SBA Disaster-Loan Program Still a Disaster

By Veronique de Rugy.

"The Wall Street Journal has a piece about the Small Business Administration disaster-loan program’s performance during the pandemic, and concludes that it was terrible. The article is interesting and worth a read as it highlights the ordeal that small-business owners went through when trying to deal with the SBA and its process at a time of high distress. Here is the WSJ:

The extraordinary demand has overwhelmed the SBA, best known for guaranteeing loans to small businesses, and left many entrepreneurs in limbo as they seek to recover. Business owners complain of unprocessed aid applications, waiting hours on the phone with questions that go unanswered and technological glitches. Its inspector general warned of signs of rampant fraud.

At the heart of many of the problems is the Office of Disaster Assistance, a little-known unit that issued nearly a quarter of the agency’s pandemic loan volume. In normal times, the office provides loans after floods and other natural disasters.  . . .

“On the disaster side, we did a terrible job,” said Robert Scott, a former SBA regional administrator who spent several weeks in Washington early in the pandemic helping coordinate the agency’s response . . .

The Journal tells the story of small-business owner Samantha Harvey. It took her many weeks, phone calls to SBA, and headaches to get her application accepted after glitches in the system only to still be waiting for an answer months later. She notes:

Dealing with the SBA “puts you in a state of confusion and doesn’t allow you to focus on what you should be doing, and that is to continue to rebuild your business after a pandemic,” Ms. Harvey said.

Sadly, Ms. Harvey’s experience with the SBA’s disaster program is neither unique nor limited to this disaster. In fact, I think this is the flaw in this WSJ story, as it leaves readers with the impression that most of the problems with the agency’s response this time around were due to the remarkably high demand for help. Of course, the demand was enormous. But the truth is that SBA’s responses to disasters are always awful and terribly painful for those business owners who are trying to get help from the agency.

I wrote about how catastrophic previous SBA disaster responses were here and here, and so have others. I even warned last March that using the SBA to help small businesses during this pandemic would inevitably inflict a lot of headaches on these poor business owners. I also wrote about this for Reason last year, here, and highlighted examples of horror stories from the past that are eerily identical to the ones reported in the WSJ story.

This explains why I thought it was a mistake to give the agency this responsibility during the pandemic. It demonstrates either legislators’ inability to learn from the past or an incredible naïveté in thinking that it would be any better this time around. Either way, it is unacceptable.

Will Congress learn from this mess? I doubt it. In fact, I assume they will demand reforms, and these reforms will improve little to nothing. As a reminder, here is a Politico story from six years ago looking at the impact of reforms put in place to try to fix the SBA’s Katrina disaster response. The result was terrible.

Seven years ago, after Hurricane Katrina wiped out entire neighborhoods in the Mississippi Delta, Congress had an idea to help local businesses recover from the next big one. Small companies had found they just didn’t have the money to rebuild and keep the lights on until their customers returned. So in 2008, Congress created three new programs to get loans to small businesses quickly.

Since the new emergency lending programs were born, American small businesses have been hit by Hurricane Irene, Hurricane Sandy, and other disasters.

And here’s how many loans the new programs have secured for small businesses in that time: Zero."

PPP bailouts saved more jobs than actually exist

See By James Bovard.

"Last month, I wrote a piece here condemning the Trump administration for refusing to disclose the beneficiaries of bailouts authorized by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). The following day, the Trump administration reversed course and promised to reveal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan recipients.

On July 2, Trump proclaimed that PPP is “saving and supporting the jobs of tens of millions of American workers” and the program “has been a tremendous success, levels that nobody has ever seen before.” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin boasted last month that PPP is “supporting an estimated 50 million jobs.”

We don’t need to worry because benevolent, damn-near-omniscient saviors will rescue the economy from the shutdown ravages that frightened and demagogic politicians have inflicted, right?

But the Trump team’s data is farcically inaccurate. Last month, the Small Business Administration, which administers the PPP, told the Associated Press that it was “too consumed by the urgent effort of helping small businesses through the economic downturn to provide” data on where the loans went. But the SBA has now specified how many jobs were retained for each PPP loan. While Congress slumbers, the Washington Post speedily crunched the numbers.

PPP loans – a.k.a. “Magic Beans” – are so effective that they saved more jobs than the total number of employees in at least 15 industries. Landscape architecture firms “retained 114,000 jobs — more than three times the number of people who worked in that sector in 2019,” the Post reported. The SBA also claimed that the PPP loans “preserved tens of thousands more jobs than are known to exist in other industry sectors,” including specialty food stores, cattle ranching, performing arts companies, corn and wheat farming, and fishing.

The SBA reported that a Washington state sprinkler system installer “retained more than 500 jobs” thanks to PPP but the firm has only 20 employees. A Georgia company that sells air guns and shipping bags was credited with saving 500+ jobs but has less than ten people on its payroll. Similarly, a Texas church was credited with retaining 500+ jobs – a true miracle, considering the church has only 12 employees.

Trump administration officials ignored plenty of warning signs of its “dumpster fire” bailout data. Wells Fargo issued almost 4,000 PPP loans and “every single applicant listed nothing in the jobs field, according to the SBA data,” the Post reported. Whatever.

According to a garbled email that an unnamed Treasury Department official sent the Post, the Trump administration concocted the 50+ million claim on PPP jobs based largely on the fat that “the average small business employee compensation for a 2.5-month period for 51 million employees totals approximately $520 billion.” Since the PPP has doled out more than $500 billion…. Voila!

There was never any reason to expect PPP to be anything except a train wreck. For decades, the Small Business Administration has consistently produced more boondoggles and scandals than any other (previously) half-pint federal agency. Thirty-five years ago, the Post described the SBA as a “petty cash drawer for members of Congress, who pop it open whenever they need a few dollars for the folks back home.” Congress made sure the COVID bailout package was written so that members of Congress could personally make out like bandits from the federal cash geyser.

Is the Trump administration relying on an Afghan model for responding to the pandemic? During the Obama administration, the Agency for International Development ludicrously evaluated its foreign aid programs in Afghanistan based on their “burn rate” – whether they were spending money as quickly as possible, almost regardless of the results. AID’s “burn rate” fixation produced endless absurdities, including collapsing school buildings, impassable roads, failed electrification projects, and phantom health clinics. Not surprisingly, vast Afghan corruption is the clearest legacy of AID’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” handouts. It would be naive to expect happier results from the SBA’s “spending so fast we can’t explain what we are doing” panacea.

Since the start of the pandemic, politicians have entitled themselves to inflict unlimited economic damage as long as they also shovel out almost unlimited handouts. PPP helps politicians shirk responsibility for the economic wreckage from sweeping shutdown orders with little or no connection to protecting public health. Political and bureaucratic dictates have helped bankrupt thousands of businesses since March. But since politicians are showering other businesses with handouts, it balances out, right? This is “macroeconomics justice” that ignores due process and fair treatment of individual Americans.

There is no reason to assume that Trump’s policies are better than his PPP data. Since the onset of the pandemic, both political parties and officials at all levels of government have often performed dismally. The biggest mistake Americans could make would be to permit politicians to absolve themselves now by giving away more of other people’s money."

Disaster Relief for Small Businesses Is a Disaster All Its Own

The Small Business Administration will always fail the people it's meant to help

By Veronique de Rugy. Excerpts:

"And so, faced with an unprecedented economic downturn, Congress got out its hammer. The SBA was once again asked to dole out hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of federal loans and grants meant to prop up the economy during what looked to be the worst recession in a generation or longer.
Despite the agency's longstanding, prominent role in the federal government's economic recovery portfolio, there's little reason to believe it will be successful in this case—and it may hurt more than it helps. For decades, the SBA has shown itself consistently unable to hit the nails placed before it. And as coronavirus relief efforts ramped up this spring, the agency quickly began failing taxpayers, small-businesses owners, and the nation's economy, just when the country needed help the most.

$350 Billion Worth of Failure

In normal times, the SBA mostly exists to extend publicly guaranteed loans to companies that can't find credit elsewhere. But these are far from normal times.

As the COVID-19 pandemic spread across the globe, U.S. states ordered lockdowns in hopes of slowing viral transmission. The national economy was put into a figurative coma.

In March, Congress stepped in with life support in the form of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, a $2.2 trillion spending program. Among its major provisions was $349 billion for small-business loans to cover qualified payroll costs, rent, utilities, and interest on debt obligations, later topped up with more than $300 billion in additional funds. That money was, of course, to be administered by the SBA.

There were two main pieces to the small-business relief part of the bill.

First, Congress directed the SBA to distribute $10 billion in disaster loans to businesses through an expansion of its Economic Injury Disaster Loan program (EIDL). Each eligible company could get a loan of up to $2 million, with the first $10,000 distributed as a grant—essentially an advance—within three days of its application to an SBA-qualified lender. In addition, a business could apply for an express bridge loan of up to $25,000 while waiting for the larger EIDL loan to come through.

The second piece was called the Payroll Protection Program (PPP), which tasked the SBA with issuing another $349 billion in loans to small businesses through an extension of its flagship 7(a) loan program. Low-interest-rate loans granted under the PPP will be forgiven in full—making them grants from the government in essence—under two conditions: 75 percent of the loan must cover the borrower's payroll costs, and the loan must be used to keep workers on the payroll for an eight-week period after the loan is granted.

Businesses applying for both programs are already smacking face-first into an array of bureaucratic complications, from processing delays to unexpected changes in loan limits. Just a few weeks in—at a time when huge portions of the economy are desperately looking to the agency for assistance—the SBA's administration of the PPP and EIDL looks incompetent at very best.

The first reason for that is scale. The SBA has to handle a very large number of requests in a very short period of time, something it's wildly ill-equipped to do.

In a normal year, the agency makes about 60,000 loans totaling $30 billion. Of that amount, $2 billion are disaster loans and $23.2 billion are 7(a) loans. Under the CARES Act, the SBA had to process more than 10 times its annual load in the span of a few weeks, responding to each application within a three-day window, with very little guidance from Congress about how to proceed.

The demand for loans is intense because of how many businesses are eligible. The legislation uses the SBA definition of small business, meaning a firm with up to 500 employees. According to the Census Bureau, there were 5.6 million employer firms in the United States in 2016. Firms with fewer than 500 workers accounted for 99.7 percent of those businesses. As of 2016, there were an additional 24.8 million firms with no employees (think of a freelance artist who works for herself). That means that 99.9 percent of American firms are "small," and 81 percent of them have no employees.

In practice, and for utterly arbitrary reasons, businesses such as commercial cleaners, home repair firms, and many franchises don't seem to be eligible if the way they're run and operated doesn't fit the SBA's preexisting model. Meanwhile, many big businesses are competing for these SBA loans. The legislation includes an exception to the 500-employee limit for hotel and restaurant chains. A recent Morgan Stanley report showed that more than $243.4 million of the total $349 billion had gone to publicly traded companies with thousands of employees. The Fiesta Restaurant Group, for example, employs more than 10,000 people and has a market cap of $189 million; it has received $10 million through the PPP.

Even if the SBA were the most competent agency in the country, it would be a spectacular challenge to identify, adjudicate, and disburse so many loans so quickly. The SBA, however, is not the most competent agency anywhere."

"Fast-forward five years to the present disaster. No new reforms have been implemented. The SBA is as incompetent as ever. Yet this is the agency Congress tasked to help America's desperate small businesses.

Unsurprisingly, the CARES Act's SBA-related programs are already plagued by technical issues and an inability to process loans quickly. In an April letter to Administrator Jovita Carranza, four U.S. senators asked if the agency could deliver on the mandated requirement to make initial funding available within three days of a disaster loan application. Two weeks later, the SBA still hadn't responded. But small-business owners were saying the agency wasn't coming through.

Lyle Albaugh is the chief financial officer of Betsy Fisher, a high-end women's clothing boutique in Washington, D.C. He applied for the SBA disaster relief loan on March 28. He notes that the application process was laborious, with a number of ambiguous questions he wasn't sure how to answer. He was also required to provide Betsy Fisher's 2018 tax return, its schedule of liabilities, and a personal financial statement. Yet after 11 days, he says, "I haven't heard a word from the SBA. I don't know if our application was accepted or when I'll know anything about our status."

In April, The Wall Street Journal reported that multiple business owners around the country were similarly in the dark regarding the status of their loans. They had applied and waited weeks. The SBA had responded with silence.

Meanwhile, some applicants who were lucky enough to be approved for disaster loans through their banks are now finding out that they will receive only a fraction of the funds they were promised. A New York Times report told the story of Deb Wood-Schade, the owner of a chiropractic wellness business in California who was approved for a loan of $25,000 by her bank in mid-March but later found out she would get only $8,300.

According to the Times, SBA loan officers told several applicants that EIDL disbursements would be capped at $15,000 instead of the $2 million originally announced. That amount is in addition to the $10,000 grant each small business and nonprofit is eligible to receive. If some loan funding has been disbursed, it is unclear whether the borrower can also ask for a $25,000 bridge loan as he or she waits for the rest.

Over 400 applicants told the Times that, despite the statutory requirement that the grants be processed quickly, they had received nothing 10–14 days after their applications were submitted. In addition, many business owners have been told by the SBA that they need at least 10 employees to get the full $10,000 grant, even though the legislation contains no such provision.

The PPP—the program meant to keep workers attached to the labor force by backstopping payrolls—isn't functioning any better. To get one of those loans, the borrower must first apply through a bank. That bank in turn submits the application through an SBA portal for approval by the agency. But the portal often crashes, the paperwork requirements are onerous and subject to change without notice, and interest rates have been shifting in real time, driven by Treasury Department policy. Lenders, meanwhile, sometimes impose their own requirements—such as demanding that the business have an existing loan with the bank.

In just about every imaginable way, the PPP rollout has been a train wreck. It's obvious that the program suffers from design flaws that need to be addressed by Congress.

Once again, Albaugh's experience is instructive. He applied to the PPP on April 3 via another confusing application process that required even more forms. "All of these applications require a lot of gathering of documents, getting signatures, and scanning," he says. "It seems trivial, but it's time-consuming."
He went to his bank, a national chain where he'd had a commercial account for decades. He was told he would have to apply online—but the site wasn't yet accepting applications. A few days later, the bank posted a message saying it was "working with the Small Business Administration to provide relief to Small Business owners" but that it was still "not yet able to accept applications for the Paycheck Protection Program."

Eventually, Albaugh was able to submit his application—at which point he found that stringent limits had been placed on the amount he could borrow. It wasn't clear to him whether this was a bank rule or an SBA regulation. The lack of clarity around the actual conditions of the program is an additional hurdle small-business owners have to deal with.

Every bank is swamped. The Washington Post reported that less than 10 days after the PPP was authorized, Bank of America had already received 178,000 applications from firms seeking $32.9 billion in loans. Wells Fargo had reached the $10 billion cap it had set for loans under the program.
Albaugh says he's seen reports "about hundreds of thousands of dollars in funds being disbursed, with an average disbursement over $100,000. Who's getting these loans and how? I have no idea. Will the funds be used up before we're even permitted to apply?"

By the middle of April, the small-business funding authorized by the law had been exhausted. Many of the recipients turned out to be the large hotel and restaurant chains that had been granted exceptions to the 500-person limit. Restaurant chains like Ruth's Chris and Potbelly received tens of millions. Controversy over the loans was significant enough that Shake Shack, a popular burger chain, returned a $10 million loan.

The program appeared to be intentionally skewed toward larger businesses. Since the funding amounts are based on average monthly payroll, it takes a large number of employees to be eligible for the maximum loan. A company's payroll would have to be at least $48 million, in fact, for it to get $10 million under the program. That's a fairly big small business. Thus, it's likely that most of the money will end up going to larger firms.

At the same time, no one knows how many loans have been approved or how many firms have received funds. In fact, many banks report lacking the proper SBA paperwork to finish the application process and turn the money over to businesses. In late April, Congress passed a $484 billion follow-up to the CARES Act, adding $320 billion to the small-business payroll protection fund and $60 billion to the disaster relief program. Yet even after the top-up, The Washington Post reported that the SBA was secretly capping disaster loan amounts and that the program faced a backlog of millions of applications.

Worse yet: As hard as they are to come by, these loans may not make much of a difference for the companies. "Due to the effect of the total shutdown, loans are of very little help to a healthy business," writes Albaugh in an email. "The total losses that Betsy Fisher is suffering aren't even close to being made whole with loans. The loan just spreads out the pain over the payment period.""