[BigIz]

Its a reality the day the funding companies can cut out the ISO they will. Its business 12-14% goes to a broker with no risk to them. Funding companies hate this fact even if they don't tell you. They are all hiring in house sales teams in order to generate their own leads to eventually cut out the outside submissions, paying in-house guys 2-3% on deals. This is the time of the brokers they have the leverage until they don't anymore. That's what will happen first I think.

I disagree.

The big funders can either spend 12-14% on each deal to pay the brokers and the brokers spend their own money for marketing OR they can spend 20-30% of their own money for marketing for the same deal and still have to pay their inside sales reps the 2-3%.

Either way, the risk factor stays with the Funder.

The big Funders would not get rid of their ISOs because we are really just another one of their less expensive marketing arms.

[FUNd]

I disagree.

The big funders can either spend 12-14% on each deal to pay the brokers and the brokers spend their own money for marketing OR they can spend 20-30% of their own money for marketing for the same deal and still have to pay their inside sales reps the 2-3%.

Either way, the risk factor stays with the Funder.

The big Funders would not get rid of their ISOs because we are really just another one of their less expensive marketing arms.

By driving out little ISOs, they create less competition, and therefore lower the overall cost of marketing in the long term, even though it may cost more in the short run.

Even operating at a loss for a couple of quarters in exchange for establishing brand recognition, bringing in better quality deals, reducing fraud, and eliminating high broker commissions, all while having complete control over the process from A to Z and crushing 70% of the competition seems like a fair trade strategy wise.

Not to mention eliminating the need for entire ISO support divisions which are big dollar liabilities.