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.  

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?

benjs 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.  

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?

mrussel1 said:

vaggar99 said:

benjs 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.  

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?

This is the big question right now.  We are ready to right off all profit for this year.  We are looking at a scenario where mall anchors could ALL be gone.  If that happens, people will be even less inclined to enter malls than they already are.  Smaller, corporate owned shops are also in big trouble.  Rents are not being paid and so the malls don't have money to invest in property improvements that might help bring traffic back.  It's a death spiral in my opinion.

It can be for sure.  I think that’s why the act focused on workers on both sides of the equation, employed and unemployed.  I imagine the theory is to keep money flowing to stimulate economic activity.  However, if you can’t get out to spend the money, or businesses aren’t open to take the money, it can only prop us up for a month or two at best.

rgambs said:

Yeah this thing is fucked, not because of the design, but because people are greedy fucking losers.
It had to have few impediments in order to roll out fast and smooth enough to be effective, but those few impediments left the door open for people that deserve fates I'll not utter aloud.
If you didn't have to close or lay anyone off and you applied for this loan because it's free money or just because it's such a low interest loan, you are a bag of shit and I hope you choke on a bag of dicks.

The biggest recipient in our area is an owner of 6 fast food restaurants that are still busy as fuck.  Nobody, or almost nobody, is laid off on unemployment, but now payroll is covered for 2 months.  Awesome.