Nationwide ("NTF"), as a non-recourse freight bill factor, generally commends your article on broker credit
verification.
I have only one comment to include. Several years ago, NTF was approached by one of the load boards to
consider guarantying the credit of all brokers that post loads on their website and, in consideration, NTF would be
nominally compensated for each broker posting.
As part of my due diligence in considering their relationship offer, I had the opportunity to review their load
posting agreement and discovered that they had included a disclosure of non-responsibility to the carrier if the
broker defaulted in payment. To ascertain the uniqueness of their reluctance of directly providing a credit
opinion for each broker, I had the opportunity to review several other load-posting websites and,
similarly, their positions of payment default non-responsibility was also specifically expressed in their
agreement.
Resulting from my recommendations to NTF management, we responded to their offer but stipulated
that NTF would have the option of (1) credit denial based on our ascertainment of the broker's past
credit performance and (2) set a maximum credit exposure for each broker versus the unlimited broker
credit exposure they were desiring.
Needless to say, they rejected our offer and the relationship never cam to fruition. I recall that another load
board posted that it had arranged with another credit guaranty source offering a similar guaranty but I could
not find any relevant substantiation information on the financial strength of their guarantor.
I just wanted to interject to the carrier(s) who respond to your article that they should not consider the
load board as a guarantor of payment just because it was instrumental in the creation of the carrier-broker
relationship - that was dissolved upon their initial execution of the load board/carrier posting agreement.
1/28/2020
Nationwide ("NTF"), as a non-recourse freight bill factor, generally commends your article on broker credit
verification.
I have only one comment to include. Several years ago, NTF was approached by one of the load boards to
consider guarantying the credit of all brokers that post loads on their website and, in consideration, NTF would be
nominally compensated for each broker posting.
As part of my due diligence in considering their relationship offer, I had the opportunity to review their load
posting agreement and discovered that they had included a disclosure of non-responsibility to the carrier if the
broker defaulted in payment. To ascertain the uniqueness of their reluctance of directly providing a credit
opinion for each broker, I had the opportunity to review several other load-posting websites and,
similarly, their positions of payment default non-responsibility was also specifically expressed in their
agreement.
Resulting from my recommendations to NTF management, we responded to their offer but stipulated
that NTF would have the option of (1) credit denial based on our ascertainment of the broker's past
credit performance and (2) set a maximum credit exposure for each broker versus the unlimited broker
credit exposure they were desiring.
Needless to say, they rejected our offer and the relationship never cam to fruition. I recall that another load
board posted that it had arranged with another credit guaranty source offering a similar guaranty but I could
not find any relevant substantiation information on the financial strength of their guarantor.
I just wanted to interject to the carrier(s) who respond to your article that they should not consider the
load board as a guarantor of payment just because it was instrumental in the creation of the carrier-broker
relationship - that was dissolved upon their initial execution of the load board/carrier posting agreement.
Thank you for your interest in my comment,
Dave Carney
Manager