Channel 19

Todd Dills

Ken Lund: 75K broker bond no ‘large broker’ move

| October 02, 2012

Following the last I wrote about the $75,000 broker minimum bond — an increase from $10,000 that the Association for Independent Property Brokers and Agents contended constituted an anticompetitive move that would force many out of brokering freight, Ken Lund of the Allen Lund Company reached out to me on what he feels is AIPBA’s unwarranted criticism of the Transportation Intermediaries Association. (Click through the cover image above for my June story on the debate over the original $100,000 bond measure.)

AIPBA’s James Lamb has been vocal here and elsewhere with an assertion that the TIA, by supporting the bond increase measure, is actively attempting to remove small-broker competition from the industry. “I don’t get why TIA is taking all the shots from this guy,” Lund told me. The American Trucking Associations as well as the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, he added, “would have loved [the bond minimum] to be $500,000 or more…. Then when the great compromise comes out, the organization that was fighting for the lowest-possible bond” took all the rhetorical hits.

As Lund, who sits on TIA’s board of directors, notes, “TIA has more small member brokers than anybody and is trying to expand” such membership.

Lund noted TIA’s new bond offer as “trying to create a $75,000 bond that’s reasonably priced.”

TIA head Robert Voltmann detailed in a recent letter to membership a bond offer structured to meet the minimum requirements that is available to members with three years or more of TIA membership behind them. The premium: less than or equal to $3,600 a year, and “it could be as low as $1,600.” For members who joined within the past three years, the “offer is a premium not to exceed $5,600, and could be as low as $1,600.”

Reasonable? Lamb has called potential new bond business the reason TIA wanted the higher bond, but Lund disagrees categorically:  “TIA is trying to create a bond that allows the small broker to get one. James Lamb’s not doing that.”

Lund traces the final compromise on a higher bond to pressure from Congress on the organization to work with OOIDA and ATA to hash out a compromise after many long years of the trucking organizations’ attempts to push legislation of an even higher bond minimum. “OOIDA has tremendous clout on Capitol Hill,” Lund noted, and after near-success on higher bonds, he added, ultimately “Congress said, ‘Look, you guys work together.’ ATA, TIA and OOIDA worked on the grand compromise — and there are really good things in that regulation that will beat back a lot of the fraud. I don’t know why TIA takes all the hits – I think $75,000 is a good number, and a lot of us thought even lower would be good as well.”

As for those owner-operators who do some part-time brokering, Lund admitted the higher bond may well make that business tough to continue. He sees 10 loads a week as about as small as a broker can get and stay viable, citing the difference in shippers’ payment models as chief in the small-brokerage difficulty today. His father started the brokerage business where Lund works today getting two checks from shippers — a small one for the broker, the other to deliver to the carrier. “Today,” he said, “we pay the truckers” what they’re due and “we wait for the shipper to pay us,” however long it takes.

All the same, Lund added, “We don’t want to stop the next Allen Lund Company,” which was launched to begin with as a part-time brokerage itself. “We fought hard against [the above-$75K bond efforts], because we don’t want the next Allen Lund Company to be stopped by us.”

Thoughts? Tell me in the comments.

  • RodeoDad

    So less brokers, more agents. Then the broker AND the agent each take 15-20% so 30% or more comes out of the load before it is even hauled. The agent has no bond, no authority no nothing but a computer, fax and phone. It makes perfect sense for the do nothings to get some more revenue for flapping their lips and hauling nothing while the ones with money sit back and rake in the agents tribute to operate with out any authority, bond, insurance or anything.

  • TruckerJohn

    I’m a part time broker & at present I see no way for me to continue my operation after this goes into effect. I went with the surety & there is no way I’ll be able to come up with $65,000 by the end of July, that’s way more than I gross, even with me now taking 15% for my services. Not sure what I’ll do or if I’ll qualify for unemployment or not.

  • Todd Dills

    John, So you’ve talked with your surety provider and they won’t offer anything without full cash collateral?

  • Todd Dills

    Just to be clear, Rodeo, you mean surety provders (do-nothings) and carrier agents (the ones with the money)? Thought so. Please correct me if I’m reading it wrong.

  • Todd

    I run a family owned brokerage and this will throw us under the bridge for sure. I have 3 kids and this is how I feed them. I enjoy running my own company and at my age its going to be hard for me to go out and find a job. Im not going to work for the big company trying to push me out. Heck, the reason why I run my own business is because I didnt want to work under those big companies in the first place.

    Anyone being solicited for their book of customers?

    I see no reason for such a hike in the bond. This isnt even a feasible economic rise in cost. This is a plain and simple lets eliminate the small company from our industry.

    Consumers prices will be so high that it will trickle down to putting truck drivers out of business because of the higher cost of shipping. Customers will start buying and hauling their own supplies causing the small truck companies to go under the wing of big business as well if they want to work.

    From what I heard bond companies want cash unless you can put up your home or business as collateral. This is strange as well because other industries with $75K-$100K bonds pay like $10k -$15k for their surety. So why do we have to put up the entire amount?

  • Todd

    “As Lund, who sits on TIA’s board of directors, notes, “TIA has more
    small member brokers than anybody and is trying to expand” such

    Am I wrong or is this exactly the point of the big business and why the bond is being raised?

    How do you expand membership at the same time you are trying to push them out of the industry? Is Ken Lund hiring more brokers under his company to be able to pay for the higher bond? How Mr. Lund are you paying for this hike in bond prices and this doesnt bother you to pay $65,000 more for a bond?

  • James P. Lamb

    There you people at TIA go again, Mr. Lund… distorting the facts and misleading the public as usual.

    Shame, shame, shame.

    I believe the reason why TIA will not rebut the AIPBA is because they know very well they cannot possibly squirm out of the truth. I think everyone knows the best thing you can do when you are guilty, is remain silent.

    The fact is in 2004 TIA published an opinion piece in another publication that stated:

    “Fraud exists in both the brokerage and the motor carrier industries, and increasing the bond will have no effect on fraudulent operators.” –TIA President Bob Voltmann
    on May 13, 2004.

    Then, TIA began selling $100,000 broker bonds.

    When the time came to “compromise,” instead of pushing for a reasonable amount like $25,000, the amount deemed reasonable by FMCSA during recent rulemaking not to mention the states of Florida and Virginia with respect to intrastate operations, your organization that purports to represent small brokers conveniently “settled” on $100,000 (wait, don’t you people sell $100,000 bonds? Holy conflicts of interest!), despite the fact that you polled your membership and 79% asked you to push for anything other than a $100,000 bond. Your Board voted to go forward with $100,000 anyways, I believe, so that you could get rid of the small brokers (you TIA people call them “underfunded” but factors fund them) in accordance with your anti-small business agenda…and then sell your bonds to the remaining brokers who survive this assault on small business. You are not fooling anyone here, sir.

    TIA wrote the $100,000 bond bill and zealously got it pushed through the Senate in 2012 to “fight fraud”. Now, wait a minute… didn’t I just read TIA say “increasing the bond will have no effect on fraudulent operators?” A reasonable man would find this hypocritical at best. But read on…there’s more to the story…

    It was AIPBA and other groups that got it lowered to $75,000 and we undid to a certain extent what you people at TIA did to small brokers by steamrolling this through Congress as an amendment to the Highway Bill after failing to get support as stand alone legislation in both houses for two years straight. And you have the gaul to suggest you represent the interests of small brokers?

    Read the comments on the AIPBA Petition and you will see what nearly 1700 people actually think about TIA’s powerplay on behalf of the megabrokers:

    Please don’t insult our intelligence, Mr. Lund, and act like TIA had anything to do with the lowering of the bond
    to the $75,000 amount or developing a fair bond amount.

    I also believe that the new information AIPBA has received constitutes evidence of an underhanded deal among OOIDA, TIA leadership and TIA’s biggest mega broker members over the issue of acceptance of OOIDA insurance, which had historically been rejected by the mega brokers before OOIDA agreed to go down from its $500,000 proposal to TIA’s recommended $100,000. Nice little deal… OOIDA gets to sell an insurance product that will be accepted by the mega brokers and TIA gets to sell high value bonds. The only thing that has been compromised here in my opinion, was the integrity of the two trade groups and the bona fide interests of their respective memberships. Both owner operators and brokers deserve better than what I believe is downright corruption.

    Readers should see this post for more info:

    Shame, shame, shame.

  • James P. Lamb

    As for the TIA’s $75K bond offer…

    The TIA’s $75K Bond Offer

    For those of you who don’t know yet, the TIA has released their “solution” to the problem (that we believe they created). From what we have seen, they are asking for $8,000 in collateral (cash or letter of credit–$350 fee applies for the latter), a $2,000 “program fee,” and up to $5,600 per year in premium for the bond. Also, you MUST submit financial statements to the underwriter despite the fact that you are allegedly automatically approved if a current TIA member (I can hear the cash register in the new membership dept. ringing over at TIA now).

    While they’re representing “guaranteed acceptance” for their
    members (through the first year until all the smoke clears?), after that it appears they recognize many will be dropped at renewal time when the underwriter will “evaluate the model of the program,” which is probably why they’re collecting this $2,000 fee upfront and are crediting people back that amount in the form of some strange rebate “in each of the first four years you are in the program” in $500 annual installments. I believe they know very well, most small brokers won’t still be able to qualify AFTER the first year without full cash, once the underwriter reviews their financials.

    Anyone who applies after October 5, 2012 (the first year premium is $3,600 if you buy now before October 5th btw) will NOT be automatically qualified, will pay the full “up to” $5,600 annual premium, and will have to go through underwriting, including all new entrants moving forward. At best, all this does is stall and delay the inevitable: the loss of tens of thousands of broker and agent jobs.

    This is nothing more than a ‘probationary-I-told-you-so’ bond. As we read it, all TIA members are essentially on ‘probation’ for one year if they buy before October 5th… Then, when it comes to permanent approval that’s when the axe will fall on most small brokers, in which case TIA gets to keep $1500 of your $2000 they are collecting upfront because you have to be in the program for all four years to get all your money back.

    Voltmann always says brokers are banks. Well, this is nothing more than TIA acting like a mortgage bank, collecting $1,500 and then not having to pay it out when the account is closed (kinda like defaulting on a mortgage and going into foreclosure) . If you’re deemed “underfunded” by the underwriter at renewal time, it appears they will keep your $1500 just like the bank takes your house. Excellent scheme, Bob.

    TIA is not even telling people WHAT exactly they will have to pay until AFTER they apply (before October 5th), which, as a matter of contract law and ‘offer and acceptance,’ is not– in our opinion– reasonable and customary. The “offer” letter says the premium “will not exceed” and “will be capped at” and “will vary up to”. As we read it, it’s a matter of just ‘shut up and apply and you better hurry up and do it before October 5th or it will cost you yet another “up to” two grand IF you qualify.’

    We believe this is an attempt to give an appearance that brokers will not be adversely affected by the new law to rebut what we at AIPBA have been saying. They are trying to save face. And after October 5th, they get to say, well, you WOULD have been automatically accepted but unfortunately, you missed the deadline.

    In the meantime, the mega brokers are moving full speed ahead trying to recruit the independents. We advise you not to panic, be unduly pressured, or jump at any bond or agent
    offers just yet. We are meeting with Members of Congress starting tomorrow on the repeal bill.

    Please sign the Petition (it takes less than a minute): Over
    1,600 people in the industry have already signed it.

    DISCLAIMER: This is NOT an endorsement of the TIA’s bond. It is my opinion/understanding of TIA’s bond terms after reviewing their letter; however, for complete details/explanation/propaganda contact Bob Voltmann or G. Roch of TIA Services.

  • freightlady05

    I am a small family owned Brokerage and this will put me out of business .Thank You TIA !!!!!

  • Fox Valley

    The TIA is “Taking all the shots” because the TIA was supposed to be the organization that small brokers could go to for assistance within the industry – and it would appear that now the TIA has turned on the small, independent, family-owned brokers in favor of the large, multi-million and billion dollar companies (whose company names all seem to show up on the TIA Board of Directors, coincidentally enough).

  • Tom Marino

    There is so much misinformation on this subject its incredibly frustrating.

    For TIA’s part, it is quite frustrating that they eventually coalesced to this change in law. I have my problems with TIA and the lack of visible effort on illegal brokering through load boards ( being the most egregious facilitator of illegal brokering and facilitating illegal carriers). The also constant reference to freight brokers as “banks” is incredibly infuriating. I, for one, provide a professional service and I am very, very good at it. I am not a bank. I do not charge interest rates.

    However, to the best of my knowledge, very few cases will brokers need to fully collateralize $75k. Maybe if you don’t understand what carrier selection protocol is and your financials are a mess. For the vast majority of brokers, including small brokers, that is just not reality.

    What really happened is that OOIDA spent lots and lots of money in Washington. Thus, over time, they bought this legislation. TIA continuing to fight it, or for that matter anyone continuing to fight it, is a waste of time. It’s done, through the slight of hand of what amounts to omnibus in Washington.

    Similarly, AIPBA isn’t exactly a reasonable alternative as an industry group. Mr. Lamb, to the best of my research, is not a registered lobbyist. How can he be lobbying on behalf of AIPBA or its members? Similarly, the campaign AIPBA has launched is full of its own misinformation and personal attacks on TIA.

    What should be happening is that broker industry groups should be pushing for more regulations on the carrier side and on the shipper side. Payment terms should be standardized for shippers. This idea that brokers shouldn’t be compensated for their work, but instead are compensated for financing freight to market is ridiculous and should be destroyed.

    Similarly, shippers who act as brokers should be faced with severe, crippling penalties. ONLY the current owner of the commodity should be able to arrange transportation directly with a carrier.

    Lastly, sites like Uship should be re-classified and at the very least face negligence claims for enrolling carriers and brokers who are no FMCSA licensed.

    If OOIDA wants over-regulation, let’s give it to them.

  • Friendsxpress

    Just curious. The new bond requirements are not affecting any of the mega brokers…How can they pay out the additional $65K and not have this affect them also? I am a small broker, family operated, woman-owned. I won’t be able to survive with the new bond requirements because I just can’t afford it…period. With the cost of fuel, I find I am taking away more from my office to give to the carrier, the shippers are not wanting to pay additional charges and there is always another broker/carrier out there that will move this cheaper. I, along with many, many others do not see this bond as a better alternative to what we already have. This will have a devastating effect on everyone, not just the brokers/freight forwarders. I have also been approached by the mega brokers to sign with them. So is this just going to come down to how many agents you can recruit to fulfil the requirements to justify the new bond?

  • James P. Lamb

    Mr. Marino,

    I think you should take a look at this link as to who needs to be registered as
    a lobbyist (there are three tests under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995):

    You should know that I receive zero compensation for my involvement with AIPBA.
    This volunteer-run business league/trade association, under the First
    Amendment, has every right to assemble and petition the government for a
    redress of grievances. We are not a professional third-party lobbying firm. And
    when we offer information, we substantiate our claims with cold, hard facts.
    There has been absolutely no misinformation spread on our part. Just
    information that conflicts with what TIA purports.

    As for attacking TIA, small and mid-sized members of the AIPBA are very, very
    angry at how TIA abandoned their interests in favor of mega-brokers’ interests
    and are trying to put them out of business. I am simply echo our members’
    views. And yes, I point out what a rotten thing the TIA has done to small
    business at every chance I get. TIA officials like Lund need to ‘man up’ rather
    than whine about how we criticise their actions. This is the big league.

    While I normally speak for our members as the president of AIPBA and express
    their feelings about what has gone down here, nearly 1,700 industry
    professionals have signed our petition and most of them have added their own
    personal comments to speak for themselves. Read them at Last I checked,
    the TIA has a total of 1,200 members and they are not all property brokers. So,
    who really speaks for small brokers at this point? I suggest we at AIPBA do.

    as for the antitrust issue… in the Industry articles below, Bob Voltmann,
    president of TIA, is referenced as telling the reporter this bill will prevent
    “underfunded” brokers. There is a quote in the third link where he
    tells the reporter it also will stop (“squeeze out”) underfunded brokers
    from operating. In terms of restraint of trade and antitrust, isn’t that an
    outright admission that TIA knew very well while it was lobbying Congress that
    this would result in the small brokers, which he calls the underfunded brokers
    being put out of business and that he and the TIA as an organization colluded
    to influence legislation for the sole purpose of limiting competition (i.e. by
    squeezing out the small underfunded brokers)?




    In a recent letter to TIA members, Voltmann basically says don’t blame him, the
    TIA Board directed all this:


    Whereas we know multiple competitors in a single industry colluding to
    limit competition is clearly an antitrust violation under Sherman
    Act and Clayton Act, see my letter to DOJ regarding the “sham”
    exception to the Noerr (Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr
    Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961) ) Pennington (United Mine Workers
    of America v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965). ) Doctrine, which
    established that collusion to influence governmental action, such as new
    legislation, is protected by the First Amendment as free speech and is not an
    antitrust violation:

    “antitrust immunity would not extend to lobbying ostensibly directed
    toward influencing governmental action [that] is a mere sham to cover what is
    actually nothing more than an attempt to interfere directly with the business
    relationships of a competitor. This line of cases thus establishes that while
    genuine petitioning is immune from antitrust liability, sham petitioning is

    We believe that TIA and other ‘large’ brokers colluded to influence
    legislation for the sole purpose of limiting competition. Now they are reaping
    the spoils of victory. The mega brokers are currently circling like
    sharks trying to recruit the independents. It amazes me that TIA and others
    still purport this will not put small brokers down while at the same time that
    is the very rationale the mega brokers’ recruiters are using to convince the
    independent small brokers to sign on right now to operate as agents of the mega
    brokers before the $75k bond takes effect. Surely, TIA and the big boys cannot
    have their cake and eat it too. Which one is it, Mr. Voltmann. Please pick one

    Lastly and perhaps most alarmingly, some mega brokers have now resorted this
    week to telling shippers that the $75k bond takes effect in January, which is
    simply untrue. This is an attempt to squeeze out the little guys sooner and
    make shippers demand a $75K bond early (coincidentally, TIA is selling a $75K
    bond early). Now that is misinformation! I would even go as far as to suggest
    that this constitutes fraud on the little brokers. However, I doubt TIA will be
    looking to fight this type of fraud any time soon.

  • City Slicker

    How can Mr. Lund, who sits on the TIA board, do anything but support the anti-compitition increase in bonds? As for the O.O.I.D.A. (of which I am a Life Member), I think they are wrong in their support of the bond increase. If a broker does not pay his bills, or his carrier clients, it really does not matter if the bond is $10,000 or $10,000,000., the carrier is still not going to get his money. EVERY carrier has the right to know the ACTUAL amount paid to the broker by the shipper. Raising the bond is NOT going to solve the problem. It only eliminates compitition.

  • Tom Marino

    Thank you, Mr. Lamb, for your commercial for your organization.

    TIA or the mega brokers are not the problem. OOIDA is. Why is everyone afraid of them?

    The issue with “underfunded brokers” is this idea that brokers are finance companies. That is the heart of the problem. And OOIDA.

    Instead of attacking Voltmann and TIA, who basically read the tea leaves and saw this was going to happen with or without them, you should be attacking OOIDA and their desire for BIG GOVERNMENT (something that will resonate with one side of the isle) to attempt to regulate their members into success.

    OOIDA wanted a MUCH bigger bond. OOIDA wanted margins declared. OOIDA was the driving force behind this.

    While I may agree with you in principle on the bond increase being idiotic, I can’t possibly have any faith in your organization when you can’t even identify the enemy.

    To use an analogy, you are going to war in Iraq while the Chinese are doubling the size of their military.

  • James P. Lamb

    Mr. Marino,

    I am reporting the linked in comment here:

    “…I think I have made
    a case for what I believe is OOIDA’s unethical involvement in this bond
    fiasco. But it takes two to tango, sir…

    The issue of spending money is different from the issue of doing things
    the right way. TIA & OOIDA tried the right way. They had two
    Senators introduce the “Motor Carrier Protection Act” in 2010. It died
    in committee. So, they next tried the House committee the following
    year. I called this going to dad after mom has said no but it was still
    fair play. Again, they got zero support from the House committee.

    Then, they resorted to using their lobbying money to have this slipped
    in to the Highway Bill. Very bad form. They knew very well, this would
    go through under the radar as all eyes were focused on pipelines and
    other big issues. And of course, politically, the Highway Bill had to
    pass. And of course it did. But the bond issue didn’t belong there. This
    new law violates long-standing, federal transportation policy post
    deregulation in many ways. I have maintained that FMCSA is the true
    entity with the expertise needed to determine at what point a bond
    amount entails anti-competitive effects. Like they did with the increase
    of the HHG bond earlier this year to $25K. Anything more, they said,
    would hurt competition and American consumers.

    I understand the TIA is proud they got this through. But in the end, the
    fact remains they did it the wrong way. Perhaps its not their fault
    that Washington is the way it is. But I don’t agree with railroading the
    small brokers to get this accomplished at any cost. You see, the
    problem here is that there was a hidden agenda and it has nothing to do
    with fighting fraud. It has to do with making independent brokers agents
    of the mega brokers. Anyone who doesn’t see that has their head in the
    sand or is part of the problem.

    But the real problem with this industry– at a grass roots level– is
    that brokers and carriers consider themselves “enemies.” In reality,
    they both need each other to survive. Parties on both sides are divisive
    and continue to fuel the fire. I have clients in my private practice… on both sides so I understand.

    AIPBA seeks a new deal. We strive to promote interaction and networking
    between the two, while at the same time ensure a fair, level-playing
    field. We’re the ones that agreed with OOIDA that the bond should go up.
    All we asked was to keep it reasonable. FMCSA’s judgment to raise it
    merely for inflation was indeed the wise move that fairly balanced the
    interests of both sides. But then to add another dynamic to the
    equation, there’s the interests of big vs small. That is where TIA
    stepped in. The felt they needed to pick a side. They chose the group
    that pays them $14,000 a year. So, we created AIPBA for the small and
    mid-sized brokers.

    This industry is changing… in many ways. Things don’t just happen to
    small brokers anymore without them knowing what is going on. AIPBA makes
    sure of that. No longer does it have to be OOIDA vs. the brokers.
    OOIDA and TIA have historically gone at it to the point when a “deal”
    like the broker bond comes down, there’s too much history for people not
    to be skeptical and raise eyebrows. Eyebrows have been raised…

    If reasonable, open-mined carriers and brokers are ready to work
    together in a friendly, ethical and reasonable fashion, AIPBA is fit,
    willing and able to create mutually- beneficial networking and business
    opportunities for them. Perhaps it’s even time for a new group to
    represent owner-operators in a more reasonable and respectable way. The
    last time I said we needed a new group, one was born…”

  • lundken

    Fact–James lamb has an organization that competes with TIA
    Fact–James Lamb does everything he can to discredit TIA
    Fact–James Lamb does not know all the facts and makes things up about TIA and its leaders.
    Just because you can write a whole book about the subject does not make you an expert. Give it a rest James. Promote your own organization but stop trying to tear down TIA. TIA is a longstanding, honest and hard working organization that serves all its members –no matter their size–very well.

  • lundken

    Fact–James lamb has an organization that competes with TIA
    Fact–James Lamb does everything he can to discredit TIA
    Fact–James Lamb does not know all the facts and makes things up about TIA and its leaders.
    Just because you can write a whole book about the subject does not make you an expert. Give it a rest James. Promote your own organization but stop trying to tear down TIA. TIA is a longstanding, honest and hard working organization that serves all its members –no matter their size–very well.

  • James P. Lamb

    Mr. Lund,
    The “fact” is the AIPBA was created in July 2010 after the TIA abandoned the interests of small brokers. That is the very reason for its existance. But not for the fact that TIA sold the little guy out, there would be no AIPBA.
    I didn’t wake up one morning and say gee let me start a new trade group and compete with TIA and make them look bad. You made yourselves look bad. I just put you under the spotlight. AIPBA was the natural response to TIA’s anti small business, anti competitive policies.
    TIA membership records will reflect that I am a former TIA member. If you didn’t sell out the very people I put into business over the past 10 years, then I am sure I’d be on your board sitting next to you and working wit you. But you sold them out. Deep down, you and Voltmann and Gizzi know that is true. So do most small brokers at this point. You people at TIA serve the interests of the big brokers who pay you $14,000 a year. Not the small brokers that pay you $660. And when you look at your membership renewals, you will realize that.
    I didn’t make up the 1700 comments on the petition. They are from real people that you people at TIA have hurt. You have to live with that.
    Small brokers are mad, sir. And they deserve better than what TIA has dished out. Whine all you want but the fact is that I don’t make a dime off of AIPBA. It’s the small broker’s group that stand’s for honesty, truth and what is right for small brokers . And that sir, is what makes people like us different from people like you.

  • James P. Lamb

    Mr. Lund,The “fact” is the AIPBA was created in July 2010 after the TIA abandoned the interests of small brokers. That is the very reason for its existance. But not for the fact that TIA sold the little guy out, there would be no need for an AIPBA. I didn’t wake up one morning and say ‘gee, let me start a new trade group and compete with TIA and make them look bad.’ You made yourselves look bad. I just put you under the spotlight. AIPBA was the natural response to TIA’s anti-small business, anti-competitive policies.TIA membership records will reflect that I am a former TIA member. If you didn’t sell out the very people I put into business over the past 10 years, then I am sure I’d be on your board sitting next to you and working with you. But you sold them out. Deep down, you and Voltmann and Gizzi know that is true. So do most small brokers at this point. You people at TIA serve the interests of the big brokers who pay you $14,000 a year. Not the small brokers that pay you $660. And when you look at your membership renewals, you will realize that. I didn’t make up the 1700 comments on the petition. They are from real people that you people at TIA have hurt. And you have to live with that. If I have anything to say about it, we will reverse what you have done.Small brokers are mad, sir. And they deserve better than what TIA has dished out. Whine all you want, but the fact is that I don’t make a dime off of AIPBA. So your allegations are baseless. AIPBA is the small and midsized brokers’ group that stand’s for honesty, truth, justice and what is right for existing and start up small brokers in America. We stand for principle. I believe you people stand for greed. And that, sir, is what makes people like us different from people like you. Simply stated, it’s called integrity.

  • Patricia Shoemaker

    In my opinion….YOU ARE ALL SCAM ARTISTS AGAINST THE SMALL TRUCK COMPANIES!!! Mr. Lamb & Mr. Lund (and I have hauled freight for Allen Lund who charges $25 extra to receive a quick payment on a load) and any others that are out there (including OOIDA & DOT) trying to make the right decision on brokering and other truck related items. First I must say that yes years ago when the Mr Lund that started his business was around…things were so much different than they are now. BUT I must say from the other side of the fence with having one truck and trailer trying to make an honest living…you all do not have a clue on how you are trying to put the little man out of business on the trucking side. OOIDA you can’t even win the “scam” at the fuel pumps where the truck stops are allowed to charge one price at the diesel pump in the back of their building and a cheaper price at their diesel pumps in the front of their buildings (of course where a “rig” cannot get to) so how are you going to “win” anything else? BROKERS!!!! you are all out to put more money in your own pockets and not the carriers pocket ..WHO IN TURN is having to foot a much larger bill for running their equipment all the way around. For any “little man” truck companies like myself….take a look at the whole picture out side of the box!!!! Brokers will take as much as they possibly can off the top of a load rate as they can get away with!!! THERE IS NO CAP!!! 21% is what they strive for and more if they can get it from you. SOOOOO if the load pays them $2,000 they are going to try to get you to haul it for $1580 or less. And what are they doing for this money??? Just sitting on their azzes telling the shipper that they can guarantee “x” amount of trucks/loads within a month/year to haul the shippers product. THEN comes us…we pay for the fuel with tax at the pump, we pay the quarterly fuel tax calculated per mile-per state, we pay the yearly road use tax (2290), we pay for our truck/trailer insurance every year (not breaking it down into categories) we are penalized for any shortages/damages that may have incurred while loading & unloading of the product (not to mention having to pay for the repairs that the shippers and receivers due to our trailers with their carelessness). WE pay for all of our own equipment repairs that are necessary to keep the equipment up to standard for the DOT and such, WE have to fight to get paid AND BROKERS turn around and charge you EVEN MORE if you choose to get paid within 2 to 3 business days of making your delivery. SOME BROKERS charge up to 8% to just sit there and process your paperwork faster than normal. I know of some shippers/receivers that would pay quicker than 28 days directly to the carrier, so why do brokers say that they pay us first and then wait for their money??? BOTTOM LINE IS….BROKERS ARE ALL SCAM ARTISTS!!!! No one wants the “small time” truck companies to make it in this country!!! I mean DOT is against us!!! Brokers are against us!!! Fuel companies are against us!!! IRS is against us (some states taxes are worse than others) and we do not receive any tax breaks like the big time truck companies and fuel companies do!!! SOOOO I ask…WHO IS FOR US ??? When you have an answer on who is for us and trying to make it easier on us “small time” truck companies, but helping us put more money in our pockets FOR DOING ALL OF THE WORK….PLEASE PLEASE LET ME KNOW!!!! Thank you

  • James P. Lamb

    Like I said, this kind of sentiment is truly the essence of the problem. If you don’t like brokers, then don’t work with them.

    However, if reasonable, open-mined carriers and brokers are ready to work together in a friendly, ethical and reasonable fashion, AIPBA is fit, willing and able to create mutually- beneficial networking and business opportunities for them.

    I rest my case.

  • Daniel C

    The surety providers I have spoken with are waiting to see if this regulation is actually going to be enforced, JW Surety being one of them.

  • Todd Dills

    Thanks for the intel, Daniel.

  • James P. Lamb

    Here’s one last thought on this that kinda sums up the whole discussion.

    1. I believe TIA wants to eliminate the big brokers’ competition in the market by raising the bar to entry so high that new entrants can’t come in and small brokers get kicked out (and have to go work for big brokers)

    2. I believe TIA wants eliminate its competition in the area of bond sales.

    3. I believe TIA wants to eliminate its competition from the AIPBA as an alternative trade group.

    When you add one plus two plus three, I believe you get:

    TIA just doesn’t like competition and is greedy on behalf of itself and its big broker constituents.

    Last I checked, that’s against the American way.

  • Patricia Shoemaker

    Mr. Lamb, Brokers have made it almost impossible for a small time truck – o/o to even be able to speak directly with shippers/receivers to negotiate hauling for them directly. I am sure there are many many more small timers that would agree with me that if we could do without the brokers…we definitely would. Are you aware that each of the “bigger” time broker companies calculate their rates differently??? Some follow the produce season and offer us rates according to this, while others look at how many trucks that are hauling for them are going to be delivering in a certain area and offer us rates according to that, etc. There are many customers that the larger broker companies create yearly contracts with for a “fixed rate” but do not pay carriers a fixed rate. For example they contract with you to haul your product for $2 a mile from your Virginia location to Jacksonville, FL all year long..then the rates paid to the carrier should be the same, but it is not. Depending on what I mentioned above about produce…certain times of the year we may get $1.60 a mile and other times get $1.20 if we are lucky. Another example is Florida freight…during produce season down there, you can get $2 and more a mile…right now you cannot even get a dollar a mile. Do you think this is fair when the shipper/receiver is paying the same price all year long??? I don’t.
    Everyone is out to make a living…but since it does not look like the brokers will be going away any time soon…I do believe that more rules and regulations should be put on the brokers and their charges that they take from the carrier.
    I am not sure how old you are, but in my younger years..the “rule of thumb” was the carrier was paid per mile what the fuel charge was per gallon. Ex: if fuel was .70 cents per gallon, you were paid .70 cents per mile. Do you know of anyone that will pay $4.25 per mile to a carrier to haul a load of dry freight?
    My point is…brokers should be regulated on their ways of conducting business and with that be required to show the rate of the customer to the carrier when they receive their rate confirmation sheet for that load. There should be government auditors that spot check both the broker and the customers files to try and keep fraud from taking place.

  • James P. Lamb

    Read the AIPBA’s Linked In article on “Disintermediation: The Campaign to Remove Small Brokers from the Market”.

  • James P. Lamb

    Click here to donate to the AIPBA legal fund to get the anti-competitive $75K bond law overturned:

  • Dave

    I drove for 25 yrs.Most of those years my own equipment and brokered freight. I had know problems surviving.You have a good business mind.If shippers/receivers are screwing up your trailor,you need to get off your ass and go back there and pay attention.They screw it up,they pay for it. 25yrs knowbody can say anything unless its on a CB.i drove for 25 but im a agent now. Ive had the same truckers for quite a few years,im not trying to get rich.Fair is fair.On both sides. That bond is going up because of stupidity on both sides.As usual.KINDA LIKE TRUCKERS STRIKING ON THE WEEKEND.WHEN EVERYONES HOME ANY DAMN WAY. OOO WE SHOWED THEM.

  • Frank Bledsoe

    I could not have said it better myself. As a “small time” truck company trying to make it today.

  • Dave Thomson

    Brokers have made trucking a lot harder for the carriers with their skimming off the top more than they should and by also not having a clue of costs and distances. The larger ones may have more experience but the small out of home companies tell a shipper they can move their freight for x-amount of dollars and then can’t sell it cause there is no profit for the carrier.

    We as carriers have to meet certain criteria and regulations in order to conduct business which includes all the taxes and registration fees along with drivers having to meet many regulations as well through training. Where is the guidelines and training for freight brokers before they can start a business? I just can’t hop in a truck and go down the road in a big truck but I can start a freight brokerage business in two to three days with a couple of contacts.

  • John D Thomas

    Over the past 10 years, I have trained hundreds of individuals to become freight brokers. There have always been some potential brokers who could not deal with the $10K bond as it now stands. Now, with the upcoming bond set at $75K, there will become even more who are unable to cope with the new limit.

    Some may say that, perhaps, these individuals should not be in business in the first place. But just because a person has maybe taken some hits or is down on his or her luck it is no indication of what they could do if they had the opportunity.

    People are just seeking an opportunity. The bond increase will only place a higher barrier in front of some potentially great businesses.

    John D Thomas
    Atex Freight Broker Training, Inc.

  • James P. Lamb
  • transportdiva

    I feel the same way. I do this just to make a salary not be the bread winner of my family. I have always paid the drivers within 1 business day of invoice. Its not fair to me or everyone else who does this job and actually has a heart and cares about the drivers.

  • JW Surety Bonds

    Hi Daniel.

    Can you call us again? We have now an exclusive bond program to help the smaller brokers remain in business! Zero collateral required, approvals regardless of credit, no business/personal financials needed and no experience required. Or you can apply online$75K+Freight+Broker+Bond


    I see a lot of comments from people claiming to run brokerages to support themselves and their families. This has been coming for some time. I’d figure that those who depend on the business for their livelihood would have found a way to stash away $75K for an escrow account before the requirement took effect. Quite honestly, if you’re a small business owner and can’t come up with $75K cash during the course of a year, you’re doing something wrong.

  • Ai Pba

    AIPBA Has Filed a Petition for Review of FMCSA Rulemaking with the US Court of

  • Ai Pba

    AIPBA has launched a Bond Suppliers Page:

  • Ai Pba

    And what about new people trying to get into the industry? This is an intentional barrier to entry to fight not fraud, but competition


    Honestly, there is PLENTY of competition in the broker arena. Freight rates are way too cheap as it is.

  • Ai Pba

    Perhaps you mean there WAS plenty of competition. 1,900
    brokerages were revoked yesterday. That’s nearly 10% of the industry. Yesterday was just day one. This will be going on all month long. We believe this translates to tens of thousands of people headed for the unemployment lines.


    Good. We as carriers should see freight rates start coming up now.

  • James P. Lamb

    Good? You’ve got it backwards! Freight rates will be going up for mega brokers… but not for you. They will charge shippers more and pay truckers less because you now have less choice. It’s called “supply and demand”. You lose too. “Thanks, OOIDA!”

  • Ai Pba

    Please vote in this AIPBA Poll on Linked In:

    Did you know that the TIA is already lobbying Congress to increase the broker bond to $125,000 in the next highway bill?


    The larger brokers are already being pressured by their insurance companies to deny loads to carrers with high CSA scores. Those carriers with high CSA scores are also the ones that accept the cheap rates. The writing is on the wall, so to speak.

  • James P. Lamb

    DISPELLING THE MYTH THAT THESE MASSIVE BROKER LICENSE REVOCATIONS WERE REALLY BROKERS WHO WERE ALREADY INACTIVE & OUT OF BUSINESS… Some articles published by trucking media lead the industry to believe that the 8200 brokers revoked in December are due to an “outdated database” or some kind of purging of companies that were already out of business or inactive. This is incorrect. It appears that TIA is the source that is disseminating this misinformation to mitigate the damage we believe it has done to the industry. I have read how “TIA ‘absolutely still support(s)’ the increase, and the impact to the brokerage industry and the trucking industry will be ‘minimal, if nothing at all.’” The truth is each and every one of the 8,200 brokers shut down had active authority, which means they were paying significant money to keep their original bond in place and their broker’s license active so they could conduct business. This just goes to prove that the TIA is out of touch with the brokerage industry. Just look at the 1,900 brokers that have signed our petition

    As for ‘funded’ versus alleged ‘underfunded’ brokers, factoring companies fund most small brokers so we believe Burroughs and TIA know very well there is really no such thing as a significant cohort of “underfunded brokers.” TIA simply targets small brokers as opposed to the big brokers that pay TIA $14,400 per year in dues. We find it amazing that TIA considers 8,200 brokers shut down (so far) as “minimal” to “nothing at all”. We believe the DOJ which has stated our antitrust complaint against certain trade groups is currently “under review” will teach TIA a lesson on America’s Antitrust laws.

    CONTEXT OF REVOCATIONS: A review of the FMCSA Daily Register for the past 52 weeks would show that in an average week about 56 new applicants get a broker’s license; Keep in mind, though, this is after MAP 21 was passed, which now requires a $75K bond for new (and existing) brokers and clarifies in the law that carriers who arrange transportation need to get a brokers license. About the same number exit for various reasons so the amount of brokers for the past year– until now– has been sustainable at about 21,500, give or take a few hundred (FMCSA reported as a result of our FOIA request that as of Jan 1 2013 there were 21,795 active brokers and they reported in their final technical amendment rule 21,565 active brokers as of Oct. 1, 2013). When we factor in that many of the new “brokers” are actually carriers complying with the need to secure a secondary license, it is clear we were already losing traditional non asset based small brokers by attrition and there is overall a decrease this past year in new start up business applicants. So in terms of the context, then, 8,200 brokers killed off all in a 10 day period is very significant.

  • Ai Pba

    The AIPBA’s Application for Exemption for all brokers and forwarders is being considered by FMCSA:

  • James P. Lamb

    Have you experienced a problem getting paid by a broker who was put out of business by MAP-21’s new bond law? (Only carriers or independent truckers with an MC Number should answer this question)…


  • James P. Lamb

    In case you missed tonight’s blog talk radio broadcast on the broker bond exemption application, The REPLAY IS READY. Feel free to use the embed link also

  • Pingback: 5 Tips for Safe and Efficient Auto Transport | Nationwide Auto Transport strives to maintain an open forum for reader opinions. Click here to read our comment policy.