[dpFund]

I have two scenarios now where I have a broker that has brought a client to me and we are interested in funding but for one reason or another the deal has stalled, and now I have another broker scratching at the door, wanting to take over the deal and get it closed, effectively shutting out the first broker. Both of these deals are consolidations.

In the first case, the client purportedly does not want to do the deal with broker 1 because that broker is charging him a fee of 3% (which we allow). The second broker will not charge a fee and wants to run with the deal.

In the second case, underwriting has asked the client for follow up info which they never provided, after repeated requests (in fact, the client apparently went out and took a cash advance rather than continuing with the consolidation that would have saved them money).

I know the industry standard is 30 days and some lenders have very strict guidelines. Both of these scenarios are beyond 30 days.

But I am intensely dedicated to every broker and will not knowingly yank a deal from them. It just feels dirty to do it.

So I'm curious about what you all think about this situation and how you would handle it. I understand the knee-jerk reaction of "screw em, it's over 30 days"...but am struggling with the humanity/honor of it.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

Best,

Dan Page
dan@fundingstrategypartners.com

[CrouchingIsoHiddenFunder]

This is tricky business, I believe you can only go with what the client wants though. If the client is refusing to deal with broker 1, there is no longer a deal there. I know some places will wait 30 to 60 days before accepting a repeat deal from another broker. I would get the client to put it in writing that they do not want to work with broker 1, just so there is something stating that to be the case. It's not stealing a deal if the client is not willing to work with a broker though, because there is no deal there anymore.

All the same I would keep it all visible.

[Michael I]

I have two scenarios now where I have a broker that has brought a client to me and we are interested in funding but for one reason or another the deal has stalled, and now I have another broker scratching at the door, wanting to take over the deal and get it closed, effectively shutting out the first broker. Both of these deals are consolidations.

In the first case, the client purportedly does not want to do the deal with broker 1 because that broker is charging him a fee of 3% (which we allow). The second broker will not charge a fee and wants to run with the deal.

In the second case, underwriting has asked the client for follow up info which they never provided, after repeated requests (in fact, the client apparently went out and took a cash advance rather than continuing with the consolidation that would have saved them money).

I know the industry standard is 30 days and some lenders have very strict guidelines. Both of these scenarios are beyond 30 days.

But I am intensely dedicated to every broker and will not knowingly yank a deal from them. It just feels dirty to do it.

So I'm curious about what you all think about this situation and how you would handle it. I understand the knee-jerk reaction of "screw em, it's over 30 days"...but am struggling with the humanity/honor of it.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

Best,

Dan Page
dan@fundingstrategypartners.com

nothing wrong with sticking to your rules as long as everyone knows what they are

[Stiina]

I would inquire with the first broker to ask if the client had signed a broker agreement with the first broker. If the client did and then the client is tied to the broker agreement for however long that document stated

S