[jotucker1983]

Yeah, it just makes no sense to me and I don't see how this is a way to do long term business with brokers. The chaos this creates is amazing, especially knowing how merchants shop online, you might get 4 different brokers who get the same lead from their "online submission forms". You could create the situation of having 4 brokers pitching the same approval to said merchant and receive 4 different contracts back with 4 different factor rates.

Every broker will swear that his contract got in "first", and that you are just playing "favorites" to the other broker whose contract you decided to process. Or, you might have a situation where brokers think you are flat out stealing their deals away, hence, this thread that was created. Now you are all over the Daily Funder or the RipOffReports with brokers saying, "don't do business with XYZ Funding company".

This is bad business, I don't know what else to call this? I'm still trying to find the "logic" in this policy? The points FUNd made have a lot of merit, but can't the Funder get around a broker being lazy or the broker being a bad sales rep, without creating all of this chaos in the marketplace?

[J.Celifarco]

Yeah, it just makes no sense to me and I don't see how this is a way to do long term business with brokers. The chaos this creates is amazing, especially knowing how merchants shop online, you might get 4 different brokers who get the same lead from their "online submission forms". You could create the situation of having 4 brokers pitching the same approval to said merchant and receive 4 different contracts back with 4 different factor rates.

Every broker will swear that his contract got in "first", and that you are just playing "favorites" to the other broker whose contract you decided to process. Or, you might have a situation where brokers think you are flat out stealing their deals away, hence, this thread that was created. Now you are all over the Daily Funder or the RipOffReports with brokers saying, "don't do business with XYZ Funding company".

This is bad business, I don't know what else do you call this? I'm still trying to find the "logic" in this policy? The points FUNd made have a lot of merit, but can't the Funder get around a broker being lazy or a bad sales rep without creating all of this chaos in the marketplace?

if you dont trust the bank is going to be honest with you of whos contract they received first then you are working with the wrong banks. Also it will be pretty clear which contract came in first because the bank will have time stamps on the received email with the contracts. Should be pretty easy to prove. I work with a couple of banks that use this policy and personally I like it. I hate when I submit a deal to ondeck and get the email that it is already in house. At least if I am competing with an iso at the same bank with them then we have access to the same numbers and it will come down to who is the better closer. That is better then me pitching one banks number and someone else blows me out of the water with some crazy offer
As to why a bank uses this policy, it is simple, gives them the best chance to get the deal. With ISO's shotgunning deals to 5 different banks, a banks is spending a lot of money underwriting deals that are not getting funded because the iso funds it at another bank. By opening up a deal to competition it increases the chances that the deal will fund at the bank.