4 ms·
I don't buy that. Your whole argument is based around assets being worth enough to mitigate risk and they simply aren't. Taking the hot dog stand for example
by SamAtt 16y ago
I don't buy that. Your whole argument is based around assets being worth enough to mitigate risk and they simply aren't. Taking the hot dog stand for example they're going to spend most of their money on merchandise and rent which aren't assets that can be repossessed. For those few assets that can be repossessed a bank has to go through petitioning a court to give them permission to repossess, then they have to pay someone to repossess the merchandise and then they have to pay to auction off the merchandise. That's a lot of money to spend for what amounts to some tables and a grill.
The same is true of most new businesses. Even those that create assets in their product (since the bank has to sell off something that people clearly weren't willing to buy from the original business).
As for high tech firms my whole point was that banks can't compete with Angel investors right now but if this law passes they'll have limited options which will push them towards the banks (which in turn is exactly what the banks want)
- jacquesm 16y agoSo, if I read you correctly you think that when angels no longer take the 'market' that banks will suddenly become interested in this kind of loan ? Do you see banks taking equity in start-ups ? Do you see start-ups that right now can't get money from banks but can get money from angels in this new environment suddenly getting bankloans ? I really do not see that happening, if they could get their loans - at any condition - from banks today they would. The banks and the angels are not in competition because banks can't compete, they are not in competition because they don't want to compete. If they would angels wouldn't stand a chance.