User Tag List

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-18-2012, 12:07 AM
GMAN's Avatar
Administrator
Board Icon
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 17,082
Default $100,000 Broker Bond

Well, it seems that the senate passed part of the new Transportation bill which has a provision that will require broker bonds to be increased from $10,000 to $100,000. OOIDA has lobbied hard to make this a reality. Frankly, I don't see the need for brokers to have a higher bond. It will limit competition, put many smaller brokers out of business and prohibit new brokers from entering the industry. This is a very, very bad idea. I have gotten some of my best rates from smaller brokers over the years. Bonds usually require those using them to pay 10% of the face value of the bond annually. In order to qualify for the bond you may also need to put up the total amount of the bond in personal or corporate assets. That will be next to impossible for smaller brokers. This bill is likely to have unintended consequences for the industry. Any time you attempt to limit competition it can't be good. One reason OOIDA has been so active in pushing this legislation is due to a number of members not doing their homework on new brokers. Any time that I do business with a new broker I always take the time to check them out. I suspect that those who want this legislation the most are the ones who don't want to take the time to check out those with whom they want to do business. All businesses will suffer some losses if you survive in business long enough. If you are careful about whom you extend credit then you should not have a lot of problems with bad receivables. I am curious as to how others feel about the broker bond being increased.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-18-2012, 01:28 AM
dle's Avatar
dle dle is offline
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 984
Default

The change is going to have both good and bad affects. Is it going to put some brokerages out of business, yes it will, especially the ones that have a poor credit situation. As you are probably aware GMAN that bond is to allow the other parties to file a claim against the brokerage if there are problems - damage, etc.

There are checks and balances that all of the parties are supposed to do and if everybody does what they are supposed to do then a lot of these problems would be averted.

There were a number of brokerages, large and small that wanted it raised to $25,000.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-18-2012, 02:36 AM
GMAN's Avatar
Administrator
Board Icon
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 17,082
Default

The bond has been used for carriers to file against should the broker fail to pay them in a timely manner. This discussion has been going on for the last several years. It may get some of the bad brokers out of the business, but with the increased cost of doing business, you can expect brokers to want to keep more of the rate to offset their higher costs of doing business. With less competition you can expect lower rates. Those who want this legislation really should not be in business. If they took the time to check out brokers before extending them credit then this would be a non issue. The big brokers love this since it will limit their competition.

There are also other provisions to this legislation. Brokers will be required to renew their authority every 5 years and must complete a certain amount of training. Again, this will increase their cost of doing business. I am not sure what type of training that they expect the brokers to complete, but they seem to prefer to set the rules and then fill in the details later. Just look at the coil certification in Alabama. The test is a joke, but they will find the driver $5,000 and carrier $10,000 if you pick up or deliver coils in the state and don't have the original certificate with you.

What some have probably also not considered is that carriers and those with their own authority may also need to renew their authority at some point and have some sort of training. We don't have a perfect system, but it is working pretty well without any more government interference.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-18-2012, 06:43 AM
Copperhead's Avatar
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kellogg, IA
Posts: 535
Default

Yeah..... the landscape is covered with the carcasses of those that benefited from government's good intentions. OOIDA is a class act. While they always tout about being for independence, but they sure lobby the snot out of the government to pile on the regulations when it fits their view of an ideal world. Gman has the landscape figured out. This is just going to increase cost to the brokers, who will in turn, take a larger cut out of the rate.

I continue to be amazed and the number of eunuchs in this country. They can't stand up for themselves and man up. They have to go whimpering with their tales tucked between their legs and have Uncle Sam come to their rescue. Problem is, their problem is never solved, government gets involved in everything, and we all lose in the end.
__________________
Freedom does not mean the choice to do whatever you want. It means the choice to do what you ought.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-18-2012, 03:58 PM
GMAN's Avatar
Administrator
Board Icon
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 17,082
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dle View Post
The change is going to have both good and bad affects. Is it going to put some brokerages out of business, yes it will, especially the ones that have a poor credit situation. As you are probably aware GMAN that bond is to allow the other parties to file a claim against the brokerage if there are problems - damage, etc.

There are checks and balances that all of the parties are supposed to do and if everybody does what they are supposed to do then a lot of these problems would be averted.

There were a number of brokerages, large and small that wanted it raised to $25,000.

The language of the bill will allow the fmcsa to raise the broker bond every 5 years without approval of congress. On one site it had the brokers having to renew their authority every year, not every 5 years. Some things could still change by the time they have a vote. This is a very slippery slope. There is also a lot of paperwork that every broker must file each year in order to keep their authority active. The increased bond is being pushed by the larger brokerage firms. I can't imagine smaller brokers wanting to have to tie up more money than they are today. I have spoken with a couple of larger brokers concerning this legislation. They are almost giddy with excitement. What they can't do for themselves, they will get the government to do for them with the huge bond increases.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-18-2012, 05:56 PM
dle's Avatar
dle dle is offline
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 984
Default

Once it becomes law, all of the federal agencies will write all of their regulations based on their interpretations of what the law means. That is when, I'm afraid, will be the time when we find out the true affect on the industry and the economy. Long time ago I heard someone say that for every 5 lines of law, there are 15 lines of regulations = talk about garbage in = garbage out cubed.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-18-2012, 10:03 PM
dle's Avatar
dle dle is offline
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 984
Default

http://www.independentpropertybrokers.org/

There is a link on the site to go to sign an online petition. Don't know if it would do any good, but here's a direct link.

Petition Online
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-19-2012, 12:05 AM
GMAN's Avatar
Administrator
Board Icon
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 17,082
Default

I signed the petition. I will also call and/or write my congressman. It is too late to speak with my senators. It would have been nice to have had some advanced notice of this being included in this bill. I have no doubt that the reason they want to keep this quiet is that they want to slip it under the radar and most people won't know anything about it until it is too late. Insanity seems to be taking over this country.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-19-2012, 03:10 AM
Musicman's Avatar
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Way Way Way Down South in IL
Posts: 785
Default

With decent financials, a $100k bond with TIA only requires a recoverable cash deposit of $10k and then an annual fee of $1,850 per year. I’m but a lowly single truck carrier and I could easily afford to pay for a $100k bond under those terms.

I’m not fond of the increased bond requirement. We never pull a load for a new customer without checking their credit on at least two separate services and we’ve never been burned outright. There’s been TONUs that went unpaid, but we’ve always been paid for every load we’ve hauled.

I’m not so sure that increasing the bond requirement will necessarily translate to lower rates for carriers. Rates are dependent largely on freight volume vs transportation capacity. The brokers can simply pass these small additional costs on to the shippers, who are already way underpaying for freight. What it should definitely do is get rid of the con artists or at least force them to find new techniques.
__________________
"The Breakfast of Champions isn't cereal, it's the competition!" - "Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom." - "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-19-2012, 02:30 PM
GMAN's Avatar
Administrator
Board Icon
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 17,082
Default

You won't eliminate fraud in this industry by increasing the broker bond. It will lower the number of brokers who can afford to get into the business. Many of the smaller brokers will probably not be able to pay the additional premium. When I checked into getting a surety bond last year I was told that I would need to put up the equivalent value in personal or corporate assets in order to secure the bond. Before that time I didn't think that you needed to put up any sort of collateral. Not every broker will have $100,000 in assets to pledge in order to secure the bond.

I think that those who really want to bond to be increased to protect them should find a company driving job. There is no reason that any carrier should have a large number of bad receivables. If they do then they probably didn't take the time to check out those whom they have been doing business.
Reply With Quote
Reply






Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 10:00 PM.


User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.