SBA Forgiveness: What Small Business Owners Need to Know
With the guidance and support of experienced SBA loan attorneys from Protect Law Group, you can find a concrete path to SBA debt resolution. Learn now.
With the meltdown of SVB and Signature banks and other banks teetering it may affect SBA loans in the future and current loans as well.
Book a Consultation Call
With the meltdown of SVB and Signature banks and other banks teetering it may affect SBA loans in the future and current loans as well.
The current banking crisis can have a significant impact on Small Business Administration (SBA) loans. The SBA is a government agency that provides support to small businesses by offering loans, loan guarantees, and other financial assistance programs. However, SBA loans are typically provided by private banks and other financial institutions that partner with the agency.
If these banks are struggling due to the banking crisis, they may become more hesitant to lend money, including SBA loans, to small businesses. This can result in a reduction in the availability of SBA loans, making it more difficult for small businesses to access the capital they need to survive and grow.
Additionally, the economic downturn caused by the banking crisis may cause some small businesses to default on their existing SBA loans.This could lead to a decrease in the SBA's loan portfolio and an increase in the agency's loan guarantee payments to banks.
Overall, the banking crisis can have a negative impact on the availability and affordability of SBA loans, making it more challenging for small businesses to obtain the funding they need to succeed.
Higher interest rates may have several effects on SmallBusiness Administration (SBA) loans:
· Increase in borrowing costs: Higher interest rates mean that borrowers will have to pay more to borrow money, which will increase the overall cost of SBA loans. This may discourage some businesses from taking out loans, or it may reduce the amount they borrow.
· Decrease in loan demand: As the cost of borrowing increases, demand for loans may decrease. This may result in fewer businesses seeking SBA loans, which could lead to a reduction in the number of loans issued.
· Increase in loan default rates: Higher interest rates may make it more difficult for businesses to repay their loans. As a result, default rates may increase, which could lead to greater losses for lenders and the SBA.
· Changes in loan terms: Higher interest rates may prompt lenders to change the terms of SBA loans, such as by requiring higher collateral or increasing the size of down payments seeking the maximum protection under SBA rules. This could make it more difficult for some businesses to qualify for loans.
Overall, higher interest rates can make it more difficult and expensive for businesses to obtain SBA loans, which could have a negative impact on small business growth and economic activity.
Has There Been an Increase in The Rate of Defaults On SBALoans?
The Small Business Administration (SBA) regularly releases data on the performance of its loan programs.
According to the SBA's FY 2021 Annual Report, the overall default rate for SBA loans in FY 2021 was 2.24%, which is down from 2.45% in FY2020. However, it's important to note that this data only goes up until the end of the fiscal year, which is September 30, 2021.
It's possible that the default rate may have increased sincet hen due to ongoing economic conditions and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on small businesses. However, without more recent data, it's difficult to say for sure.
If you have defaulted on your SBA loan, contact Protect LawGroup today.
Millions of Dollars in SBA Debts Resolved via Offer in Compromise and Negotiated Repayment Agreements without our Clients filing for Bankruptcy or Facing Home Foreclosure
Millions of Dollars in Treasury Debts Defended Against via AWG Hearings, Treasury Offset Program Resolution, Cross-servicing Disputes, Private Collection Agency Representation, Compromise Offers and Negotiated Repayment Agreements
Our Attorneys are Authorized by the Agency Practice Act to Represent Federal Debtors Nationwide before the SBA, The SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals, the Treasury Department, and the Bureau of Fiscal Service.
Client's small business obtained an SBA COVID EIDL for $301,000 pledging collateral by executing the Note, Unconditional Guarantee and Security Agreement. The business defaulted on the loan and the SBA CESC called the Note and Guarantee, accelerated the principal balance due, accrued interest and retracted the 30-year term schedule.
The loan was transferred to the Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Service which resulted in the statutory addition of $90,000+ in administrative fees, costs, penalties and interest with the total debt now at $391.000+. Treasury also initiated a Treasury Offset Program (TOP) levy against the client's federal contractor payments for the full amount each month - intercepting all of its revenue and pushing the business to the brink of bankruptcy.
The Firm was hired to investigate and find an alternate solution to the bankruptcy option. After submitting formal production requests for all government records, it was discovered that the SBA failed to send the required Official 60-Day Pre-Referral Notice to the borrower and guarantor prior to referring the debt to Treasury. This procedural due process violation served as the basis to submit a Cross-Servicing Dispute to recall the debt from Treasury back to the SBA and to negotiate a reinstatement of the original 30-year maturity date, a modified workout, cessation of the TOP levy against the federal contractor payments and removal of the $90,000+ Treasury-based collection fees, interest and penalties.
Client’s small business obtained an SBA 7(a) loan for $750,000. She and her husband signed personal guarantees exposing all of their non-exempt income and assets. With just 18 months left on the maturity date and payment on the remaining balance, the Great Recession of 2008 hit, which ultimately caused the business to fail and default on the loan terms. The 7(a) lender accelerated and sent a demand for full payment of the remaining loan balance. The SBA lender’s note allowed for a default interest rate of about 7% per year. In response to the lender's aggressive collection action, Client's husband filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in an attempt to protect against their personal assets. However, his bankruptcy discharge did not relieve the Client's personal guarantee liability for the SBA debt. The SBA lender opted to pursue the SBA 7(a) Guaranty and subsequently assigned the loan and the right to enforce collection against the Client to the SBA. The Client then received the SBA Official 60-Day Notice. After conducting a Case Evaluation with her, she then hired the Firm to respond and negotiate on her behalf with just 34 days left before the impending referral to Treasury. The Client wanted to dispute the SBA’s alleged debt balance as stated in the 60-Day Notice by claiming the 7(a) lender failed to liquidate business collateral in a commercially reasonable manner - which if done properly - proceeds would have paid back the entire debt balance. However, due to time constraints, waivers contained in the SBA loan instruments, including the fact the Client was not able to inspect the SBA's records for investigation purposes before the remaining deadline, Client agreed to submit a Structured Workout for the alleged balance in response to the Official 60-Day Notice as she was not eligible for an Offer in Compromise (OIC) because of equity in non-exempt income and assets. After back and forth negotiations, the SBA Loan Specialist approved the Workout proposal, reducing the Client's purported liability by nearly $142,142.27 in accrued interest, and statutory collection fees. Without the Firm's intervention and subsequent approval of the Workout proposal, the Client's debt amount (with accrued interest, Treasury's statutory collection fee and Treasury's interest based on the Current Value of Funds Rate (CVFR) would have been nearly $291,030.
Client personally guaranteed an SBA 7(a) loan for $100,000 from the lender. The SBA loan went into early default in 2006 less than 12 months from disbursement. The SBA paid the 7(a) guaranty monies to the lender and subsequently acquired the deficiency balance of about $96,000, including the right to collect against the guarantor. However, the SBA sent the Official 60-Day Due Process Notice to the Client's defunct business address instead of his personal residence, which he never received. As a result, the debt was transferred to Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Service where substantial collection fees were assessed, including accrued interest per the promissory note. Treasury eventually referred the debt to a Private Collection Agency (PCA) - Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. Pioneer sent a demand letter claiming a debt balance of almost $310,000 - a shocking 223% increase from the original loan amount assigned to the SBA. Client's social security disability benefits were seized through the Treasury Offset Program (TOP). Client hired the Firm to represent him as the debt continued to snowball despite seizure of his social security benefits and federal tax refunds as the involuntary payments were first applied to Treasury's collection fees, then to accrued interest with minimal allocation to the SBA principal balance.
We initially submitted a Cross-Servicing Dispute (CSD) challenging the referral of the debt to Treasury based on the defective notice sent to the defunct business address. Despite overwhelming evidence proving a violation of the Client's Due Process rights, the SBA still rejected the CSD. As a result, an Appeals Petition was filed with the SBA Office of Hearings & Appeals (OHA) Court challenging the SBA decision and its certification the debt was legally enforceable in the amount claimed. After several months of litigation before the SBA OHA Court, our Firm Attorney successfully negotiated an Offer in Compromise (OIC) Term Workout with the SBA Supervising Trial Attorney for $82,000 spread over a term of 74 months at a significantly reduced interest rate saving the Client an estimated $241,000 in Treasury collection fees, accrued interest (contract interest rate and Current Value of Funds Rate (CVFR)), and the PCA contingency fee.
.jpg)
