[Sean Cash]

In other words, some of the most significant language is bolded below. Note the use of "purchases" and "other forms of financing." Also basically every broker offers loans in addition to MCA. Even if the merchants choose an MCA, if you've solicited a loan, well then...

-----
For the purposes of this section, a person or entity shall be considered as engaging in the business of making loans in New York, and subject to the licensing and other requirements of this article, if it solicits loans in the amounts prescribed by this section [within this state] and, in connection with such solicitation, makes loans, purchases or otherwise acquires from others loans or other forms of financing, or arranges or facilitates the funding of loans, to individuals then resident in this state or to businesses located or doing business in this state.

[RickyR3712]

Karen, that's why I'm not mad at broker licensing. The unethical guys will be weeded out, and us ethical types will take a larger market share.

It took me nearly 12 months and a waste of days for me to get my California license. Did you get it done quick and easy? I will not be able to do any business if i needed to do that processes with every state.
How long can any iso shop or lender survive if they can not fund or broker in any state and wait this 6-12 month processes.What will happen to your whole renewal book?
I feel that if it happens even the legitimate shops ,like mine or yours will be closed. The unethical ones will fund and broker without the license and will survive.

[Chambo]

"or arranges or facilitates the funding of loans" - wondering if this will apply to all these B/D reps out there soliciting? Are they in fact "arranging and facilitating"?

In other words, some of the most significant language is bolded below. Note the use of "purchases" and "other forms of financing." Also basically every broker offers loans in addition to MCA. Even if the merchants choose an MCA, if you've solicited a loan, well then...

-----
For the purposes of this section, a person or entity shall be considered as engaging in the business of making loans in New York, and subject to the licensing and other requirements of this article, if it solicits loans in the amounts prescribed by this section [within this state] and, in connection with such solicitation, makes loans, purchases or otherwise acquires from others loans or other forms of financing, or arranges or facilitates the funding of loans, to individuals then resident in this state or to businesses located or doing business in this state.

[HDF]

"or arranges or facilitates the funding of loans" - wondering if this will apply to all these B/D reps out there soliciting? Are they in fact "arranging and facilitating"?

Chambo, how are the B/D reps positioning this and are the big houses doing it?

[Karen37a]

Happy Hor**** is on opposite sides of the fence on politics with me so ill stay silent on obama stuff.Bottom line ..he doesnt pick up the phone cause he is the money man, doesnt like Dodd Frank, neither do i, nor massive regulations. And I do not know where the hell the money trail goes to, too much for my brain to think about and I do not care at this point.

Ricky you are right..long waiting time because of the so called backlog caused by decisons made quickly, maybe it will be like stockbrokerage licences...reciprocity between states and just an additional fee per state ( if it happens ).

West coast I do agree with you on the lifting of too many restrictions makes the bank money redily availble...there is some happy medium I hope.

___

Sean...The language of "purchases" and "other forms of financing" is so ambigious and broad,non specific... its disturbing. They should clarify not just slip things in or by. But it does say "if you solicit loans" and in connection with such solitication ( of loans) "do these things associated with it" . Its not a loan.

This is like whos on first..again it should be clarified.The first words do not apply therefore the rest is not valid , no one is solicitating loans or anything associated with said solicitation.

And the word "purchases" IMO , means the purchasing of loans and we know the courts have ruled that they are not loans or forberance and is future recievables. so you are not purchasing a loan, its a purchase of a future recievable IMO

Stare decicis

The "other forms of financing" is debatable.

[WestCoastFunding]

It took me nearly 12 months and a waste of days for me to get my California license. Did you get it done quick and easy? I will not be able to do any business if i needed to do that processes with every state.
How long can any iso shop or lender survive if they can not fund or broker in any state and wait this 6-12 month processes.What will happen to your whole renewal book?
I feel that if it happens even the legitimate shops ,like mine or yours will be closed. The unethical ones will fund and broker without the license and will survive.

Yes, I got it done much faster than 12 months. Let's keep in mind that they allow time for these regulations to go into place. It's not as if they pass and you need to have a license the following day - they give 6-12 months to get it.

As with cali, since the regulations went into effect, our California funding has gone way up because it's weeded out so many brokers.

So if you're asking me if it's worth it to pay $1,000 and deal with a few months of paperwork to see 75% of brokers stop servicing a state, and I pick up the slack, I will take it every time.

[CreditGuy]

These threads always separate the wheat from the chaff.

[Karen37a]

Yes it does.

And my main point has always been ( and I may be wrong but I doubt it ), that every time regulation steps in...Financial industry, stock-market /securities...Mortgage industry; when they force it, it brings a myriad of new problems with it, problems that people do not foresee. The main one being compliance and extra compliance and extra extra compliance, then compliance for compliance.

This forces the small players to merge in with the large ones because they can not have a dept on the second floor dedicated to it, nor can they bear the expense, or want to.So when people think the market will open up to less competition because the seedy brokers get out, thats partially true, but it also creates a monopolistic effect where you have to join the big boys club or you cant survive, or you have to have inside connections or extreme knowledge or deep pockets. Then compensation gets cut to the loyal ones on the inside, thats fun to watch and some of the big boys shut down .

Its like watching a movie but its live

[WestCoastFunding]

Yes it does.

This forces the small players to merge in with the large ones because they can not have a dept on the second floor dedicated to it, nor can they bear the expense, or want to. So when people think the market will open up to less competition because the seedy brokers get out, thats partially true, but it also creates a monopolistic effect where you have to join the big boys club or you cant survive, or you have to have inside connections or extreme knowledge or deep pockets.

Nah. They'll just need to spend $1,000 to get a license.

[Michael I]

52k is a lot of money for most small shops.

[Sean Cash]

Nah. They'll just need to spend $1,000 to get a license.

I think you need to have 100k in the bank as a requirement to apply.

[Michael I]

So 152k . Now you are for sure taking out any small shop

[HDF]

I think you need to have 100k in the bank as a requirement to apply.

Now that comment right there might just send a shiver down the spine of a variety of the the pinky ring, car I can't afford, stacker reliant, end of month pants ****ter, and MCA hack's spine.

Or maybe not.

[jotucker1983]

Yes it does.

And my main point has always been ( and I may be wrong but I doubt it ), that every time regulation steps in...Financial industry, stock-market /securities...Mortgage industry; when they force it, it brings a myriad of new problems with it, problems that people do not foresee. The main one being compliance and extra compliance and extra extra compliance, then compliance for compliance.

This forces the small players to merge in with the large ones because they can not have a dept on the second floor dedicated to it, nor can they bear the expense, or want to.

Karen I agree with your points on this and I'm actually a Moderate that "leans right", so I too hate most forms of government regulation.

But I could see more of these types of individual state regulations coming down the pike, so my theory was that we as a industry link up and force our own regulation. I would think that we as an industry could come up with a better form of wide spread regulation than leaving it up to the government to do so. I know there are Associations within the industry working on doing just that, but I'm not sure if there's been enough "steam" behind them?

Lol, but the regulation is coming, so either the industry sits back and "waits" for it to happen (without having a clue as to what it will look like), or we be pro-active and create our own form of regulation that's efficient, market-based, and common sense.

For example, I'm not sure how anybody can make the argument that it makes sense to just hire anybody with a pulse, without doing any real background check on the person, to go out and start soliciting a merchant's SSN, DOB, Home Address, Bank Statements, etc. Just for the simple fact that we are handling very sensitive information in the first place, should require some level of certification or licensure so there's checks/balances in place.

Right now, technically, it's a Wild Wild West. Guys are stealing merchant info, stacking 10th positions destroying businesses, flat out lying about pricing, manipulating merchant signatures, back-dooring deals/stealing deals, etc. Why? Because there's no checks/balances, or like Trump would say, there's no "law and order".

[WestCoastFunding]

I think you need to have 100k in the bank as a requirement to apply.

$100k to get a lender's license or commercial loan broker?

[Karen37a]

I am not just talking about the $$ requirements to get a licence,( 50k-150k) or a surety bond,personal bank account liquidity 100k or the fact that the higher up you go the more requirements there are to be accredited or vetted ...like 1 million. institutional investor..250k liquid cash, balance sheets..not including your primary home

I am talking about the salaries that have to be paid to the compliance staff in order to maintain the requirements for compliance. I've seen firms have to hire 2500 people.....not 2 or 3......2500 people to maintain the compliance requirements . Full compliance depts.

I know people who have 1 man or 2 man shops do not see this, or employees..but the costs trickle down and and it trickles down to the commission too.

__

John i slightly agree with you on the background checks etc because of the soc security numbers and credit reports because we don't want to be like Wells Fargo, opening up fake bank accounts for spiffs , but as Happy Horse St said...the securities markets decided to have an SRO ,self regulating organization called the NASD ( National Association of Securities Dealers ) who are now Finra, who started out as a good idea and turned into gestapo police, and and turned the brokers into enemies.

Ive seen it too many times before I guess, fool me once, fool me twice, fool me 3 times, i had enough....I don't trust them or people, or policing organizations and I do not want to be on here saying "told you so" in 3 years.This argument has been beaten to death. I am not going to change anyones mind and half the people have self serving beliefs and ideas.

I guess you would have had to experience it to know.

[Sean Cash]

$100k to get a lender's license or commercial loan broker?

My understanding of it is that they're trying to make brokering and lending one and the same so that anyone involved in the transaction has to have a lender's license.

[Karen37a]

I think so too Sean, part of this is happening because of their "non understanding" of the mechanics of the industry and also a few sour grapes who cant or didnt make it in this industry because of their lack of sales ability and leadership skills looking for a scapegoat to blame their failure on, running around screaming "regulation" like chicken little the sky is falling.

Also the backdooring that is never mentioned and lack of loyalty from some(few) lenders to their brokers. Also the fact that people run around saying they are a direct lender because they chipped in $1.99 on a file.This is why I am an advocate of people joining a reputable Iso before they try to turn themselves into an iso by getting an LLC and a virtual office working out of grandmas basement.

No one walks into the mortgage industry or securities or real estate by opening an office.

Most real estate brokers/agents got a business card with their bufon hairdo on it and that was the extent of their career. Or maybe they had a 3rd cousin that let them list their house.If they make their bones in the industry and and get good at selling homes, finding clients, they can venture out onto their own.

Same as being a stockbroker or Mortgage..i think I entered the industry at 35% split commission, made it to 50% in 30 days ( by production) then made it to 60%, 70%, 85%...then you start looking around and you think. Why I am I giving this guy 15% when I can open my own office and pay way less in rent. But thats from massive sales and production. Not just showing up with no experience and expecting to start at the top.With all my background I did not just open an MCA Iso. I went to work for someone and learned what the hell was going on and I would have stayed there if they had a different business model.

The # 1 killer of this industry is people thinking they can just start an Iso by getting an LLC with no background or experience in sales or finance.And they are being coached into doing so. And they get backdoored, front doored , side doored and leave their renewals behind. Because even the people who have a background in Finance are getting crushed. And its not just from backdooring thats 1% of it, and its not because brokers( competition) are on the phone saying who knows what so you lose the fight for the client.

Its because the client /merchant is not loyal to you and they see you as a commissioned focused broker who only looks out for himself and they are right 85% of the time. These clients /merchants are notorious for shopping deals, swearing they are not doing it , until they get caught. Stacking themselves then saying ..poor poor me, I took too much money because I was taken advantage of. They don't mention the fact that they are bad business men, the business was in financial trouble or had cash flow issues before we got there, and they will never mention that the money for inventory was not there because they skipped off to Vegas 3 months prior to your phone call or have a Mistress aka secretary.

This is not a business that is simplistic , numbers numbers % algorithms. There is a human element to the sale.

Talking a test or doing a background check is fantastic but it isnt the answer to things, having newbies not sign up direct to 10 lenders and 10 more claiming to be lenders , Or bad sales people who dont realize they are slipping on a word on a pitch in the heat of the moment is, (not following exact compliance guidelines )

If someone makes 2 sales a year, how does that qualify them to be an Reputable Iso?

I know I cant just walk into the securities industry to take a test. I have to be sponsored by a firm. And taking a test and passing a background check also has nothing to do with your competence as a sales person. The Series 7 is the hardest test to pass , even harder than the bar and the sad fact is ..the ones who pass and get too high a score , cant sell over the phone because they have no street smarts or charisma, they become the management types trying to talk down to the zoot suits who are actually making sales..the ones who cant pass the test.

end of debate for me. I tried to alert people to the dangers to try to stop it or have an anti regulation voice out there, and not because I am in fear of not passing thru.Because I have been in the Financial Regulatory systems since 89, nasd, sec, nmls( loans),insurance, in 15 states, calif included without incident. Who knows who reads these posts. They are public , Ive stated some brokers case and my opinion. What will be will be. Ill just get ready to get licenced or do it in advance( if its 100%) so I miss the backlog

[MidnightAdvance]

If they do regulate brokers, would that mean that all the "independent contractors" - 1099 reps - would need individual licenses for their own ISO businesses or LLCs, too? Would the big lenders switch the employment structure of their companies from Independent Contractors to Employees?
Basically this kills the commission business.

[John Galt]

What does the difference between independent (1099) and employee (W2) have anything to do with the regulation of ISOs or anyone selling MCAs (of which is determined by IRS and DOL regs)? Real Estate ops use 1099s all the time. Much less how does the change from independent contractor to employee reflect (kill) commissions? If as it appears DoddF is being killed, why all the fear? I'd spend more time on the tel rather than speculate where the regs might be a year from now.

[Karen37a]

Let me tell you about securities industry, originally there were little to no regulations. Then when trouble came and the stock mkt crashed the SEC was invented and the acts of 33 and 34 were created then the act of 1940 they were rigid, but they were workable. So then some nut case decided we need a Self Regulating Organization SRO-- called NASD originally now know as FINRA it was supposed to be helpful to broker dealers and clients--then it turned on the broker dealers made them the enemy. So they decided to keep writing rules and never stopped. They have added so many rules (so many unnecessary ones) they have driven independent small and medium firms out of business for the last 3 decades, not for being bad actors, but they have made it so expensive to conduct business that you can only survive by having massive broker dealers consolidation of the mid and small players. So believe me when I say mix money and regulation and it will never stop, every day they will propose rules and they will get them implemented, every rule means hiring more people to service the regulatory structure. I said enough, and I do not read these long and winding threads because most people here would rather bully someone asking a questions that they consider beneath them--why they can't just ignore the post I do not know, but they can't stop themselves from being nasty bastards in replying. As far as the 2008 debacle, it came courtesy of your Democratic Congressman Barney Frank--so unbelievable people named the act that followed after him as he was at the center of it all. Barney Frank made a public appeal to congress that it should be the right of every American to own his own home. So what did they do--they allowed Fnma and Gnma to start taking low document loans that were not vetted by anyone. You blame the banks? Hell they had this dangled in front of them. they were all in, they could package these no down payment no verification loans and sell them as fast as they could produce them. The Drive Through attendant at McDonalds who made 360.00 a week and was allowed to buy a house for 280k because why? Barney Frank decided it is a RIGHT of every American to own a home. Then the big banks repackaged the loans within a CDO type product where they combined bonds of all sorts from AA to CC and that pool was rated well above investment grade--these are complex products and they are only suited to institutional investors--it is buyer beware when dealing institution to institution as both parties are considered to be knowledgeable parties capable of researching any investment they buy. Of course everyone pointed fingers when things go wrong it is the American way--sue everyone and see what sticks. Then you heard the mortgage brokers were cheating and not submitting correct application --hell no doc loans and you are going to hold them responsible? Then they went after the rating agencies who they said should have known that those mortgages not backed by fnam and freddie were all crap. This standard created by the US govt was to accept low doc loans--so the rating agency is held responsible--but the son of a ***** Barney Frank is a hero for starting the whole **** ball of wax rolling down hill--unbelievable the way all three branches of the federal govt could spin it that this was all a greedy money grab by banks when they started the whole thing and did nothing to rein it in. Alan Greenspan knew very early that this was going to blow up but did he run out to a TV station and scream it from the pulpit--no--but when he thought the stock mkt was overvalued he made a point of making sure his opinion was heard world wide as the irrational exuberance speech. Where was he in 2006 saying this a dangerous thing to allow these undocumented loans to be packaged along with other securities in pools and re marketed as investment gradepaper, being sold to every mutual fund, and every insurance company who knew exactly what was in those pools, but hey they could buy protection in bond default swaps so what the hell party on. You can blame the regulators and the US government for the 2008 meltdown. The regulators were to busy running around checking to see if everyone got the correct breakpoints on their mutual fund purchases while they let Rome burn to the ground--and they were the ones that supplied the matches--enough I can't stand it when people tell me the banks caused the 2008 meltdown I want to grab them by the neck and tell them stop believing what the spin master are selling you--spin it hard enough and a lot of people will believe it as fact--like the Obama administration had no scandals lol. Benghazi was not a scandal? The sec of state operated a server that had sensitive data on it without permission and then denied its existence until someone hacked it and showed the world the email--then when it was revealed that Obama himself using a alias was communicating with Clinton on the server denied it was true (when he previously told the American public that he had no knowledge of the server) when the evidence was in the public domain. I am telling you believe no one who tells you how it was or is find the evidence and decide for yourself.

And for you nasty bastards on these threads
Strive to be the person your dog thinks you are--you will be better for it

this

[Karen37a]

Yes it does.

And my main point has always been ( and I may be wrong but I doubt it ), that every time regulation steps in...Financial industry, stock-market /securities...Mortgage industry; when they force it, it brings a myriad of new problems with it, problems that people do not foresee. The main one being compliance and extra compliance and extra extra compliance, then compliance for compliance.

This forces the small players to merge in with the large ones because they can not have a dept on the second floor dedicated to it, nor can they bear the expense, or want to.So when people think the market will open up to less competition because the seedy brokers get out, thats partially true, but it also creates a monopolistic effect where you have to join the big boys club or you cant survive, or you have to have inside connections or extreme knowledge or deep pockets. Then compensation gets cut to the loyal ones on the inside, thats fun to watch and some of the big boys shut down .

Its like watching a movie but its live

here comes the monopoly

[dgoldcfg]

It seems like it's for brokers / MCA's in NY. Unless, I am wrong, you can simply move across the water to Jersey, Florida or anywhere else and there would be no problem. M aybe it would affect funding companies located in NY? Did not read the entire article.

[Karen37a]

It seems like it's for brokers / MCA's in NY. Unless, I am wrong, you can simply move across the water to Jersey, Florida or anywhere else and there would be no problem. M aybe it would affect funding companies located in NY? Did not read the entire article.

I was just proving that what I said would come true ...would come true

all this was temporarily blocked ...this was from 2 years ago

[Karen37a]

Ive seen it too many times before I guess, fool me once, fool me twice, fool me 3 times, i had enough....I don't trust them or people, or policing organizations and I do not want to be on here saying "told you so" in 3 years.This argument has been beaten to death. I am not going to change anyones mind and half the people have self serving beliefs and ideas.

I guess you would have had to experience it to know.

this