Franchising Needs Better Government Regulation
Discussion of legislation and political advocacy regarding franchising.
Felony Conviction for Grand Larceny by Kevin Shaw
Please detail Felony Conviction for Grand Larceny by Kevin Shaw. I am in the process of seeking legal counsel in hopes of re-couping monies from a
similar business transaction with said moron.
Grandma is Out!!!
I would guess that there is more to the story than what is here. Either the bank had some issue which it could not defend, or choose to avoid the potential negative press. I doubt it’s the negative press issue; otherwise they’d be opening the door for anyone to not pay their debts.
Sub-Prime doesn’t mean STUPID, it doesn’t mean that they can’t read, it doesn’t mean that they can’t enter into binding agreements. Sub-Prime borrowers already pay more interest to off-set the additional risk taken by the lender. Do we now prevent them from being able to obtain traditional lending? Force them to go to alternative lending sources with even higher interest rates. Force them perhaps to go to legal or illegal loan sharks? Do we class them right out of auto ownership, home ownership?
Banks are already heavily regulated. Banks do not make money by making bad loans. We do not need the government telling the market who is and isn’t a qualified borrower. I believe that the banks can figure this one out on their own. My grandfather always said, ‘It’s very expensive to be poor’. When you think about how expensive it is to pay for a bounced check, maintenance cost on an old car, late fees, rent-to-own, credit card interest, etc… If you want to see the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, if you want to see generational welfare, if you want to see the housing market crash, make it where sub-prime borrowers have no options.
I hate to say it, but if Grandma was of sound mind at the time she borrowed the money she should be out on the street. In short time people might begin to understand that they should not borrow what they can not re-pay. They should not invest more than they can afford to lose. It may sound cold and callused, but it’s life. If it were my grandma, she could always come and live with me.
Believe & Succeed,DaleFranSynergy, Inc.Synergizing Franchising!
Bankers ... NOT!
GUEST .... They have no responsibility for "due diligence on behalf of protecting their customers and their stockholders" NOR SHOULD THEY!
Bankers have a responsibility to evaluate - Credit, Character, and Collateral. If you want your bankers opinion on your 'Business Plan' he will probably give it to you. In fact your banker may require that you have a business plan (He'll proabably given to you even if you don't want it).
As a Franchise Candidate, BY ALL MEANS you want to listen to the advice of your Banker, your Attorney, your Accountant, and your Franchise Consultant. Ultimately you must take their advice, and their opinions and make a decision.
If we allow Bankers, Attorneys, and Accountants (a conservative lot by nature) to make our business decisions --- we will all soon be once again living in the DARK AGES!! All innovation will be lost!
If we listened to our intellect, we'd never have a love affair. We'd never have a friendship. We'd never go into business, because we'd be too cynical. Well, that's nonsense. You've got to jump off cliffs all the time and build your wings on the way down. ~ Annie Dillard
There is no security on earth. Only Opportunity. ~ Douglas McArthur
Believe & Succeed,DaleFranSynergy, Inc.Synergizing Franchising!www.fransynergy.com
Lender Due Diligence: Canada
Financial institutions are heavily regulated for very good historical reasons: they are credence good providers. Credence goods and services, by their nature, can be more easily used against little old ladies (less sophisticated citizens). Doctors, auto mechanics, lawyers, franchisors, consultants and others are also credence good providers.Lender Due Diligence: CanadaMany franchises are financed via a guaranteed loan program similar, in some ways, to the SBA's 7a. loans. 1. Bank Act, 1991, c. 46, s.158 Every officer has a duty of care to their clients to act honestly…care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances.2. Canada Small Business Financing Act, 1998, c. 36, s.16 1(a) "a lender who knowingly makes any false statement or misrepresentation in an application, report or other document or wilfully furnishes any false or misleading information…(a) an indictable offence and liable to a fine not exceeding $500,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. 3. Canada Small Business Financing Regulations, s.8 Specific lender DUE DILIGENCE REQUIREMENTS require the lender make a guaranteed loans using the same criteria as if it were not guaranteed. They must also make sure that all other financial obligations of the borrower, are taken into consideration. No loan pushing allowed.4. On the Actual Loan Registration Form The Lending Officer must sign the following:
Lender's AcknowledgementI, responsible officer of the lender, certify that:
a. to the best of my knowledge, the information contained herein is complete and accurate;b. the loan was approved in accordance with the due diligence requirements of the Canada Small Business Financing Regulations;c. the loan complies with all the eligibility requirements of the Canada Small Business Financing Act and Regulations;
Conclusions1. There is extensive statutory lender due diligence required.2. It would be up to the victim of predatory franchise lending to prove this situation. I have seen many investors who were "lucky" if they achieved 50% of their anticipated government guaranteed-underwritten franchise opportunity.If extremely well-educated and legally-obligated banking professionals can miss by such a wide margin, what chance does Mr and Mrs Smith have?Les Stewart, MBAIndustry Investment AnalystFranchiseFool.com :: the Wise learn to say No
Wow we should all chip in and send you a check...
You are absolutely right what was Maryland tinking Lucy?
Z-Rube can read
...it's the comprehending he can't do
Let's wait and see what the MD says. Also you never answered is CB selling franchises in MD and has CB sold more franchises in MD. Their attorney should have advised them to not sell in MD until they had their act together. It's not worth the trouble for such a small market.
Yes of course arbitrators take care of franchisor clients...
at the expense of franchisees that's why franchisors are all rethinking their arbitration clauses in favor of the courts!
Z your mischaracterizations, illogic and unrestrained bias
are over-the-top. You have vendettas against The UPS Store and franchisors that has consumed your very being. You have zero credibility, offer nothing of substance to improve franchising and I think you only wish to assuage your own guilt and shame derived from your personal failure. Please get help!
If CB is not actively selling there is no violation...
You have offer or offer and sell to be in violation in MD. Have they sold any CB franchises or offered to sell any CB franchises in MD?
UFOC's are just a Red Herring to Protect Franchisors
The introduction to the UFOC by the FTC should read:
TO PROTECT YOUR FRANCHISOR, WE'VE REQUIRED YOUR FRANCHISOR TO GIVE YOU THIS INFORMATION. ............
You were tricked into buying a franchise with a very high failure rate and very high risk of ever succeeding but the law surrounding franchising allows franchisors to sell pigs and dogs with immunity and impunity. The SBA will guarantee loans at any high rate of failure and it is possible to obscure the real failure statistics in the Item 20 columns. If you had known that this Cafe Concept hardly ever, if ever, succeeded, you, of course, wouldn't have sunk $500,000 into this business and signed the long term lease required by the Coffee Beanery.
Unfortunately, our government appears to support this kind of malice.
The arbiter chose to treat the violations of the Maryland UFOC as mere technical violations of the UFOC. But, we see that Coffee Beanery wasn't sent to Maryland's ALE school and that Coffee Beanery did offer to pay a couple of hundred dollars for the Rescission offers so these were substantive violations of Maryland law.
You deserve answers and you were robbed. It is my belief that it is federal policy to protect the franchisors and to allow them to sell their product at any degree of risk to the unsuspecting public.
Only the Congress of the United States can help you ---if they will!
Freedom From Adulthood
Claiming on the one hand that you are a financially and otherwise responsible and experienced grown up who should be allowed to bind himself to agreements that he signs, and on the other hand that you are but a bumbling imbecile who should be allowed to escape his legal obligations for want of understanding brought on at least in part by your own stupidity/incompetence/sloth/stinginess might seem a tad inconsistent. However, I recognize that in certain circles inconsistency is the bugaboo of the small mind.
The FranWad constituency should get up money to bribe legislators to enact an "I am not smarter than a 5th grader" excuse that will allow everyone, not just minorities who refuse to educate themselves and their children, to void all legal obligations upon declaring in public that "I am not smarter than a 5th grader". There is already something like that to give people who make big mistakes a second chance. It's called the Federal Bankruptcy Act. But you obviously want something you can invoke that will also get you your money back. For that kind of special interest legislation you will have to do what all the other fixers have to do - come up with beaucoup bribe money.
Take the money to the men's room at the Minneapolis Airport and give it to one of the Congressmen you will find there in the second stall from the right. But be careful, as that stall is now a tourist attraction and people are taking pictures nearby. Don't give the money to the person in stall number three, as that person is a cop.
UK Debate on Franchising --May 22, 2007 -- US Deal
It appears that the UK is not presently regulating franchising. There has, however, been some interest in regulating franchising caused by franchisee complaints to their elected officials in the UK Parliament, and thus the debate. Apparently, a UK website was airing one of the complaints as well.
I haven't been able to find the first debate but the second dabate can be found on Google at http:www.publications.parliment.uk/pa/cm.200607/cmhansrd/cm070522h..
I found it interesting that the Ministry for Industry and the Regions (Margaret Hodge) says:
"So we have not not had enough evidence, although we shall keep minitoring, as we clearly need to. The other issue is whether regulation might provide a false sense of security. We always have to be wary. Even if we were to introduce the American-style regulation, that is not very different from what the BFA does voluntarily."
Minister Hodge continues and indicates that the franchisees didn't do proper due diligence.
Isn't this exactly what the Rule and the UFOC's have done ----given prospective franchisees a false sense of security, especially when dealing with very visible networks with famous brand names.
The UFOC is very inadequate from the standpoint of determining risk because of the red herring of Item 20 about which michael Seid indicated in his Article, Make Sense of the UFOC, in Entrepreneur.com, August 26, 2002:
"Deciphering the Item 20 Charts -----I need to be honest with you ---the current charts are often so confusing and subject to potential manipulation that some professionals think they don't really provide any useful information at all. Others go much farther in their criticism" ------
In the beginning of the Article cited in the paragraph above, Michael Seid says "Blame it on the Regulators" ------It appears that the DEAL that was struck with the regulators in the late 70's to obscure and confuse the actual risk of the failure of the franchised business plans has worked to give the public a false sense of security about investment in franchising.
If the FTC in the original rule thought it was important for the reasons for "Terminations" to be indicated, I can't find any reason why the reasons for "transfers" that so often represent the completre failure of first- generation franchisees, who have financed and built the physical units that bear the brand name, are not indicated. Was this to enable turnover of failed first-generation franchisees assets to the franchisors who would carry these failed units as successes for the franchisors when second-generation franchisees continued their operation? Was Item 20 premeditated by the FTC to enable the hiding of first-generation franchisee failure in the UFOC's?
Looks like a DEAL to me and a disservice to the American people and especially those veterans and middle-class people who are just looking for a job. The regulators know that nor everyone who looks at a UFOC will know that they can get a negative check from our attorneys here on Blue Mau Mau. The government doesn't require prospects to engage due diligence experts and they are remiss in their duty to treat franchisees equally under the law.
Carman you are sad ant-franchising zealot
no facts just ridiculous opinions.
FRANCHISING IS IN THE SERVICE OF CAPITALISM...
Both franchisees and franchisors provide products and services that the public wants and buys at prices determined in open and free markets.
If franchising is so good
why is everyone telling their stories about how they have been hurt? I am a capitalist but with ethics. Any business who doesn't do things right will get bashed by many people. That is only common sense If there weren't bad zors people would be finding some way to open one. The majority of people do not have the resourses to open a franchise. So who is the obivious targets? People who have done something with their lives. Duh!
People who have had some success with their life will simply not sit there and say it is okay to rob their family with lies and false promises.
If you are an "ant-franchising zealot" does this mean you will invest only in Uncle Al's Famous Hot Dogs? And are you a perfect franchisee for Terminix?
Seriously, though: I could put up with some ridiculous opinions if at least once in a blue moon there was some factual basis.
Paul SteinbergFranchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
put a sock in it...
Steinberg put you in your place and you are oblivious.
in considerable agreement ...
I am in considerable agreement with your very well-reasoned position. Simply stated, the RI law levels the playing field for franchisees.
The simple truth is that terminations are not nearly as simple as they once were for franchisors. And I am happy to report that franchising is alive and well in RI. The doors to franchised businesses have not closed. In fact, new units are being developed. It does not appear to me that fair franchising legislation has hurt the industry’s ability to do business or added any cost whatsoever.
Business is materially the same in RI as it was before the enactment of this legislation, except that franchisees cannot unfairly be terminated or suffer unjustifiable nonrenewal of their contracts.
I agree with your point, as well, about financing for franchised business. In an environment where franchisee termination and unjustifiable nonrenewals exist, obtaining and maintaining financing could be very challenging. Financial intuitions are risk adverse creatures. Credit may dry up as they perceive undue risk of loss.
Interestingly, there may be one negatively affected class: Certain litigating franchise attorneys may find business increasingly slow in RI. Frankly, that does not bother me a bit! Perhaps their efforts may be channeled to more productive endeavors.
DD Independent Franchise Owners, Inc.
Mark A. Dubinsky, President
Jack Handey knows franchising!
I think Jack was also a juror for the OJ Simpson trial.
Jack Handey version won't do well in Court
This definition of the truth won't do very well in courts, will it, Bubba?
Have a good weekend. If we can enjoy a little football and some good weather and stay away from the news, so much of which is pornographic, we might have some fun.
I don't want you to stop thinking about Item 20, however, because your subcounscious mind might lead you to an epiphany(sp?)!
Usually we hear from Muldoon on Friday whose wit and humor makes the day! Both Muldoon and Solomon tell the truth and that is why I am always happy to recommend Richard Solomon, Franchise Remedies.com., $1,000 NEGATIVE due diligence to anyone looking in as a remedy to prevent being screwed by the system.
Also I can vouch for our PHD and honest Michael Webster who has helped to educate me and who always sticks with the truth. And, slso for Paul Steinberg, another clever and articulate speaker of the truth who has educated me in these past months.
I know there are some good franchisors out there but I think they have to prove that their product is good and that franchising needs to be regulated as well as securities are regulated by the SEC. The KNOWN statistical risk of the investment should be disclosed under law.
No - 1st Amendment Right to Free Speech
Blue Maumau is private enterprise and the Item 20 poster only enjoys whatever rights are provided by the owner of this website. Which can be increased or decreased at any time for any reason.
GRAND HOLIDAY WEEKEND
And on this grand holiday weekend we enjoyed the grand opening of the new Muldoons last night. I love it. Many of us surviving old farts from the original Muldoons were present, even some of the old broads. They told us how handsome we still are and we applauded their attributes as well. The drink special should have been two high dose Viagra chased with a can of Red Bull.
There were younger folks there too. It is located hard by many high end apartment blocks and it has a patio as well as a really nice bar in a room that has large windows looking out onto trees on one side.
We planned my surprise 70th birthday party for Friday December 14th. I hope to see all of you there. Skip a few royalty payments and come have a grand time. It's two minutes from the Galleria. In one corner of the patio there were three "Cubans" (?) hand rolling cigars. We had to be careful not to say anything nice about Fidel Castro.
What I like most about the new Muldoons is that it's smaller and more intimate. I think we could hold franchise counselling seminars in there for about 50 people very nicely - on the patio in nice weather and indoors if it rains. Continuing professional education seminars with a bar session following the program, including during the Q and A segment of the program would be a nice touch.
This one is gonna be a great business model.
You call me an anti-capitalist and a Socialist and a Franchisee Savior and you want me to register under one of these names so that you can identify me and attack me under one of these names?
Why would I do that?
Frankman, you are generally honest and funny, as well!
But, apparently you don't think that it is shameful that government pretends to regulate franchising in the interests of franchisees while permitting franchisors to sell franchises with no earning or sales figures and with no disclosure as to the actual failure rate of the franchised business plans that they sell to the public.
CB selling in Maryland
Yes there will be a Grand opening this month for a new CB franchise
I don't give a flip about you or what you have to say...
Good bye and meow!
The Eye of the Needle is plenty big enough...
Now I'll repeat my previous post once again for you and we'll see if you can be truthful. Because the Truth shall set you free!
It is tiring to have you ask, answer and conclude in all of your posts what you believe to be evil about franchising especially since you've stated you have no direct experience in franchising or on other occasions you have led people to believe you failed at owning UPS Store. Which is it?
Your theories on franchisng are bankrupt and specious.
Guest writes: " We can accept your position, but your juvenile, rude, insulting and demeaning retorts are a turn-off to many readers and you are basically ignored"
I hate to get in the way of a tiff, but item 20 rants and TIF responds in kind.
It is sort of a standing convention around here.
Item 20 ranter doesn't seem to have accepted any of friendly comments made about his/her view.
TIF, on the other hand, while resolute in his/her fight against Item 20 does have other ideas which he/her talks about.
Michael Webster PhD LLB
View from a Vegan Ghost
Guest wrote, "Since they are concentrating on the military community"
Where did that come from? The article did not even hint at that.
But I like it. Let me try your technique.
What about the franchise systems that you so easily give negative innuendo to in your questions? Since you are concentrating on the Vegan community, it would be healthy and full of wholesome integrity for you to back up your statements for all to see.
Why don't you become an anonymous registered BMM member?
I work in franchising everday promoting best practices. I am an active member in the IFA. While you and the Item 20 Ranter simply post as guests complaining about Item 20 or me.
So do you plan on coming out of the shadows by registering or is it just your style to remain a guest bomb thrower spewing your brand of malarkey?
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
Dear Guest you're mistaken
I asked the Item 20 Ranter first to name 5 franchises worthy of at least investigation to show whether he is an anti-franchisist or and objective critic of franchising.
The Item 20 Ranter cannot bring himself to list even five franchises that someone might consider.
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
A Gun to the Head -----by Richard Solomon
Another good name for a book. Looks like I got to Richard and he is telling me he sure doesn't give one little damn for all of those returning veterans who will be sucked into losing their houses because they are dumb and naive and have had no business experience and will be impressed with the fact that the government thinks they will make good Entrepreneurs and wants to give them "special" loans.
His failure to even comment on The Patriot Express Loan program is a big disappointment for me. Did you miss all of the wars, Richard? Or, did due diligence prevent you from signing any kind of contract to serve your country?
Disingenuous - NOT
My gandfather taught me that I did not need a union or an association to speak for me -- he taught me how to stand up and speak for myself. He also taught me to let my actions speak louder than my words. He taught me to always give a little more than you have to. He taught me that if and when you work for someone else, it doesn't matter if you make a $100 a week or a $100,000 a week you're still just a hired hand. He taught me that the work comes before the pay.
Ralph Nader was the "Boogeyman of Excessive Fear" (F.E.A.R. = False Evidence Appearing Real). Ralph Nader has contributed greatly to creating a society of blamers.
The govenrment doesn't condone hiding risk -- the government has entered into no 'deals' with the 'Franchise Industry'. The government is based on our principles established by our founding "fathers" and their love of freedom. Unfortunately the ideals that our founding "fathers" established are slowly being erroded away by people who are unable to accept personal responsibility for their own actions.
In business when negotiating an agreement, each party to the agreement has a responsibility for advancing their interest in the transaction. If and when one side to the agreement ends up feeling as if the agreement was "Unfair" to them it is usually because they took their responsibilty to advance their interest less serious than the other party. As we've heard here on BMM time after time, the failure to make a "good deal" is often blamed on a lack of moeny to obtain competent representation. This is not the cause of failure. The failure was in your lack of responsibility to yourself to obtain that representation. Ultimately you were willing to make a "bad deal" in order to join what you pereceived to be a "good deal".
The government can not save you - Ralph Nader can not save you - a union or association can not save you! Each and every individual must accept personal responsibility to save themselves from making 'Bad Decissions".
So again I ask, Please now join me in supporting the traditional American belief in individual rights and responsibilities that have led to the creation of the wealthiest nation in the history of the planet.
Believe & Succeed,DaleFranSynergy, Inc.Synergizing Franchising!www.fransynergy.com
Yes and the franchisor has the obligation to disclose...
And the franchisee has no expectation of privacy whatsoever. However the current or former franchise does not have to speak with any prospective franchisees.
But, how are structured reputation systems financed?
And, why hasn't the AFA or the AAFD or some other organization come into the franchise industry to provide this service?
Would such a concept have to fight to overcome the objections of the IFA and the lenders and others who like the status quo and want NO changes that would impact on their profits? If the matter of known and demonstrated risk of failure/success/profits is not required to be addressed in disclosure, and all franchisees invest their capital and cheap labor while agreeing under signature in a binding contract that they do so at 100% risk of failure, the Industry will fight and fight dirty to maintain this subsdidy.
While the AFFD works to improve the reputation of franchisors who produce fairer relationship contracts, a fairer relationship contract on a franchise that is proven to work only 50% of the time does not help the potential franchisee who should know that the odds are 50-50 before he puts his savings and his life at risk for ten years or more.
Apparently, "risk" is so great in franchising that it must not be addressed and must, instead, be obscured through the red herring of 23 Items of Disclosure, of which only two deal directly with the performance of the franchise itself, and one of the two is optional.
Originally, the FTC Rule intended to require the reasons for termination to be indicated in the disclosure document. But, of course, they backed off of that because if the reasons are required for "termination" the reasons would be required for "transfers." The FTC even provided that the reason for termination might be "lack of sales." Of course, the reason for "transfers" would generally be "lack of sales" as well in many networks.
Imprecise Item 20 is a DEAL and a subsidy of the franchisors. If franchising were truly a free market practice, there would be competition between sellers of the same and similar concepts to capture the cheap labor and capital of franchisees and this competition would reform franchising.
DD and Relationship Building
One simple, perhaps simple minded view, of the AAFD is that a) if the prospective franchisee market seeks excellent DD, and b) that DD includes fairness reviews, the ordinary market will drive out franchise systems that have legalized franchisor opportunism.
I am not so sanguine about that prospect, although I devote a certain amount of my energy towards it.
However, the problem for the US is that the only legal tool -and Paul will correct me on this gross simplification- that franchisees have to battle opportunism during the length of the contract is the contractual doctrine of good faith, apart from contractual arguments. None of the anti-trust arguments have worked.
My own view is that the independent franchise associations have to see themselves as offering essentially a competing service to the franchisees if opportunism is really going to be constrained.
The King didn't just voluntarily give up some of his powers.
Michael Webster PhD LLBFranchise News
Some staff might welcome (including one of the Commissioners who takes a more realistic view of franchising); I would doubt that one person in particular would welcome such a change, and given the close relationship between the FTC and the IFA, it is unlikely that he would ever admit to favoring a private right of action.
It would be very easy to read. Plain, simple and honest.
actually that wasn't me. looks like you have another fan of your witty slander.
Are you completely mad?
Are you completely mad?
Are you completely mad?
Are you completely mad?
Are you completely mad?
The law is fine its people that must change
We all must become skeptics and make decisions based on facts and logic setting emotion aside in favor of reasoned selections of franchise investments. The law is not your salvation! You are your own salvation!
Poor Ariel ----By all means! Buy a UPS Store
I wish you the best with your discounted The UPS Store and you appear to be the kind of "small" person who could really squeeze yourself a good deal and never feel a bit of sympathy for the failed ZEE. Your instincts are right on, Ariel! if you are Ariel?
Advertising by Lawyers
There was a time we could advertise, at least in England.
But they contracted out all the work to drunken, Irish, marketing firms.
Unfortunately, the drunken Irish were so effective in getting the message out that the courts were clogged lawsuits. The English could hardly manage time for tea.
The English, being a nasty sort, caused the great potato famine and drove the marketers to the shores of North America.
True story, I read it somewhere.
Michael Webster PhD LLBFranchise News
Re: HELL NO! DON'T GO! You were robbed! Coffee Beanery
Vietnam, Vietnam, Vietnam, Vitenam, Vietnam, Vietnam,Vietnam, Vietnam, Vietnam, Vitenam, Vietnam!
Fire, fire, fire, fire, fire, fire, fire, fire, fire, fire, fire, fire, fire, fire, fire, fire!
The sky is falling!
Chicken Little (aka Abbie Hoffman)
Gjo back and Read the post JD
Point by point. By the way I'm R or D.
Where in those points did you see anything that tendering back would have cured.
What is the cause of the failure of the volume?
Is it a bad location, competitive pressure, etc?
Is there any chance, given more time, the location will eventually become profitable ie; did you run out of money before you got there?
Is your debt such that it could be renegotiated?
Will the franchisor allow your location to be taken over by a new franchisee, and release you from further obligations?
The end of your rope!
Some ZEES commit suicide when their money and their health and their sanity is destroyed by the process of opening and losing a business that was high risk to begin with.
Understand that the government, the SBA, is in the business of guaranteeing loans on franchises with very high failure rates that are obscured in the UFOC's.
Bob Baber of Quiznos wanted his suicide to invite discussion and attention from the government but the Media only gave it slight attention and he is never even mentioned any more by Quiznos ZEES who post.
Richard Solomon, Franchise Remedies, gives the best advice. When you are going down and there is no escape, get out fast and declare bankruptcy if you have to and get on with your life. Jim Herst, who posts on Blue Mau Mau, and who reconciles debt for clients will engage in FREE and anonymous consultation with desperate franchisees ---if you need someone to talk to.
Try to warn others and try to make your government make the franchisor disclose the risk of the investment, as determined by how many past and present franchisees have earned a ROI or have failed with the investment.
If you knew that 50% to 60% of the first investors in the franchise failed, would you have invested in the franchise. Understand that the dirty little secret that the IFA and government try to hide is that four out of five small businesses fail within the first five years, franchised OR independent. Try to understand that franchising has been so durable and successful because the franchisor doesn't necessarily fail when the franchisee loses everything if the unit goes on to serve the franchisor under new ownership.
Sure, as 20-year-ZEE, there can be many reasons for failure but the past performance statistics and the present performasnce statistics of the individual units in the franchise network offer masterial information concerning the risk and this information should be disclosed to new buyers ---or, at least made available to new buyers by the franchisor.