Outdoor companies getting PPP loans

[Deadfall]

Uh...who cares, the whole thing and the aftermath is all BS anyway.

 

[Poser]

Let’s speculate for a moment that everything about this crisis were the same except for the following:

-no federal unemployment boost
-no PPP loans
-no stimulus checks

Basically, the federal government zipped up the purse and said “y’all fend for yourselves.”

Would we all be better or worse off?

 

[-bowfreak-]

I don't consider it to be a handout....I see it as payment for being shut down by the government. This is different than needing a bailout due to poor management.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Deplorable77]

Rmef and mule deer foundation pisses me off the most.

 

[Sacrvrrat72]

Rmef and mule deer foundation pisses me off the most.

I don’t necessarily disagree, but I bet their income was more negatively effected then any other company on the list.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Reburn]

Rmef and mule deer foundation pisses me off the most.

Your ok with a bunch of biologist and people who do habitat restoration loosing their jobs because they cant get PPP but not "normal blue collar folk" who work for companies that can? You ok with companies that derive the majority of income from banquets and conventions having their functions canceled for the "betterment of public health" and then telling them they don't qualify?

 

[Mighty Mouse]

Let’s speculate for a moment that everything about this crisis were the same except for the following:

-no federal unemployment boost
-no PPP loans
-no stimulus checks

Basically, the federal government zipped up the purse and said “y’all fend for yourselves.”

Would we all be better or worse off?

In the short run, there's probably a good case to be made that the country would've been worse off without those forms of assistance. The long run ill effects (more federal debt, increased "moral hazard" due to the reinforced expectation that government will always be there to bail you out) are harder to quantify.

In your hypothetical scenario, did the federal government spend the past 100+ years systematically disincentivizing the practice of personal saving by continuously eroding the purchasing power of accumulated wealth? If we had a sound currency, I'd be less sympathetic to the plight of those without enough savings to get them through unexpected crises.

 

[Reburn]

In the short run, there's probably a good case to be made that the country would've been worse off without those forms of assistance. The long run ill effects (more federal debt, increased "moral hazard" due to the reinforced expectation that government will always be there to bail you out) are harder to quantify.

In your hypothetical scenario, did the federal government spend the past 100+ years systematically disincentivizing the practice of personal saving by continuously eroding the purchasing power of accumulated wealth? If we had a sound currency, I'd be less sympathetic to the plight of those without enough savings to get them through unexpected crises.

You mean like the credit system. Instead of being responsible with your money and saving you have to go into debt to buy things to pay them off with interest so the credit companies make money so they can say your trustworthy to be loaned money to that you were already trustworthy enough to yourself and dependents to be able to save...........

 

[TheTone]

Rmef and mule deer foundation pisses me off the most.

go hunt and wade lemon outfitting leave me scratching my head. One is owned but a super wealthy family with more money than they will spend in multiple lifetimes and the other is in what is truly in their offseason.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

You mean like the credit system. Instead of being responsible with your money and saving you have to go into debt to buy things to pay them off with interest so the credit companies make money so they can say your trustworthy to be loaned money to that you were already trustworthy enough to yourself and dependents to be able to save...........

Yes, pervasive consumer credit is symptomatic of an economy built on unsound currency. Striving to save up and pay cash is less appealing if your accumulated cash declines in value by a few percent each year due to inflation and low interest loans are easy to come by. If you're interested in this topic, there's a great book called The Ethics of Money Production by Guido Hulsmann that delves into the far-reaching societal ills caused by unsound money.

I'll get off my soapbox now and try to stop derailing this thread.

 

[tdhanses]

It's a tricky subject. I share the OP's general opposition to government handouts, but if the government breaks a guy's leg then offers him a "free" crutch, it's hard to fault the guy for taking it. I don't know how well that analogy truly applies to these companies (i.e., how many were actually forced to shut down), but it's a bit of a black mark against them in my book regardless of the exact circumstances. Government cheese is so ubiquitous though that it's very difficult, if not impossible, to avoid doing business with companies that have in some form or fashion taken a handout/favor/subsidy.

Coincidentally, Seek Outside just today posted on Facebook that their sales numbers are up 200% over last year.
View attachment 196019
View attachment 196020
View attachment 196021

So for all of you against gov handouts, do you grow your own food, make your own fuel, have your own phone company, shipping better not use usps and what about electricity and roads? Funny most don’t complain until now.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

So for all of you against gov handouts, do you grow your own food, make your own fuel, have your own phone company, shipping better not use usps and what about electricity and roads? Funny most don’t complain until now.

Nope, but I do believe that open competition amongst private entities free from interference by government would result in higher quality goods/services at lower costs to the consumer in all those arenas you mentioned. The more free and open the market, the better the outcomes will be. The good and services you mentioned are all regulated and/or subsidized to some degree by government, but like I alluded to earlier, it's hard to fault a man for accepting whatever scraps the government he's forced to fund decides to (directly or indirectly) throw him.

 

[String&stick]

Deere83,


First I want to clarify that I'm not dogging on farmers in this post (I dog on local farmers at times but they have it coming and give me way more shit than I give them) I am only pointing out the hypocrisy of the OP. It is a fact that farms are subsidised. Be it, crop insurance, price supports, demand supports (food stamps), or direct payments. Farmers receive lots of federal dollars, so if a guy is boycotting those recieving federal funds to run their business, he's going to have a hard time eating!

Specifically in 2019 farmers received MFP payments loosely based on county soybean production and price differences. That money was paid by acre regardless of crop planted. So if you planted 1000 acres of corn, and no beans, you sold corn at $.50-$.70 per bushel profit after all expenses, including living expenses, and at the end of the day got a $55,000 check from uncle Sam. . .

Now if you are weird and planted 100% soybeans on your acres you still lost your ass even with the check from Uncle SAM. But much like the businesses in question now, there was no consideration for how poorly or how well they were doing, it was a program and you might as well sign up if they are going to give it to you!

 

[Gunnersdad49]

I run 2 companies. One I am the majority share holder, and I do 99% of the work. I hire contract employees, and my minority partner takes an equal draw as I do. We did not apply for any relief or assistance.

The other company, I’m also an employee, and we were forced in two weeks to cancel 70% of our annual income producing activities. Before any federal assistance was granted, we sent all employees home, and paid them, full-time, out of our own “pocket “ for a month. This was the right thing to do with the information on hand.

Our company has 14 full time employees. We lost a million dollars or more in revenue. The owners sacrificed all income immediately. The management sacrificed all income above hourly wage. We asked full time employees to stop from 40 hours per week, to 32 hours per week from their couches. We did no reduction in benefits at all.

Our company applied for a small business grant, and a triple P grant.

We were awarded both, with excess.

We declined additional funding, because we were able to sustain what that funding was meant to replace.

We were granted $110,000. We received $45,000 that we anticipate will be forgiven. We returned the remainder.

 

[Gatorgrizz27]

In the short run, there's probably a good case to be made that the country would've been worse off without those forms of assistance. The long run ill effects (more federal debt, increased "moral hazard" due to the reinforced expectation that government will always be there to bail you out) are harder to quantify.

In your hypothetical scenario, did the federal government spend the past 100+ years systematically disincentivizing the practice of personal saving by continuously eroding the purchasing power of accumulated wealth? If we had a sound currency, I'd be less sympathetic to the plight of those without enough savings to get them through unexpected crises.

I own a small construction company that has stayed open and we have been slammed with work. I declined to participate in the PPP loans because #1 there was a fixed amount of $ available, and I’d prefer the companies that really needed it to get the assistance, #2 I have very little interest getting into bed with the devil and having the government more involved in my business finances, potentially telling me I have to repay $ + interest, etc. Part of it was pride of not accepting a “handout”, but I would have taken a zero interest loan that could be used to grow.

There is a difference between being responsible enough to have savings and weather a decrease in demand versus the government telling you that your business has to shut down for 1/4 of a year. Not to mention in the free market you have the ability to adapt to demands.

A fishing guide who’s business drops off due to red tide and poor fishing can opt to charter their boat for eco-tours, sandbar trips, etc.

It’s also not just a question of whether a business has reserves or not. I’ve been setting aside money to buy land and build a larger shop to expand my business. The government telling me I’m not allowed to be open shouldn’t require me to blow that on household bills. Thankfully that doesn’t appear it will be the case at this point.

 

[RS3579]

I personally benefited from this program. We were able to be payed our wages for 12 weeks. 100 construction workers were on this program. Weather they worked or not during this 12 week period. It is/was a great program. If it helps companies and people stay a float during this terrible economic time, I’m all for it.

 

[jek5224]

I have no problem with any eligible business applying for a PPP loan. Here's the thing: when the program was created, nobody had any idea how long the shutdown would last or what adverse effects there would be on business. And, if you did qualify, it is basically free money. All of the "unknowns" led to a race to apply for the loans.

The requirements for receiving a loan were narrowly tailored to attempt to benefit working class people. Moreover, when a business applied they had to certify that the current market situation (which was unknown to everybody) made the loan necessary to their business operations. The loan amount was based on the previous year's payroll and mandated that a vast majority of the funds go towards payroll, thus retaining employees. If one single employee was terminated, the loan is no longer forgivable. In that case, the PPP loan turns into a loan with minuscule interest rates.

There will be a lot of companies that end up returning their PPP loans now that the business outlook is slightly more clear. That is great too. I view the PPP program as an interim insurance policy to keep all employees on payroll. Frankly, I am happy to see some of the names on this list. It means that they were able to operate through the shutdown to keep putting out products/content that I am interested in. And, if it turns out that they deceived the government to get this loan or kept it when it was not "necessary" there will certainly be repurcussions.

Of all the things in the world to be upset about, outdoor and hunting businesses using available government loans to survive a shutdown is not one of them.

 

[Antarctica]

RMEF at the top of the list with a $2M-$5M draw. Yet their 2015 990 indicates $81M in assets and $10M in liabilities, for a net of $71M in assets.

Could be legit, could be 'get it if you can', much depends on the liquidity of those assets I guess. RMEF salaries aren't outrageous (generous but not ridiculous as some), although the $178K for picture frames still stinks...

 

[tdhanses]

Nope, but I do believe that open competition amongst private entities free from interference by government would result in higher quality goods/services at lower costs to the consumer in all those arenas you mentioned. The more free and open the market, the better the outcomes will be. The good and services you mentioned are all regulated and/or subsidized to some degree by government, but like I alluded to earlier, it's hard to fault a man for accepting whatever scraps the government he's forced to fund decides to (directly or indirectly) throw him.

But they are all free and open, they just can’t survive selling or providing their good as cheap as they do, hence the handout. If there wasn’t a handout prices would increase and truthfully prices should but then many couldn’t afford the quality of life we have.

 

[tdhanses]

RMEF at the top of the list with a $2M-$5M draw. Yet their 2015 990 indicates $81M in assets and $10M in liabilities, for a net of $71M in assets.

Could be legit, could be 'get it if you can', much depends on the liquidity of those assets I guess. RMEF salaries aren't outrageous (generous but not ridiculous as some), although the $178K for picture frames still stinks...

It is about employees, which RMEF has all over the country, how do you think these employees are doing fundraisers for each chapter while everything is shut down? This isn’t about financials as was previously stated, it’s about not laying off people.