Gunter Transportation - Back Solicit

Great, so they should be fine with having their own accounts back solicited. No US broker authority or bond that I can find.. no salesmen to find freight. I guess they back solicit and then re-broker. Slick operation.
 
Last edited:
Not only that. If they have dropped the previous suppliers rate by a large amount, they're going to find it very difficult to broker those loads when their own equipment isn't available. Sounds like another example of a company trying to increase their sales at the expense of maintaining profitability. That is definitely a recipe for disaster.
 
We have been using Gunter for mostly Flatbed freight for at least a couple years now. The loads are for the same customers now as in the past. They pay fair and we have no complaints.
 
Ya even the company across the haul (OWL) can stand to use them and its the same owner......
 
This doesn't change anything regarding the back solicit, however the do have an MC # 460431, which remains active. US DOT# 1130023. I couldn't find a bond however, but I have no business having that information from them, so they could very well have it.
 
I have had Gunter do some flatbed work for me and never an issue. I have seen them broker freight on occasion. Bond or not in a worst case shut down bankruptcy I would think you would have a better chance collecting from an asset based carrier over a broker. $75k bond would not cover on weeks work for any decent sized broker. The only people that seem to care are the brokers that have one. I have yet to deal with a carrier that does or had one ask me for one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MikeJr
I guess you've never been stiffed by an asset based carrier. The bond in and of itself isn't perfect, but not having one (for someone who brokers loads in the US) is a red flag. If they don't or can't abide by the regulations then what else can't or won't they do. Agreed, the 75K bond isn't perfect, but its better than having nothing at all. Personally, I've never been asked for my bond either.. however, I include it in my setup packet for new carriers. Carriers (in the US at least) generally won't deal with brokers who aren't properly setup.. The larger shippers also require brokers to operate legally.. try getting a GM or a GE or a Proctor & Gamble without one..You invite serious problems into your life when you deal with mickey mouse carriers and brokers who aren't properly set up.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: loaders
In a bankruptcy case, the bond will pay out 75K to those who are owed money by the default party. Yes, it is not alot of money, and yes, it would only pay those that filed against it first, leaving the stragglers with nothing. Not perfect, but still better than trying to collect your 3K owing from a failed company with millions of dollars of outstanding debt. As Freight broker does, we provide this information and all of our registrations to all of our carrier partners to show them that we are serious and professional about the job we do. All of our US carriers and customers ask for this information along with any multinational shipper we deal with. If they think this is important, why wouldn't everyone?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob
You stated that the only people who care about broker bonds are the brokers who are bonded. I replied that it ain't so.. lots of carriers (evidently you're not one of them) require that the brokers they work with are properly licensed and bonded.
 
Freight Broker said:
You stated that the only people who care about broker bonds are the brokers who are bonded. I replied that it ain't so.. lots of carriers (evidently you're not one of them) require that the brokers they work with are properly licensed and bonded.
Click to expand...

No I did not, I stated the only people posting are they bonded, are they bonded in every bloody thread about a carrier that brokers excess freight are the brokers..

Yes I like dealing with properly set up brokers, but to be honest until this $75k bond went into effect most small to midsized broker where not..
 
Well, they're supposed to be bonded as well. That's the law. And non asset isn't really non asset anyway...
 
When you think about it, the broker's surety bond is a form of receivables insurance for the carriers. The best part is, it costs the beneficiaries (the carriers) absolutely nothing. Why wouldn't a carrier want to deal with someone who insures their payables up to 75K and does it at no cost to the supplier?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Freight Broker
loaders said:
In a bankruptcy case, the bond will pay out 75K to those who are owed money by the default party. Yes, it is not alot of money, and yes, it would only pay those that filed against it first, leaving the stragglers with nothing. Not perfect, but still better than trying to collect your 3K owing from a failed company with millions of dollars of outstanding debt. As Freight broker does, we provide this information and all of our registrations to all of our carrier partners to show them that we are serious and professional about the job we do. All of our US carriers and customers ask for this information along with any multinational shipper we deal with. If they think this is important, why wouldn't everyone?
Click to expand...


It is important but it has no teeth. The money is supposed to be in a trust account so us carrier do not get stiffed. How many brokers use one of them?? Um can you say none..

$75k is a joke as was the $10k before it. Want some teeth, make it a million.. That would get rid of the mickey mouse brokers.

Touch wood it has been a few years since we have lost a red cent to either a carrier or broker going south and never been a big dollar amount when we did, but we are pretty choosy on who, when and how much credit is extended. Websites like this and having your ear to the ground has helped us from loosing money in this way..
 
I don't really fault Gunter for back solicitation. Its a dog eat dog business, and its up to the broker to ensure his/her account is protected from other competitors, be they brokers or carriers. I had mentioned that brokers should focus on diversified freight that cannot be easily picked off by carriers unless they also broker. At that point someone mentioned that Gunter is also a brokerage powerhouse... so I decided to check to see if I could find their broker bond.. No such luck. I guess if they're brokering freight that is to/from/within the US they are doing it without the bond unless they're setup under another company. I don't know. But that's how we got off on the broker bond tangent. Like I said, back solicitation is going to happen because it isn't illegal and its a competitive business. I personally don't care about it... but would kick up some dust over a competitor who chooses not to play by the rules.
 
Just one more comment about the surety bond, and also the trust account, 2 different things. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the 75K surety bond is required in order to obtain US freight broker operating authority. If you are strictly a Canadian broker conducting all your business within Canada, it is not required. The trust account is part of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act and as such, is applicable to Ontario based freight brokers. Rob is quite correct when he says that few, if any brokers maintain a trust account. I for one, do and there are others, just not as many as there perhaps should be. Again, both of these items are available at no cost to the carriers who elect to do business with properly licenced and law abiding freight brokers. By all means, people are free to conduct business with whomever they choose, but when there are a few "safety nets" available out there, why not choose them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Igor Galanter, Freight Broker and Rob
I have used Gunter Trucking Durin the Days Dave use to work there and they had a bunch of reefers.
I never had any problems with them and they never Back solicitated The lanes we did every week.
Management Must have changed by now It has been at least 2years. But Like I said NEver had any problems with them.
It is Unfortunate they went and grab that lane from you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom