[Kevin Henry-Seacoast]

The underwriters at the funders are willing to do it for me, why should I run it be CLEAR first? I do sometimes Google a client first if things seem sketchy, but I'm a broker. I obviously don't want to submit files that have this type of hair on them, but you get surprises all the time. Everest stopped doing background checks until after contracts, so they have been killing deals last minute, so I don't think it's beyond "standard" to submit before doing my own background checks. Especially if I'm getting calls from funders every day asking me for more submissions.

Keep submitting files with owners with subject backgrounds to real institutions and see how responses to deal flow slows of you get cut off completely.

[Akanner]

Keep submitting files with owners with subject backgrounds to real institutions and see how responses to deal flow slows of you get cut off completely.

It is very easy to tell when you have a good broker Vs. a bad one.

Good brokers still come across and submit bad deals with "hair" on them. The difference is a lot of times the good brokers are just as surprised as the funders when the issues are uncovered in the final. These types of deals are less frequent from them, and they are mostly not interested in brokering such deals. Once they find out the dirt that file goes to the trash bin.

Bad brokers usually know about the dirt on the final, and they usually just shop the deal from one place to the next until it gets funded. There are a handful of ISOs that I have here I expect their deals to have dirt on them. Once I kill it, they move on to the next sucker