i actually agree with most of what yiou have to say. I too don't think that small business per se has changed, but the environment they operate in has - as you say - and I can't really separate the two in my mond as they are inherently linked. economy booms - small business flourishes on the back of increased confidence, cash flow and consumer optimism - economy tanks, small business suffers in the same way. from a lenders perspective it doesn't really matter why businesses are more likely to fail now than they have been in the past - it just matters that they are. I also agree with you when you say that bailout money should have strings attached to make sure it's used for the intended purpose, I'm just weary of how dangerous it could be to legislate a loosening of lending criteria. Best of luck in your endeavours

Thanks for a thoughtful reply. As to your question - do I really believe small business hasn't changed? Yes, I do believe that small business did not change in the last 18 months since the banks went belly up and the government bailed them out. Because of irresponsible political, big business and big bank practices, the business climate within which small business functions has changed radically, but small businesses that could easily get credit for decades all of sudden can not. They didn't change, the banks did. Your first post seemed to say to me that small business was in part to blame for why they can't get credit. While there are and always will be businesses that can't qualify for a loan, the overwhelming number of rejections are to businesses who could easily have received that credit 18 months ago. Again, banks changed, not the businesses. I have dozens of examples of businesses that were quite healthy until the banks pulled their lines of credit without warning and jacked their interest rates on loans through the roof. This put many of them in deep financial difficulty that wasn't there until the banks yanked the credit lines, and put many others right out of business. There are tens of thousands of small business owners who were put in financial difficulty by the banks, not by any other issue. Countless stories exist of business owners who had their decades old credit lines pulled for no reason at all, then when they put balances on credit cards that had low existing rates, within a few days those rates were jacked through the roof. These onerous banking practices will not be forgotten soon by small business. And yes, if the government is going to drop $800 billion directly on the banks then they have a responsibility to dictate the use of those loans (which they did not), and one use should be to continue to make loans and leave credit lines alone for stable growing businesses. Government should stay out of private enterprise but if they are going to use our money to prop up banks, they need to make sure that good businesses aren't hurt by that action, which is exactly what happened. This is purely a political and bank issue, and small business is the one taking the hit.

Hi Chuck, Not that I want ot get into an i-argument with you, but I thought I should respond to a couple of your comments. Firstly, my comment on credit availability is based on the fact that the 'credit crunch' which effectively choked the availabliility of funds worldwide is not as much of a factor as it was. Money is available for lending, banks are just more hesitant to lend it now. Yes banks have tightened up on their lending criteria, in many cases far too much. Many have been burned by plummeting property values and foreclosure rates, banks have even gone bust for the first time in living memory for many people, and as a result many have adopted a 'once bitten twice shy' approach, perhaps unfairly in many cases. It's an over reaction and in a nut shell small business is paying a price for irresponsible residential property lending which isn't fair, but is a reality. Remember though that banks are businesses too, and why should they lend money to anyone if they aren't confident of getting it paid back? Are they going too far and being too risk averse at the moment - yes, but when you consider the number of businesses going under at the moment, especially small businesses I think caution on the part of lenders is understandable, it's just the scale of that caution that needs to be looked at. I do think that lending to small business - especially start ups - is risky, especially now when unemployment is at record highs, property values at historic lows (meaning personal assets available to support the business if needs be are largely depleted and in some cases are now negative) and the consumer mindset is focused on saving rather than spending. I'm not associated with a bank or other lender, but if I were a bank I'd be very careful who I lent money to now. You say that banks have changed but businesses haven't, I agree with you on the first point, but can you honestly say you believe that the business community is the same as it's always been? We're still in the middle of possibly the worst economic climate in decades, the environment has changed, and business (particularly small bsuiness) has been affected by that, as is inevitable. Small businesses are more vulnerable than large ones, which have a larger asset base, more diverse revenue streams and bigger client bases. For a larger business, losing a client can mean making staff redundant and a drop in revenue, but for a small one it can be the difference between closing your doors and staying open. If the business goes under the bank loses it's money too, too many of those and the bank goes under as well. I believe what we're seeing at present is an overcompensation by lenders, which in some ways is a natural (if ill advised) reaction to being stung by having too loose lending criteria. Does this mean that legitimate businesses are being unfairly penalised? Yes it does. Is that fair? No it's not, but it is the reality I beileve. It also means that banks are missing out on lending opprtunities where they could make good returns because they are being over cautious - I believe this creates an opportunity in the market, and sooner or later someone is going to step go after that market. Unless you're going to legislate to require banks to lend, you also have to accept that banks, as businesses, have the right to conduct their business as they see fit. Banks do lend, if they don't they go bust after all, but only to 'safe' prospects. What's considered 'safe' is really the point at issue here I think. In my humble opinion, banks swung too far in one direction, got burnt and have now swung too far in the opposite direction. In time they'll stabilise back in the middle, probably after some enterprising lender starts leading the field by loosening up on their lending captialising on the glut of borrowers and limited lenders willing to offer them money. My point is that there need to be a balance, which I think is your point also. Too relaxed lending criteria is as big of a problem as too tight criteria, and i don't think trying to force lenders to offer loans they otherwise wouldn't is really the answer. Just my thoughts Chuck, agree, disagree or disregard them as you wish. All the best.

Mr. Helpful, I'm guessing you are with a bank. if not, you're must not have a lot of contact with small business owners. You said: 'The issue with credit availability has to do with the inherent instability of small businesses I believe.' The issue has nothing to do with the inherent instability of small business. Lending and credit practices have changed radically in the last 18 months while small business itself is the same as it has always been. Business owners could get loans and credit lines for 50 years and in the last 18 months those same good businesses can't. Who changed? Banks. Then you said: 'More relaxed credit criteria would doubtlessly help support many businesses, but lets not forget that relaxed lending criteria in the residential property market was the fundamental cause of the subprime crisis, so anything legislative in this area needs to be treated VERY carefully.' Major problems with your logic. Residential lending was relaxed from an already liberal lending environment to a ridiculously irresponsible lending environment. 'Stated income' meant - 'make up a salary and I will believe you without checking.' What happened to small business credit is just the opposite. The revenue and profit levels that allowed small business owners to responsibly get credit and loans for decades were raised summarily and exponentially by banks without any reason at all, except in response to their own irresponsibility in having given stated income mortgages to home buyers. No one is asking for irresponsible lending practices, just normal ones. The manager of my Wells Fargo bank said 'Our small business lending requirements are higher than they ever have been and I think we're way out of line right now. It has to come back down to earth.' Last - the even bigger rub is that the government gave $1.5 trillion to big businesses and banks when they couldn't have qualified for a credit card. The result of those bailouts and handouts for small business owners? Good business owners with great credit had their credit lines taken away without notice and rates jacked to historic highs by same banks that got those billions and who are now enjoying the lowest interest rates in history. This is not a small business problem. This is a government, SBA, and bank problem.

The purpose of this question is to identify which industries the Business.gov team should add to the site's Loans and Grants search tool. We want to focus on the industries that are most requested by our users.

I apprecaite your desire to add industries to the loan list, but business owners are really tired of the endless parade of pseudo help and smoke and mirrors that is being foisted upon small businesses who need access to credit. The issue is not what industries need to be added to a list, but why can't any of them get credit? The SBA 7(a) and 504 loan limits were increased from $2 million to $5 million - how does that help anyone who can't get credit in the first place? You could raise the limits to $50 million and it has zero effect on the actual problem. The ARC loan was instituted to, according to Mills to provide 'immediate relief' to 'distressed by viable small businesses', yet the average time to close has been many months and no business that is distressed has a chance at getting this loan (I got one and was offered 3 commercial loans to try to keep me from the ARC loan)? Every 'solution' the SBA and the government have come up with have had no effect whatsoever on the lack of credit available to true small businesses (under 20 employees). Now you want to count all the industries? How does that help people who can't get credit? Please stop creating 'activity' and start helping small business owners get credit, or get the government out of the way and let us get there on our own. Making a list and checking it twice to see who's naught and nice will not do anything but create more unfocused and non-purposeful work for government employees.

The issue with credit availability has to do with the inherent instability of small businesses I believe. While big businesses are certainly not guaranteed to survive, small businesses are far more vulnerable due to lower reserves and resources. If you were a bank, you wouldn't lend to anyone you weren't confident could pay the loan back, and thats the real rub. Small businesses need access to credit to survive, but if they're struggling already then they pose a bad credit risk and banks don't want to lend (not unreasonable really). More relaxed credit criteria would doubtlessly help support many businesses, but lets not forget that relaxed lending criteria in the residential property market was the fundamental cause of the subprime crisis, so anything legislative in this area needs to be treated VERY carefully.

 It is a 1500 sq ft facility. sorry i dont know how assess got in there, i did not type that.

What is the purpose of this question? It's obvious that every small business in every industry needs credit but is having historic problems getting it, even if they are credit worthy. Wouldn't the more helpful question be: 'What is your experience on applying for loans and grants?' We don't need a survey of which industries are looking for loans. We need the SBA to stop funding mid to large sized businesses with expanded 7(a) and 504 loans and work to get loans to 1-20 employee companies who have had their traditional credit lines and other access to credit taken away. The government gave hundreds of billions in handouts, bailouts and unwarranted loans to every big business industry imaginable. Where is the help for true small businesses under 20 employees? The #1 sector for jobs growth is businesses between 1-10 employees and #2 is 1-20 employees. Yet you continue to ignore the plight of these businesses completely while expanding the loan opportunities for mid to large sized businesses. What are you doing to get credit and loans back into the hands of those who actually produce the jobs?