So I wanted to see what some of you guys thought about this practice. I've ranted and raved about this before, but I notice that it continues to happen from time to time with partners of mine.

What do you guys think of Funders/Lenders who randomly change the renewal compensation rules throughout the middle of the relationship, which end up being in stark contrast to the original Broker/ISO Agreement that you signed?

* You start out signing a Broker/ISO Agreement with compensation rules that state you will be paid for the lifetime of the client as long as they renew/reload, aren't past due, etc.

* Then, randomly throughout the middle of the relationship, you get a random email about how they are "changing the rules" and now implementing new deal minimums along with other provisions in order to keep getting paid on your renewals.

What is the damn point of signing an Broker/ISO Agreement, if they are just going to randomly change the rules as we go along?

Anybody else deal with this and if so, how do you handle it?

This type of practice pisses me off because, I structure my business based on my renewal/residual portfolio. I build up my portfolio for a couple of months, then "sit back" a bit because the porfolio can carry me through for a good period of time going forward.

But when they keep screwing around with the renewal rules, the "foundation" starts to get shakey. I'm independent, pay for my own healthcare, pay for my own expenses, and configure my own marketing plans, so what in the hell is the problem about continuing to pay renewals for the lifetime of the client like we originally agreed upon?