GE Capital Cuts Off Financing To Gun Stores

reply to post by Rocker2013


Agreed 100%, and we as consumers have the right to not only refuse to purchase GE products and services but to expand that to the companies that use GE Capital for their consumer financing. More importantly though is letting those businesses know that one of the reasons you chose a competitor's product instead of them is their relationship with GE. For example, I'm probably going to have to buy a new lawn mower sometime either this summer or next. When I buy one, I'm going to send a copy of my receipt to both Husqvarna and Toro saying that I really like their products but decided on a competitor due to their relationship with GE. Just me doing that doesn't mean much, but the more people that let these businesses with relationships with GE know that you are not only not doing business with GE but with them because of GE's policy in this matter the better. Many people, especially homeowners, will be purchasing some product or another that the companies on the list I posted above offer.

I'm not a huge GE fan to begin with, but between '08-09 and now this I refuse to spend my money on their products or services I can get somewhere else or with those that use GE Capital as their consumer finance arm.

Originally posted by jefwane
I'm not a huge GE fan to begin with, but between '08-09 and now this I refuse to spend my money on their products or services I can get somewhere else or with those that use GE Capital as their consumer finance arm.

I like it when people take a stand like this, good on you.

But I do wonder how many of those who plan to are the same people who bitched about people boycotting a certain fast food outlet for funding anti-gay groups?
I recall a lot of conservatives on ATS back then screaming about how pathetic it was for people to be boycotting them, and that the company had a right to support anything it deemed morally right. I can guarantee a lot of those people are now being complete hypocrites and doing exactly the same to GE for their own reasons

Like I said though, I like it when people take the power they have and use it. It sometimes works, but with a company as massive as GE, with fingers in all kinds of pies, you'll find it almost impossible to boycott them.

If you've seen any data charts of the connections they have to companies and the smaller brands they own, you would have to spend weeks on each shopping trip to make sure you didn't buy something they have a hand in making or delivering. GE is one of the biggest corporations on the planet, it owns hundreds if not thousands of other companies and creates products that millions of Americans use every day.

Good luck, you're gonna need it!

Good luck, you're gonna need it!

Indeed.

Might as well add in any company that does business with BofA, Wells Fargo or Citi... They don't offer financing to gun retailers either.

But then forget about ever purchasing anything ever again.

GE is one of the biggest manufacturers of weapons in the world, and they are one of the largest benefactors of the Military Industrial Complex. Their financing arm, GE Capital, has decided to stop financing gun manufacturers. This is one of the most hypocritical things I have ever seen.... guns and ammo for the globalist machine, but the little peasant surfs get nothing. They are showing their true colors.... this is the very definition of Fascism... Government and Corporations working together to achieve a political end.

This was strictly a business decision based on reputation risk. Banks and lenders in general classify industries according to the level of risk associated with that particular industry.

For example, banks typically have strict credit requirements for certain industries. Some industries are completely restricted, and bank loan officers cannot lend to these businesses in these sectors whatsoever. Other industries are somewhere in the middle - Banks will lend to them under only special circumstances and conditions.

For most banks, gun retailers are a restricted industry. The reputation risk is too high. Banks and lenders don't want to be associated with high risk industries that are perceived by the public in a negative light. So, for example, banks are restricted from lending to the "adult' industry. Any businesses in this sector have to raise funds via private investors, not from the banking system.

Banks do not want to lend to these businesses because the reputation risk - i.e., the perception of the shareholders, depositors, and the public in general - is considered to far outweigh any potential financial upside.

These are strictly business decisions, and GE has every right to pick and choose to whom they want to lend money.

From a profit perspective, GE probably can divert these same loan funds to other industries that are more profitable, such as healthcare, that do not have the same reputation risk.

Let me add one more comment regarding reputation risk: The hypocrisy of some of the posters here on this forum that bash GE are the same folks that will cry foul if GE were to provide capital to a gun dealer that is later found to be providing guns to criminals, gun smuggling, or some other illicit activity. "Why did GE fund this gun dealer?" they will say, and bash GE to smithereens for providing capital to said gun dealer.

All in all, GE's decision is a sound business decision from any angle.

reply to post by CookieMonster09


Stop bringing logic into threads... No room for that kind of nonsense here.

reply to post by Zarniwoop

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
GE is publicly traded.

So what? There are alot of companies that are publicly traded, News Corp is one of them, Exxon Mobile is another one. What's your point?

They still feel more strongly about money than they do guns...

Probably. Maybe they don't see their association with gun stores as a positive thing for business, what other explanation could there be? And if the gun stores and their supporters don't like it, there are plenty of other lenders to go by.

Originally posted by MadDogtheHunter
I'm not surprised, considering the public spectacle made by Obama and the GE Chairman about their "friendship" and "partnership" a few years back. Obama needed someone to pour more gas on the gun rights failure he recently experienced. You know, get us one way or another.

edit on 4/25/2013 by MadDogtheHunter because: (no reason given)

There's even more to the Obama/GE alliance. They are a big funder of grants for the Common Core Standards program being implemented by the Obama administration and Bill Gates has put 5 billion of his own money to promote it.

GE is definitely in the thick of the globalist planning.

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
Banks do not want to lend to these businesses because the reputation risk - i.e., the perception of the shareholders, depositors, and the public in general - is considered to far outweigh any potential financial upside.

This is something that a lot of people really don't take into account. Basically, they don't understand business. No matter what your personal beliefs are, or those of your employees, a real business does what is best for the business first ad foremost. There are even legal requirements to do this in the case of larger corporate identities and a CEO could end up in court if they made a moral decision that adversely affected the company.

These large companies and corporations can afford to run analysis on public sentiment, and they can afford to spend millions on risk assessments to decide what public stance to take on an issue. You can bet that GE has spent some money working out which would be the most profitable, the most stable, and the most competitive position to take. They wouldn't have just simply done this because someone at the top doesn't like guns.

So, I would suggest that they have checked this out, and come to the conclusion that their decision is not going to harm business in any real way. And I would agree. Even if the entire membership of the NRA boycotted GE, it probably wouldn't do anything to them.

As a good comparison, Chick fil A made a terrible business decision on religious grounds and not in the interests of their business. They clearly didn't think about the public sentiment, actively going against the changing public opinion and alienating themselves from communities in which they operate. They are not a B2B, they are selling to the public, and they made a decision on a divisive subject without considering the effect that would have on their business.

That's not the kind of mistake a proper business (or professional business person) makes. If you have a moral stance on something that you know is divisive, you never drag your company into it and risk a backlash from customers. GE hasn't done that, and I don't think any boycott will affect them in the same way it affected other companies.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

So what? There are alot of companies that are publicly traded, News Corp is one of them, Exxon Mobile is another one. What's your point?

I was correcting your error about GE being a private company. Private companies are able to make potentially controversial decisions like this without having to worry about what their shareholders think. I thought that was your point, but I could be wrong.

wow....GE lays off thousands of US workers, moves manufacturing to other countries, built fukishima reactors, lawsuits against it for toxic waste, doesn't pay income tax...........but........cut off gun financing, and NOW YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THEM?!?!...(shakes head)

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by MadDogtheHunter
I'm not surprised, considering the public spectacle made by Obama and the GE Chairman about their "friendship" and "partnership" a few years back. Obama needed someone to pour more gas on the gun rights failure he recently experienced. You know, get us one way or another.

edit on 4/25/2013 by MadDogtheHunter because: (no reason given)

There's even more to the Obama/GE alliance. They are a big funder of grants for the Common Core Standards program being implemented by the Obama administration and Bill Gates has put 5 billion of his own money to promote it.

GE is definitely in the thick of the globalist planning.

Common Core....yet another fine product of illusion from the "O". Totally agree with your point. As I currently fight with my kids' school, me refusing to let the kids take that CC "test/survey". But that's another topic.

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
GE is one of the biggest manufacturers of weapons in the world, and they are one of the largest benefactors of the Military Industrial Complex. Their financing arm, GE Capital, has decided to stop financing gun manufacturers. This is one of the most hypocritical things I have ever seen....

What a joke!

Even over here, there is a GM Defense complex 10 minutes from where I live...

Originally posted by dc4lifeskater
they are idiots.. if they cared about their shareholders then they would not deny loans to certain business's unless they are having high default rates on their loans which doens't seem to be the issue.

There is no evidence that they do care about shareholders. Obviously, it is essential that they pretend to.

This is about the head of GM receiving instructions from someone above him...

reply to post by Zarniwoop

I was correcting your error about GE being a private company. Private companies are able to make potentially controversial decisions like this without having to worry about what their shareholders think.

GE is still a private company owned by private shareholders, just like Newscorp, just like Exxon Mobile, all these companies are publicly traded but they are still private in the sense that they are not government owned, get it? What, are you arguing that the government should intervene? I'm not at all concerned about how they'll have to answer to their shareholders, this is their concern, it's not the governments.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

GE is still a private company owned by private shareholders, just like Newscorp, just like Exxon Mobile, all these companies are publicly traded but they are still private in the sense that they are not government owned, get it?

I suppose... that's not the traditional definition of a private company. That's why I was confused.

What, are you arguing that the government should intervene?

Not at all.

reply to post by Zarniwoop

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
I suppose... that's not the traditional definition of a private company. That's why I was confused.

You're not confused at all. GE has every right to choose who to finance. Their shareholders are private individuals. It's none of the government's business. You clearly understand this.

Not at all.

Then there's no need to debate this further now, is there?