Better Home & Finance’s boardroom fight with founder Vishal Garg has exposed a potentially more consequential problem for mortgage companies considering its technology: Some of Better’s highly promoted partnerships have produced little revenue.
In a letter urging shareholders to reject Garg’s effort to remove five directors, a special committee of Better’s board said several partnerships announced “with much fanfare” earlier in 2026 have generated less than $50,000 apiece.
The committee did not identify the partnerships, specify the period measured, or explain whether the figure includes revenue tied to loans originated through those relationships. The disclosure was presented as part of the board’s argument that Garg repeatedly made growth promises that Better did not fulfill.
For mortgage lenders and brokers, however, the more important question is whether Better’s enterprise strategy has established enough commercial traction to support its next phase of growth.
Better is trying to extend its Tinman technology beyond its direct-to-consumer mortgage business by working with other lenders and entering wholesale. Its TinmanGo wholesale platform is expected to launch later this year, according to the company.
Interim CEO Daniel Lewis has said Better will enter wholesale only when it can offer brokers faster funding, lower costs, and a competitive originator experience. He has also acknowledged that the company’s partner-support operation requires further development as Better moves beyond its direct-to-consumer roots.
The newly disclosed partnership revenue adds another question: whether Better can convert lender interest and technology integrations into meaningful, profitable volume.
Production Grows, But Losses Continue
Better originated $1.67 billion in mortgages during the second quarter, up 38% from one year earlier. Revenue increased 28% to $54.7 million.
The company nevertheless recorded a $30.6 million net loss and a $14 million adjusted EBITDA loss. Lewis also acknowledged that Better will miss its previous September break-even target.
Better expects an adjusted EBITDA loss of $15 million to $18 million during the third quarter.
The special committee said Garg also missed his commitment to reach $1 billion in monthly loan originations by May by more than 40%. Those assertions come from the board during a contested shareholder campaign and should not be read as findings by a court or independent examiner.
Garg, who remains a Better director, is seeking shareholder consent to remove five of the company’s eight directors. He argues the board disrupted a turnaround that was beginning to gain traction and damaged confidence among investors, counterparties, and business-to-business partners.
Better says the company needs different leadership and a more disciplined operating plan. The board now intends to concentrate on “fewer, but more impactful” initiatives, including HELOC production, enterprise relationships, wholesale distribution, further automation, and additional cost reductions.
That is more of a narrowing than a wholesale change in direction. Garg and the current board broadly support Tinman, cost cutting, the sale of Better’s U.K. bank, and the search for a permanent CEO. The disagreement centers on who should control those initiatives and whether Garg’s execution record warrants another opportunity.
Wholesale Launch Raises The Stakes
Better is no longer asking only consumers or shareholders to trust its strategy. It is asking lenders and independent mortgage brokers to build business around its technology.
The board previously pointed to Better’s planned wholesale launch and early operating progress as reasons the company should continue without Garg in management.
Its acknowledgment that several recent partnerships produced less than $50,000 each complicates that case. It suggests the partner-led strategy remains an unproven source of revenue even as Better prepares to expand it.
Better’s continuing control fight creates another execution risk. The company is searching for a permanent CEO, cutting costs, developing its wholesale operation, and working to improve partner support while litigating against its founder and soliciting shareholder votes.
The two sides are not proposing fundamentally different mortgage strategies. Their central disagreement is who should oversee them.
