More stories

  • in

    The Business Rules the Trump Administration Is Racing to Finish

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Presidential TransitionLatest UpdatesHouse Moves to Remove TrumpHow Impeachment Might WorkBiden Focuses on CrisesCabinet PicksAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyThe Business Rules the Trump Administration Is Racing to FinishFrom tariffs and trade to the status of Uber drivers, regulators are trying to install new rules or reduce regulations before President-elect Joe Biden takes over.President Trump is rushing to put into effect new economic regulations and executive orders before his term comes to a close.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesJan. 11, 2021, 3:00 a.m. ETIn the remaining days of his administration, President Trump is rushing to put into effect a raft of new regulations and executive orders that are intended to put his stamp on business, trade and the economy.Previous presidents in their final term have used the period between the election and the inauguration to take last-minute actions to extend and seal their agendas. Some of the changes are clearly aimed at making it harder, at least for a time, for the next administration to pursue its goals.Of course, President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. could issue new executive orders to overturn Mr. Trump’s. And Democrats in Congress, who will control the House and the Senate, could use the Congressional Review Act to quickly reverse regulatory actions from as far back as late August.Here are some of the things that Mr. Trump and his appointees have done or are trying to do before Mr. Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20. — Peter EavisProhibiting Chinese apps and other products. Mr. Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday banning transactions with eight Chinese software applications, including Alipay. It was the latest escalation of the president’s economic war with China. Details and the start of the ban will fall to Mr. Biden, who could decide not to follow through on the idea. Separately, the Trump administration has also banned the import of some cotton from the Xinjiang region, where China has detained vast numbers of people who are members of ethnic minorities and forced them to work in fields and factories. In another move, the administration prohibited several Chinese companies, including the chip maker SMIC and the drone maker DJI, from buying American products. The administration is weighing further restrictions on China in its final days, including adding Alibaba and Tencent to a list of companies with ties to the Chinese military, a designation that would prevent Americans from investing in those businesses. — Ana SwansonDefining gig workers as contractors. The Labor Department on Wednesday released the final version of a rule that could classify millions of workers in industries like construction, cleaning and the gig economy as contractors rather than employees, another step toward endorsing the business practices of companies like Uber and Lyft. — Noam ScheiberTrimming social media’s legal shield. The Trump administration recently filed a petition asking the Federal Communications Commission to narrow its interpretation of a powerful legal shield for social media platforms like Facebook and YouTube. If the commission doesn’t act before Inauguration Day, the matter will land in the desk of whomever Mr. Biden picks to lead the agency. — David McCabeTaking the tech giants to court. The Federal Trade Commission filed an antitrust suit against Facebook in December, two months after the Justice Department sued Google. Mr. Biden’s appointees will have to decide how best to move forward with the cases. — David McCabeAdding new cryptocurrency disclosure requirements. The Treasury Department late last month proposed new reporting requirements that it said were intended to prevent money laundering for certain cryptocurrency transactions. It gave only 15 days — over the holidays — for public comment. Lawmakers and digital currency enthusiasts wrote to the Treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, to protest and won a short extension. But opponents of the proposed rule say the process and substance are flawed, arguing that the requirement would hinder innovation, and are likely to challenge it in court. — Ephrat LivniLimiting banks on social and environmental issues. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is rushing a proposed rule that would ban banks from not lending to certain kinds of businesses, like those in the fossil fuel industry, on environmental or social grounds. The regulator unveiled the proposal on Nov. 20 and limited the time it would accept comments to six weeks despite the interruptions of the holidays. — Emily FlitterOverhauling rules on banks and underserved communities. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is also proposing new guidelines on how banks can measure their activities to get credit for fulfilling their obligations under the Community Reinvestment Act, an anti-redlining law that forces them to do business in poor and minority communities. The agency rewrote some of the rules in May, but other regulators — the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation — did not sign on. — Emily FlitterInsuring “hot money” deposits. On Dec. 15, the F.D.I.C. expanded the eligibility of brokered deposits for insurance coverage. These deposits are infusions of cash into a bank in exchange for a high interest rate, but are known as “hot money” because the clients can move the deposits from bank to bank for higher returns. Critics say the change could put the insurance fund at risk. F.D.I.C. officials said the new rule was needed to “modernize” the brokered deposits system. — Emily FlitterNarrowing regulatory authority over airlines. The Department of Transportation in December authorized a rule, sought by airlines and travel agents, that limits the department’s authority over the industry by defining what constitutes an unfair and deceptive practice. Consumer groups widely opposed the rule. Airlines argued that the rule would limit regulatory overreach. And the department said the definitions it used were in line with its past practice. — Niraj ChokshiRolling back a light bulb rule. The Department of Energy has moved to block a rule that would phase out incandescent light bulbs, which people and businesses have increasingly been replacing with much more efficient LED and compact fluorescent bulbs. The energy secretary, Dan Brouillette, a former auto industry lobbyist, said in December that the Trump administration did not want to limit consumer choice. The rule had been slated to go into effect on Jan. 1 and was required by a law passed in 2007. — Ivan PennAdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    States Overpaid Unemployment Benefits and Want Money Back

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyJobless Benefits Saved Them, Until States Wanted the Money BackA pandemic relief program allows no forgiveness of overpayments, even when recipients are not at fault and the funds are already spent.William and Diana Villafana were told they had received more than $7,000 in excess unemployment benefits. To collect the debt, Nevada is taking all of his benefits and paying her $73 a week.Credit…Bridget Bennett for The New York TimesDec. 11, 2020, 5:00 a.m. ETUnemployment payments that looked like a lifeline may now, for many, become their ruin.Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, a federal program that covers gig workers, part-time hires, seasonal workers and others who do not qualify for traditional unemployment benefits, has kept millions afloat. The program, established by Congress in March as part of the CARES Act, has provided over $70 billion in relief.But in carrying out the hastily conceived program, states have overpaid hundreds of thousands of workers — often because of administrative errors. Now states are asking for that money back.The notices come out of the blue, with instructions to repay thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars. Those being billed, already living on the edge, are told that their benefits will be reduced to compensate for the errors — or that the state may even put a lien on their home, come after future wages or withhold tax refunds.Many who collected payments are still out of a job, and may have little prospect of getting one. Most had no idea that they were being overpaid.“When somebody gets a bill like this, it completely terrifies them,” said Michele Evermore, a senior policy analyst for the National Employment Law Project, a nonprofit workers’ rights group. Sometimes the letters themselves are in error — citing overpayments when benefits were correctly paid — but either way, she said, the stress “is going to cost people’s lives.”The hastily conceived Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program has presented other troubles, including widespread fraud schemes and challenges with processing. As a result, states only recently had enough resources to start sending out overpayment notices. In the meantime, people have been collecting — and spending — sometimes thousands of dollars in what they understood to be legitimate benefits.Olive Stewart, a 56-year-old immigrant from Jamaica, worked part time as a sous-chef at a cafeteria at a Jewish school in Philadelphia, earning $16 an hour for roughly 25 hours a week. But when the pandemic hit and schools shut down, she was laid off.Ms. Stewart applied for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance and began receiving $234 a week. It was not quite enough to cover the $650 in rent, $200 electric bill and $200 internet bill for the house she shares with her 12-year-old daughter, her retired mother and her sister, who has a disability that prevents her from working. To make ends meet, Ms. Stewart started dipping into her savings.Then, on Oct. 6, she got a notice saying that Pennsylvania’s unemployment insurance vendor, Geographic Solutions, had overpaid her by accident. The overpayment included funds from Pandemic Unemployment Assistance and from a $600 federal supplement to unemployment insurance. In total, she was told, she would have to pay back nearly $8,000.To collect the debt, the state began to withhold more than half of her unemployment payments, leaving her just $105 a week. In early November, the state began taking all of her unemployment benefits, leaving her with no income. She has yet to pay her December rent.“The state should be paying attention to what they are sending out,” Ms. Stewart said. “It was their mistake, and I’ve already spent all the money on food and rent. How am I going to pay it back?”Geographic Solutions made duplicate payments for 30,000 Pennsylvania claims because of a system problem, a $280 million mistake, the State Department of Labor and Industry said. (The company says the problem arose from a one-day error that was immediately reported.) Overpayments can also occur if an applicant makes a mistake on a form, as ProPublica reported, or if a state determines that a recipient should not have been eligible.As of Sept. 30, about 27 percent of those approved for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance in Ohio had been overpaid, about 162,000 claims. In mid-November, the figure in Colorado was about 29,000; in Texas, it was over 41,000.Many states waive overpayments on regular unemployment insurance when no fraud is involved, or when paying the money back would cause someone significant hardship. But the federal rules for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance prohibit forgiveness. Even if the state is at fault, the recipient is on the hook.States often start collecting the overpayment automatically, by withholding a portion — from 30 to 100 percent — of future unemployment benefit payments.Many overpayments arose because state unemployment systems are designed to calculate benefits using W-2 forms, employer records, pay stubs and other documents associated with traditional jobs. But because gig workers and part-timers had different sorts of documentation, states had to adapt quickly to a new method of processing and approving claims.Mistakes in the rollout were inevitable, said Behnaz Mansouri, a senior attorney for the Unemployment Law Project, a nonprofit legal aid organization in Seattle.Business & EconomyLatest UpdatesUpdated Dec. 10, 2020, 4:09 p.m. ETWalmart is preparing to administer a coronavirus vaccine once it is available.Mastercard and Visa stop allowing their cards to be used on Pornhub.The U.S. budget deficit hit $207 billion in November.“For a new system to have such a punitive response when the system itself fails seems overly harsh and draconian,” Ms. Mansouri said.“I don’t think they understand that unemployment benefits are for survival,” Mr. Villafana said. “Or if they do understand it, they don’t care.”Credit…Bridget Bennett for The New York TimesGina Jones, 29, was furloughed in March from her part-time job at a breakfast bar at a Quality Inn in Spokane, Wash., and began receiving $750 a week from the pandemic program, which allowed her to pay for rent, food and necessities for her two daughters, ages 1 and 5. She was called back to work in July, and now works about 28 hours a week at $13.50 an hour.Then, in mid-November, she checked her unemployment portal online and saw a message that she had been overpaid by nearly $12,500. She fears that the state will start garnishing her wages to collect the debt.“I already used that money to support my family,” Ms. Jones said. “It’s all gone, and I can’t afford to pay it back.”Asking people to pay back unemployment funds can undermine the unemployment system’s goal of stabilizing the economy, said Philip Spesshardt, branch manager for benefits services at the Colorado Division of Unemployment Insurance.If a person’s unemployment checks are reduced each week because of an overpayment, the recipient will have less cash to pay bills and patronize local businesses. “Ultimately that has a cascading effect on many of those small businesses, causing them to close permanently and further adding to the unemployment rate,” Mr. Spesshardt said.While overpayments under the federal program cannot be waived, applicants can appeal demands for reimbursement after the notice is issued. But the time allowed for appeal can be as little as seven days. After that, the process can be slow, confusing and cumbersome.Colorado has taken steps to address the hardships of reimbursement. In October, after the state noted the large number of overpayments, it determined that the application form was confusing because it did not specify whether the person filing was supposed to provide gross or net income. It decided to “write off” cases where the recipients had submitted earnings and tax documentation that would have allowed the correct benefit to be calculated.Asked how the policy squared with the federal prohibition against forgiveness, a spokeswoman for the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment cited “the administrative burden that it would create for us to collect on these overpayments given competing priorities.”House Democrats have called for renewed pandemic relief to include a provision allowing states to waive overpayments when workers cannot repay them without severe hardship. The provision would apply to previous and future cases. A separate House bill, with bipartisan sponsorship, provides for forgiveness if the overpayment was not the recipient’s fault and “such repayment would be contrary to equity and good conscience.”But the possibility of a remedy is not much consolation to those wondering how they will pay rent and put food on the table in the meantime.William and Diana Villafana, 55 and 34, who before the pandemic ran a car rental business in Henderson, Nev., were told in late October that between them, they had been overpaid by more than $7,000. To cover that debt, the state is taking all of Mr. Villafana’s benefits, and giving Ms. Villafana $73 a week. They are using credit cards for their $2,000 monthly rent, as well as utilities, food and other necessities.“I don’t think they understand that unemployment benefits are for survival,” Mr. Villafana said. “Or if they do understand it, they don’t care.”Mr. Villafana worries about how he will continue to provide for their son and daughter, ages 6 and 7. When his daughter recently asked for a paintbrush set and an easel, he didn’t know what to tell her.“It’s kind of hard to explain to them, ‘Look, you can’t do this’ or ‘I can’t buy you that,’” he said. “I have no idea what we’re going to do about Christmas.”Sheelagh McNeill contributed research.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    DoorDash Stock Soars After Initial Public Offering

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyDoorDash Soars in First Day of TradingThe delivery company’s shares closed at $190 each, 86 percent above its initial public offering price of $102, in a sign of investor appetite.The New York Stock Exchange president, Stacey Cunningham, rang the opening bell as DoorDash celebrated its initial public offering on Wednesday.  Credit…NYSEDec. 9, 2020SAN FRANCISCO — Wall Street loves a pandemic winner.Shares of DoorDash soared in their first day of trading on Wednesday, capping a year of outsize growth for the country’s largest food delivery company. DoorDash stock rose 86 percent above its initial public offering price of $102 to close the day at $189.51.That valued the company at $72 billion, including employee-owned shares — more than the market capitalization of Domino’s Pizza and Chipotle Mexican Grill combined. DoorDash raised $3.4 billion, making it the one of the largest I.P.O.s of the year.Investors piled into the stock despite DoorDash’s deep losses and the intensely competitive market in which it operates. In the week before it went public, DoorDash raised its proposed price range 16 percent to $92.5 per share at the midpoint before pricing even higher. The pandemic has been a boon to the company, as people turned to delivery services while stuck in their homes.Tony Xu, the chief executive of DoorDash, said the company would try not to “chase the scoreboard” and the stock market hype as a public company. “I recognize the significance of the milestone and the moment, but it is one day on this multidecade journey,” he said.DoorDash’s listing heralds a banner week of public offerings for technology start-ups. Airbnb priced its offering on Wednesday at $68 a share, according to people with knowledge of the matter. The home rental company had raised its offering price range once, in the face of high demand, and could be valued at $47 billion, far above its $18 billion valuation in the private market this year. It will begin trading on Thursday.The e-commerce start-up Wish, the video gaming company Roblox and the real estate start-up OpenDoor also plan to list their shares before the end of the year. The events are set to deliver windfalls to the companies’ founders, employees and investors in what is expected to be the busiest year for I.P.O.s since 1999. More than 200 companies valued at more than $50 million have gone public so far this year, according to Renaissance Capital, which tracks I.P.O.s.Many of these companies lose money. Even so, investors have largely given them warm welcomes as they go public. Private investors valued Snowflake, a data warehousing company, at $12 billion before it went public in September. Since then, its valuation has soared to $107 billion.“It’s been 20-plus years since we’ve seen this many I.P.O.s,” said David Hsu, a professor of management at the University of Pennsylvania. But he added a cautionary note about the enthusiasm. “At some point, we do have to look at some fundamentals,” he said.DoorDash’s debut also shows the extreme economic disparities created by the pandemic. Restaurants, struggling to survive government-mandated closures, have increasingly relied on delivery apps like DoorDash to stay in business.DoorDash has grown during the pandemic as more people turn to meal deliveries.Credit…Sean Sirota for The New York TimesThe apps, which dispatch armies of gig workers to pick up and deliver orders, charge fees that some restaurant owners have said are onerous. In many cases, takeout orders have not made up for the lost revenue of indoor dining. Chains including Ruby Tuesday, California Pizza Kitchen and the parent company of Chuck E. Cheese have gone bankrupt this year.But DoorDash has thrived. In the first nine months of the year, its revenue more than tripled from the same period last year, to $1.92 billion. Orders surged to 543 million through September, compared with 181 million a year earlier.Ahead of its I.P.O., DoorDash announced a $200 million pledge to various programs to help restaurants and delivery drivers. It invited a number of restaurant owners and delivery drivers to virtually attend the stock market opening bell ringing and featured them in outdoor marketing campaigns around New York and San Francisco.Despite its rapid growth, DoorDash is burning cash. It lost $149 million in the first nine months of the year and warned investors that the pandemic-spurred growth was likely to slow down.Mr. Xu said the company would continue to spend money to grow “commensurate with the opportunity.”Mr. Hsu said DoorDash’s “astonishing” valuation made him think investors had overemphasized the effects of the pandemic.“When you get to this market cap level, there are questions about where do you go from here?” he said.DoorDash recently won a long-fought battle over its use of contract workers. Last month, Californians passed Proposition 22, a ballot measure that exempts DoorDash, Uber, Lyft and others from a state law that would have required them to treat their drivers as employees. The companies are expected to push for similar rules in other states.Tony Xu, DoorDash’s chief executive, said the company would not focus on the market hype. “I recognize the significance of the milestone and the moment, but it is one day on this multidecade journey,” he said.Credit…Jim McAuley for The New York TimesDoorDash has grown, in part, by focusing on suburban markets and partnerships with large chain restaurants. Founded in 2013 by Mr. Xu, Stanley Tang, Andy Fang and Evan Moore, it survived a ruthlessly competitive market for longer than many of its competitors. This year, two players, Grubhub and Postmates, were acquired by larger rivals.Through the deal-making, DoorDash has remained independent. It counts one million drivers and 18 million customers in the United States, Canada and Australia.The company has experimented with different business models, including a subscription service, DashPass, which costs $9.99 a month for unlimited deliveries. DashPass has five million subscribers.DoorDash began operating commissary buildings where restaurants can rent space and prepare food specifically for deliveries. It has struck partnerships with grocers, pet food companies and drugstores. The company even invested in Burma Bites, a local restaurateur.The succession of tech I.P.O.s provides long-awaited returns to venture capital investors. Many of the companies going public are a decade old. Plentiful venture funding has allowed “unicorn” start-ups, worth $1 billion or more, to put off going public, and with it the pressure to turn a profit, for as long as possible.Sequoia Capital, which has backed Airbnb, DoorDash, Snowflake and several other sizable start-ups going public this year, is expected to reap a bonanza. So is Founders Fund, a venture firm that is a large shareholder in Airbnb and Wish. And the Japanese conglomerate SoftBank, which was bruised by bad bets on the office rental company WeWork and others, could be redeemed by its investments in DoorDash and OpenDoor.Matt Phillips contributed reporting.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More