pipelinepipelineauthorBiz CarsonNoneDo you know what's going on in the venture capital and startup world? Get Tomio Geron's newsletter every Saturday.021fce003e
×

Get access to Protocol

I’ve already subscribed

Will be used in accordance with our Privacy Policy

Politics

Startups are struggling to get PPP money. Now a Fed rule may freeze them out of loans, too

Lawmakers are pushing for changes to the Main Street Lending Program.

The Federal Reserve building in Washington, D.C.

The Federal Reserve's Main Street Lending Program offers the promise of $600 billion in loans -- for those who can get them.

Photo: Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images

A growing number of midsize startups say they're likely to be locked out of the Federal Reserve's $600 billion loan program, and lawmakers are lining up behind them to change the Fed's rules before it's too late.

The Fed's Main Street Lending Program, which was created by the $2 trillion stimulus package, is geared toward midsize businesses that need a fast influx of money due to the coronavirus crisis. But the Fed's formula effectively means money will be doled out only to businesses that can prove they were operating profitably, or "EBITDA-positive," in 2019, leaving many midsize tech startups in a no man's land of being too big to qualify for other relief measures, like the Payment Protection Plan, but still locked out of loans.

A group of 41 lawmakers, including members of Congress representing startup hubs Silicon Valley and Austin, asked the Fed Thursday to adjust its guidelines before the program officially launches.

"Without changes to the Main Street Lending Program, many emerging midsize businesses will be ineligible for both programs, which could have devastating effects on the employees of many otherwise successful companies," the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Fed Chairman Jerome Powell and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. Rep. Anna Eshoo took the lead on the letter, with sign-ons from Reps. Will Hurd, David Cicilline and Jackie Speier, among others.

"We can't afford [to] let a generation of startups fail just because government programs didn't account for their needs and business models," said Rep. Mike Doyle, who heads the House Energy and Commerce technology subcommittee. "Startup companies are focused on growth at this stage in their development, not profit. That's what they should be doing. They shouldn't be penalized because they're trying to create something new."

In some ways, the situation mirrors the chaos around the PPP, a loan program for small businesses that startups say they cannot access because of quirks in its guidelines; both programs have bipartisan groups of legislators clamoring for change.

The Fed's Main Street loans are substantially different than the PPP loans, however. They are not forgivable, making them attractive only to companies that can take on debt amid coronavirus. And they are aimed at businesses with head counts between 500 and 10,000 employees.

Lightspeed Venture Partners' Amy Wu, who has been advising startups on PPP and other lending programs, said a number of its portfolio companies had hoped to qualify for the Main Street lending program. But she said that the EBITDA-positive requirement, and the way the program favors larger companies, means many will be shut out unless there are changes. "Most likely we'll be sitting out of this one," she said.

Alon Rotem, general counsel for online retail startup ThredUp, told Protocol that his company has been looking into the Fed's Main Street program as an alternative to the PPP because it's too large for the small business loan but could benefit from a boost as the economic downturn hits the retail industry particularly hard. He said the company recently had to furlough some of its employees.

"As we go through the high level terms [of the Main Street lending program], virtually everything lines up and looks like we would qualify — but for the EBITDA component," Rotem said.

There is serious money at stake. Rotem said it is "within the ballpark" for midsize businesses to be asking for loans between $10 million and $20 million. (For new loans, the maximum is about $25 million; it is significantly higher for the Fed's expanded loans program.)

Another general counsel for a midsize tech startup, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about his company's financials, told Protocol there is a "real possibility" that companies like his will "fall through the cracks."

"For companies like ours and others that didn't contemplate COVID but have been negatively impacted by it, the EBITDA requirement puts this money out of reach and could have draconian ramifications," he said. His company applied for a loan through the PPP but did not hear back before the money ran out last week. The Senate on Tuesday passed a bill to pour $320 million more into the program, though that is expected to dry up within a matter of days as well.

The Fed did not immediately respond to Protocol's request for comment on the EBITDA requirement. But the program's contours are still in flux. The central bank announced the lending program's guidelines on April 9 and accepted comments from outside stakeholders until last week. The issue has attracted a wave of advocacy from startup trade associations and advocacy groups including TechNet, the National Venture Capital Association and Engine, with TechNet in particular beginning to press members of Congress on it.

Justin Field, the senior vice president of government affairs at the National Venture Capital Association, told Protocol that he recognizes that the program is "probably still only going to work for a small percentage of the later-stage companies," even if the Fed updates its rules. But he said it could still be a "helpful program" for a significant number of startups.

"They gotta do something. You can't enact a program and cut out, arguably, the most valuable, high-growth companies," said Cooley lawyer Ron Hopkinson, who has been advising many companies on the lending program. While tech startups are one sector that may be boxed out, he said that R&D-focused, publicly traded life sciences companies or private-equity-owned companies could also come up short.

Banks already lend to many of these kinds of high-growth companies and use other metrics, from market caps to internal valuations, to make lending decisions. The same could be done for the Fed's program, he told Protocol. "I think they drew the box too narrowly. EBITDA is one metric, but they're going to have to come up with another metric or another program," Hopkinson said.

In its comments to the Fed, TechNet suggested that the program set loans at a fraction of 2019 gross profit. Other groups and companies have floated their own specific proposals for addressing the issue without using EBITDA in 2019 as a metric. The lawmakers suggested allowing lenders to use a recent month's EBITDA or month-over-month growth of revenue.

ThredUp's Rotem said he understands that the Fed is trying to strike a balance — even if he wishes it were doing it differently.

"On the one hand, they want to support medium-sized businesses," he said. "On the other hand, they need to do what's in the public's interest, and that's not to fund companies that are going to go out of business."

It's unclear when the Fed will officially open up the Main Street program, but it's possible more guidelines are coming that could clarify the role of startups and even tweak the EBITDA requirement. Until then, "lobbying efforts are ramping up," said NVCA's Field. And lawmakers have pledged to keep pushing.

"The Main Street Lending Program should not only ensure that today's thriving businesses survive," the lawmakers wrote in their letter to the Fed, "but also support those businesses with the potential to drive expansion when the economy recovers."

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported that Rep. Jeff Van Drew signed a letter urging changes to the Main Street Lending Program. This story was updated on April 23, 2020.

People

Expensify CEO David Barrett: ‘Most CEOs are not bad people, they're just cowards’

"Remember that one time when we almost had civil war? What did you do about it?"

Expensify CEO David Barrett has thoughts on what it means for tech CEOs to claim they act apolitically.

Photo: Expensify

The Trump presidency ends tomorrow. It's a political change in which Expensify founder and CEO David Barrett played a brief, but explosive role.

Barrett became famous last fall — or infamous, depending on whom you ask — for sending an email to the fintech startup's clients, urging them to reject Trump and support President-elect Joe Biden.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Signal at (510)731-8429.

Protocol | Enterprise

Why Oracle and SAP are fighting over startups

Did someone mention a chance to burnish reputations and juice balance sheets?

New cloud-based offerings and favorable contract terms are convincing startups to switch to software from Oracle and SAP earlier in their lives than your might expect.
Jane Seidel

In the hunt for their next big-ticket customers, SAP and Oracle are trying to cast off reputations as stodgy tech providers by making a huge push to provide their software to startups.

Both companies have found themselves in choppy waters recently as potential customers have turned to the cloud, shunning the on-premises solutions SAP and Oracle are known for. That's coupled with a global pandemic that dried up demand for the expensive enterprise-grade software that drives profits at the vendors.

Keep Reading Show less
Joe Williams

Joe Williams is a senior reporter at Protocol covering enterprise software, including industry giants like Salesforce, Microsoft, IBM and Oracle. He previously covered emerging technology for Business Insider. Joe can be reached at JWilliams@Protocol.com. To share information confidentially, he can also be contacted on a non-work device via Signal (+1-309-265-6120) or JPW53189@protonmail.com.

Is this a VC bubble, or just the new normal?

Huge deals, little diligence and hyper-fast follow-on rounds have become commonplace. For now.

Things are looking awful frothy, aren't they?

Photo: Drew Beamer/Unsplash

The VC industry is "frothy," "overheated" or "bonkers," investors say. Whether this is the new normal or unhealthy signs of an overheated market depends on your point of view — and how well your portfolio is doing.

There are signs that VC has changed all around. In recent months, deal sizes and valuations have spiked in hot deals; due diligence on startups has evaporated as investors compete to get into hot deals first; venture firms are investing much more than they normally do; there are hyper-fast follow-on rounds; and more non-traditional investors are backing early-stage startups.

Keep Reading Show less
Tomio Geron

Tomio Geron ( @tomiogeron) is a San Francisco-based reporter covering fintech. He was previously a reporter and editor at The Wall Street Journal, covering venture capital and startups. Before that, he worked as a staff writer at Forbes, covering social media and venture capital, and also edited the Midas List of top tech investors. He has also worked at newspapers covering crime, courts, health and other topics. He can be reached at tgeron@protocol.com or tgeron@protonmail.com.

COVID-19 bruised TripActions’ business. It chose to innovate.

If nobody's booking business flights through your startup, why not help people pay for their corporate takeout instead?

TripActions had to confront a world with far less travel.

Photo: TripActions

TripActions was a fast-growing startup that helped clients manage their business travel when the pandemic hit early last year. Now, almost a year later, it's also helping businesses with their work-from-home expenses.

Chief financial officer Thomas Tuchscherer compared what happened last spring to being in a speeding car that was forced off a cliff — a terrifying experience shared by most travel industry companies hit hard by the COVID-19 crisis.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Signal at (510)731-8429.

People

The year our personal lives took center stage at work

2020's blurring of professional and personal boundaries exacerbated disparities, humanized leaders and put personal values front and center.

In 2020, the personal and the professional became inextricable at work.

Photo: Tom Werner/Getty Images

For those of us lucky enough to keep our jobs and privileged enough to be able to work from home, our whole selves were bared at work this year. Our homes and faces were blown up for virtual inspection. Our children's demands and crises filled our working hours, and our working mothers became schoolteachers and housewives, whether they wanted to or not. Our illnesses became vital public information, and our tragedies shared. Our work lives ate into our social lives until there was no boundary between them.

In 2020, the personal and the professional became inextricable at work. Remote work might be the most sexy 2020 trend, but for the CEOs and leaders I spoke with, the de-professionalization of work could be the most important effect on a personal level. It's the one that has caused the most harm to women in the workplace and destroyed work-life balance for basically everyone. It's also what has contributed to the majority of work-from-home Americans being more satisfied with their work lives than they were before, mostly because they feel more connected to their families, they're able to set their own schedules and they're more comfortable at home, according to a Morning Consult poll. While we can't know exactly how many and who will be going back to the office just yet, as long as there is some kind of flexible work schedule, people's personal lives will be part of their work lives and vice versa.

Keep Reading Show less
Anna Kramer

Anna Kramer is a reporter at Protocol (@ anna_c_kramer), where she helps write and produce Source Code, Protocol's daily newsletter. Prior to joining the team, she covered tech and small business for the San Francisco Chronicle and privacy for Bloomberg Law. She is a recent graduate of Brown University, where she studied International Relations and Arabic and wrote her senior thesis about surveillance tools and technological development in the Middle East.

Latest Stories