by Structured Settlement Watchdog®
When all is said and done, this is the point –
if Penelope Plaintiff calls a broker that is on the Structured Settlement Clean Vendor List ("vig free") to factor her structured settlement annuity, then hangs up the phone and calls a broker that not on the Clean Vendor List ( who is a vig taker) to factor the exact same cash flow with same funding source, which will get her the better price assuming, for sake of discussion, all other alternative sources of funds have been exhausted?
X————————————————
And that is the Bottom-Line point.
If can't see yourself seeing this as a pro bono task, meaning you (or if you are a lawyer-your broker) wish to make money off the transaction, that's your choice. But in the end it can only come from the transaction itself, and one dime taken reduces Penelope Plaintiff's recovery by ten cents.
X————————————————–
Using an illustrative example: Let's say two brokers refer business to the same structured settlement factoring vendor. One, who is on the Clean Vendor List communicates to the factoring vendor that he or she is referring pro bono and the other, not on the Clean Vendor List, is taking a fee equal to 50% of the fee that vendor makes. Broker A insists and has the factoring vendor's word that he or she she will not take more for his or her personal fee than the net to him or her if she had split her fee with Broker B. The end result, assuming the vendor keeps its word, is that Broker A has done better for the tort victim's bottom line. To the factoring vendor it's revenue neutral. Were the factoring vendor to disagree with this logic then he or she will have admitted that he or she is not playing fair with brokers and call his or her business ethics into question.
X—————————————————-
Leave a Reply