Jared Kushner’s Air Bridge may have worked to not only expedite delivery of PPE, but also failed to deliver by hoarding an as yet unaccounted amount of PPE materiel.
Trump has been called a “day-trader” and the margin-businesses popular with venture capitalists excites those risk seekers playing with other people’s money. Kusher’s tasks always had some element of related profit, whether it was the Qatari financing for his white elephant building, his brother’s website, or the real estate swap pretending to be a Middle East Peace plan. A new article about his various schemes also lays out the history of Kushner’s jamming square pegs for his father-in-law.
DoorDash does customer acquisition — by bullying restaurants. But what’s funnier about Roy’s friend’s problem (and it was a real problem because of Yelp reviews and angry customers) is that DoorDash priced the pizzas incorrectly. “A pizza that he charged $24 for was listed as $16 by Doordash,” emphasis Roy’s. And then: “My third thought: Cue the Wall Street trader in me…..ARBITRAGE!!!!”
And so the story unfolds. “If someone could pay Doordash $16 a pizza, and Doordash would pay his restaurant $24 a pizza, then he should clearly just order pizzas himself via Doordash, all day long. You’d net a clean $8 profit per pizza [insert nerdy economics joke about there is such a thing as a free lunch],” wrote Roy. They order 10 pizzas this way, and it worked! The money was free, a seamless transfer from SoftBank’s deep venture capital-lined pockets to Roy’s friend’s business bank account. Eventually, in another series of what Roy hilariously calls “trades,” they just ordered pizza dough through DoorDash for $75 in pure profit.x
Later in the piece, Roy points out that DoorDash lost $450 million generating $900 million in revenue last year, which is wild. The delivery business was working just fine before DoorDash and co. swept in with piles of money to burn. Today, as Roy writes astutely, the model is broken. “You have insanely large pools of capital creating an incredibly inefficient money-losing business model,” he writes. “It’s used to subsidize an untenable customer expectation. You leverage a broken workforce to minimize your genuine labor expenses. The companies unload their capital cannons on customer acquisition, while this week’s Uber-Grubhub news reminds us, the only viable endgame is a promise of monopoly concentration and increased prices. But is that even viable?”
The answer isn’t clear because we’re very far from the old ways. By the magic of venture capital, some businesses don’t have to make money to survive. And that’s upended things for everyone. “Third-party delivery platforms, as they’ve been built, just seem like the wrong model, but instead of testing, failing, and evolving, they’ve been subsidized into market dominance,” as Roy puts it. “The more I learn about food delivery platforms, as they exist today, I wonder if we’ve managed to watch an entire industry evolve artificially and incorrectly.”
As Bloomberg put it last Halloween: “GrubHub Inc. just announced disappointing quarterly results and said that food delivery is only a means to an end, unlikely to ever be profitable on its own. The risk heading into 2020 is that the inevitable reckoning for the food-delivery businesses will spread to the broader restaurant industry.” And at the end of the first quarter of 2020, that looks more prescient than ever. According to its first quarter report, GrubHub, the only profitable restaurant delivery business, lost $33.4 million over the last 3 months. (In fairness: COVID-19.)
I am no venture capitalist, but I think Roy is right. If your business doesn’t have the traditional incentives — to reiterate, the point of a capitalist business is to make money — and only has to focus on scale, entire industries can collapse or at least end up confused. The thing about all of this is that the old ways weren’t inefficient or even that inconvenient. If these businesses collapse, as Uber is currently collapsing, I can’t imagine that customers won’t go back to how things were before, assuming restaurants et alia survive. (I, for one, am hoping they do.) Hailing a taxi or ordering delivery might be a little more difficult after the venture capital dries up, but as long as you can still use a smartphone to call people, I think we’ll be all right.
How did we get to a place where billions of dollars are exchanged in millions of business transactions but there are no winners? My co-host Can and my restaurant friend both defaulted to the notion “delivery is a shitty margin business” when discussing this post. But I don’t think that’s sufficient here. Delivery can work. Just look at a Domino’s stock chart. But, delivery has been carefully built as part of a holistic business model and infrastructure. Maybe that’s the viable model.
After the start of this pandemic, my friend actually launched in-house delivery at one of his restaurants. He said he’s starting to get a sense of the economics and explained he’s starting to get a sense of the volume required per location to make the economics reasonably work. That’s what is so odd to me about third-party delivery platforms. The business of food delivery clearly is not intrinsically a loser. Domino’s figured it out. Every Chinese restaurant in New York City seemed to have it figured out long before any platform came along. My friend is figuring it out.
That’s the thing about how industries have evolved over the past decade. I know I ascribe ZIRP as the cause of all ills in the world, but this sometimes feels like the greatest ZIRP story ever told.
The more I learn about food delivery platforms, as they exist today, I wonder if we’ve managed to watch an entire industry evolve artificially and incorrectly. Arbitrage is about taking advantage of market inefficiencies and for all the newly minted day-traders out there, perhaps it’s time to start looking into frontier markets like pizza.
Note 1: We found out afterward that was all the result of a “demand test” by Doordash. They have a test period where they scrape the restaurant’s website and don’t charge any fees to anyone, so they can ideally go to the restaurant with positive order data to then get the restaurant signed onto the platform. If we had to pay a customer fee on the order, it would’ve further cut into our arbitrage profits (though maybe we could’ve incorporated DashPass as part of the calculation).
Kushner raised eyebrows when he strutted into the role of pandemic point man for the White House, alongside his former roommate and a handful of McKinsey & Company management consultants. As Chris Buskirk wrote in these pages, Team McKinsey has “a history of doing little more than helping failing institutions fail in style while growing rich in the process.”
Project Airbridge, Kushner’s plan to take the reins of the Federal Emergency Management Agency supply-chain task force and partner with private companies to fly health care supplies to New York City from China, lived up to the McKinsey style.
Never mind that the Chinese government, through state-run media, threatened to plunge America into “the mighty sea of coronavirus” as we grappled with the pandemic. Kushner’s solution for a problem caused by China, and exacerbated by our manufacturing dependency on that country, was to turn to Beijing for “help.” Managed decline, brought to you by Kushner and McKinsey & Company.
Square Pegs, Round Holes
Kushner’s record in the public and private sector is long and mediocre. After he took over the New York Observer, the newspaper stopped its weekly print edition that had been in operation since 1987.
“Kushner paid $1.8 billion,” Michelle Goldberg reports, “for a Manhattan skyscraper at the very top of the real estate market in 2007. The debt from that project became a crushing burden for the family business.”
His immigration plan, shopped to GOP senators in a PowerPoint presentation, was dismissed as “laughably simplistic.” His plan for the Palestinian economy was lampooned by Michael J. Koplow of the Israel Policy Forum as “the Monty Python version of Israeli-Palestinian peace, where no contention is too absurd to be floated.”
Nevertheless, the president looks on as Kushner performs the political equivalent of jamming square pegs in round holes, encouraging him to try and try again.
Amid the sound and fury of the pandemic, most people didn’t notice that it was a health insurance company closely connected to Kushner, Oscar Health, that undertook development for a coronavirus website in partnership with the government. Kushner’s younger brother Joshua co-founded Oscar and is a major investor in the company, “and Jared Kushner partially owned or controlled Oscar before he joined the White House,” according to an exclusive report in the Atlantic. Though Oscar did the work free of charge before abruptly shutting down, it rightly raised the hackles of ethics lawyers.
The president’s supporters may rightly wonder if they voted for Kushner or Trump at this point.
“In every republic,” wrote Machiavelli, “there are two parties, that of the nobles and that of the people.” The former “have a great desire to dominate, whilst the latter have only the wish to not be dominated, and consequently a greater desire to live in the enjoyment of liberty.”
For many Americans, President Trump appeared to have broken rank with the “nobles” and descended his golden escalator to lend a hand to the people. Whether that is entirely true or not is up for debate. What is certain, however, is that his son-in-law remains aligned with the acquisitive, globe-trotting class whose schemes dominate the course of American political life and the lives of the little people who swab the floors of their high-rises.
Trump’s greatest weakness now is his inability to recognize that Kushner is the leader of a faction within the White House whose interests come at the expense of the very people who voted for him.
“Before the next national disaster strikes, free market ideologues would do well to reassess their assumptions and understand that a step in the direction of state planning is not a step into a communist abyss.” https://t.co/sTEQqflMKf— LA Review of Books (LARB) (@LAReviewofBooks) May 19, 2020
In contrast to the United States, many other governments, for all their flaws, are actively involved in the production and delivery of crucial goods and services in an effort to contain the virus. In China, hospitals were constructed in days. In South Korea, the government provided survival kits and home visits to incentivize people to stay self-quarantined. Germany has been experimenting with heavy testing combined with innovative testing protocols.
These strategies recognize that free enterprise alone cannot meet the needs of an unprecedented public health crisis and that governments must be actively involved in subsidization, procurement, and production. But the United States has resisted granting a significant role to the public sector (an example being the president’s reluctance to invoke the Defense Production Act). This preference for markets and corporations was in full display at President Trump’s early press briefings on the coronavirus, where he stood flanked by business leaders with whom so much mutual admiration was exchanged that, were it not for the demands of social distancing, one would have suggested they all get a room.
The problem is not intrinsic to corporations, which often display an admirable spirit of innovation. For example, gin distilleries in Brooklyn have repurposed their equipment for the production of hand sanitizer. The trouble is a pervasive free-market philosophy that puts business on a pedestal and disparages state action.
This philosophy today gets amplified, reiterated, and legitimized by social media stars. As the government considers its options during the current crisis, Charlie Kirk, the president of Turning Point USA, reminds us that “Socialism Sucks because it lets government pick winners and losers.” Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, warns: “Shutting down all businesses is the gov’t equivalent of hoarding toilet paper — and far more damaging to the pubic [sic] health and welfare.” (The latter being a curious case where a typo makes a nonsensical statement more coherent.)
Trump, while no doubt lacking in leadership, is obliged to cater to Americans’ mistrust of a socialized state. Before the next national disaster strikes, free market ideologues would do well to reassess their assumptions and understand that a step in the direction of state planning is not a step into a communist abyss.