What's the minimum a recruiter will be making on me?

[m0n1k3r]

Correct, hence why I said 20%. If you're on 90 day payment terms, you're exposing 8 weeks of revenue rather than 1. It's simply a case of rate for risk.

Alternatively they might use invoice financing, but that easily costs them 5% on 90 days net so that they can pay the contractor in a week.

[MrMarkyMark]

If you go in truly direct as a supplier expect to wait up to 3 months to get paid.

[LondonManc]

I'd go in about 10% higher than your last rate. Likely the agency were charging 20% more but companies won't pay you agency rates directly (IMO)

Like someone said, they may not want to take you directly, some insist on agencies as an intermediary. Also, I'd be surprised if they offered you the same payment terms as the agency offered last time, just something to be aware of if you sdo end up negotiating.

Correct, hence why I said 20%. If you're on 90 day payment terms, you're exposing 8 weeks of revenue rather than 1. It's simply a case of rate for risk.

[Agent]

I'd go in about 10% higher than your last rate. Likely the agency were charging 20% more but companies won't pay you agency rates directly (IMO)

Like someone said, they may not want to take you directly, some insist on agencies as an intermediary. Also, I'd be surprised if they offered you the same payment terms as the agency offered last time, just something to be aware of if you sdo end up negotiating.

[alreadypacked]

Most companies have a limited list of suppliers, it is unlikely they will open an account for you. Be prepared to ask which of the list prefered suppliers charges the lowest rate.

[northernladuk]

There are two assumptions being made which need clarifying first. Number one is the client asks you direct then puts you through the agent when it comes to it. We've had a number of these types of posts where the OP asks about the details of going direct and when it comes to signing they've been pushed to the agent.

The other is that you don't always get the agents cut as well. It could be that the rate for a direct contractor is lower than that through an agency. The client expects to pay the agent for the work they do so could be factored in. No agent means they can save on the agents cut. That would be the common sense approach. Not always the case, the client could have a fixed rate card in which case happy days but don't assume it will happen.

I think the OP needs to clarify both these points before steaming in. If he can go direct at the same rate card then great result but just make sure first to avoid potential disappointment.

In a big client I'd say the rate should towards the lower of the 10-20% bracket and there may, as already mentioned, be a fixed rate. TBH the OP should have found this out when he took the first gig. I my experience the agents on fixed margins are pretty open about it but make then send it me in writing to be sure. If it's fixed it could be anything from 6-12%. In a smaller client with less contractors then I'd agree 15-20% is pretty ok.

[LondonManc]

Assuming they are on a fixed rate margin. Need to factor in that the agent may be on a flat fee commission as an alternative.

Also what sort of day rate the OP was on, but I'd still say that the percentage is fair. OP is now acting like a consultancy, which means that they can honestly and openly negotiate direct.

Personally, I'd sacrifice a day's fees in my current gig to go into the new client and get that over the line, including any expectations of extra hours be managed via add-ons.

[kaiser78]

I'd say 15-20%, depending upon payment terms. The more money you have exposed with them, the higher the rate, in order to mitigate the risk.

Assuming they are on a fixed rate margin. Need to factor in that the agent may be on a flat fee commission as an alternative.

[LondonManc]

I'd say 15-20%, depending upon payment terms. The more money you have exposed with them, the higher the rate, in order to mitigate the risk.

[pr1]

What's that got to do with it? You price the job up according to your rates and costs

you charge what you think you can get, simple as.

would you like a coin?

OP, I'd say if the agent found you for them (i.e. you weren't just being paid through them) you should go for 10-15% more than whatever you were on before

[stek]

I contracted for a company around 2 years ago via a recruiter. Despite being offered an extension, I left to pursue other opportunities. Left on great terms.

Company approached me last week asking if I'd be interested in helping them out with an upcoming project.

Non-compete agreement with the previous recruiter was 6 months so with them out of the way - I should be able to charge what the recruiter was making on me directly. Just not entirely sure what that would have been.

Any ideas?

What's that got to do with it? You price the job up according to your rates and costs, the former agents cut isn't relevant.

Rates have gone down anyway, and the agent could for all we know have been operating at loss on you to keep there business. Impossible to second guess, you charge what you think you can get, simple as.

[stevieg83]

I contracted for a company around 2 years ago via a recruiter. Despite being offered an extension, I left to pursue other opportunities. Left on great terms.

Company approached me last week asking if I'd be interested in helping them out with an upcoming project.

Non-compete agreement with the previous recruiter was 6 months so with them out of the way - I should be able to charge what the recruiter was making on me directly. Just not entirely sure what that would have been.

Any ideas?