PPP (Paycheck Protection Program)

vaggar99

Maybe the band can relate  to this guy.  I can.

https://youtu.be/ByIW_opQwms

Gern Blansten

I hope it comes through...the rollout has been a nightmare.  

mickeyrat

Gern Blansten said:

I hope it comes through...the rollout has been a nightmare.  

so if the model for success or failure on rollout is ACA is a failure according to GOP and rightwing media, then this is an abject failure from top to bottom.

Gern Blansten

mickeyrat said:

Gern Blansten said:

I hope it comes through...the rollout has been a nightmare.  

so if the model for success or failure on rollout is ACA is a failure according to GOP and rightwing media, then this is an abject failure from top to bottom.

exactly...it's pathetic

vaggar99

I'll tell you what I know about these loans.
the pitch:
-2.5 times payroll expense for 8 weeks
-forgivable as long payroll levels are maintained

the fine print
-75% of the money must be used for payroll exclusively
-Companies must pay employees out of pocket until loans are approved.  money can not be applied retroactively.

my problem with all this:

-we could have just laid everyone off 3 weeks ago and not had to pay full wages while waiting for this money.  now we are going to be stuck with at least a months payroll out of pocket.  many employees would have made more through the unemployment system anyway.

-there isn't nearly enough to cover rents but landlords think that there is.  that's because only 25% of the money can be used for that.  Rent is by far the biggest expense for us.

mrussel1

vaggar99 said:

I'll tell you what I know about these loans.
the pitch:
-2.5 times payroll expense for 8 weeks
-forgivable as long payroll levels are maintained

the fine print
-75% of the money must be used for payroll exclusively
-Companies must pay employees out of pocket until loans are approved.  money can not be applied retroactively.

my problem with all this:

-we could have just laid everyone off 3 weeks ago and not had to pay full wages while waiting for this money.  now we are going to be stuck with at least a months payroll out of pocket.  many employees would have made more through the unemployment system anyway.

-there isn't nearly enough to cover rents but landlords think that there is.  that's because only 25% of the money can be used for that.  Rent is by far the biggest expense for us.

So I understand for you this may be a problem, but rent being your largest payroll expense, exceeding 25% of your total expenses, seems to be the outlier, not the rule.  I can tell you that for us, rent is a tiny fraction of our total expenses.  Our largest expense not connected directly to revenue, is payroll and benefits. 
While not perfect (I understand about the lost three weeks), this is more than our gov't has ever done for small businesses on one side, and on the unemployment insurance on the other side.  

vaggar99

mrussel1 said:

vaggar99 said:

I'll tell you what I know about these loans.
the pitch:
-2.5 times payroll expense for 8 weeks
-forgivable as long payroll levels are maintained

the fine print
-75% of the money must be used for payroll exclusively
-Companies must pay employees out of pocket until loans are approved.  money can not be applied retroactively.

my problem with all this:

-we could have just laid everyone off 3 weeks ago and not had to pay full wages while waiting for this money.  now we are going to be stuck with at least a months payroll out of pocket.  many employees would have made more through the unemployment system anyway.

-there isn't nearly enough to cover rents but landlords think that there is.  that's because only 25% of the money can be used for that.  Rent is by far the biggest expense for us.

So I understand for you this may be a problem, but rent being your largest payroll expense, exceeding 25% of your total expenses, seems to be the outlier, not the rule.  I can tell you that for us, rent is a tiny fraction of our total expenses.  Our largest expense not connected directly to revenue, is payroll and benefits. 
While not perfect (I understand about the lost three weeks), this is more than our gov't has ever done for small businesses on one side, and on the unemployment insurance on the other side.  

I don't think it is an outlier.  It's a good program for employees especially those with moderately high paying jobs.  The businesses themselves see very little benefit if any.  The 25% money we have at our discretion will basically be offset by the amount of payroll costs we are incurring while waiting for the loans to be processed.  I would imagine anyone applying for these loans is facing the same reality.

In the end, this is mostly a ploy to keep unemployment numbers down and perhaps keep the system from being overloaded more than it already is.   The govt isn't doing business any real favors here.

mrussel1

vaggar99 said:

mrussel1 said:

vaggar99 said:

I'll tell you what I know about these loans.
the pitch:
-2.5 times payroll expense for 8 weeks
-forgivable as long payroll levels are maintained

the fine print
-75% of the money must be used for payroll exclusively
-Companies must pay employees out of pocket until loans are approved.  money can not be applied retroactively.

my problem with all this:

-we could have just laid everyone off 3 weeks ago and not had to pay full wages while waiting for this money.  now we are going to be stuck with at least a months payroll out of pocket.  many employees would have made more through the unemployment system anyway.

-there isn't nearly enough to cover rents but landlords think that there is.  that's because only 25% of the money can be used for that.  Rent is by far the biggest expense for us.

So I understand for you this may be a problem, but rent being your largest payroll expense, exceeding 25% of your total expenses, seems to be the outlier, not the rule.  I can tell you that for us, rent is a tiny fraction of our total expenses.  Our largest expense not connected directly to revenue, is payroll and benefits. 
While not perfect (I understand about the lost three weeks), this is more than our gov't has ever done for small businesses on one side, and on the unemployment insurance on the other side.  

I don't think it is an outlier.  It's a good program for employees especially those with moderately high paying jobs.  The businesses themselves see very little benefit if any.  The 25% money we have at our discretion will basically be offset by the amount of payroll costs we are incurring while waiting for the loans to be processed.  I would imagine anyone applying for these loans is facing the same reality.

In the end, this is mostly a ploy to keep unemployment numbers down and perhaps keep the system from being overloaded more than it already is.   The govt isn't doing business any real favors here.

Well I agree there.  This was absolutely designed to keep small businesses from furloughing its entire staffs.  The gov't is paying workers either through the companies or through unemployment.  It wasn't designed to cover the litany of other bills.  However, I do know many businesses are just not paying rent and offering landlords to extend the lease on the back side.  No one can or will evict you in the next 60 days.  Rent abatement is pretty rampant because of the pandemic.  

brianlux

I'm skeptical about how well this is going to go.  My wife has applied for the loan so she can give her employees some money now that they (including me) are 100% out of work.  It hasn't gone well so far.  She had to re-apply because the application fee changed.  That meant having to go our yet again to get signatures and turn it all in to the bank.  I have very little faith in the system and hate like hell that we have to expose ourselves by her having had to be out there again even though she is super careful.  If I get this virus, I don't give myself much of a chance.  Yes, selfish thinking, I know, but this is not or when I want to go.  Fucking coronavirus.

CM189191

https://twitter.com/NathanLerner/status/1248649171999035395?s=19

vaggar99

mrussel1 said:

vaggar99 said:

mrussel1 said:

vaggar99 said:

I'll tell you what I know about these loans.
the pitch:
-2.5 times payroll expense for 8 weeks
-forgivable as long payroll levels are maintained

the fine print
-75% of the money must be used for payroll exclusively
-Companies must pay employees out of pocket until loans are approved.  money can not be applied retroactively.

my problem with all this:

-we could have just laid everyone off 3 weeks ago and not had to pay full wages while waiting for this money.  now we are going to be stuck with at least a months payroll out of pocket.  many employees would have made more through the unemployment system anyway.

-there isn't nearly enough to cover rents but landlords think that there is.  that's because only 25% of the money can be used for that.  Rent is by far the biggest expense for us.

So I understand for you this may be a problem, but rent being your largest payroll expense, exceeding 25% of your total expenses, seems to be the outlier, not the rule.  I can tell you that for us, rent is a tiny fraction of our total expenses.  Our largest expense not connected directly to revenue, is payroll and benefits. 
While not perfect (I understand about the lost three weeks), this is more than our gov't has ever done for small businesses on one side, and on the unemployment insurance on the other side.  

I don't think it is an outlier.  It's a good program for employees especially those with moderately high paying jobs.  The businesses themselves see very little benefit if any.  The 25% money we have at our discretion will basically be offset by the amount of payroll costs we are incurring while waiting for the loans to be processed.  I would imagine anyone applying for these loans is facing the same reality.

In the end, this is mostly a ploy to keep unemployment numbers down and perhaps keep the system from being overloaded more than it already is.   The govt isn't doing business any real favors here.

Well I agree there.  This was absolutely designed to keep small businesses from furloughing its entire staffs.  The gov't is paying workers either through the companies or through unemployment.  It wasn't designed to cover the litany of other bills.  However, I do know many businesses are just not paying rent and offering landlords to extend the lease on the back side.  No one can or will evict you in the next 60 days.  Rent abatement is pretty rampant because of the pandemic.  

Ah...you are much in tune with this.  We are exactly one of the businesses that is not paying rent.  Problem is we have literally dozens of landlords to negotiate with.  I think most will end up being somewhat reasonable.  

The second part in this and the part that has me most concerned.  Will the business ever come back?  We deal in discretionary products. I see 15-20% unemployment going into the 4th qtr and beyond.  I hope I'm wrong.

mfc2006

CM189191 said:

https://twitter.com/NathanLerner/status/1248649171999035395?s=19

Looks about right. Ugh.

mrussel1

mfc2006 said:

CM189191 said:

https://twitter.com/NathanLerner/status/1248649171999035395?s=19

Looks about right. Ugh.

It's untrue.  600 per week unemployment for 120 days starts next week.  That's on top of normal unemployment insurance.  For many American's, this will be greater than 100% of their salary.  

Gern Blansten

I heard that the $1,200 stimulus is based on 40 hours per week at minimum wage for a month.  That's pathetic

brianlux

Gern Blansten said:

I heard that the $1,200 stimulus is based on 40 hours per week at minimum wage for a month.  That's pathetic

And it's just a token effort.  $1200 will cover the average family's expenses for what?  A week maybe?  But meanwhile they're bailing out big corporations.  Pretty much business as usual. 

mrussel1

brianlux said:

Gern Blansten said:

I heard that the $1,200 stimulus is based on 40 hours per week at minimum wage for a month.  That's pathetic

And it's just a token effort.  $1200 will cover the average family's expenses for what?  A week maybe?  But meanwhile they're bailing out big corporations.  Pretty much business as usual. 

@g@"Gern Blansten"

I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing the point you guys are making but the way I read what you're saying, it's incompatible with the actual facts:

1. $1200 one time check for every adult in this country who makes 75k or less 
2. That number is reduced in some proportional way between 75-100k.  Anyone making over 100k gets nothing.
3. This 1200 is provided REGARDLESS of employment status.  You get this money if you are working as normal or not.  
4. $500 per child as well
5. Normal unemployment is being paid, PLUS an additional $600 per week until July 31st
6. The PPP program is also designed to incentive small businesses with less than 500 employees not to furlough workers, negating the need for the unemployment benefit.

Everything I see you guys type is fundamentally inaccurate, along with that tweet above.  

mrussel1

At the end of the day, what this congress pushed through (senate and house) far exceeds what any US gov't has ever done so early in a crisis.  What they are doing for workers, giving away free money, has NEVER been done at this scale, even in the depression.  And the New Deal also didn't take hold until the depression was four years old.  Now you can quibble about certain aspects of the provisions, but I for one think the gov't actually stepped up to the plate economically, in a very fast way. 

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Gern Blansten said:

I heard that the $1,200 stimulus is based on 40 hours per week at minimum wage for a month.  That's pathetic

And it's just a token effort.  $1200 will cover the average family's expenses for what?  A week maybe?  But meanwhile they're bailing out big corporations.  Pretty much business as usual. 

@g@"Gern Blansten"

I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing the point you guys are making but the way I read what you're saying, it's incompatible with the actual facts:

1. $1200 one time check for every adult in this country who makes 75k or less 
2. That number is reduced in some proportional way between 75-100k.  Anyone making over 100k gets nothing.
3. This 1200 is provided REGARDLESS of employment status.  You get this money if you are working as normal or not.  
4. $500 per child as well
5. Normal unemployment is being paid, PLUS an additional $600 per week until July 31st
6. The PPP program is also designed to incentive small businesses with less than 500 employees not to furlough workers, negating the need for the unemployment benefit.

Everything I see you guys type is fundamentally inaccurate, along with that tweet above.  

Could be, M.  But everything we are told by the feds is inaccurate or changes often as well.  We'll see what happen. 

More than anything, I'm just bummed that I can't work.  I never made a lot of money and I work hard for an old guy.  Now I sit at home and get fat.  Well, at least I'm still breathing.  There is that.

vaggar99

I don't think I've mentioned that businesses participating in PPP also have to keep everyone on staff after this over to be considered for loan forgiveness.  The duration is not clear.  What if we open back up in say June to almost zero business?  Then we got to keep a full staff on hand for the rest of the year to get 8 weeks of payroll back from the govt?  The whole thing seems ripe for disaster.

rgambs

We aren't holding our breath that the money will come through at all.

mrussel1

vaggar99 said:

I don't think I've mentioned that businesses participating in PPP also have to keep everyone on staff after this over to be considered for loan forgiveness.  The duration is not clear.  What if we open back up in say June to almost zero business?  Then we got to keep a full staff on hand for the rest of the year to get 8 weeks of payroll back from the govt?  The whole thing seems ripe for disaster.

L

Well presumably if you open in June to no business, then you'll be filling bankruptcy and your business will not be viable.  I presume you're an S corp, LLC or something to protect personal assets. 

I get the concern but I'm sure you can see the other side where neither the Senate or  House would want a loan that you could take the cash and then just terminate the employees.  It would completely defeat the purpose of the bill.  

mrussel1

Applications are triple the expected amount.  They'll need to go back to negotiations to get more.  
I hope to God we have enough responsible officials to raise taxes when this is over.  

https://theweek.com/speedreads/908081/federal-program-promised-small-businesses-2-million-loans-now-maxing-15000

benjs

mrussel1 said:

vaggar99 said:

I don't think I've mentioned that businesses participating in PPP also have to keep everyone on staff after this over to be considered for loan forgiveness.  The duration is not clear.  What if we open back up in say June to almost zero business?  Then we got to keep a full staff on hand for the rest of the year to get 8 weeks of payroll back from the govt?  The whole thing seems ripe for disaster.

L

Well presumably if you open in June to no business, then you'll be filling bankruptcy and your business will not be viable.  I presume you're an S corp, LLC or something to protect personal assets. 

I get the concern but I'm sure you can see the other side where neither the Senate or  House would want a loan that you could take the cash and then just terminate the employees.  It would completely defeat the purpose of the bill.  

One thing here, Matt. If businesses don't ever return to being as 'whole' as they were before (a likely scenario in a shrunken market where people are afraid to congregate - especially if the business had a reliance on physical visitors), how do companies intend to address that? While I'd love to believe that businesses can weather this storm, I see where vaggar is coming from. In Ontario, there are certain EI benefits where, in order for our business to access the subsidies, we have to demonstrate a revenue reduction of 15% within the past three months I believe. This is how Ontario is attempting to prevent indiscriminate temporary layoffs, but I haven't heard anything from our government in terms of the ramifications of terminations (when I do sadly think many businesses will be forced into this). If the other side of the tunnel has fewer paying customers for most markets, how does an economy not participate in terminations en masse?

vaggar99

mrussel1 said:

vaggar99 said:

I don't think I've mentioned that businesses participating in PPP also have to keep everyone on staff after this over to be considered for loan forgiveness.  The duration is not clear.  What if we open back up in say June to almost zero business?  Then we got to keep a full staff on hand for the rest of the year to get 8 weeks of payroll back from the govt?  The whole thing seems ripe for disaster.

L

Well presumably if you open in June to no business, then you'll be filling bankruptcy and your business will not be viable.  I presume you're an S corp, LLC or something to protect personal assets. 

I get the concern but I'm sure you can see the other side where neither the Senate or  House would want a loan that you could take the cash and then just terminate the employees.  It would completely defeat the purpose of the bill.  

The bill was clearly rushed and full of flaws.  Many if not most of the applications are from businesses that are not even affected or are marginally affected.  Why is that?  It's because they put out zero qualifying criteria.  You simply initial line saying "Current economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support ongoing operations of the Applicant".  That is it.  You don't have to show sales receipts or lack there of.  nothing. fuck.

mrussel1

vaggar99 said:

mrussel1 said:

vaggar99 said:

I don't think I've mentioned that businesses participating in PPP also have to keep everyone on staff after this over to be considered for loan forgiveness.  The duration is not clear.  What if we open back up in say June to almost zero business?  Then we got to keep a full staff on hand for the rest of the year to get 8 weeks of payroll back from the govt?  The whole thing seems ripe for disaster.

L

Well presumably if you open in June to no business, then you'll be filling bankruptcy and your business will not be viable.  I presume you're an S corp, LLC or something to protect personal assets. 

I get the concern but I'm sure you can see the other side where neither the Senate or  House would want a loan that you could take the cash and then just terminate the employees.  It would completely defeat the purpose of the bill.  

The bill was clearly rushed and full of flaws.  Many if not most of the applications are from businesses that are not even affected or are marginally affected.  Why is that?  It's because they put out zero qualifying criteria.  You simply initial line saying "Current economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support ongoing operations of the Applicant".  That is it.  You don't have to show sales receipts or lack there of.  nothing. fuck.

Creating a control structure to vet apps would lead to substantial slowdown.  As it stands, the Treasury and SBA are changing things on the fly because normal logistics weren't thought through.   Is it better that we're relying on statements and getting the money out sooner, or would it be better to have created a more thorough application process and vetting, probably delaying money delivery by at least 60 days on top of however long it will take now?

vaggar99

mrussel1 said:

vaggar99 said:

mrussel1 said:

vaggar99 said:

I don't think I've mentioned that businesses participating in PPP also have to keep everyone on staff after this over to be considered for loan forgiveness.  The duration is not clear.  What if we open back up in say June to almost zero business?  Then we got to keep a full staff on hand for the rest of the year to get 8 weeks of payroll back from the govt?  The whole thing seems ripe for disaster.

L

Well presumably if you open in June to no business, then you'll be filling bankruptcy and your business will not be viable.  I presume you're an S corp, LLC or something to protect personal assets. 

I get the concern but I'm sure you can see the other side where neither the Senate or  House would want a loan that you could take the cash and then just terminate the employees.  It would completely defeat the purpose of the bill.  

The bill was clearly rushed and full of flaws.  Many if not most of the applications are from businesses that are not even affected or are marginally affected.  Why is that?  It's because they put out zero qualifying criteria.  You simply initial line saying "Current economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support ongoing operations of the Applicant".  That is it.  You don't have to show sales receipts or lack there of.  nothing. fuck.

Creating a control structure to vet apps would lead to substantial slowdown.  As it stands, the Treasury and SBA are changing things on the fly because normal logistics weren't thought through.   Is it better that we're relying on statements and getting the money out sooner, or would it be better to have created a more thorough application process and vetting, probably delaying money delivery by at least 60 days on top of however long it will take now?

Seems like they could have made a condition for loan forgiveness that you have to prove that your business was indeed forced to shut down and that your sales had dropped to zero or near zero.  Maybe that ends up being part of the deal?

Gern Blansten

brianlux said:

Gern Blansten said:

I heard that the $1,200 stimulus is based on 40 hours per week at minimum wage for a month.  That's pathetic

And it's just a token effort.  $1200 will cover the average family's expenses for what?  A week maybe?  But meanwhile they're bailing out big corporations.  Pretty much business as usual. 

Yeah that isn't even one month's rent

rgambs

We've been approved!  Hooray!

mrussel1

Gern Blansten said:

brianlux said:

Gern Blansten said:

I heard that the $1,200 stimulus is based on 40 hours per week at minimum wage for a month.  That's pathetic

And it's just a token effort.  $1200 will cover the average family's expenses for what?  A week maybe?  But meanwhile they're bailing out big corporations.  Pretty much business as usual. 

Yeah that isn't even one month's rent

What about the 600 per week plus normal unemployment insurance?  That doesn't help?

mrussel1

rgambs said:

We've been approved!  Hooray!

Nice,  on a Saturday no less?

rgambs

mrussel1 said:

rgambs said:

We've been approved!  Hooray!

Nice,  on a Saturday no less?

Not sure when the email came through, but I know First Merchants bank is working Saturdays to get these programs rolled out.
From what she's hearing from her optometry trade forum, it sucks to be dealing with big banks on this, particularly Bank of America.