20
to remind Trump and Biden - or else who know what thye might think it is
XTC Logistics Inc.
- Thread starter honest
- Start date
30
Happy 248th birthday to all of our American friends! God Bless America….because right now you need all the help you can get!!! Including divine intervention!
30
30
30
nope but it is really all I drink usually have one within reaching distance if i am awake. Used too pour a lot of rum in them but knocked that off about 4 years ago. My Dr calls me names because i drink nothing but Pepsi have 5. blood sugars and medium to low blood pressure. Oh ya and lost 110lbs since i gave up booze.,
Sugars worse Rob..stay away from the white stuff!
Great question, they look like they had a lot of large alcohol accounts on their website...curious as well.
20
Igor Galanter
Well-Known Member
20
Shakey
Site Supporter
30
born again Canadian, paperwork almost done ;-0Ha, look who is talking, eh..
I wasn't around Monday. I hope we had the same for Canada Day!
Did any companies have any luck collecting payments for their invoices after xtc shutdown and how?
1
1
I expect you will have no luck even if you have secured accounts. They have gone into receivership and unsecured creditors will likely get nothing or very minimal amounts.
30
And this right here is why a 75k bond is not worth shit, Come on brokers tell us again how I am a bad guy having a fleet of trucks and warehousing behind me but because I do not have a 75k bond I can't broker freight. Make it a couple million that will clean up the scum lickety split.
30
Rob, I understand your opinion and I get the sentiment behind it, however your current financial strength could mean nothing if things went south for you. A serious illness in upper management, a catastrophic motor vehicle accident that exceeds your insurance coverage, the loss of a major client, any number of unfortunate circumstances that could result in the closure of your business and the loss of your assets. Let’s be honest, this sort of stuff happens all too regularly unfortunately and it leaves suppliers holding the bag. A 75K surety bond, granted a very low amount for a large brokerage, is isolated from your company’s financial affairs and would still be viable even if your company wasn’t. You’re not a “bad guy”, at least as long as you pay your carriers, you are however, a bit of a “scoff law”’.
30
All true sir but the point is the 75K is not worth a darn and you as brokers should be pushing your associations to get it up in the million range if for nothing else it weeds out the basement scammers or sure would help.
30
Limiting, or at least qualifying or perhaps even restricting entry into the transportation industry, whether it is freight brokers or carriers, would certainly go a long way towards eliminating the bad actors on both sides. Unfortunately, in a free market, deregulated economy such as we have here in North America, such measures are unlikely to occur to any effective degree. In the absence of stricter regulations, it is incumbent on all of us to be extra vigilant when it comes to who we decide to do business with. Whether we are talking about bad freight brokers, or bad carriers, or bad window washers, the onus is always on the buyer to ensure they are dealing with ethical, legitimate operators. Buyer beware remains the order of the day.
I think the best bet would be that the bond holder and the broker should have an exposure equal to 1/4 of last the 12 month sales of the broker. This levels the playing field so that smaller brokerages have smaller bond amounts and larger brokers have higher. It would be up to the bond holder to decide the appropriate charge to ensure that their risk is appropriate and audit it to ensure it is 1/4 of previous 12 month sales. This can be managed by a mix of BMC84 and BMC85 vehicles. In the event that claims exceed the exposure amount both the broker and the bond holder should be accountable to the data audit by the FMCSA.
Just thinking out loud here.
Just thinking out loud here.
30
Interesting concept, however it isn’t the amount of sales the broker has that should determine the size of the bond, it should be the amount of accounts payable to carriers. What we should be looking at is the amount of exposure in the event of a business failure. That exposure should be limited to the amounts owing to carriers who performed the service. I do agree that a larger broker, who obviously has more exposure, should carry a larger surety bond than a small broker who has less. I doubt any government agency would agree to take on such a responsibility.