[W:778] (Bloomberg Law) Trump Bond Reduced to $175 Million as He Appeals NY Fine

[LostInSeattle]

they could charge people 50% interest and make more I guess???

liberals are REALLY upset than rich banking institutions didn't make more money ? seriously ?

This is not what anyone is arguing so please stop deflecting with comments like this.

I'd say ya'll made EXACTLY the deal you wanted and the bank wanted - there wasn't a victim at all

What anyone would want and what they expect in this type of situation is a deal predicated on accurate, truthful information. If someone lies and deliberately provides inaccurate information - in my example the appraiser - then I am signing a loan based on misrepresentations of value. To make this analogy closer to the Trump case, what if the bank bribed the appraiser to undervalue the property so I had to borrow at a higher interest rate than I would otherwise. Would I be a victim then? I think so.

If you go to a supermarket and find something on sale, put it in your cart, and then at the cash register you are charged full price instead of the sales price on purpose, but you don't notice it, are you a victim? You are, and the supermarket is the perpetrator because they offered you a sale price and charged you the full price.

The legal definition of fraud is, "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain." Someone can be a victim and not know it - in fact they usually don't know it - but they are nevertheless a victim.,

Why is this a concept that you struggle with?

Again, read the first few pages of the decision. It lays out the law very clearly and convincingly.

I don't anyone here has made many business deals and understand how it all works

I make business deals all the time. So what?

 

[Atomic Kid]

One of the things a person would learn if they read ruling, is that Trump's numbers for Mar a Lago were constantly misrepresented due to his ignoring the property is deed restricted and does not hold the same value as a private residence. So trying to suggest that a nearby property sold for such and such, therefore Mar a Lago is worth as much if not more is a wasted effort.

View attachment 67501276

View attachment 67501277

View attachment 67501278

OMG! 400% more than the most expensive private residence listed in the entire country? Small wonder the judge characterized Trump's valuation estimates of his properties as belonging to a "fantasy world, not the real world."

 

[Atomic Kid]

You probably should take a class or two on real estate investments just to get started, and learn a tax assessor valuation is typically less than what a property would command on the open market.

If there is anyone here who in need of a refresher course, it's you. Mar A Lago is not a private residential property with no encumbrances and given the stipulations in the deed it never will be. It will always be a resort property. Period!

 

[LostInSeattle]

What does matter is if someone way overvalues their property the people doing their own appraisal will reject it. The people he borrowed from had no complaints then or now and said they'd loan money again. Have you ever noticed we value things we're selling more than the things we're buying? The car we'd buy for 10,000 we sell for 15,000.


I'm fairly certain since the beginning of time with any trades or sales there is always a degree of puffery. The seller high balls the buyer low balls and ideally they find a win win situation which is what happened here with Trump. The system won't collapse, that's absurd.

Read the judgment.

 

[LostInSeattle]

Are you saying the banks that loaned Trump the money magically ran out of money to loan ? c'mon man

If any bank had an infinite loan portfolio, there would be no need for other banks.

c'mon man.

I didn't say that at all.

Go back, reread everything.

What I've said is fine him $500,000 and lets move on. No victims here, the banks make exactly the money they expected to when they signed the loans/deals. period, end of story



you will NEVER be looked at by an AG or judge on a business deal. NEVER EVER EVER



100% absolutely did NOT and you know it, please stop spreading false information

Could the banks have made more lending to other people are higher rates? Yes, they can gig borrowers for 2X or 3X or more the interest rates if the borrowers will sign the papers and make the deals, sure. But they didn't do that here, they made the deal they thought was best and guess what ?

They were right, Trump paid it back exactly like the deal said. Winner Winner for the banks !

The judgment explains how the penalty amount was arrived at. Try reading it and get back to us with your trenchant analysis of why it's wrong.

 

[George50]

You probably should take a class or two on real estate investments just to get started, and learn a tax assessor valuation is typically less than what a property would command on the open market.

So how much less would a typical tax assessor valuation be than what a property would command on the open market? 10% less, 20% less, 25% less, 50% less, 75% less, 90% less, 95% less, how about 99% less?

 

[Common Sense 1]

he didn't make any money illegally

he took a loan that the bank researched and decided to give to him based on certain terms that Trump agreed with, they signed ... the bank made money, Trump was happy, banks were happy

happy happy

So true!

 

[SkyFox76]

So how much less would a typical tax assessor valuation be than what a property would command on the open market? 10% less, 20% less, 25% less, 50% less, 75% less, 90% less, 95% less, how about 99% less?

That's the hilarious part. They're trying to convince us that the amounts whether it's $18 million or even $27 million is valid somehow a reasonable "lesser value" assessment on a property supposedly worth $1.5 Billion.

 

[George50]

What does matter is if someone way overvalues their property the people doing their own appraisal will reject it. The people he borrowed from had no complaints then or now and said they'd loan money again.

Are you sure about loaning him money again? I’ve seen others say that but I’ve not seen the source, plus someone may have testified to that but it may just be they didn’t want to be on the retribution list.

Either way it looks like he’s been having trouble getting loans:

“Donald Trump used to bank with the big guns. Now he’s borrowing from Axos Financial, an obscure, internet-only institution based in San Diego and Las Vegas.

In mid-February, Axos refinanced a $100 million Trump Tower mortgage due in September, a New York City Finance Department document shows. The new loan was made just days after The Trump Organization’s auditor resigned, saying that 10 years of the company’s financial statements could not be relied upon.


In lending to The Trump Organization, Axos is stepping up when other bankshave balked. But this is not unheard-of for Axos. An examination of legal filings, internal documents and land records shows Axos has a history of handling atypical loans.

Axos has teamed up with nonbank lenders on loans to small businesses that carried cripplingly high double- and triple-digit effective annual interest rates, loan documents show. The bank has also specialized in loans to foreign nationals, internal documents and its website state, and has offered a type of loan that allows borrowers who paid cash for a property to turn around and instantly take money out. Such loans may pose money laundering risks, banking analysts say.”

Trump used to borrow from big banks. Now look who's lending him money.

An examination of legal filings, internal documents and land records shows Axos Financial has a history of handling atypical loans.

www.nbcnews.com

Have you ever noticed we value things we're selling more than the things we're buying? The car we'd buy for 10,000 we sell for 15,000.

Don’t you mean the car we’d buy for 10,000 we’d sell for 200,000?

I'm fairly certain since the beginning of time with any trades or sales there is always a degree of puffery. The seller high balls the buyer low balls and ideally they find a win win situation which is what happened here with Trump. The system won't collapse, that's absurd.

Perhaps you are new to this thread or just haven’t been paying attention. Valuing something at 20 times what it is worth is not “a degree of puffery.”

 

[SkyFox76]

Are you sure about loaning him money again? I’ve seen others say that but I’ve not seen the source, plus someone may have testified to that but it may just be they didn’t want to be on the retribution list.

Either way it looks like he’s been having trouble getting loans:

“Donald Trump used to bank with the big guns. Now he’s borrowing from Axos Financial, an obscure, internet-only institution based in San Diego and Las Vegas.

<snipped for character limit>

Deutsche cut ties in 2021. He has one loan left with them that's between $20,000-$50,000 that comes due this year.

Deutsche Bank joins companies cutting ties with Donald Trump​

Deutsche Bank became the latest large company to cut ties with Donald Trump, with the firm that has propped up the Trump Organization for two decades reportedly announcing it would no longer do business with the disgraced president.

The German bank’s move – reported by the New York Times – follows Wednesday’s deadly attack on the US Capitol building by a mob of Trump supporters. The number of corporations disassociating themselves from Trump is now turning into an avalanche.

Deutsche Bank has been Trump’s most important lender. The Trump Organization, fronted by his two older sons, owes the bank about $340m in outstanding loans. After a series of bankruptcies in the 1990s, it was the only bank willing to give Trump money.

Deutsche Bank joins companies cutting ties with Donald Trump

Bank had propped up Trump Organization for years despite being sued by president but acted after Capitol attack

www.theguardian.com

None of the people here saying that the banks testified that they'd loan again have shown any proof of that being said. I mean if they were so gung ho to lend again, where were they in the past 60 days?

Donald Trump's Deutsche Bank Ties Unravel​

The relationship between the Trump family and German lender Deutsche Bank has been a key focus of inquiry in recent days during the $250 million lawsuit against the former president, his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, and The Trump Organization.

This week, Donald Trump and his eldest daughter, Ivanka Trump, have both testified as part of New York Attorney General Letitia James' lawsuit accusing Trump of filing fraudulent financial statements which inflated the value of his properties and assets to obtain perks such as favorable loans and tax breaks.

Deutsche Bank cut ties with Trump in 2021 in the wake of the January 6 attack at the Capitol.

In October, former Deutsche Bank risk management officer Nicholas Haigh testified that the former president was able to obtain hundreds of millions of dollars in loans after using fraudulent financial statements.

"I assumed that the representations of the assets and liabilities were broadly accurate," Haigh said of Trump's financial statements.

Donald Trump's Deutsche Bank ties unravel

The former president and his daughter Ivanka Trump have both denied they misled the German lender during the civil fraud trial.

www.newsweek.com

An article I posted yesterday told how the bank had been wanting to break ties with Trump, but were uncertain how to carry it off. Then after some emails from the bank about a loan situation that were ignored on Trump's end, they felt closer to ending it, and Jan 6 was the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

[Athanasius68]

No evidence. How much exactly was paid to who exactly for what exactly.

Vague insinuations of "millions" finding a roundabout way into Joe Bidens hands for "influence " doesn't even amount to a specific allegation.

Maybe that's why the story constantly changes and the goalposts are always shifting. If there's never a concrete allegation- much less an charges - then it remains whatever you want it to be in the moment. Schrodinger's kickback scandal that both is and isn't at the same time.

It's laughable how flimsy thus conspiracy theory is, yet its adherents are so obstinate about it.

That's why we have investigations.

 

[Atomic Kid]

But, testifying for the defense, managing director David Williams said the bankers viewed clients’ reports of their net worth as “subjective or subject to estimates” and took its own view of such financial statements.

Deutsche Bank applied its "own" view of the statements of a client's estimates of the worth of their assets. Not a standard industry or accounting view. These loans did not go through the bank's commercial loan department. They went through a special Deutsche Bank department that caters to rich clients and provides lower interest rates to qualified clients than what they would typically be able to obtain via a traditional commercial loan. If the client's SFCs (statement of financial condition) meet the required minimums established by the bank.

“I think we expect clients-provided information to be accurate.

It wasn't. That was not only established in this civil trial but also in the previous criminal trial of the Trump Organization and the testimony of Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg who testified that the unaudited financial data provided to the accounting firm used by the Trump Organization that produced these SFCs for Trump for at least a decade, Mazars, did not comport to generally accepted accounting practices and deliberately so. This led to Mazars taking the highly usual step of making a public pronouncement to any financial institutions that may have been or may be involved that the financial documents they produced for the Trump Organization should no longer be relied upon and promptly terminated their business relationship with the Trump Organization.

At times, the bank pegged Trump’s wealth at several billion dollars lower than he did, according to documents and testimony. In 2019, for example, Trump’s financial statement listed his net worth at $5.8 billion, which the bank adjusted down to $2.5 billion.

But Williams said such differences weren’t necessarily unusual or alarming.

Deutsche Bank MD testifies on Trump's inflated income statements: 'It’s not an industry standard that these statements be audited'

David Williams said bankers viewed net worth claims as “subjective or subject to estimates” and a multibillion-dollar adjustment wasn't necessarily unusual.

fortune.com

Again this has no relation to accounting or banking standards. The was a policy that they held to be pretty much standard for them to trim (haircut) the client's valuations of their property assets by 50% and properties under development by 70% because their future value cannot be fully established, They don't audit or assess the market values submitted by the client. What they mainly rely upon in this particular department is the client's SFCs and the client's guarantee to pay off the loan and the client, in this case Trump, was required to maintain a minimum personal wealth of at least 2.5 billion dollars and a minimum cash flow of, I think, 40 million and they depend on the client's provided SFCs to establish that client is meeting those requirements of the loan.

Williams corroborated the testimony of Nicholas Haigh that Deutsche Bank would apply a standard 50% haircut to the values of assets supplied by a client on an SFC, testifying that "it is -it is after we have made what I would say are generally our standard adjustments that we apply to really any given high-net-worth individual or ultra-high-net-worth individual's provided financial statements."

Williams confirmed that the numbers to which Deutsche Bank applied its standard haircut in evaluating the credit risk of the Trump loans came from Donald Trump's SFCs.

Williams testified that Donald Trump agreed to continue a guarantee requirement "in order to keep a more favorable pricing on the loans."

Williams confirmed that in July 2021, Deutsche Bank determined to "exit" the client relationship with Donald Trump, stating "we would be opting not to renew or extend that credit facility, and we would advise the client with some advance notice of that."

 

[SkyFox76]

Deutsche Bank applied its "own" view of the statements of a client's estimates of the worth of their assets. Not a standard industry or accounting view. These loans did not go through the bank's commercial loan department. They went through a special Deutsche Bank department that caters to rich clients and provides lower interest rates to qualified clients than what they would typically be able to obtain via a traditional commercial loan. If the client's SFCs (statement of financial condition) meet the required minimums established by the bank.

It wasn't. That was not only established in this civil trial but also in the previous criminal trial of the Trump Organization and the testimony of Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg who testified that the unaudited financial data provided to the accounting firm used by the Trump Organization that produced these SFCs for Trump for at least a decade, Mazars, did not comport to generally accepted accounting practices and deliberately so. This led to Mazars taking the highly usual step of making a public pronouncement to any financial institutions that may have been or may be involved that the financial documents they produced for the Trump Organization should no longer be relied upon and promptly terminated their business relationship with the Trump Organization.

Again this has no relation to accounting or banking standards. The was a policy that they held to be pretty much standard for them to trim (haircut) the client's valuations of their property assets by 50% and properties under development by 70% because their future value cannot be fully established, They don't audit or assess the market values submitted by the client. What they mainly rely upon in this particular department is the client's SFCs and the client's guarantee to pay off the loan and the client, in this case Trump, was required to maintain a minimum personal wealth of at least 2.5 billion dollars and a minimum cash flow of, I think, 40 million and they depend on the client's provided SFCs to establish that client is meeting those requirements of the loan.

So there it is again. Not the imagined---we'd LOVE to do business with Trump again!!!

Williams confirmed that in July 2021, Deutsche Bank determined to "exit" the client relationship with Donald Trump, stating "we would be opting not to renew or extend that credit facility, and we would advise the client with some advance notice of that."

 

[Jredbaron96]

I'm not surprised.

The Appeals Court knows that Trump has a very solid 8th Amendment case against James and her pet judge.

If you think this, I don't think you know the 8th Amendment very well.

 

[uptower]

That's why we have investigations.

And this one has collapsed.

There was never any reasonable suspicion. If they went off and "investigated" internet rumors and found nothing but internet rumors, that should come as no surprise.

Still it has served its purpose. It will live on as a talking point (and somehow, a fait accompli) among the MAGA faithful and fellow keyboard warriors long after any sensible congressperson or prosecutor has abandoned it.

As the song says, don't stop believing.

LO effing L brother. Show's over.

 

[hooligan]

and the only way to determine who's lying is for the AG and Judges of the courts to investigate EVERY business loan

am I right ?

the banks can't decide it, the borrowers can't ... only a judge and AG can

Not typically, from what I can see.

 

[hooligan]

of course he did, I think that's been proven and I think most business loans/deals are very similar and the bigger the loans the more stretching of truths

with this ruling, a bank is now incapable of determining if a borrower's assets/income etc match what they say and with what the bank's own determinations were. ONLY a judge can determine that

that's ridiculous

can we all be honest? aint nobody every going to be looked at again for a business deal/loan and their applications/assets etc torn apart looking for discrepancies. Why ? because this was focusing only on attacking Trump and hoping it'd hurt his election chances in 2024

I know it and I think everyone knows it ......... will ya'll admit it though is the question ?

Complete nonsense.

 

[hooligan]

he absolutely did not

He absolutely did. Your refusal to accept it has no bearing on reality.

 

[stealthycat]

If any bank had an infinite loan portfolio, there would be no need for other banks.

c'mon man.

gotcha - this bank loaned Trump all its money is what you're saying. I think you're way wrong

and all that money the bank loaned? they MADE money on it ... maybe they couldn't have loaned it to others at all? we don't know that - maybe Trump saved the bank with this loan? Maybe he MADE the banks money where as if they waited to loan to other people they could gig for higher interest rates they might have waited months and months on it ? we don't know

The judgment explains how the penalty amount was arrived at. Try reading it and get back to us with your trenchant analysis of why it's wrong.

it was gross, still is, an injustice and will be overturned

 

[stealthycat]

Complete nonsense.

ya'll hate Trump and that blinds you to the injustice

its crystal clear

 

[Mycroft]

If you think this, I don't think you know the 8th Amendment very well.

Why should I give a rat's ass what you think or don't think when you are too lazy to make an attempt to justify yourself?

You are dismissed.

 

[hooligan]

ya'll hate Trump and that blinds you to the injustice

its crystal clear

You've got that exactly backwards. Your love of Trump is moving you to excuse his completely unethical and illegal behavior.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Why should I give a rat's ass what you think...

Because I evidently know our Constituion better than you, apparently.

The 8th Amendment doesn't apply here; its a civil judgement.

 

[stealthycat]

You've got that exactly backwards. Your love of Trump is moving you to excuse his completely unethical and illegal behavior.

see, when you intentionally ignore what people say, that makes your discussions very dishonest

 

[hooligan]

see, when you intentionally ignore what people say, that makes your discussions very dishonest

I haven't ignored a single thing you've said, though that might change shortly.