The short answer
Let them tell you what happened, agree with the parts that were genuinely wrong, and then differentiate on something checkable rather than on assurance. A merchant burned by a previous broker is describing a real experience, and the response that works is specific verifiable difference — not a claim to be more honest, which is exactly what the last one said.
This industry has earned a fair amount of the suspicion it meets. A merchant who was quoted one number and given another, or stacked into a position they did not understand, is not being difficult — they are describing something that happened to them.
Let it run
The instinct is to interrupt and differentiate. Do not. A merchant who gets to finish the story has spent their objection, and what they tell you along the way is usually the whole map of what they care about — which is worth more than the thirty seconds it costs.
Differentiate on checkable things
| Assurance (fails) | Specific (works) |
|---|---|
| "We are honest" | "I will not give you a number before I read the statements" |
| "We are transparent" | "Here is the total payback in dollars, up front" |
| "We look after our clients" | "I will tell you if another offer beats mine" |
| "We are not like them" | "Ask me anything about the fees and I will answer it now" |
Every item in the left column is something the previous broker also said. Every item in the right is a commitment they can check within the next few days, which is what makes it worth anything.
Then do the thing
- Give the total payback in dollars before they ask.
- Name the fees without being asked.
- Tell them plainly if a competing offer is better.
- If the deal should not happen, say so — this is the merchant most likely to tell other people what you did.
That last point is commercial as much as ethical. Merchants who have been burned talk about it, and the broker who behaved differently is the one they name.