[k3oni]

Came here to say this but you put it better. It's laughable that with all the changes that went in and voting on that bill they left the loophole open for big players to get access to this funding which was directed at small businesses/mom-and-pops shops. But business and shitty politics as usual.

[jlmorton]

To be clear, this was not a loophole, it was a carve out. They specifically and intentionally excepted restaurants and hotels from the affiliation rule. It wasn't a drafting error, it was a clear and purposeful choice.

Personally, I don't have any huge problem with that, I think it makes sense to protect workers at both Ruth's Chris Steak House and a local family-run steak shop, and we should fund the program at the levels necessary to do that.

But I keep hearing the word loophole, including from Congress members. It is not that. This was by design, and it wasn't buried in some dense text. It was an unambiguous exemption in a two page rule. [1]

[1] It may not be perfectly clear to the average reader, but it certainly was clear for the rulemakers at Treasury.

"Waiver. The affiliation rules described above are waived for (1) any business concern with not more than 500 employees that, as of the date on which the loan is disbursed, is assigned a North American Industry Classification System code beginning with 72;"

Businesses with an industry classification code beginning with 72 include all restaurants and hotels.

https://www.sba.gov/document/support--affiliation-rules-payc...

[crispyambulance]

A loophole is a loophole whether it's expressed in obfuscated language or not.

There's a reason why the administration fired Glenn Fine on 4/7 who was the inspector that was supposed to oversee the 2T rescue plan. The administration and their cronies are doing a classical "shock doctrine" move to even further concentrate wealth while the opportunity is hot.

[jlmorton]

I get your point, but loophole has a specific meaning that implies taking advantage of an ambiguity, unexpected complexity, or oversight in drafting to reach an unintended result. This was not unintentional, and I think that's important to say.

[JeremyNT]

The difference between "loophole" and "carveout" here is basically intent.

Occam's razor suggests that, of course, members of a corrupt and self-interested Federal government would intend for their allies at megacorps to have a safe landing, and they would prioritize their wellbeing over others. They look after the people who pay their bills, of course.

[_curious_]

"The administration and their cronies are doing a classical "shock doctrine" move to even further concentrate wealth while the opportunity is hot." Agreed; buckle up folks if there's another four years to come :/

[abnry]

What most people don't understand about hotels, chain restaurants, or any business that runs on the franchise model is that the majority of such outlets are run by small businesses.

McDonalds isn't a burger and fries company, it is a real estate company. This is because they buy the properties each restaurant is located on and rent them out to small business owners who front the capital and run the operation (with stipulations). You may think there are flaws in this setup (which you could argue, though the exchange is a tested business model and logistics network in exchange for franchise fees) but the point is that small business owners are HEAVILY involved in these chain businesses.

It's the same with something like Dunkin Donuts. Here in MA, the profits from the coffee you buy at one location will go into the pockets of one small business owner while down the street it will go into another.

[jlmorton]

Note that the rule separately exempts franchise models.

This is a bit different than that. This exempts restaurants and hotels that are all owned by a single entity, as long as the individual restaurant, or hotel is a subsidiary with fewer than 500 employees.

[abnry]

Thank you for that information, I didn't know that.

[dd36]

I think it’s because many (most?) people would prefer Ruth’s Chris failing over their local mom and pop. I think I’m in that boat and I like Ruth’s Chris, except the one in SF - was not impressed.

[crispyambulance]

The thing about large restaurant chains is that they can easily borrow money, their scale is such that their banks will lend them money regardless of the pandemic (even if that's simply because they've previously borrowed).

Ruth's Chris isn't in nearly as much danger of going out of business as, say, a 1000 or so single-location restaurants that didn't get the time of day from JP Morgan when they called.

[dd36]

Right. I agree.

[arkanciscan]

I can put a stick of butter on a New York Strip at home for less than $100. Who needs Ruth's Chris.

[tedunangst]

Who needs any restaurant?

[RHSeeger]

There's a lot of things we don't _need_ that we still enjoy. In fact, the vast majority of things fall into that category.

[_curious_]

Fair point...certainly seems to be more supply than demand even before CV19

[js2]

It was reported at the time before the bill was signed:

> Many of these special-interest provisions would be impossible for a casual reader of the legislation to identify. For example, on Page 15 of the bill, there is a section with the title “Business Concerns With More Than 1 Physical Location.” It says this change in federal law will apply to companies that fit “a North American Industry Classification System code beginning with 72” — a reference that turns out to mean the hotel and restaurant industry.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/25/us/politics/virus-finepri...

Edit: This NYT article is the only one I've found in a cursory search that mentions it.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

You are correct in your assertion. However your conclusion is wrong.

First, the waiver got in due to major lobbying by corporations with cash.

Second, it is not correct to state that is is appropriate for larger employers to take PPP. Here is why: although at first glance it would make sense to support workers via PPP, the sad reality is that these workers have already been laid off. As such, PPP will turn into a loan. A cheap loan at that, which is basically a cheaper source of capital funds that any public co has.

Public co.s can tap the capital market or existing banking relationships to survive.

Small biz cannot tap capital markets and banks are not extending credit at this time.

For larger orgs, cheap PPP subsidized loans are literally taking precedence over life and death funds for small biz.

So institutional investors, PEs, and banks are being bailed out, while mom and pops and their staff are getting destroyed.

Laeger orgs already laid off staff. Mom and pops were hoping for PPP.... to keep staff.

[Exmoor]

Not really shocking, actually. The total turnaround time on the bailout bill was, what, a week and a half? Writing laws is complicated. I doubt anyone would be shocked if a large company cobbled together a hugely fairly complicated piece of software in two weeks and it turned out to have some major bugs. Writing a law like this is a bit like that, except with the additional downside that you can't really do any testing before release and you have people being paid to leverage the program for their own interests.

I actually heard and interesting interview [0] with one of the people in charge of the 2008 bailouts. He said the lessons learned were essentially don't worry about being too aggressive and don't worry about spending time trying to engineer a law that will target exactly who you feel like you should target. The most important thing is speed.

[0]: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/818583204

[Leherenn]

In line with your comment, I would say the biggest issue here is not that some companies that probably shouldn't have received the funds did. It's that a lot that should have didn't.

Of course though, given limited resources the 2 are correlated.

[salawat]

I actually think you need to flip that around a bit.

Instead of >the biggest issue here is not that some companies that probably shouldn't have received the funds did. It's that a lot that should have didn't. Try >the biggest issue here is that some companies that probably shouldn't have attempted to receive the funds did; causing a lot that should have to not.

There was a clear prioritization screw up in this whole boondoggle.

[goatherders]

I think it's laughable that the American public (of which I am a part) expected anything but this result. OF COURSE the little guy was going to get screwed. OF COURSE politicians were going to overlook loopholes that would allow the money to go to more established businesses. OF COURSE the machinations of the whole thing were going to be a campfire thrown into a dumpster fire packed in bonfire.