of the difference between inside and outside jobs by way of the different rates of progression in these two tables (as well as in the provision allowing enhancements for abuse of positions of trust), it is difficult to see why a court should take account of this difference in any,other way, especially when doing so would contradict the directive in the commentary to § 2B1.1 to apply the principles of § 2F1.1's commentary in fraudulent loan cases. 2 . See subsection C, infra, for a discussion of the two exceptions to this general rule embodied in otir circuit's case law. 3 . Finally, it is important to note that our analysis in this case would not be affected by application of the concept of "intended loss.” See, e.g., United States v. Moored, 38 F.3d 1419, 1428-29 (6th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Cases like Moored are distinguishable from
holding that funds were unavailable for attachment under section 1610 because they were never used for or designated for use in commercial activity holding that the district court erred in finding that defendant intended to inflict a 1700000 loss in a case where the loans were applied for with fraudulent information but never issued because discovery of the fraud occurred before the funds were released holding that district court erred in passing upon defendants claim of excusable neglect where defendant never requested an extension of time from the bankruptcy judge but only opposed plaintiffs motion to dismiss by alleging in oral argument before the district court facts which were claimed to establish excusable neglect holding the defendant responsible for the greater of the actual or intended loss holding the district court erred by finding an automatic conflict of interest merely because insurer and administrator were the same