At a Glance

• 44% of equipment finance executives at firms running both channels could identify at least one strategic account worked by both teams in the prior 12 months with no internal coordination, per Secured Research
• The conflict rarely shows up in monthly reporting because the firm collects revenue on whichever deal closes first
• The pattern that produces the most damage is the customer who learns the firm has multiple price points and starts using the disclosure as leverage
• The fix is not centralized account ownership — it is explicit channel rules of engagement before the conflict surfaces

The Account Both Teams Are Working

Pull a list of your top 200 dealer-affiliated end customers and cross-check it against the named account list of your middle market direct team. Most equipment finance leaders who run this exercise for the first time find a degree of overlap that is uncomfortable. The same end customer is being financed through a vendor program on smaller-ticket equipment, and worked by a direct relationship manager on the larger transactions. Neither team is wrong to be there. Neither team is talking to the other.

The pattern is most pronounced in customers that buy across equipment categories. A regional contractor financing trucks through one OEM dealer program, attachments through another, and a $4 million paving spread through middle market direct is being managed by three different relationships inside the same firm. The customer experiences the firm as three separate vendors, often with three different rate sheets and conflicting account management.