There should be a law... rates on load boards

Now....Now.....There is a need for the "Bottom-Feeders"....
Yeah...I used to have an issue with them.....But no longer....

Who the Hell is gonna haul that tarped lumber for a buck a mile if they don't?.....
I see it this way....Let them do it....That makes them happy and the low rate brokers happy....The rest of us (The smarter ones) will get the great paying loads......

And payback....Well......We have seen payback.....

The dump biz in Cali....The Brokers and the contractors effed themselves....They both insisted paying cheap...Like $50/H for a low-sides and no minimums back in '08....That sector hasn't recovered yet.....

Now just about every contractor or contract administrator I know and used to work for, all say the same sad story: They can't find one dump op that knows how to work in the field.....

Yep....you get what you pay for.....You want cheap....Prepare to get cheap....And....Get lazy....and stupid....

 

The trouble with that is just because someone has a net worth doesn't mean they can magically run a successful business and make money. This sort of requirement is anti-competitive backwards thinking like the OOIDA stance on rasing broker surety bond minimum up to $250,000 or $1 million. The market works just fine when you leave it alone. Let the invisible hand of the market weed out the weak.

 

Because then it's used to justify a LOWER CPM rate - like they're "giving us something EXTRA".

The broker KNOWS what the shipper is paying, and KNOWS how much he can pay (including FSC) and still make his "pound of flesh". Like any BUSINESS, brokers aren't in this to "help" the carrier - they're in this to MAKE MONEY.

While it would be "nice" to get whatever YOUR RATE IS - PLUS 100% of the FSC - from a negotiating standpoint, I'd rather go right for the BOTTOM LINE - and make sure the accessorials (detention, tarping, TOLLS) are agreed upon and signed off on the rate confirmation. An O/O should know what it takes to run his truck - where his break-even point it, what additional expenses of the run are going to be, etc. - and negotiate from an EDUCATED POSITION - not solely from what's posted on the board.

As far as the "new law" goes - the additional bond is going to "shake out" the fly-by-nights that can't afford to post it - leave the carriers a little more protection from a hit-n-run broker that decides to go beat 20 loads worth out of carriers, expend his bond, close up shop - start a new corp, post a new bond, get a new authority and DO IT TO US ALL OVER AGAIN.

Too much regulation does suck - but the increased broker bond could PROTECT US MORE in the long run, than it hurts us.

Rick

 

$250,000 is not a lot of money in this business. The same folks who would collect zilch from a $10,000 bond, through their own lack of due dilligence, will likely not collect on a $250,000 one. This is no different than someone going into a lease purchase agreement eyes wide shut, ending up broke and bankrupted, then crying foul after the fact.

 

I think the best way to solve that dilemma is to make the paying party (shipper or consignee) legally responsible 100% of the time if the broker doesn't pay. That would eliminate a federally required broker bond, easing regulatory entry, and the market would decide which brokers they trust and which they don't. That is an ideal world(never will happen thanks to bribes, I mean campaign contributions). Unless they come up with a tiered system based on revenue volume, an amount of 100k should be the minimum. Most carriers run one million dollars liability insurance (all a bond really is), so what's the big deal with increasing the limit. Sure 10k might have been a lot of money in 1980, but I often gross that with my truck alone in a week. A broker can do 10k in a good morning. Once you weed out the chaff, someone that has good credit, assets and some cash that would qualify for a 10k bond should have no problem qualifying for a 100k bond. If you don't have good credit, or don't have the cash or assets to back up your word, you shouldn't be a broker.

 

Too many go into getting Carrier Authority under capitalized and get into trouble very early and end up losing everything include their home and even their marriage over not knowing what they are doing. The net worth litmus would be to prove they know what they are doing by strating into with the adequate working capital to survive the learning curve in this industry.

Under capitalization leads to desperate moves taking substandard rates to keep cash flow coming in to just keep doors open to prolong the end. This is very bad for the industry that drives rates in general down due to those that pray on this weakness with cheap freight brokerages and factoring companies or both.

 

Is this not still America? I don't want anyone to tell me I can't risk it all. And it is on me to make sure that I am willing to extend credit to those I do business with.

 

Risk away but no bailouts, Large or small.

 

Here at Landstar, the FSC means a lot. We get 100% of the fsc so the difference between it being $500 LH/$200 FSC and just $700 LH is $54 out of my pocket. You used to be able to get an agent to slip and extra $50-$100 into the fsc rate, but now even LS has a mandated fsc rate each week that they have to go by. Sometimes it gets a little crazy

 

Apples and hot dogs. That is contract freight. You should get 100% of FSC.

And a lot more of the LH but that is a different topic.




Farm2Fleet Trucking