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