New Business Failures

The fact that people failed is a stat that says it was due to lack of funding? Wot? Why are failed businesses the fault of institutions that have NOTHING to gain from their failures again?

3 Likes

@polo77j @anon50325502 @pfury @dt79

Here I was hoping against hope that @Zeppelin795 was asking a legitimate question and he was going to start his own affiliate link or medical MJ business. I wanted him to do well. Alas, twas but a thinly veiled anti-bank diatribe.

@Zeppelin795 banks should not exist to invest in sketchy ventures to promote the public good of entrepreneurs. They work for the depositors, and have a fiduciary responsibility to try and earn a return. Think if a good banker as a man wearing a belt and suspenders… very conservative and very risk averse.

Just look what happened when banks/rating agencies/governments went ham on subprime mortgages to promote the public good of people with bad credit ā€œowningā€ homes.

2 Likes

This thread is going to be a classic.

5 Likes

The blame can partially be put on the institution as they are the ones lending money and have a stake in the success. They have people trained to do this.

The stats don’t differentiate between industries, only that undercapitalization is consistently in the top 5 reasons for failure.

Completely understandable

2 Likes

That stats you read are incomplete…if you really want to, you can dig deeper but I don’t expect any type of nuanced understanding by you on any topic you bring up…

Oh, man. I think Zeppy is finally ignoring me. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

1 Like


If bank bank go bye bye then lending go bye bye. No more lendy from bank bank to small business if bank bank no more.

Perhaps baby talk will get through to you.

Ya, why would a financial institution want their loan back plus interest…
:thinking:

Of course, it was. Dude has railed on and on against banks for years.

Whoa, bro. That’s waaaaaaaaaay too big a word for him.

Remember, he thinks the banks were at fault, though. So, once again, we find ourselves in yet another Zep conundrum. The banks were bad for lending money to people they knew couldn’t have paid it back, but they’re also bad for not lending more money to start-ups even though half of start-ups fail in the first year or two and something like 70% fail in the first 5 years. Logic from Zep, of course not!

No. The blame can not be put on the banks at all. They lend money, period. They do not hold a management stake in a business. The management of a business is 100% not the banks business.

They have people trained in assessing the risk of loaning ______(insert business) capital.

1 Like

Not to mention there are other ways to raise capital.

https://www.youcaring.com/blog/2013/which-fundraising-site-has-the-lowest-fees

His last post blew my mind. Like ā€œBOOM!ā€.

I… I’m just gonna go to the gym and deadlift now…

3 Likes

Honestly, no insults, I just don’t understand why a person consistently posts about things they are completely clueless about. I just can’t wrap my brain around it.

1 Like

I think the obvious root cause of all this, is that the banking industry has a monopoly on the banking industry.

5 Likes

To take it one step further, I think the root cause of all this is that Milton Bradley has a monopoly on monopoly.

6 Likes

I usually stay out of these threads, but feel very fortunate I stumbled upon that gem from the other one.

2 Likes

In the pharma industry they are often bought by larger companies as they do not have the capital to go through the FDA process. A fact that Big Pharma likes as it suppresses competition.

You should look in the mirror and ask yourself the same question.

There has never been a time in human history that has been better for raising capital for a business or a project. The amount of cash that is flooding into every possible startup is almost comedic at this point. That does not mean that you’re going to get that money from a bank to open a hardware store in Peoria.

3 Likes

This is half true. Also, if a company is bought out by a much bigger player doesn’t that mean that said company exists in the first place and as such they had the requisite funding necessary to be in business?

2 Likes

Not to mention be successful enough to appear valuable to another company to want to buy…

1 Like