once again I am not pointing blame to any party involved.

[cardinalequity]

As mentioned I agree and no disputing there, only adding that rather than fighting the sometimes norm in the industry it's better to focus on what WE CAN control.

Okay think about this again I am blaming anybody but rather sharing a perspective. Pending approval is for a robot to understand not humans, especially when the merchant takes time to provide all documents requested, the question is from the merchant if you can for a moment switch shoes, (Don't worry it won't hurt trying nobody will know and you dont have to admit it) So for a moment think about the process a merchant goes thru, how would you preceive the outcome ? All docs requested you provided! Do you think pending final approval, might loose its meaning? Think about how you would feel? Once again I am not pointing blame to any party involved.

[KTK]

Wow this really became a long winded debate. Correct me if I am wrong here...

I believe the initial frustration was having a deal killed on the 1 yard line after all doc's signed, stips in, for a reason clear as day in the original submission (ie app and bank statements and I'm hoping in this case tax lien and payment plan proof)

Of course stronger due diligence goes in after an offer is accepted. That goes without saying it's called final underwriting for a reason.

But to have a deal killed because of a lien you disclosed and provided payment plan proof in the ORIGINAL SUBMISSION, after an offer went out and contracts signed is a nightmare.

[jbrown]

This is a good discussion. Possibly we did not communicate properly the real reason for the decline. It was not because of the tax liens, which we did know about at application and were over $300k. This was a deal that had hair going in, and collapsed under the weight of too many issues. There were 7 legal entities, money being moved around, a borderline industry (travel agency/timeshare or vacation sales), excessive credit card chargebacks (customer dissatisfaction with the product), large competitor payoff, incomplete financial statements, 6 separate lawsuits against the business, large jump in volume from 2014 to 2015 (red flag), a website with multiple complaints against the business for deceptive sales practices including as recently as August 2015.

As many of you have noted, the initial offer is not a full underwrite. Deals that are declined solely on the basis of information identified in the application or made known at the time of the application is a poor business practice, and if that were the case an ISO would have a very legitimate complaint against the funder.

[J.Celifarco]

This is a good discussion. Possibly we did not communicate properly the real reason for the decline. It was not because of the tax liens, which we did know about at application and were over $300k. This was a deal that had hair going in, and collapsed under the weight of too many issues. There were 7 legal entities, money being moved around, a borderline industry (travel agency/timeshare or vacation sales), excessive credit card chargebacks (customer dissatisfaction with the product), large competitor payoff, incomplete financial statements, 6 separate lawsuits against the business, large jump in volume from 2014 to 2015 (red flag), a website with multiple complaints against the business for deceptive sales practices including as recently as August 2015.

As many of you have noted, the initial offer is not a full underwrite. Deals that are declined solely on the basis of information identified in the application or made known at the time of the application is a poor business practice, and if that were the case an ISO would have a very legitimate complaint against the funder.

that sounds like a lot more then hair...