[AlexSMF]

Submitted a deal to On Deck, received an offer for 15 months for 150,000 with a 1.24 buy rate. While speaking to the merchant on the phone, he informs me that he has a competing offer from On Deck for $250,000 for 18 months @ 1.22, I respond to the merchant that I am having a tough time believing that because he deposits 120,000/month, and more so, I already have an offer from On Deck which means you would have been locked out of going directly to them...they would never circumvent their ISO....joke is on me however.

Spoke to my rep at On Deck and he informs me that the merchant is indeed correct. Aside from being dumbfounded on how On Deck is able to violate their own exclusivity policy, my question to my rep was, how in the world did we get a $150,000 offer while the merchant received a $250,000 offer (not even mentioning the buy rates, which i attribute to their internal more competitive pricing)

Anyone else had an experience like this? Trying to wrap my head around how On Deck would issue me an approval and one to the merchant as well, all while having an exclusivity policy.

[Chambo]

Take care of their own....

[HDF]

All everyone wants is their hands on docs these days. Then the dance begins.

It is turning into sending deals to direct competition and hoping not to get screwed.

[J.Celifarco]

more now then ever it is important to read and understand the ISO agreements that you sign. Everyday I hear more people talking about getting screwed over by different banks or running into situations like this.. Crazy have to really understand each banks policies

[AlexSMF]

more now then ever it is important to read and understand the ISO agreements that you sign. Everyday I hear more people talking about getting screwed over by different banks or running into situations like this.. Crazy have to really understand each banks policies

The ISO agreement we signed with On Deck was in 2013 that clearly stipulated the exclusivity policy. My rep is claiming that it was an internal error and that I should have never received an approval from On Deck because the merchant had already been approved directly by them before. Plausible but I am having a tough time believing that there isn't more to this than just a simple one time error.

[Jonathon]

How recent was the in house approval compared to your offer?

[J.Celifarco]

The ISO agreement we signed with On Deck was in 2013 that clearly stipulated the exclusivity policy. My rep is claiming that it was an internal error and that I should have never received an approval from On Deck because the merchant had already been approved directly by them before. Plausible but I am having a tough time believing that there isn't more to this than just a simple one time error.

ask for proof of the in house approval look at the time stamp on the email if it is before yours then it is true

[omegafund]

"Internal errors" allows these big funders to get away with anything. Glad I stopped doing business with them 4 years ago.

[MCNetwork]

With a stock price below $5, desperate times call for desperate measures...

[AlexSMF]

Spoke with On Deck and they clarified it. Merchant did in fact go directly to them 24 hour prior to. When he directly applied, he applied with both him and the co-owner who had a better score. Through us, it was only one merchant (the lower of the credit scores) which explained the discrepancy in loan amounts. The discrepancy in pricing is pretty obvious, I do not expect on deck, or any other company to provide same exact pricing to ISO's as they do to in house sales team. Looks like this was more of a combination of error and confusion that anything else. For as long as I have dealt with them, I have always found them to be the easiest to use and one of the more stand up companies to deal with, as it comes to ISO's, so was very surprised when this happened. And Omegafund, I wouldn't be quick to discredit them, they have some of the best terms in the industry. I wasn't looking to start an On Deck bashing, was more interested in seeing if anyone else had a similar experience.

[Kevin Henry-Seacoast]

AlexSMF,

In the future make sure you control the process. Getting caught up in a jump ball situation is never fun.

Best,

Kevin

[RichardGerard]

Welcome back from vacation Young Man...

[AlexSMF]

AlexSMF,

In the future make sure you control the process. Getting caught up in a jump ball situation is never fun.

Best,

Kevin

If you are referring to controlling the situation with the merchant, then in this case not much to control when the merchant applied a day before you ever knew his name. If you are referring to me making this post without having all the facts, well in the case I agree. At least I came back on and clarified it though.

[AlexSMF]

Welcome back from vacation Young Man...

forgot how much I love the industry while I was away lol

[Kevin Henry-Seacoast]

If you are referring to controlling the situation with the merchant, then in this case not much to control when the merchant applied a day before you ever knew his name. If you are referring to me making this post without having all the facts, well in the case I agree. At least I came back on and clarified it though.

AlexSMF,

With the merchant. When I was an investment banker I always asked the client who they spoke to and determined where they were in the process. Now as a lender I ask the same. You always want to know who is in the room so you can do an effective job.

Best,

Kevin

[FUNd]

Spoke with On Deck and they clarified it. Merchant did in fact go directly to them 24 hour prior to. When he directly applied, he applied with both him and the co-owner who had a better score. Through us, it was only one merchant (the lower of the credit scores) which explained the discrepancy in loan amounts. The discrepancy in pricing is pretty obvious, I do not expect on deck, or any other company to provide same exact pricing to ISO's as they do to in house sales team. Looks like this was more of a combination of error and confusion that anything else. For as long as I have dealt with them, I have always found them to be the easiest to use and one of the more stand up companies to deal with, as it comes to ISO's, so was very surprised when this happened. And Omegafund, I wouldn't be quick to discredit them, they have some of the best terms in the industry. I wasn't looking to start an On Deck bashing, was more interested in seeing if anyone else had a similar experience.

Shows character for you to come on here and correct the situation. Most wouldn't have done that. Bravo.

[Fly]

That's still pretty crappy if they are giving you a buy rate of 1.24 for 15 months and direct gets a 1.22 on 18 months. They must be paying their in house reps minimum wage.

And they definitely should have told you right away that they already had the app in house.

[Michael I]

yes i have seen it multiple times . on deck only requires 50% ownership and its your job to make sure you put the correct owner on it .

[Christian]

There is an easy way to see if their story is accurate. Get a credit authorization signed by your merchant and verify when their inquiry hit his credit.

[Karen37a]

I've seen it happen very few lenders.One of my deals was taken this way ONCE . I found out months later the merchant closed their business down and defaulted on the loan.( still chuckling over it) I dont know if she liked me and didn't want to burn me or she just wanted a quick loan...When you have shady merchants who swear they are not shopping their loan out to other brokers ( only for you to see the hard hits on their credit) you have to almost expect that something can go wrong

The problem I have with all this is, if they do make a mistake and their in house salaried or minimum wage workers did receive the file , you would think they would have some consideration for the ISO and offer the same terms to the iso and let them have the deal.

I do not send my deals out to certain lenders, because of these common experiences that people have .

I do think that the Funders who get bigger than their britches and squeeze out ISOs will eventually see a HUGE negative result from it.

When you have Top sales people, seasoned ISO brokers trying to get clients ( the UCC 1000 call a day people complain about ) and minimum wage inhouse sales reps ( lets face it, if they were good sales people they would be independent) going for the same client. Who do you think is going to win?

Real sales people do not sell on rate..we will all lose a sale or 3 to someone, overall I have my money on the independent ISOs VS the inhouse sales teams, long term.

How many people can they burn before that massive amount of submissions decreases to the point of no return.

When I started in this business , id have certain underwriters respond to me 1/2 weeks later about files I sent in...Id say ..I funded that last week , what the flimity flam is this a joke. Like im sitting around for you to price me out.

*** this is why I appreciate the good Lenders who I can trust with my files, and most importantly my renewals ****