Post-grant operations
Recourse vs non-recourse factoring
Recourse and non-recourse factoring differ on one question: who absorbs the loss when a broker never pays a factored invoice. Under recourse, the carrier buys the invoice back. Under non-recourse, the factor keeps the risk it agreed to cover, at a higher fee, within limits the contract defines.
By Evan Reid, Founder of Haul Handbook · Updated Jul 22, 2026
What recourse means in a factoring agreement
Start with the baseline trade, which is the same under both labels: you deliver, invoice the broker, and sell that invoice to the factor for cash now. The full mechanics of advances, reserves, and fees live in how factoring works. The recourse question only surfaces when the broker fails to pay.
Under a recourse agreement, that failure lands on you. The factor charges the invoice back, and the advance you already spent on fuel becomes a debt, typically settled out of your reserve or deducted from the next funding. The factor was never underwriting the broker's default for you; it was fronting cash against a receivable you still stood behind.
One piece of legal machinery matters under either label. Under UCC Section 9-406, once the broker or shipper receives notification that the invoice has been assigned and payment is to be made to the factor, it can discharge the debt only by paying the factor, not the carrier. So a chargeback never routes payment back through you; it changes who owes whom, not who collects.
What non-recourse actually covers
Non-recourse moves the default risk across the table, and factors selling it describe it in exactly those terms. OTR Solutions describes non-recourse factoring as the factor assuming the risk of non-payment when it buys the invoice at a discounted rate, instead of the carrier waiting 30, 60, or 90 days for the broker to pay.
The same seller points at the industry's open secret. The same page states that factors offering non-recourse programs will often still charge carriers back when an invoice goes unpaid, and markets OTR's own program as the exception that leaves payments final even if the broker defaults or goes out of business. That is a marketing framing, but the pattern it describes is real: many programs sold as non-recourse cover only narrow events, often just the broker's bankruptcy, and charge back everything else, including disputes, shortage claims, and ordinary slow payment.
How the two are priced
Shifting risk onto the factor costs money, so non-recourse programs generally carry the higher fee of the two. The published baseline both sit on: altLINE publishes that invoice factoring rates tend to range from 1 to 5 percent of the invoice value, driven by factored volume, invoice age, debtor credit, and debtor concentration. The full pricing picture, including the add-on fees that move the real cost, is covered in factoring rates explained.
Program menus differ factor to factor. Apex Capital publishes that it offers recourse and non-recourse programs, flat fees, tiered pricing, and volume-based discounts, with same-day and next-day funding and no monthly minimum volume fees. Claims like these are each company's own; this site sells no factoring and ranks no factor.
Choosing with a new authority
For a new carrier the honest question is not which label sounds safer, but which risks you can actually survive. A single unpaid invoice early in your first weeks under new authority can erase a month's margin, which argues for paying the non-recourse premium while your cushion is thin. A carrier that vets brokers carefully and runs with established credit histories may keep more money under recourse pricing.
Whichever way you lean, compare agreements on the same three pages: the fee schedule, the covered-event list, and the termination terms. If a broker you haul for offers early payment directly, weigh that too; the trade-offs sit in quick pay vs factoring.