New loans or loansharks? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


tazzygirl -> New loans or loansharks? (11/18/2009 5:44:43 AM)

Urban League and partner to offer small biz loans

PHILADELPHIA – The National Urban League is teaming with a small-business financial specialist to offer loans to companies unable to get approved by banks.

On Deck Capital will provide loans through Urban League local affiliates, starting in Philadelphia and Los Angeles and then expanding across the country, it was announced Wednesday.

The program offers one-year loans ranging from $5,000 to $100,000 at interest rates of 18 to 36 percent. All the loans must be repaid through automatic daily "micro-payments" from the business' bank accounts.




servantforuse -> RE: New loans or loansharks? (11/18/2009 6:56:28 AM)

I say loansharks. If a small business isn't having trouble staying afloat now, they will be when they try to pay back these crooks. Isn't the urban league there to help minorities ?




willbeurdaddy -> RE: New loans or loansharks? (11/18/2009 8:11:34 AM)

If they are unable to get a loan from a bank then they are high risk loans and those interest rates are needed to cover the losses. If they are such bad businessmen that they take a loan they cant pay back then they were destined to fail anyway. You should be far more worried about cc companies boosting rates to 30% on existing balance when their default rates are under 5%.

And besides, the small businesses will get bailed out anyway, right?




Termyn8or -> RE: New loans or loansharks? (11/18/2009 8:33:18 AM)

Not so sure. If a business can increase it's buying power and order products that will sell at a good markup, in the end they make more money. I forgot who, but someone around here used to do that every year around Christmas time with a credit card.

I know a guy couldn't qualify and asked me, for $25,000 at 25% per annum. I didn't quite have it but I know the guy pays his bills. The loan was to be for equipment with which he would make alot more than his initial investment. Actually he probably could qualify at 25%, but didn't want to give the bank his money like that. I think it was more trying to take his business elswhere because they weren't treating him right.

The thing that bothers me is the automatic payment. If anyone ever takes up such an offer, start a new account just for that. I would never go for it on a non credit based account. Like my checking, I actually had to go around with the bank so the ATM card is just as it was, can't be used for POS transactions or anything. All I do with it is deposit money and checks. Doing it this way I've had the account for almost 25 years and never had a slipup. (knocking on wood right now).

Any automatic payments come from credit cards, but I'll bet these loans do not allow that. I don't know about now, but a while back when a store would have a "six month same as cash" deal, that's what they meant. They would not accept payment via credit card after the interest free term. The interest was frequently higher than 18% and they were almost sure to at least get a little bit of the interest money.

Use of money is worth money these days, it is a fact of business. Consumers are into instant gratification and the product must be on the shelves. In fact when you walk into a high end electronics store most of what you see is owned by banks. It's called floorplanning and is done by Westinghouse credit and a few others. If the store picks the right merchandise, that is what will sell quickly, the interest is very minimal. If they get stuck with a truckload of white elephants things can go sour.

Borrowing money to make money is one thing. Borrowing for frivolous things is another. If I borrow $25,000 for equipment, in the case of my buddy it was for equipment to do basement waterproofing and if I'm destined to make $100,000 in a summer in the business, I come out ahead. After the loan is paid all that interest money is mine next year.

I could've gotten the guy the money, but declined to do so because it would eat up too much of my headroom so to speak. Ten grand would not have been a problem, but that's what the stuff cost. It was tempting because you don't get 25% on your money anywhere. Not in anything secured at least.

At any rate, a business should only borrow money for expansion, not for day to day expenses. If you think it's a good idea to keep an eye on normal checking and savings accounts, apply the same to credit and you should be fine. Think of taking a loan as the same thing as taking money straight out of your pocket. In fact that is, in essence what you are doing when you use credit. It just comes out a bit later, and a bit bigger.

It's basically a big game of "mathematics" and is about the same thing as smart gambling.

T




AnimusRex -> RE: New loans or loansharks? (11/18/2009 8:54:24 AM)

I call this usury.
Through all of history, there has been a taboo against excessive rates of interest- this has the effect of trapping desperate people in a cycle of debt they can't escape.

There is an argument of "caveat emptor" but I think there is a time when people should be protected from exploitation.

FWIW, I call anything over 25% usury; this was historically the standard. Only recently did credit card companies manage to get this lifted.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: New loans or loansharks? (11/18/2009 9:00:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

I call this usury.
Through all of history, there has been a taboo against excessive rates of interest- this has the effect of trapping desperate people in a cycle of debt they can't escape.

There is an argument of "caveat emptor" but I think there is a time when people should be protected from exploitation.

FWIW, I call anything over 25% usury; this was historically the standard. Only recently did credit card companies manage to get this lifted.


I guess 31 years ago is recently.




Musicmystery -> RE: New loans or loansharks? (11/18/2009 9:04:56 AM)

W, if you hold even a fraction of the financial knowledge you claim (and you do at times demonstrate such competence), you well know that these rates essentially doom the loaner to debt rising faster than the ability to pay.

Yes, more risk justifies higher rates, but rates like these, if truly necessary, indicate loans that should not be made, and merely set up desperate borrowers for financial disaster.





servantforuse -> RE: New loans or loansharks? (11/18/2009 10:04:45 AM)

What bothers me most is, who is doing it. Part of the Urban Leagues 'mission statement' says they are there to help African Americans through an agenda of economic development and social justice. Right.




Mercnbeth -> RE: New loans or loansharks? (11/18/2009 10:07:18 AM)

quote:

from $5,000 to $100,000 at interest rates of 18 to 36 percent.


My long ago departed 'Uncle Guido' used to charge rates similar to this, although I don't think they were that high, and expected the 'VIG' to be paid daily; not since the last lost on economics President have I seen rates like used. I remember in 1980 when the Prime Rate was 21.5% and I spent my day not making loans, but instead counseling my customers not to borrow until we had elected someone with a clue later that year. However, it's good to see that things have changed, and now, instead of trying to figure a way to make a profit with a 21.5% COF and a lending cap of 18% at the time, we have the Fed Discount rate at 0.25% and Prime at 3.25% and a program is being offered with a spread between 14.75 - 32.75 based on Prime. NICE! I see this is being offered in LA - I need to make a phone call and see if I can get in as a lender on that gravy train. Somehow, I'm sure I'll also find out that there is some sort of government guarantee provided to the lenders.

From 'On Deck's' website: On Deck Capital welcomes established companies with experience in servicing small businesses. Contact us at 888.269.4246, extension #1.

However as it stands, it would be illegal for this 'uncaring, opportunistic, capitalist, asshole' to charge these rates to his customers even it he wanted to; there are lending statutes I have to adhere to. I guess I don't pay enough into a special interest PAC.

I wondered why the Urban League would partner with a group like this? I looked into their site a bit. Per the groups site, they've only lent $41 Million in loans to date. I've done more than that this year. Appears that this is simply a way to market 'On Deck'. Maybe they have a referral agreement going with the Urban League and would kick back some commission for Urban League recommendation.

Turns out this is a non-factor. They need to put a few more zeros on the back end of their lending footprint to make any impact.

Conceptually, 'micro-loans' are a great idea for start up, small businesses. At 18-36% they are a 'hail mary' desperation source of funds which, unless you use the funds for lottery tickets and win, should be avoided. I'd love to know the 'On Deck's' collateral requirements. For these rates Good old 'Uncle Guido' would only require you put up two good working knee-caps.




Kirata -> RE: New loans or loansharks? (11/18/2009 10:19:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Yes, more risk justifies higher rates, but rates like these, if truly necessary, indicate loans that should not be made, and merely set up desperate borrowers for financial disaster.

I think I would rather an approach whereby the lender takes a temporary interest in the business. If it fails, he has an ownership interest in the inventory or equipment that his money paid for and can recoup some percentage of his losses. If it succeeds, he benefits from a percentage of its profits until such time as his investment has been fully repaid. There would be no interest payable on his capital per se, and no indebtedness would survive the business' failure if he makes a stupid loan.

K.







mnottertail -> RE: New loans or loansharks? (11/18/2009 10:58:01 AM)

from the link:
To qualify, businesses should generally have between $500,000 and $2 million in annual revenue and have been operating for at least three years, said On Deck founder and CEO Mitch Jacobs.
shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit if I have that annual rev I don't need a goddamn 5k loan.


Merc?????????????wtf???????we in the same business??????
However as it stands, it would be illegal for this 'uncaring, opportunistic, capitalist, asshole' to charge these rates to his customers even it he wanted to; there are lending statutes I have to adhere to. I guess I don't pay enough into a special interest PAC.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: New loans or loansharks? (11/18/2009 11:18:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

W, if you hold even a fraction of the financial knowledge you claim (and you do at times demonstrate such competence), you well know that these rates essentially doom the loaner to debt rising faster than the ability to pay.

Yes, more risk justifies higher rates, but rates like these, if truly necessary, indicate loans that should not be made, and merely set up desperate borrowers for financial disaster.




I agree, and therefore they should not be made. Its going down the same road as pushing lenders into high risk mortgages, but the Urbs seem to be doing this voluntarily.




Louve00 -> RE: New loans or loansharks? (11/18/2009 12:01:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


Its going down the same road as pushing lenders into high risk mortgages, but the Urbs seem to be doing this voluntarily.


My thoughts exactly!!




mnottertail -> RE: New loans or loansharks? (11/18/2009 12:12:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


Its going down the same road as pushing lenders into high risk mortgages, but the Urbs seem to be doing this voluntarily.


My thoughts exactly!!


it is called lassize faire capitalism, ala smith, friedman et al, at this point.

Fuck it, why not, raping usurous lecherous interest, get that money out of your pocket, then blow up, get the plebiscite to bail you out, get that money out of your pocket, come up with a new scam under the guise of benevolence, and do it before the chinese take it off you honestly.

Damn clever these heathen american capitalist dogs, far cleverer than the heathen chinee.

Ron




Louve00 -> RE: New loans or loansharks? (11/18/2009 12:47:33 PM)

LOL!! 

You're point is well taken, as well as true, in a sad sort of way. [8D]




NeedToUseYou -> RE: New loans or loansharks? (11/18/2009 1:13:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

The program offers one-year loans ranging from $5,000 to $100,000 at interest rates of 18 to 36 percent. All the loans must be repaid through automatic daily "micro-payments" from the business' bank accounts.



That's quite disgusting, they should just bash the business owner in the head and be done with it. The result will be the same only less time wasted.








mnottertail -> RE: New loans or loansharks? (11/18/2009 1:21:09 PM)

well, that is standard business interest, 1.5% per month; on the low end. The other end is a little rich.....

for the cash they will loan against your business size, they aint looking to expand you though, they are looking for the heavy cash flow problems and gonna buy you out cheap by putting you upside down quick problems.

Ron




NeedToUseYou -> RE: New loans or loansharks? (11/18/2009 1:27:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

well, that is standard business interest, 1.5% per month; on the low end. The other end is a little rich.....

for the cash they will loan against your business size, they aint looking to expand you though, they are looking for the heavy cash flow problems and gonna buy you out cheap by putting you upside down quick problems.

Ron


Well, I must of been lucky then, as we only ever had credit cards, and a line of credit, all the credit cards are gone now but one (which hoping to kill completely by spring). And the line of credit, is locked, at like 6 percent range Annually.

Anyway, I would possibly consider an 18 percent loan to facilitate a killer deal. I doubt I'd ever consider anything in the mid 20's range. And 30+ I'd just shut down if I needed that.

I guess my perception on worthwhile credit, varies from the norm.






mnottertail -> RE: New loans or loansharks? (11/18/2009 1:30:11 PM)

no, you aint getting it (what I said) suppose you (a consumer) owe me 500 bucks (a business). I can by federal law charge you 1.5% interest per month on the unpaid balance.

So, that may be why that's their low end.

Ron




willbeurdaddy -> RE: New loans or loansharks? (11/18/2009 1:32:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

well, that is standard business interest, 1.5% per month; on the low end. The other end is a little rich.....

for the cash they will loan against your business size, they aint looking to expand you though, they are looking for the heavy cash flow problems and gonna buy you out cheap by putting you upside down quick problems.

Ron


Well, I must of been lucky then, as we only ever had credit cards, and a line of credit, all the credit cards are gone now but one (which hoping to kill completely by spring). And the line of credit, is locked, at like 6 percent range Annually.

Anyway, I would possibly consider an 18 percent loan to facilitate a killer deal. I doubt I'd ever consider anything in the mid 20's range. And 30+ I'd just shut down if I needed that.

I guess my perception on worthwhile credit, varies from the norm.





Actually sounds fairly standard, even high on the 18%. Most businesses/projects need an 18% roi to justify their existence, so an 18% loan would have to provide a lot of marginal income to green light.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875