[J.Celifarco]

Really looking forward to the opinions. This is a subject that gets bashed a lot and I'm curious to see the thoughts from both sides.

I believe the word "co-brokering" itself inhibits the person of having control and that leads to the first issue. Control over deals hits a personal button which leads to aggravation. We are so used to seeing others get burned or have been burned that we are quick to attack the person/company who is helping with the servicing and deal placement.

The lack of understanding of how to originate properly, qualify, and knowing how to "handle" the deal makes it hard to work with people. Those who have done right in this industry for YEARS come across these people and try to help but one slandered post or negative experience leads to everyone following a wave of opinions.

So whether you are one to co broker or one to accept deals from brokers- I would definitely listen and open your mind to learning how to be better and how it really works.

I have a number of ISO's that submit deals through me. These relationships come down to the way they are setup. If an ISO agreement is signed laying out how the relationship will work and how commissions are paid it is no different then when an ISO signs up directly with a bank. From the first conversation I have with the ISO everything is explained in detail then the ISO agreement puts that information on paper. If this is done I dont see how these relationships can be bad. Some ISO have better bank relationships then others, by going through a bigger more experienced ISO new shops can leverage their relationships and get deals done they normally wouldn't. I have ISO's that in some cases make more going through me then they would if they would go direct to the bank. Does this make sense for established shops with good relationships already probably not, but for newer shops it is the best way to learn