Abolish the SBA: $70-83B reasons why it should happen

January 12, 2009

veroniquedereymercatuscentre1Private gain, Public loss.

Banks, like all buisnesses, just love it when governments underwrite their risks.

It’s only a bonus when Joe Q. Public gets to pay for the drunkard’s binge of “aggressive” to predatory to outright fraudulent loan practices.

Canada, the United Kingdom and the U.S. all have small business loan programs which guarantees defaults.

The North American franchise industry relies very heavily on this debt program to fuel franchise sales. In Canada, the Canada Small Business Financing program is almost the only debt that Schedule 1 banks will offer for franchises (last time I checked).

The U.K. industry discernment is still embryonic. Their Small Firm Loan Guarantee scheme, SFLG is run by the Department of Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform, BERR. By the looks of  The Royal Bank of Scotland site, SFLG loans are a big part of the U.K. franchise industry also.

  • Blue MauMau is the most active centre for franchise investor concerns in the world. Tellingly, SBA Loans Free Fall is a current headline.

Dr. Veronique de Rugy, adjunct scholar at the CATO Institute in 2007 (and now senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University) presents some very important facts from a CATO Daily Podcast [see below].

Specifically the U.S. Small Business Act, SBA loan program:

  1. may end up costing citizens $70-billion (maybe $83-B?, if defaults climb faster than projected; unfunded debt that will be added to future taxpayers),
  2. with less than only 1% of small businesses taking out a SBA loan per year, it’s irrelevant economically,
  3. was created 53 years ago when credit information was much harder to determine (program has not evolved as information sharing has improved),
  4. of the loans that are currently on the books, they are “defaulting massively” (SBA loans disproportionally finance doomed business ventures), and
  5. only has 3% of women or minority-controlled firms take take out a SBA loan per year (as a social program it is a bust: 97% of these “discriminated against” groups get their debt elsewhere).

All of this begs the question: If the 7a Loans are defaulting like mad who exactly are benefiting from this program?

To her credit, Dr. de Rugy points directly to the banks and their capacity to sell off the 75% government guaranteed portion on the secondary market and stick the massive debt to the taxpayers if their own default projections are understated (ie. d/recession).

The banks love SBA loans (in a technical sense) because:

  1. 60% of all loans are underwritten by the 10 largest banks can exert market influence even within a very decentalized banking system, comparatively, (in Canada it’s worse: 82.5% all guaranteed loans with Top 5 bankers, 2000-05: FOI author) and
  2. the return on equity for is a minimum of over 3.8 times higher than for regular loans (SBA: 70% v. Regular loans 15-18%).

Listen to the 9:06 podcast and see how $70-billion could be added on top of the current +$700-billion banking bailout. I can’t help but note how fuzzy the banks are so far on accounting for the first bailout installment. [click here]

According to Dr. de Rugy, the SBA loan program serves two very powerful masters:

  1. “lawmakers who have successfully sold the SBA as a program to help the so popular small businesses and
  2. the banking industry, which profits by issuing and selling the low-risk, government-guaranteed small-business loans.”

As of the end of 2006, the SBA had nearly $83 billion in outstanding guaranteed loans that the taxpayers – not the banks – would have to pay if the economy experienced a serious downturn.

BANKING ON THE SBA: Big Banks, not small businesses, benefit the most from SBA loans programs, Veronique de Rugy, August 2007, 4 pages


<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: