web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Small Business

Frustrated California Woman Has Scathing Message For Gavin Newsom After Homeless Chaos Destroys Her Small Business

Westlake Legal Group Ca-woman Frustrated California Woman Has Scathing Message For Gavin Newsom After Homeless Chaos Destroys Her Small Business Small Business homeless Gavin Newsom frustration Front Page Stories Featured Story crime California

A frustrated California woman took to Twitter on Friday to blast governor Gavin Newsom’s disastrous policies that have created a desperate homeless problem. The woman – who goes by @Jesus_porvida on Twitter – was clearly upset as she posted a video detailing why she may be forced to close the doors of her business.

I have had a business in downtown Sacramento for 15 yrs, a successful business. I now have to leave my place of business. I have to close my shop.

Later tweets show pictures of the woman’s shop after the most recent in a series of  break-ins, a break-in that apparently was the last straw for the Sacramento are hair stylist.

I have to clean up the poop and pee off my doorstep. I have to clean up the syringes. I have to politely ask ppl who I care for – I care about the homeless – to move their tents out of the way of the door to my business. I have to fight off people who push their way into my shop that are homeless and on drugs because you won[t arrest them for drug offenses.  I have to apologize to my clients as to why they can’t get into my door because there’s somebody asleep there bc they’re not getting the help they need.

I talk to police offers. They told me to contact you. They want to do something and they can’t because you changed the laws. So I wanna know what you’re gonna do for us, the ones that are unhappy. You wanna make us a sanctuary state. You wanna make it comfortable for everybody except for the ppl that work hard and have tried their hardest to get along in life and now we have to change that because of your laws.

She shredded Newsom’s “liberal ideology” as the cause for the current chaos that forced her to close the doors of her business.

While you sit in your million dollar home you don’t have to look at what we have to look at; there’s hard working people who have to deal with this on a daily basis. What are you going to do for us?

The rant sparked a flood of responses from people sharing similar experiences.

Crime and pestilence have been skyrocketing in the state of California as a spate of policies decriminalizing petty theft, open drug use and vagrancy violations have tied the hands of police and left citizens and business owners vulnerable and frightened. California politicians have been deliberately vague about the problems caused by homelessness.

 

The post Frustrated California Woman Has Scathing Message For Gavin Newsom After Homeless Chaos Destroys Her Small Business appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Ca-woman-211x300 Frustrated California Woman Has Scathing Message For Gavin Newsom After Homeless Chaos Destroys Her Small Business Small Business homeless Gavin Newsom frustration Front Page Stories Featured Story crime California   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Kamala Harris fails spectacularly in Pell Grant reform roll-out

Westlake Legal Group Kamala-Harris Kamala Harris fails spectacularly in Pell Grant reform roll-out The Blog student debt Small Business Pell Grants kamala harris Entrepreneurship Elizabeth Warren

Senator Kamala Harris released her plan for a student loan debt forgiveness program for Pell grant recipients. She posted a tweet announcing her oddly specific plan and its requirements. The reaction to her plan didn’t go well. The responses came fast and furious.

While potential voters are hungry for specifics from candidates in their plans, as a general rule, Kamala’s specifications for those qualifying for loan forgiveness are so specific that not many people will qualify at all. The major stumbling block for people interested in the program rests with one requirement – recipients must successfully open businesses in underserved communities and operate those businesses for three years. Her plan is meant to close the opportunity gap for black Americans. Wait. Isn’t that racist? Isn’t she running to be president of all Americans? As it is now, the majority of Pell grants go to black students.

Her supporters say the Pell grant plan is but a part of a much bigger plan.

Harris’ plan may have the potential to help more people than the dozen or so her critics contend it will. Pell grants (a type of federal student aid for undergraduates that are given out solely on financial need and do not need to be paid back) are the largest source of federally funded grants: Seven million Pell grants were distributed during the 2017 to 2018 school year. The maximum Pell grant award for the 2018 to 2019 school year was $6,095; recipients of Pell grants can also receive federal student loans that need to be repaid. According to data from the 2015 to 2016 school year, 72 percent of black students received Pell grants, compared to only 34 percent of white students.

In addition, according to data from the Small Business Administration, about half of small businesses survive five years or longer. Even if just a small fraction of Pell grant recipients go on to pursue entrepreneurship, these statistics indicate that Harris’ plan could have the potential to help thousands of economically vulnerable entrepreneurs get student loan debt forgiveness.

The bigger plan aims to focus on entrepreneurialism. Her intention is to allow participants in the debt forgiveness program to defer their student loan payments interest-free for up to three years. This gives them time to build their business. The program also allows up to $20,000 in federal student loans forgiveness, as Pell grant receipients can also take out other student loans. Pell grants, by the way, do not have to be paid back. The survival rate of new small businesses is about 50%.

Pell grants are the largest source of federally-funded grants. What I am taking away from her plan is that this is an incentive for those burdened with student debt to strike out and make their own opportunities. I’m not quite sure why she drags Pell grants into the equation, as they don’t have to be paid back and I assume most aren’t. Pell grants are given solely on financial need. Only those who fail to complete the academic period for which the Pell Grant was awarded have to pay the grant back. Kamala’s plan allows those new business owners who survive the first years to get student loan forgiveness.

The catch for most new entrepreneurs is the difficulty of securing funding if the person has outstanding debts. A greater percentage of black students have student loan debt than white or Hispanic students – 40 percent of black Americans between 25 and 55 years old have student debt, as opposed to 30 percent of whites and Latinos. Frankly, I’m surprised those numbers are not higher – to hear the Democrat candidates talk, you would think that every graduating student is drowning in student debt. The grand total reported is 45 million Americans owe a total of $1.56 trillion in student loans.

There are other provisions in the senator’s plan – she wants to bring back the State Small Business Credit Initiative, reform Opportunity Zones programs, and expand the entrepreneurship centers at HBCUs. She wants to allow students to re-finance financial debt at lower rates. She supports “free” community college and helping students receive a four year college education while graduating debt-free. She veers from some of the other Democrat candidates in that she doesn’t support forgiving any existing student debt. So, this plan doesn’t address the overall problem of the $1.56 trillon outstanding debt that already exists.

In contrast, for example, Elizabeth Warren wants to cancel 95% of student loan debt and increase the Pell grant program with $100 billion. She wants to make all public colleges tuition-free. And, she is in favor of forming a $50 billion fund for HBCUs. Thanks, new wealth tax proposal for the ultra-rich.

All said, these new entitlement programs proposed by Democrat candidates to pander to various segments of the voting population do nothing for those students who took out loans to go to school and then followed the rules and paid them back. Why is the next generation entitled to breaks that the rest of us didn’t have when it comes to establishing personal responsibility and future debt obligations? Socialism is great as long as we don’t run out of other people’s money, to paraphrase the late Margaret Thatcher. The money always runs out.

Maybe someone will ask Harris to drill down a bit on her plan during this week’s round of debates. This lame roll-out produced more questions than answers.

The post Kamala Harris fails spectacularly in Pell Grant reform roll-out appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group Kamala-Harris-300x153 Kamala Harris fails spectacularly in Pell Grant reform roll-out The Blog student debt Small Business Pell Grants kamala harris Entrepreneurship Elizabeth Warren   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

John Penrose: The conventional wisdom about this leadership election is wrong. Hunt’s spending plans are neither unaffordable nor irresponsible.

John Penrose is MP for Weston-super-Mare and a Northern Ireland Office Minister.

If you listen to the sober-sided, serious economists at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, or to the Chancellor Philip Hammond himself, you’d think the Conservative leadership election is a horrible bidding war of doolally spending promises from Jeremy Hunt and Boris Johnson. Has the party of sound money lost its soul? Betrayed its heritage? Are Margaret Thatcher and Milton Friedman spinning in their graves as leadership contenders try to out-Corbyn each other with unaffordable spending promises?

Well no, not really. I can’t speak for Boris Johnson but, as someone who’s been involved in a lot of Jeremy Hunt’s policy development work, that’s not what we’re doing at all.

Let’s start with the charge that, if it was right to introduce austerity in 2010, we should do the same for Brexit in 2019. Otherwise we aren’t being consistent.

But the problem in 2019 isn’t the same as 2010. Brexit isn’t the banking crisis, thank goodness. And if the problem is different, the answers should be too.

By 2010, Gordon Brown was trying to keep the economy going with huge increases in public spending, paid for with ballooning debt. Something like one pound in every four the Government spent had to be borrowed, to be repaid by taxpayers later. If we’d carried on like that, pretty soon the country’s credit card would have been snipped up and the bailiffs would have been knocking at the door. So we simply had to throttle back, to stop spending money we hadn’t got.

But today is different. Public spending isn’t ballooning and borrowing is under control. We’re living within our means, and there’s even headroom for a bit more spending if we’re careful. We’ve come a long way, and it hasn’t been easy. You can understand why Hammond doesn’t want the next Prime Minister to blow it.

What are today’s problems, if they’re different from 2010? The biggest is that some – although certainly not all – firms are putting off growth-creating investments until after the Brexit fog has cleared. And that no-one knows whether our trade with the EU will be easy or awful once we’ve left.

So it makes sense to spend a bit of money to promote economic growth. Post-Brexit Britain needs a stronger, more dynamic, more energetic, turbocharged economy, so we’re prepared for the challenges of life outside the EU. And Jeremy Hunt’s plans to cut corporation tax to 12 and a half per cent, increase investment allowances and exempt small high street firms from business rates would do exactly that. They would spark economic renewal and investment in UKplc, making us more resilient in economic shocks and recessions, and more productive and efficient so we can grow faster too.

In other words, it’s OK to use different answers in 2019 than in 2010. But what about the charge that we’re making the same mistake as Brown, by spending and borrowing unaffordably?

Hunt is on pretty firm ground here, because he agrees we’ve got to keep the national debt falling relative to the size of our economy. That means borrowing can’t balloon, and we’ll always be able to repay our debts. And his business career helps here too, because his plans to turbocharge post-Brexit Britain’s economy would mean we’d be investing to grow. They’re sensible investments in our economic future, not pale copies of unworkable, hard-left Corbynomic plans.

Nor is he expecting to do everything at once. We’d need to raise defence spending progressively over five years, for example, to allow time to plan. Otherwise you’d simply waste money on the wrong things.

The same goes for fixing illiteracy. That will take ten years, building on the huge progress over the last decade that has seen more pupils being taught in good or outstanding schools than ever before.

And some of the plans would only be temporary, too. The pledge to help farmers adjust to a post-Brexit world has to be a hard-headed, short term plan to help re-equip machinery, buildings and breeding for new global markets, for example. Not a woolly, open-ended subsidy.

The plans have got to be about changing things, so we’re ready for a new world. Not expensively preserving the way they were before we voted to leave. Transformation and preparation, not status quo. But, for Hunt’s proposals at least, they are sound, practical, affordable ideas. And, most important of all, they’re thoroughly Conservative too.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Iain Mansfield: Brexit by October 31. Stop using the Left’s language. And stand for skilled workers. Essentials for our next Prime Minister

Iain Mansfield is a former senior civil servant, winner of the Institute of Economic Affairs Brexit prize and a Conservative councillor candidate. He writes in a personal capacity.

Our next Prime Minister will take office at the most challenging time since the 1970s. Not only is there Brexit – an issue of fundamental national importance, that has destroyed the last two Prime Ministers and poses an existential challenge to the future of the Conservative Party – but the old political assumptions are changing. Across the West, traditional voter coalitions are shifting, as citizens reject centrist compromises. Flatlining productivity, unaffordable houses and millions of voters feeling abandoned, either culturally or economically, are just some of the challenges they will face.

Many of those who voted for David Cameron in 2010 are lost to the party, alienated by Brexit. In Britain today, age and education level are better predictors of a person’s vote than class. To win a general election, our next Prime Minister must forge a new coalition of voters that unites the traditional Tory shires with the left-behind Leave voters in the Midlands and North. Even more importantly, they must deliver authentic right-wing policies that address the causes of ordinary working people’s dissatisfaction. People want change and, if the Conservative Party does not deliver it, they are likely to seek answers in the flawed blandishments of Jeremy Corbyn’s socialism.

In that context, there are three essentials that our next Prime Minister must prioritise for the good of the people, the nation and the party:

  • Leave the EU by 31 October, on WTO terms if needed.
  • Openly champion conservative values rather than speaking the language of the left.
  • Reposition the party as the natural home of the skilled working and lower middle classes.

Leave the EU by 31 October, on WTO terms if needed

Not only is delivering on the outcome of the referendum a democratic imperative, it is vital for the continued existence of the party. Recent polling shows that, if we have not left the EU, the Conservatives are likely to suffer devastating losses in a general election; these figures could be even worse if large numbers of members, councillors or even entire associations defect to the Brexit Party. Many members have held on over the last few months purely out of hope that the next Prime Minister would deliver where May failed: another betrayal in October would see these members permanently lost.

Leaving with a deal is preferable, if some changes to the backstop can be agreed and Parliament will pass it. If not, as I have argued previously on this site, we have nothing to fear from No Deal. Preparations for such should be put into top gear on the first day in office. The Prime Minister must make clear that they will under no circumstances ask for an extension; and that they are, if needed, prepared to systematically veto any measure put forward by the EU on regular business if the UK is for some reason kept in. While every effort should be made to secure a deal, if it cannot be reached, Parliament must be faced with the simple choice of permitting a WTO exit or voting no confidence in the Prime Minister – a gamble, admittedly, but one that is preferable to another disastrous extension.

Openly champion conservative values rather than speaking the language of the left

In recent years too many Conservative politicians have allowed our opponents to define the playing field. We cannot beat the socialists by adopting the language and assumptions of socialism. Our next Prime Minister must stop feeding the narrative of identity, grievance and division, with its assumption that an individual’s potential is defined by their characteristics, that so-called ‘burning injustices’ are solely the responsibility of the state to address, and that the government always no best.

Changing the narrative will be a long endeavour. The systematic appointment of those with conservative values into key ministerially appointed positions; an authentically right-wing approach to policy making in Whitehall; and the withdrawal of state funding from the network of organisations that maintain the left’s grip on the policy narrative are essential. But over and above this, the Prime Minister must be willing to personally stand up and champion individual liberties and freedoms; to condemn progressive authoritarianism and to be visibly proud of Britain, our culture and the rich global heritage of our citizens.

Reposition the party as the natural home of the skilled working and lower middle classes

Young, metropolitan graduates may once have been natural Conservatives, but no longer. There is little hope of reversing this in the immediate aftermath of Brexit. Instead of squandering our effort here, our new Prime Minister should instead make the party the natural home of the skilled working and lower middle classes, particularly in the midlands and north.

Such voters have a natural affinity to the traditional conservative values of low tax and individual liberty, but also greatly value and rely day-to-day onn strong public services. This places the Conservatives in a difficult position after a decade of austerity: Labour made hay campaigning on cuts to police numbers and falls in per pupil spending in 2017. But how to fund significant increases in core services without raising taxes or alienating core Conservative voters, such as via the disastrous proposals on social care in the 2017 manifesto?

To find the funding the next Prime Minister must be bold enough to slay the progressive sacred cows that soak up billions annually in public funding. Three immediately spring to mind:

With the additional £15 billion plus a year, the Prime Minister could at a stroke increase police funding by 25 per cent (£3 billion), boost school funding per pupil by 20 per cent (£8 billion) and increase spending on social care by 20 per cent (£4 billion). And then split the proceeds of further growth between public services and tax cuts.

As well as this, we should champion the interests of the high street, enterprise and small businesses and oppose crony corporatism. Multinational companies that make use of aggressive tax avoidance, abuse their market position or actively work against UK sovereignty should not enjoy government grants, procurement or time in No. 10. Fundamentally, our next Prime Minister should spend more time listening to the Federation of Small Businesses and less time listening to the CBI.

Conclusion

As members, we have two candidates set before us. Both are able politicians and tested leaders who represent the best the Parliamentary party has to offer. As we assess who should be not just our next leader, but our Prime Minister, we should do so against their ability to deliver these vital elements.

Both have committed to delivering Brexit by October 31 – but which one has the ability, the genuine will and the courage to do so by any means necessary? Both are true-blue Conservatives – but which one will truly champion our values, taking the battle to our adversaries with the eloquence and conviction of a Thatcher or a Churchill? Both recognise the importance of reaching out to new voters – but which one can devise and push through the policies needed to unite the Tory shires with the Leave voters of the north? Consider carefully and cast your vote.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Sweet summer story: KraftHeinz covering permits/Fines for kids’ lemonade stands

Westlake Legal Group LemonadeStand715 Sweet summer story: KraftHeinz covering permits/Fines for kids’ lemonade stands The Blog Small Business kids

For generations, American parents have taught their children the entrepreneurial spirit by helping them open front-yard lemonade stands. Sometimes even stocked with homemade cookies.

Don’t know about you, but my car has to stop at every one of them. Inevitably, they can’t change a $5, so we just have to leave it.

But there’s a problem, a big problem. In 36 of the 50 states, these innocent little kids’ projects are illegal by municipal code. No license to sell. No permit. Whatever. Some grumpy neighbors, who can’t remember being young, have even complained to authorities.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott just signed a law overriding such rules in his state and letting local police pay attention to real law-breaking. But Texas was only the 14th state to okay kids’ lemonade stands.

Cue familiar ‘Ride to the Rescue’ music: This summer, however, America’s really small business people all over the country have a savior. Country Time Lemonade, owned by KraftHeinz, will pay kids’ permit fees or fines.

Yeh, sure, it’s a great PR move. But it also helps a lot of parents who these days too often feel besieged by governments and society making their kids’ upbringing more difficult than it need be or already is. @CountryTime issued a statement:

Lemonade stands help kids build strong work habits, have fun, and become young entrepreneurs. The reality is, they are being shut down because of old, arcane and very real permit laws.

But not only is the drink maker helping youngsters get legal, it’s launched a website to show which states recognize lemonade stands as legal and developed helpful advice on how citizens can go about changing the laws and codes in their town and state through a website called Legal-ade. Get it?

Americans never feel hesitant to criticize big business. Are you watching the Democratic primary debates? Perhaps rewarding a company can accomplish a little more.

Who knows, maybe some grateful Moms and Dads and grandparents and just plain nice people will purchase a bottle or two of Country Time Lemonade as a kind of thank you.

The post Sweet summer story: KraftHeinz covering permits/Fines for kids’ lemonade stands appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group LemonadeStand715-300x161 Sweet summer story: KraftHeinz covering permits/Fines for kids’ lemonade stands The Blog Small Business kids   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Risky Borrowing Is Making a Comeback, but Banks Are on the Sideline

Westlake Legal Group 07shadowbanks1-facebookJumbo Risky Borrowing Is Making a Comeback, but Banks Are on the Sideline United States Economy Stocks and Bonds Small Business Regulation and Deregulation of Industry Quicken Loans Inc Mortgages Credit and Debt Banking and Financial Institutions

A decade after reckless home lending nearly destroyed the financial system, the business of making risky loans is back.

This time the money is bypassing the traditional, and heavily regulated, banking system and flowing through a growing network of businesses that stepped in to provide loans to parts of the economy that banks abandoned after 2008.

It’s called shadow banking, and it is a key source of the credit that drives the American economy. With almost $15 trillion in assets, the shadow-banking sector in the United States is roughly the same size as the entire banking system of Britain, the world’s fifth-largest economy.

In certain areas — including mortgages, auto lending and some business loans — shadow banks have eclipsed traditional banks, which have spent much of the last decade pulling back on lending in the face of stricter regulatory standards aimed at keeping them out of trouble.

But new problems arise when the industry depends on lenders that compete aggressively, operate with less of a cushion against losses and have fewer regulations to keep them from taking on too much risk. Recently, a chorus of industry officials and policymakers — including the Federal Reserve chair, Jerome H. Powell, last month — have started to signal that they’re watching the growth of riskier lending by these non-banks.

“We decided to regulate the banks, hoping for a more stable financial system, which doesn’t take as many risks,” said Amit Seru, a professor of finance at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. “Where the banks retreated, shadow banks stepped in.”

With roughly 50 million residential properties, and $10 trillion in amassed debt, the American mortgage market is the largest source of consumer lending on earth.

Lately, that lending is coming from companies like Quicken Loans, loanDepot and Caliber Home Loans. Between 2009 and 2018, the share of mortgage loans made by these businesses and others like them soared from 9 percent to more than 52 percent, according to Inside Mortgage Finance, a trade publication.

Is this a good thing? If you’re trying to buy a home, probably. These lenders are competitive and willing to lend to borrowers with slightly lower credit scores or higher levels of debt compared to their income.

They also have invested in some sophisticated technology. Just ask Andrew Downey, a 24-year-old marketing manager in New Jersey who is buying a two-bedroom condo. To finance the purchase, he plugged his information into LendingTree.com, and Quicken Loans, the largest non-bank mortgage lender by loans originated, called him almost immediately.

“I’m not even exaggerating,” he said. “I think they called me like 10 or 15 seconds after my information was in there.”

Quicken eventually offered him a rate of 3.875 percent with 15 percent down on a conventional 30-year fixed-rate mortgage of roughly $185,000. Eventually he found an even better offer, 3.625 percent, from the California-based lender PennyMac, also not a bank.

“I really didn’t reach out to any banks,” said Mr. Downey, who expects to close on his condo in Union, N.J., this month.

The downside of all this? Because these entities aren’t regulated like banks, it’s unclear how much capital — the cushion of non-borrowed money the companies operate with — they have.

If they don’t have enough, it makes them less able to survive a significant slide in the economy and the housing market.

While they don’t have a nationwide regulator that ensures safety and soundness like banks do, the non-banks say that they are monitored by a range of government entities, from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to state regulators.

They also follow guidelines from the government-sponsored entities that are intended to support homeownership, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy their loans.

“Our mission, I think, is to lend to people properly and responsibly, following the guidelines established by the particular agency that we’re selling mortgages to,” said Jay Farner, chief executive of Quicken Loans.

It’s not just mortgages. Wall Street has revived and revamped the pre-crisis financial assembly line that packaged together risky loans and turned those bundles into seemingly safe investments.

This time, the assembly line is pumping out something called collateralized loan obligations, or C.L.O.s. These are essentially a kind of bond cobbled together from packages of loans — known as leveraged loans — made to companies that are already pretty heavily in debt. These jumbles of loans are then chopped up and structured, so that investors can choose the risks they’re willing to take and the returns they’re aiming for.

If that sounds somewhat familiar, it might be because a similar system of securitization of subprime mortgages went haywire during the housing bust, saddling some investors with heavy losses from instruments they didn’t understand.

If investors have any concerns about a replay in the C.L.O. market, they’re hiding it fairly well. Money has poured in over the last few years as the Federal Reserve lifted interest rates. (C.L.O.s buy mostly loans with floating interest rates, which fare better than most fixed-rate bonds when interest rates rise.)

Still, there are plenty of people who think that C.L.O.s and the leveraged loans that they buy are a potential trouble spot that bears watching.

For one thing, those loans are increasingly made without the kinds of protections that restrict activities like paying out dividends to owners, or taking out additional borrowing, without a lender’s approval.

Roughly 80 percent of the leveraged loan market lacks such protections, up from less than 10 percent more than a decade ago. That means lenders will be less protected if defaults pick up steam.

For now, such defaults remain quite low. But there are early indications that when the economy eventually does slow, and defaults increase, investors who expect to be protected by the collateral on their loan could be in for a nasty surprise.

In recent weeks, warnings about the market for C.L.O.s and leveraged loans have been multiplying. Last month, Mr. Powell said the Fed was closely monitoring the buildup of risky business debt, and the ratings agency Moody’s noted this month that a record number of companies borrowing in the loan markets had received highly speculative ratings that reflected “fragile business models and a high degree of financial risk.”

Leveraged loans are risky, but some companies are seen as even too rickety, or too small, to borrow in that market.

Not to worry. There’s a place for them to turn as well, and they’re called Business Development Companies, or B.D.C.s.

They’ve been around since the 1980s, after Congress changed the laws to encourage lending to small and midsize companies that couldn’t get funding from banks.

But B.D.C.s aren’t charities. They’re essentially a kind of investment fund.

And they appeal to investors because of the high interest rates they charge.

Their borrowers are companies like Pelican Products, a maker of cellphone and protective cases in California, which paid an interest rate of 10.23 percent to its B.D.C. lender, a rate that reflects its high risk and low credit ratings.

For investors, an added appeal is that the B.D.C.s don’t have to pay corporate taxes as long as they pay 90 percent of their income to shareholders. Shareholders eventually pay tax on that income, but in a tax-deferred retirement account like an individual retirement account, the structure can amplify gains over time.

So, naturally, B.D.C. assets have grown fast, jumping from roughly $10 billion in 2005 to more than $100 billion last year, according to data from Wells Fargo Securities and Refinitiv, a financial data provider.

Some analysts argue that risks embedded in B.D.C.s also can be hard to understand. Because B.D.C.s own loans in small companies that aren’t always widely held or traded, there are often no public market prices available to use to benchmark the fund’s investments.

B.D.C.s have also been increasing leverage to bolster returns. It means they’re using more borrowed money, to make these loans to high-risk borrowers. That strategy can supercharge returns during good times, but it can also make losses that much deeper when things take a turn for the worse.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Anger at Big Tech Unites Noodle Pullers and Code Writers. Washington Is All Ears.

SAN FRANCISCO — Oracle and the Handpulled Noodle would seem to have little in common. One is a multibillion-dollar software company in Silicon Valley with tens of thousands of employees all over the world. The other is a small Harlem spot that serves Chinese comfort food and is known for its tasty dumplings.

But they both say Google is unfairly hurting their businesses, and they have a new audience in Washington eager to hear about it.

After years of showing little interest, Congress and regulators at the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department plan to scrutinize the power, influence and market dominance of Google, as well as fellow tech giants Amazon, Apple and Facebook.

“Obviously there is something going on in terms of monopoly,” President Trump said about large tech companies in an interview on CNBC on Monday.

Scores of other tech companies and critics, as varied as software firms and shoemakers or musicians and newspapers, have stewed for years over how, they say, some of the biggest tech firms have used their power and scale to bully them and upend their businesses.

The government is listening.

“We’re in the moment where regulators hang a shingle and say, ‘We’re open,’” said Luther Lowe, the policy chief at the reviews site Yelp and the loudest antitrust antagonist against Google. “The dozens of companies who have been quietly venting in Silicon Valley can begin to form a single-file line around the D.O.J.”

Google, Apple and the other tech giants have pushed back vigorously against the idea that they act anticompetitively. They say that they compete with a broad array of firms — not just online companies — and that their services enable the growth of many small and large businesses. The big tech companies have assembled large teams of lobbyists to make their case.

But when the F.T.C. asked for comments last year on whether the modern economy required a new approach to consumer protection and competition, the commission received more than 750 letters, many targeting the tech companies.

The Retail Industry Leaders Association, the lobbying group that represents Walmart, Target, Home Depot and other major retailers, complained that the internet was now at the center of consumers’ decision-making and “controlled by a relatively small number of highly influential firms.”

Sixteen advocacy groups and think tanks jointly wrote a manifesto that argued for tough antitrust enforcement against the tech giants, accusing them of a wide variety of misbehavior, including mishandling people’s data, crippling small retailers or causing internet addiction.

And the Handpulled Noodle, echoing complaints from other small businesses, told the F.T.C. that Google sold ads on its listing in search results. The ads direct customers to delivery apps that charge steep fees and cut into the restaurant’s already thin profit margins.

“As a small business, it’s like David versus Goliath,” said Andrew Ding, the owner of the Handpulled Noodle. The shop’s Google listing is how most customers find his restaurant, yet, he said, he has no control over how his business is represented. There is no way for him to get rid of the ad next to the Google listing.

“Google is it,” Mr. Ding said in an interview. “I would love for small business owners that don’t have the clout or the influence to have more say about how their business is represented.”

Google said it allowed companies to place ads next to the listings of other businesses to give users more options.

The Justice Department is examining complaints against Google and Apple, while the F.T.C. will handle antitrust issues related to Facebook and Amazon. Last week, the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust also announced plans for an investigation into whether the tech companies stifled competition and hurt consumers. The first hearing is scheduled for Tuesday.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_156037161_4259e304-b1f0-4979-ac6a-7dfcf2af6c2c-articleLarge Anger at Big Tech Unites Noodle Pullers and Code Writers. Washington Is All Ears. YouTube.com yelp Social Media Small Business Shopping and Retail Search Engines Regulation and Deregulation of Industry Online Advertising News and News Media Music Lowe, Luther Justice Department Google Inc Federal Trade Commission Facebook Inc European Commission Europe E-Commerce Computers and the Internet Cash, Rosanne AppNexus Apple Inc Antitrust Laws and Competition Issues Amazon.com Inc

From left, Angela Hooks, a public policy associate at Yelp; Luther Lowe, its vice president of public policy; and Laurent Crenshaw, director of public policy. Yelp has long been an antitrust antagonist of Google.CreditT.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York Times

In Europe, the authorities have been far tougher on the four tech giants. They have imposed about $9.3 billion (8.2 billion euros) in fines against Google in three separate antitrust cases since 2017. They concluded that Google had forced phone makers to preinstall its apps, favored its own services over rivals in search results and imposed unfair terms on companies that use its search services.

In his interview on Monday on CNBC, Mr. Trump said European regulators saw “easy money” in imposing large fines against American firms. “They are actually attacking our companies, but we should be doing what they are doing,” he said.

News Corporation and Axel Springer, the biggest German publisher, have voiced concerns to European regulators about the influence of Google and Facebook over the news business.

The publishers lobbied heavily for a new European Union-wide copyright law, passed in March, requiring that large internet platforms pay a license for content shared on services like Google News.

Oracle and Yelp have also taken their complaints to Europe. Ken Glueck, Oracle’s executive vice president and policy chief, said that Google’s dominance of the market underpinning online ads had enabled it to stifle competition, including from Oracle.

“We’d like to be bigger. But when you have one party who dominates the space and is acting with exclusionary conduct, that affects the market,” Mr. Glueck said.

There is a bit of a revenge back story to Oracle’s complaints about Google: The two companies have been locked in a nine-year legal battle with billions of dollars at stake.

Yelp contends that Google favors its own services over rivals in search results in both Europe and the United States, even when the Google content is lower quality or less relevant. Google has said it tries to give people quick answers to their questions instead of sending them to another site.

In 2013, the F.T.C. closed an investigation into Google’s search practices after the company agreed to some narrow changes.

“For so many years, U.S. companies were having to seek relief abroad because our own enforcement agencies weren’t critically examining the questionable behavior of large firms like Google,” Yelp’s Mr. Lowe said.

The European Commission also opened an investigation of Amazon last September and has received informal complaints from eBay and the European e-commerce site Zalando, according to a person involved in the discussions who was not authorized to disclose them.

A central argument against the tech giants is that other companies must use their platforms because that’s where their customers are. With that leverage, the argument goes, the tech giants force terms on other companies that are unfair and deepen their dominant positions.

Apple makes developers use its App Store to distribute their apps on iPhones and collects up to 30 percent of revenue made through activity inside the app. Spotify recently argued to European competition authorities that Apple used its App Store to punish Spotify’s app and favor Apple’s competing service.

Apple has said that it welcomes competition and that it has long helped Spotify reach customers. The only time it has requested changes to Spotify’s app is when it “tried to sidestep the same rules that every other app follows,” Apple said in a statement in March. Spotify had directed customers to pay it directly so Apple wouldn’t get a cut.

News publishers rely on Google and Facebook to send readers their way. But publishers say that to appear high on those sites, they are encouraged by both companies to use technologies that make Google and Facebook, instead of the news sites themselves, destinations for news. Google and Facebook also dominate the digital-advertising market, the publishers say, squeezing one of their main revenue streams.

Google and Facebook said they competed for ad dollars with a wide range of online and offline platforms, including television, radio, newspapers and billboards. Both said their technologies helped news publishers increase ad revenue.

Google in recent years dropped an effective requirement for publishers to make their news free via Google search results, and introduced a program to help news sites increase subscriptions.

A Facebook spokeswoman said the company was working on products and training to help news outlets make more money from their articles on Facebook and had committed $300 million in the next three years to support local news.

The singer-songwriter Rosanne Cash is co-chairwoman of the Artist Rights Alliance, an advocacy group for musicians and songwriters.CreditRuby Washington/The New York Times

Musicians say they must put their songs on YouTube, which is owned by Google, to reach fans, but YouTube pays below-market royalty rates. “Hopefully, these investigations drive real change to make sure fans, songwriters and artists all get a fair shake,” said Rosanne Cash, the singer-songwriter who is co-chairwoman of the Artist Rights Alliance, an advocacy group for musicians and songwriters.

Google has said YouTube helps artists reach new audiences and get paid, at the same royalty rates as Spotify.

Some companies that sell goods on Amazon have argued that they have to be on its site to reach customers. Yet they fret that Amazon can use data about their sales to develop its own competing products. The trade group for major shoe brands, including Nike, Crocs and Dr. Martens, asked the F.T.C. to look into the “dual role” of platforms like Amazon.

An Amazon executive, Jeff Wilke, said at an event last week that those in-house brands were “a tiny fraction” of Amazon sales. “We do not allow anyone inside Amazon to have access to individual sellers’ data in order to build a private-label product,” he said.

A Senate hearing last month offered a preview of the potential drama to come in Washington.

Brian O’Kelley, founder of an ad-technology company called AppNexus, testified that in 2008 he invented an automated bidding system for advertisers that “turned every ad on the internet into a real-time auction.” AppNexus grew to 600 employees.

“Google’s response to the threat from AppNexus was that of a classic monopolist,” he said. Google told AppNexus clients that they would need to also use Google’s ad technology if they wanted to serve ads on YouTube, he testified.

AppNexus’s business slumped, and it laid off 100 employees in 2016. AT&T bought it last year.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

A Tech Giant Hurt Your Business? Take a Number

SAN FRANCISCO — Oracle and the Handpulled Noodle would seem to have little in common. One is a multibillion-dollar software company in Silicon Valley with tens of thousands of employees all over the world. The other is a small Harlem spot that serves Chinese comfort food and is known for its tasty dumplings.

But they both say Google is unfairly hurting their businesses, and they have a new audience in Washington eager to hear about it.

After years of showing little interest, Congress and regulators at the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department plan to scrutinize the power, influence and market dominance of Google, as well as fellow tech giants Amazon, Apple and Facebook.

“Obviously there is something going on in terms of monopoly,” President Trump said about large tech companies in an interview on CNBC on Monday.

Scores of other tech companies and critics, as varied as software firms and shoemakers or musicians and newspapers, have stewed for years over how, they say, some of the biggest tech firms have used their power and scale to bully them and upend their businesses.

The government is finally listening.

“We’re in the moment where regulators hang a shingle and say, ‘we’re open,’” said Luther Lowe, the policy chief at the reviews site Yelp and the loudest antitrust antagonist against Google. “The dozens of companies who have been quietly venting in Silicon Valley can begin to form a single-file line around the D.O.J.”

The venting goes well beyond Silicon Valley. When the F.T.C. asked for comments last year on whether the modern economy required a new approach to consumer protection and competition, the commission received more than 750 letters, many targeting the big tech companies.

The Retail Industry Leaders Association, the lobbying group that represents Walmart, Target, Home Depot and other major retailers, complained that the internet was now at the center of consumers’ decision-making and “controlled by a relatively small number of highly influential firms.”

Sixteen advocacy groups and think tanks jointly wrote a manifesto that argued for tough antitrust enforcement against the tech giants, accusing them of a wide swath of misbehavior, including mishandling people’s data, crippling small retailers or causing internet addiction.

And the Handpulled Noodle, echoing complaints from other small businesses, told the F.T.C. that Google sells ads on its listing in search results. The ads direct customers to delivery apps that charge steep fees and cut into the restaurant’s already thin profit margins.

“As a small business, it’s like David versus Goliath,” said Andrew Ding, the owner of the Handpulled Noodle. The shop’s Google listing is how most customers find his restaurant, yet, he said, he has no control over how his business is represented. There is no way for him to get rid of the ad next to the Google listing.

“Google is it,” Mr. Ding said in an interview. “I would love for small business owners that don’t have the clout or the influence to have more say about how their business is represented.”

Google said it allowed companies to place ads next to the listings of other businesses to give users more options.

The Justice Department is examining complaints against Google and Apple, while the F.T.C. will handle antitrust issues related to Facebook and Amazon. Last week, the House Judiciary’s subcommittee on antitrust also announced plans for an investigation into whether the tech companies stifled competition and hurt consumers. The first hearing is scheduled for Tuesday.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_156037161_4259e304-b1f0-4979-ac6a-7dfcf2af6c2c-articleLarge A Tech Giant Hurt Your Business? Take a Number YouTube.com yelp Social Media Small Business Shopping and Retail Search Engines Regulation and Deregulation of Industry Online Advertising News and News Media Music Lowe, Luther Justice Department Google Inc Federal Trade Commission Facebook Inc European Commission Europe E-Commerce Computers and the Internet Cash, Rosanne AppNexus Apple Inc Antitrust Laws and Competition Issues Amazon.com Inc

From left, Angela Hooks, a public policy associate at the reviews site Yelp; Luther Lowe, the vice president of public policy; and Laurent Crenshaw, director of public policy. Yelp has long been an antitrust antagonist of Google. Now, Mr. Lowe said, “Dozens of companies who have been quietly venting in Silicon Valley can begin to form a single-file line around the D.O.J.”CreditT.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York Times

In Europe, the authorities have been far tougher on the four tech giants. They have imposed about $9.3 billion (8.2 billion euros) in fines against Google in three separate antitrust cases since 2017. They concluded that Google had forced phone makers to preinstall its apps, favored its own services over rivals in search results, and imposed unfair terms on companies that use its search services.

In his interview on Monday on CNBC, Mr. Trump said European regulators saw “easy money” in levying large fines against American firms. “They are actually attacking our companies, but we should be doing what they are doing,” he said.

News Corp and Axel Springer, the biggest German publisher, have voiced concerns to European regulators about the influence of Google and Facebook over the news business.

The publishers lobbied heavily for a new European Union-wide copyright law, passed in March, requiring that large internet platforms pay a license for content shared on services like Google News.

Oracle and Yelp have also taken their complaints to Europe. Ken Glueck, Oracle’s executive vice president and policy chief, said that Google’s dominance of the market underpinning online ads had enabled it to stifle competition, including from Oracle.

“We’d like to be bigger. But when you have one party who dominates the space and is acting with exclusionary conduct, that affects the market,” Mr. Glueck said.

There is a bit of a revenge back story to Oracle’s complaints about Google: The two companies have been locked in a nine-year patent battle with billions of dollars at stake.

Yelp contends that Google favors its own services over rivals in search results in both Europe and the United States, even when the Google content is lower quality or less relevant. Google has said it tries to give people quick answers to their questions instead of sending them to another site.

In 2013, the F.T.C. closed an investigation into Google’s search practices after the company agreed to some narrow changes.

“For so many years, U.S. companies were having to seek relief abroad because our own enforcement agencies weren’t critically examining the questionable behavior of large firms like Google,” Yelp’s Mr. Lowe said.

The European Commission also opened an investigation of Amazon last September and has received informal complaints from eBay and the European e-commerce site Zalando, according to a person involved in the discussions who was not authorized to disclose them.

A central argument against the tech giants is that other companies must use their platforms because that’s where their customers are. With that leverage, the argument goes, the tech giants force terms on other companies that are unfair and deepen their dominant positions.

Apple makes developers use its App Store to distribute their apps on iPhones and collects up to 30 percent of revenue made through activity inside the app. Spotify recently argued to European competition authorities that Apple used its App Store to punish Spotify’s app and favor Apple’s competing service.

Apple has said that it welcomes competition and that it has long helped Spotify reach customers. The only time it has requested changes to Spotify’s app is when it “tried to sidestep the same rules that every other app follows,” Apple said in a statement in March. Spotify had directed customers to pay it directly so Apple wouldn’t get a cut.

News publishers rely on Google and Facebook to send readers their way. But to appear high on those sites, the publishers have said both companies have encouraged them to use technologies that make Google and Facebook destinations for news instead of the news sites themselves. Google and Facebook also dominate the digital-advertising market, the publishers say, squeezing one of their main revenue streams.

Google and Facebook said they competed for ad dollars with a wide range of online and offline platforms, including television, radio, newspapers and billboards. Both said their technologies helped news publishers increase ad revenue.

Google in recent years dropped an effective requirement for publishers to make their news free via Google search results, and introduced a program to help news sites increase subscriptions.

A Facebook spokeswoman said the company was working on products and training to help news outlets make more money from their articles on Facebook and has committed $300 million in the next three years to support local news.

The singer-songwriter Roseanne Cash is co-chairwoman of the Artist Rights Alliance, an advocacy group for musicians and songwriters.CreditRuby Washington/The New York Times

Musicians say they must put their songs on YouTube, which is owned by Google, to reach fans, but YouTube pays below-market royalty rates. “Hopefully, these investigations drive real change to make sure fans, songwriters and artists all get a fair shake,” said Rosanne Cash, the singer-songwriter who is co-chairwoman of the Artist Rights Alliance, an advocacy group for musicians and songwriters.

Google has said YouTube helps artists reach new audiences and get paid, at the same royalty rates as Spotify.

Some companies that sell goods on Amazon have argued that they have to be on its site to reach customers. Yet they fret that Amazon can use data about their sales to develop its own competing products. The trade group for major shoe brands, including Nike, Crocs and Dr. Martens, asked the F.T.C. to look into the “dual role” of platforms like Amazon.

An Amazon executive, Jeff Wilke, said at an event last week that those in-house brands were “a tiny fraction” of Amazon sales. “We do not allow anyone inside Amazon to have access to individual sellers’ data in order to build a private-label product,” he said.

A Senate hearing last month offered a preview of the potential drama to come in Washington.

Brian O’Kelley, founder of an ad-technology company called AppNexus, testified that in 2008 he invented an automated bidding system for advertisers that “turned every ad on the internet into a real-time auction.” AppNexus grew to 600 employees.

“Google’s response to the threat from AppNexus was that of a classic monopolist,” he said. Google told AppNexus clients that they would need to also use Google’s ad technology if they wanted to serve ads on YouTube, he testified.

AppNexus’s business slumped and it laid off 100 employees in 2016. AT&T bought it last year.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Labor Dept. Says Workers at a Gig Company Are Contractors

Westlake Legal Group labor-dept-says-workers-at-a-gig-company-are-contractors Labor Dept. Says Workers at a Gig Company Are Contractors Wages and Salaries Uber Technologies Inc Small Business Lyft Inc Labor Department (US) Labor and Jobs Freelancing, Self-Employment and Independent Contracting Car Services and Livery Cabs
Westlake Legal Group 29gig2-facebookJumbo Labor Dept. Says Workers at a Gig Company Are Contractors Wages and Salaries Uber Technologies Inc Small Business Lyft Inc Labor Department (US) Labor and Jobs Freelancing, Self-Employment and Independent Contracting Car Services and Livery Cabs

The Labor Department weighed in Monday on a question whose answer could be worth billions of dollars to gig-economy companies as they begin selling shares to the public: Are their workers employees or contractors?

The department said people finding work through a particular unnamed company were contractors, not employees, meaning that the company does not have to pay them the federal minimum wage or overtime, or pay a share of Social Security taxes.

Industry officials estimate that requiring gig companies to classify their workers as employees would raise their labor costs by 20 to 30 percent.

The letter provides further evidence that the Trump administration is departing from the approach of its predecessor on such questions. Under the Obama administration, the Labor Department issued guidance suggesting that gig workers like drivers for Uber and Lyft were likely to be employees, a stand the department rescinded several months after Mr. Trump took office.

“Today, the U.S. Department of Labor offers further insight into the nexus of current labor law and innovations in the job market,” Keith Sonderling, acting administrator of the division that oversees such issues, said in a statement on Monday. The department did not respond to questions about the timing of the letter. Under longstanding policy, it does not disclose the names of companies receiving such letters.

Unlike the broad guidance the Obama administration issued, the action announced Monday took the form of an “opinion letter” applying only to the company that sought it. But other businesses in the industry tend to parse such letters closely for insight into the department’s approach. And the letters have more practical legal force than departmental guidance for the company in question. They are often referred to as “get-out-of-jail free cards” because they mean that the Labor Department won’t initiate enforcement proceedings against a company with a favorable letter.

The letter can also provide a powerful defense to the company if workers sue it or initiate arbitration proceedings to resolve allegations of improper classification.

“There are few more contentious issues currently than the status of workers operating on platform-type business models,” said David Weil, the administrator who issued the guidance under Mr. Obama and is now dean of the Heller School at Brandeis University. “It is outrageous for the Department of Labor to set policy in such an important area through the device of an opinion letter. The Obama administration discontinued opinion letters precisely because they are a capricious tools for settling complicated regulatory questions.”

Based on the description in the opinion letter, the company that sought it does not appear to be Lyft, which went public in March, or Uber, which plans to go public in the coming weeks.

But the letter could nonetheless have important implications for these companies. Uber, in its filing for a public offering, told prospective investors that having to classify drivers as employers would cause it to “incur significant additional expenses” and “require us to fundamentally change our business model, and consequently have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition.”

Lyft has made similar statements.

Sharon Block, a former top official in the Obama Labor Department who is executive director of the Labor and Worklife Program at Harvard Law School, said it was hard to tell from the facts the Labor Department chose to include in its letter whether the workers using the platform in question were truly independent contractors. But she said there seemed to be a stronger case to make for contractor status in that case than for Uber.

Still, she speculated that the finding could be procedurally useful for the department if it later sought to deem Uber drivers to be independent contractors.

“This as a strategy makes sense,” Ms. Block said. “They set the standard in a way that makes it really clear this company gets past it, and in a way that’s going to help them in the harder cases.”

The department could subsequently argue, in effect, that Uber’s business model largely overlaps with the business model of the company in question, and conclude that its workers are contractors as well.

Uber did not respond to a request for comment, and Lyft said it had no immediate comment.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

With Brexit Delayed, British Businesses Say: Enough Already

When will it be over?

That was the collective response from many British businesses on Thursday after the European Union extended the deadline for the country’s departure from the bloc until Oct. 31, warding off a chaotic crash on Friday.

The extension, giving the government an additional six months to come to an agreement over the terms of its divorce, puts off the prospect of a no-deal Brexit and the expected devastating hit to the economy.

But even as the immediate pressure abated, businesses pleaded with politicians to come to an agreement swiftly and avoid being in the same position six months down the line.

Despite the uncertainty, the British economy grew by 0.3 percent in the three months ending in February, according to numbers from the Office for National Statistics released this week. But some of the activity may have been a result of frantic preparations to leave the European Union, and economists warned that Brexit could slow growth further.

For many of the larger businesses, Brexit has already happened. Banks have already set up shop overseas to continue serving their customers on the Continent. Carmakers have scrapped plans to develop more cars within the country.

And those who could afford to prepare for a no-deal separation will continue to do so, said the Confederation of British Industry, a business organization representing about 190,000 companies.

Food retailers will be focused on how to get perishable food into the country if Britain does leave at the end of October. Britain imports a higher proportion of its food in the cooler months, so the new date would come as sales of homegrown food would be slowing and imports ramping up in anticipation of Christmas.

“The end of October presents many of the same challenges that we had in March in terms of importing foods and a high reliance on the E.U. at that point,” Tom Holder, a spokesman for the British Retail Consortium, said.

Many companies, particularly small ones, have not had the spare cash or staffing to prepare for a potential overnight change in operating conditions, and have been simply hoping that a catastrophic no-deal would not happen. Now that the worst-case scenario has been put off, businesses of all sizes are still pleading for Parliament to give them clarity before the economy slows.

An extension to the negotiations “comes with costs and uncertainty,” Josh Hardie, the deputy director-general of the Confederation of British Industry, said in an interview. Businesses “place their bets on other countries” if Britain is no longer perceived as a gateway to Europe.

“That’s already happening — it’s not something that will just happen with Brexit,” he said.

Roni Savage, the director at Jomas Associates, an engineering consulting firm with 15 employees, has already seen the knock-on effect of the Brexit impasse.

Her firm surveys ground conditions for construction companies. Half of her construction clients, she said, have started slowing new projects, like housing, because it is not clear whether demand will hold up after Brexit.

“We get affected very quickly by issues with the economy, and Brexit is a huge one,” Ms. Savage said.

“It’s a nightmare,” she added. “I’m really saddened by having another extension, having to wait for longer. We’ll all be hoping to get this over soon.”

Farmers expressed the same concerns.

“We have crops and livestock in fields, with farmers and growers still in the dark about what trading environment they will be operating in, whether they will have access to a sufficient work force to carry out essential roles this season, or what the U.K.’s future domestic agricultural policy will look like,” Minette Batters, the president of the National Farmers’ Union, said in a statement.

Even an extension and a withdrawal agreement would be only the beginning of negotiations over Britain’s future relationship with the European Union, said Tim Durrant, a senior researcher at the Institute for Government, a think tank. “We’re in the long haul for Brexit, I’m afraid.”

The Federation of Small Businesses was blunt in its assessment of this prospect on Thursday: “Unless we get a political consensus, all a further extension does is create even more uncertainty, which is driving small firms to despair,” Mike Cherry, the national chairman, said in a statement.

About 60 percent of employees at private companies in Britain work at small and medium-size firms, or those with up to 250 employees.

“Lots of small businesses are in wait-and-see mode, and it’s not sustainable for that to go on indefinitely,” Alan Soady, a federation spokesman, said in an interview. “They will need time to adapt to whatever future trading conditions will be.”

In southwest London, Lars Andersen, the chief executive of My Nametags, a company of about 15 people that prints labels for children’s belongings, may have to open an office in the Netherlands if he is to maintain sales, 40 percent of which go to the European Union.

Like others, he was momentarily relieved, but he fretted about the prospect of waiting another six months to know whether he might have to set up shop in another country.

“We just have to be ready to jump, and that’s a bit scary,” he said.

He has been grappling with the issue for so long, he added, that Brexit is starting to feel “a bit like when you go to the dentist for a long operation.”

“Initially, you have all this adrenaline, and then you just hope it will finish.”

Post-Brexit Britain
Many sectors are already having dealing with Brexit issues.
For Many British Businesses, Brexit Has Already Happened

April 1, 2019

Westlake Legal Group 00BREXITHAPPENED-1-threeByTwoSmallAt2X With Brexit Delayed, British Businesses Say: Enough Already Small Business Shopping and Retail Great Britain Withdrawal from EU (Brexit) Great Britain European Union Confederation of British Industry
The Post-Brexit Food Chain: ‘This Is Really, Really Scary’

Jan. 30, 2019

Westlake Legal Group 30HUNGRYBREXIT-threeByTwoSmallAt2X With Brexit Delayed, British Businesses Say: Enough Already Small Business Shopping and Retail Great Britain Withdrawal from EU (Brexit) Great Britain European Union Confederation of British Industry
For Wall Street Banks in London, It’s Moving Time

Feb. 17, 2019

Westlake Legal Group 00BREXITBANKS-2-threeByTwoSmallAt2X-v4 With Brexit Delayed, British Businesses Say: Enough Already Small Business Shopping and Retail Great Britain Withdrawal from EU (Brexit) Great Britain European Union Confederation of British Industry
U.K. Auto Industry Already Feeling the Brexit Pinch

Jan. 31, 2019

Westlake Legal Group merlin_148972788_85529978-7748-4f73-a45d-857fe268487c-threeByTwoSmallAt2X With Brexit Delayed, British Businesses Say: Enough Already Small Business Shopping and Retail Great Britain Withdrawal from EU (Brexit) Great Britain European Union Confederation of British Industry

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com