[Michael I]

So Anthony tell us how you feel . Lol
truth is I don't get why people complain to what they agreed to . You had the choice who to send it to in the first place .

[MCNetwork]

Some funders pay commissions on the NET funded amount and some pay on the full renewal. I actually work with both types. The only reason I deal with a funder who pays on the NET is because their rates were extremely competitive and the renewals are handled smoothly, efficiently and with minimal stips. If you have a beef with those who only pay on the NET amount, you have the choice of not working with them. Nobody's forcing you to.

[jotucker1983]

If people don't want to do business with lenders that only pay out on the net, then don't sign contracts with them or have them alter the agreement, but don't sign a contract with certain terms and then ***** about them after the fact. .

Fair enough, but what if they change the rules after you've signed your agreement?

I agree 100% with what folks like bizfundingfinder are saying. I've started selling these products in November 2009 and Funders/Lenders have been screwing around with rules related to commission every since.

- I still to this day submit to some of the same lenders I was working with back in November 2009. The only difference is that the "rules" regarding renewal and new deal commissions are completely differently today than they were in November 2009.

- The company basically just shoots out an email one day telling you to sign this "updated Broker Agreement" in order to continue receiving your commissions.

- You have absolutely no say, no right, or anything of the sort to protest the "updates" and even though you signed the original agreement, somehow and someway, that agreement is now "void" and you have to sign this new one in order to continue working with them AND receiving your commissions.

- Of course when you open the new agreement, you will notice all types of changes to the new deal and renewal commission policies.

- I've gone from getting paid on the payback amount for new and renewal deals, with lifetime renewals with no new deal minimums for the duration of the client's relationship, to changes that include new deal minimums in order to continue receiving renewal commission. And oh yeah, only getting paid on the funded amount for new deals and for renewals, it's usually paid on what the merchant "nets" if there's a "refinance" being done and not an "add-on".

Again, they will offer you absolutely no say, no right, or anything of the sort to protest the "updates" even though you signed the original agreement and somehow/someway, that agreement is now "void" and you have to sign this new one.

Is it right? Like bizfundingfinder said, hell no it's not right! But my question is what in the hell can small broker shops like myself do about it? I would love some ideas.....

[MCNetwork]

Unfortunately there is no defense for ISO agreements that change on the fly. We all have to deal with it. Fortunately, there are more than enough funders out there for you to choose to work with. The only other alternative is to become a direct funder yourself.

[jotucker1983]

Unfortunately there is no defense for ISO agreements that change on the fly. We all have to deal with it. Fortunately, there are more than enough funders out there for you to choose to work with. The only other alternative is to become a direct funder yourself.

That's true, you could either set your own system up or just say screw it and find something else to do. I'm pretty much at the point of saying screw it though. It's one thing to have to fight the market to bring in a consistent flow of new apps, but then when you have to fight your partners every damn quarter over "random commission updates" it just becomes too much.

Here you go building a book of business and there they go trying to find any type of way to not pay you on it.

It's just stupid.

[Karen37a]

I agree with Archie on the first point but..

In reference to what John tucker said...They say they can update the commissions as they see fit.( it is in the agreement we sign)

One of my ISO contracts say" within 30 days notice", now they just changed their policy and they send a notice saying "effective immediately.I called them to tell them ..nothing is "effective immediately" its 30 days you fools and they should rethink the renewal that I am trying to renew. And I am not going to accept the change on the existing contracts.

Lenders what us to be loyal to them ...which I am.;But some are not to their ISOS's. Some reputable Isos want to build a book of business, which is clearly what you want to do( John and others) and that's why I came into this business. I want to build a huge book of business then just call the clients and say happy birthday, happy chanukkah , do you need more money? In defense of the Lenders , there are greedy commission focused brokers who don't care about the lender nor their client like A Diamond said so its on a case by case or person by person basis.

I discussed with the company changing terms of their agreement with me that they are committing suicide trying to do this ( I am not go to go into detail on this post about my guess as to who they are and why, but I think they are being bought out from this other non loyal company who think they are going public soon; which is a joke because wall st isn't going to touch them with a 10 foot pole, especially after some of the massive losses some companies have posted, and the fraud one committed) And they really do not care about me sending deals anyway..

The bottom line is I am let out of my original contract with that company to go elsewhere.

We can debate non compete agreements until we are all blue in the face BUT parties need to be held to certain standards ON BOTH SIDES or they can be VOID in their entirety.

Someone can make the argument that all FUTURE sales will be held to the new standard and not the ones that were entered into previously and the renewals attached to them.

There is the argument of "unclean hands" ,it also cant be burden to the effective party, also reasonable equity to the person who put in the most work, most importantly it has to be "narrow in scope".

Each state has different laws in regards to non competes and certain states throw them out in their entirety if they are too broad in scope, some will pick and choose which parts to enforce

Also an employee /independent contractor can move for sanctions on a lawsuit for a frivolous non compete

Ive been in Financial Services so long I have seen these battles over clients for 3 decades.( and again I am not a Lawyer , nor advocating for people to be unethical ..on either side). In the end it should be the ISO that has the relationship ( hopefully) with the merchant, what would stop ISO #1 from passing the merchant to ISO#2 to get around the non compete???? The non compete of course. I have a 70% Renewal ratio with my Lenders..I would really hate if they decided to not be fair to me ( I believe my core Funders will be fair) but if they did not

hmmm

Lenders can assert "tortious interference" and I am sure they will if its big $$$$,