4 ms·

Yes this is risk management, and tbh holding 25% for 28 days isn’t all that unreasonable. If your business’ finances can’t adjust for what amounts to a 1-month

Yes this is risk management, and tbh holding 25% for 28 days isn’t all that unreasonable. If your business’ finances can’t adjust for what amounts to a 1-month billing cycle for 25% of your revenue, look inward.

Silhouette 6y ago
If your business’ finances can’t adjust for what amounts to a 1-month billing cycle for 25% of your revenue, look inward. Under normal circumstances, that might be a reasonable suggestion. Under the current very unusual circumstances, even many large, well-established, normally viable businesses are engaging in massive downsizing or simply going under. Imposing that sort of condition on a business that is apparently struggling already due to a sudden change in its situation could easily be enough to break its cash flow and push it under, so it definitely shouldn't be done unless it's justified and proportionate.
- CaveTech 6y ago
  It’s a risk mitigation measure being applied to what’s clearly a very risky business currently. The sword cuts hard but this exactly what it’s for. The underlying businesses are in trouble and payment processors don’t want to hold the bag while the business run away with premature profits. If the business cannot survive with these provisions in place it’s because they have not accurately priced in the risks and are now upset that their vendors are not interested in acts of capitalist charity.
  - Silhouette 6y ago
    I'm not sure any business on earth has "accurately priced in the risks" of a once-in-a-generation financial apocalypse precipitated by a global pandemic. Again, if the measure is proportionate and justified, it's fair enough to impose it. Stripe has to protect itself too. But the idea that any business in the current unusual situation should be able to just casually take a disruption to 25% of its cash flow and if it can't then it's somehow been badly run doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Lots of otherwise viable and long-running businesses have been hit hard, sometimes terminally, by the virus situation.
    - CaveTech 6y ago
      I never implied that they were badly run, merely that they’re not operating within the current boundaries of reality. If there’s any place for government intervention, this is it. But it’s a slippery slope to subsidize business that are acting like the world hasn’t changed. Unfortunately the world is complex and a business can fail due to no fault of its operators, but that has always been the case and businesses are risky endevors.

Silhouette 6y ago

If your business’ finances can’t adjust for what amounts to a 1-month billing cycle for 25% of your revenue, look inward. Under normal circumstances, that might be a reasonable suggestion. Under the current very unusual circumstances, even many large, well-established, normally viable businesses are engaging in massive downsizing or simply going under. Imposing that sort of condition on a business that is apparently struggling already due to a sudden change in its situation could easily be enough to break its cash flow and push it under, so it definitely shouldn't be done unless it's justified and proportionate.

CaveTech 6y ago
It’s a risk mitigation measure being applied to what’s clearly a very risky business currently. The sword cuts hard but this exactly what it’s for. The underlying businesses are in trouble and payment processors don’t want to hold the bag while the business run away with premature profits. If the business cannot survive with these provisions in place it’s because they have not accurately priced in the risks and are now upset that their vendors are not interested in acts of capitalist charity.
- Silhouette 6y ago
  I'm not sure any business on earth has "accurately priced in the risks" of a once-in-a-generation financial apocalypse precipitated by a global pandemic. Again, if the measure is proportionate and justified, it's fair enough to impose it. Stripe has to protect itself too. But the idea that any business in the current unusual situation should be able to just casually take a disruption to 25% of its cash flow and if it can't then it's somehow been badly run doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Lots of otherwise viable and long-running businesses have been hit hard, sometimes terminally, by the virus situation.
  - CaveTech 6y ago
    I never implied that they were badly run, merely that they’re not operating within the current boundaries of reality. If there’s any place for government intervention, this is it. But it’s a slippery slope to subsidize business that are acting like the world hasn’t changed. Unfortunately the world is complex and a business can fail due to no fault of its operators, but that has always been the case and businesses are risky endevors.