[jotucker1983]

Which lenders besides QS don't file UCC's?

A lot of lenders are starting to not file UCCs period, instead of just using the fake alias names. A lender should know good and well that with today's mass entrants of new brokers all calling UCCs, that filing a UCC on their merchant is about to subject them to 20 calls a day about "funding".

Why a lender would want to do that, knowing full well that's today's climate, is beyond me lol.

[AndyYSCISOdept]

A lot of lenders are starting to not file UCCs period, instead of just using the fake alias names. A lender should know good and well that with today's mass entrants of new brokers all calling UCCs, that filing a UCC on their merchant is about to subject them to 20 calls a day about "funding".

Why a lender would want to do that, knowing full well that's today's climate, is beyond me lol.

Listen to the sound of applause! You made the most sensible comment on here. Filing a UCC was done in the past to show other funders that someone needed to be paid off if they wanted to fund them. But like you were saying, it makes ZERO Sense to offer free marketing to other companies by filing UCC's now. I do however agree that there is a need to file them if and or when a merchant defaults. But the definition of a default is open to interpretation

[YuliyaG]

A lot of lenders are starting to not file UCCs period, instead of just using the fake alias names. A lender should know good and well that with today's mass entrants of new brokers all calling UCCs, that filing a UCC on their merchant is about to subject them to 20 calls a day about "funding".

Why a lender would want to do that, knowing full well that's today's climate, is beyond me lol.

I don't think that its the fact of them not filing period. I think it's just that more funders are using companies to file on their behalf... CSC is exploding all over the place... Their growth is outstanding. So while less funders are using themselves + aliases, more are using companies like CSC.

UCC Growth.jpg