The pot calling the kettle black. Jon Stewart found to have overvalued his NYC home by 829% after slamming Trump’s civil case as ‘not victimless’ (msn.com)
-
-
They are all the same no matter what they try to spew into a TV camera. -
How long before Letisha drags him before a crooked judge?
That's a rhetorical question. The answer is NEVER.Comment
-
He's telling New York to suck it.
'LOSER STATE': O'Leary says he will never invest in NY after Trump fraud ruling - YouTubeComment
-
They already admitted they won't go after you. Only Trump. How they get away with this is beyond me.Meet KiloComment
-
The >>ONLY<< reason he's back is the upcoming election......PERIODWell cut my legs off and call me shortyComment
-
The article is retarded. Jon S. sold his property. SOLD his property. Sold his property for more than the value assigned for tax assessment purposes. Nothing fraudulent about that. Happens every day.
Trump, in contrast, allegedly claimed a value far in excess of the current fair market value. And, by inflating the values, secured a financial gain. Trump also allegedly ADMITTED that his valuations of some properties were not based upon current values, but some future possible value. Meanwhile, the financial statements were to reflect current values.
So, on one hand, Jon S. sells in a hot market for a great gain. Trump allegedly lied repeatedly about the value of properties that had not sold, and could never sell in the present time for the alleged value.
Again, article is retarded and reflects a massive misunderstanding of the facts and the law associated with the tax fraud case. It's almost as though the author is willfully ignorant of the basis for the claims OR is simply pandering to an equally ignorant audience. An audience that, to this very day, apparently refuses to read the Judgment.
And, for a double dose of retardation, Jon S. never over valued his property to any lenders. He offered it for sale and sold it. The sale - assuming an arms length transaction - establishes the value. That's kinda the definition of FMV.
I'm no fan of Jon S., but this article is just stupid.Comment
-
It's not Trump's job to do due diligence on property values, he can value it wherever he wants: I think the Casio calculator sitting on my desk in front of me now is worth 1.6 billion: nothing wrong with that. It's up to a buyer to deduce that it's not worth that, and it's up to loan officers to deduce that Trump was full of crap. Current value does include net present value of future income streams, and that's always essentially a pie in the sky figure. -
DW’s correct. The lending institutions job is to determine the value of a property at the end of the day, not the seller or prospective buyer, never. The bank should vet the asset(s) on an outside asset based loan if a non associated property(s) are to be held as collateral. I’m going through this on a 1/1000000 scale on a couple pieces of commercial property I currently own.Last edited by Texashookset 2; 03-29-2024, 06:56 AM.
-
-
No, that's not how this works. Again, for the love of God, read the Judgment. Please, Read the Judgment.
Net present value of an income stream is an objective calculation. Sure, it may be a range, and assumes no default by the debtor.
If a bank asks you to fill out a financial statement listing the current values of your assets for a loan, and you list assets of 1.6 billion based upon your subjective valuation of your Casio Calculator, you are committing bank fraud. That is the definition of felony bank fraud, assuming you submit the financial statement to the bank.
And, in virtually every state, and under NY law, due diligence by the lender does not relieve the borrower of his or her obligation to submit an accurate financial statement. The crime of bank fraud is complete when you submit the false statement to the bank. Cause, you are lying about the value of your calculator. Same for Fed. Bank fraud.
FMV or current value of an asset may fall within a range. It may not be a specific dollar amount. But, that does not mean you get to make up some self-serving subjective value completely detached from reality. If the financial statements could be prepared based upon subjective values, like your example, they would be worthless and it would eliminate most of the mortgage and insurance fraud claims. Meanwhile, that policy would massively increase the cost of borrowing or insuring assets.
Read the Judgment, and we can discuss the specifics.Comment
-
So I'm going to jail if the DA just says my calculator is worth $.0001, when I know for sure I could even get two bucks for it at a pawnshop?
Listen, I know what the lay of the land is here, but it's really, really hard to cut the prosecution even a bit of slack over this: Trump did a fairly standard over-estimation of value, and they did a completely out of the ordinary over-prosecution of it. There's more than enough fault to go around to all parties here.Last edited by dwilliams35; 03-28-2024, 10:10 AM.Comment
-
Yeah, I'm not reading the judgement mainly because I have better things to do. However, my question pertains to the lenders obligations in these situations. Does the lender not bear any responsibility to validate the financial statement they are being provided prior to making any lending decisions?
When I take a home equity loan out against my house, the lender orders an appraisal to ensure the amount they lend me is within a market range. They do this to ensure they are not over-lending on a property for fear the HELOC may go into default and they are stuck with an asset that they can't recuperate their money on.
If DW wanted to sell his calculator for $1.6 billion and he found a buyer willing to pay that price and lender willing to lend money against the value of the asset (whether they did their due diligence or not), why is that DW's fault. If DW tried to take a loan out against his $1.6 billion calculator and he found a lender who was willing to take the risk and chose to forgo any appraisal process of said calculator, then again why is DW at fault?
Do financial institutions not have the freedom to make their own decisions about who to lend money to and what collateral to lend money against? Do they not bear some level of responsibility to make sound decisions for their owners, investors, etc.? If the answer is no because they are FDIC insured, then what role did the government play in the decision making process when Trump applied for the loan and why wasn't the loan denied to begin with based on exaggerated valuations?Comment
-
Banks value assets, essentially as a line of their business.
From real estate, to stocks, to homes, businesses. And they get the values wrong all of the time. CMBS crash (pick one from homes to office buildings), IPOs, dot come crash.
What value did the bank have for this DJT loan, did they commit bank fraud to?
Comment
-
If you submitted a financial statement alleging the calculator was worth 1.6 billion, the prosecutor claimed it was worth zero, and it was established that a pawn shop would buy it for $2.00, that is bank fraud in Texas. If the loan was for more than 300k, a 1st degree felony.
You would have knowingly made a material misstatement as to the value of the asset.
Read 32.32(b) of the Texas Penal Code. The making of the materially false statement is the felony. There is no defense based upon paying back the loan, or the bank should have done better due diligence.
No, what Trump is alleged to have done here is "pretty standard" bank fraud. Alleged. It's not "pretty standard" for commercial borrowers to submit materially false financial statements. We are not talking differences of opinion as to value within an objectively reasonable range. We are talking huge differences in valuation. Again, this is spelled out in the Judgment.
I'm not sure how folks expect to discuss a Judgment without reading it. We don't need to discuss Casio Calculators when the transactions are laid out in considerable details.
There are some arguments ( but perhaps not great arguments) in Trump's favor. Sadly, none of them are being discussed on this thread or the other threads. Instead, its these silly arguments re: subjective value, loans repaid, and due diligence.Comment
-
Trump was a personal guarantor on at least one of the loans and was required to maintain a personal wealth of ~$2.5 billion and $50 million in unencumbered liquidity. T valued himself at ~$4.5 billion based on misrepresentations of his wealth, property values, and assets. What is being alleged, at least in part, is T and company over valued other properties (not involved in the loans) to help increase T's worth above the $2.5 billion mark.
No one taking out a home equity loan is required or agreeing to maintaining a certain level of wealth or putting up other properties as collateral.Last edited by copanoson; 03-28-2024, 11:32 AM.Comment
-
Sooooo.... banks just take your word for it? They don't use their own assessment to evaluate the position.
Sounds like a dumb bank to not verify. And they got paid back early with interest so it seems it worked out. Good call.Comment
-
I guess everytime I had to put up my $2.5 billion in personal assurance the financial institution went ahead and checked.... I told em my boats were worth $500million each and my tractor was another $500million.... they ran the numbers anyway....Comment
Comment