fundingsmbs


I can appreciate what you are saying but the cost of the acquisition of the client is taken on by the iso. The isos are also responsible for the clawback, and when paid down to the broker and they quickly take on that cost personally if the brokers quit. They are also not participating in the % made on the money nor the double dip ...they are making a commission. Also, the Isos have something vested in their funders ...its renewals. And the ones who do not renew to a certain % and have a certain % of defaults or low approval ratios /closing ratios should be terminated. And most of the mayhem you are hearing about is from the low-level funders vs the iso.

Think about the cost of running an iso/sales office.w/2 model or1099
rent? CRM system?email system?Phone system?Websites?Marketing?Raw Leads or data?Processing?Pre Underwriting?Training?
Sweat Equity?Aggravation? Salaries or hourly wage?
Draw? Commission passed down? Minimal compliance requirements and overseeing them?

Most cant make it and are single-member isos. so when people put down the isos who have 1099 brokers ...vs the w/2. Its technically the same system but you stopped the brokers from creating a website and going whole- hog making mistakes to fund 1 deal after 6 months and 10k of savings spent on leads and their new "iso" and "staff"

Not to mention the drama of the brokers getting too big for the britches and creating their own Iso after they fund a few deals..(. the reccomendation from certain people), to take on certain expenses and not meet quotas nor have the skill necessary to fight off the back door bandits. Its like they walked into a trap.

** and these so called unethical people enrolling with the funders or ISO is no better or worse than merchants wandering onto the net to fill out applications with no live pre approval screening on the front from trained sales people. Actually I bet some of the experienced isos have lower default ratios and higher renewals.