false statements on bank loan applications

The MAGAs cannot understand the ends don't justify the means.
Trump and his organization lied and filed false papers to get money from federally insured banks.
They want that swept under the rug.


And all that is being requested is that Trump and his organization pay a fine for what they did.



How about when a crook donates some stolen goods to charity.....MAGAs probably think everything is fine.

The topic is false statements on bank loan applications.


Did Mr. Trump do that ? Per all the documents reviewed, the answer seems to be yes. False statements on bank loan applications is against the law. Originally Posted by VitaMan

Really? The parts I've heard about seem to be a resounding 'no'. The government's supposed 'valuation' of Mar el Lago, for example, is ridiculously low. Anyone with half a brain can easily see that. They basically compared his massive estate with a house down the street. That would be like saying a Vegas hotel is only worth the same as a home near it. Can we not ALL agree that would be ridiculous?

And if indeed he did...why are the BANKS not being prosecuted? They are the ones who failed to do their due diligence. That's where the process, if indeed it was ever broken, failed. Particularly on something as subjective as this.

The MAGAs cannot understand the ends don't justify the means.
Trump and his organization lied and filed false papers to get money from federally insured banks.
They want that swept under the rug.


And all that is being requested is that Trump and his organization pay a fine for what they did.



How about when a crook donates some stolen goods to charity.....MAGAs probably think everything is fine. Originally Posted by VitaMan

"Trump and his organization lied and filed false papers to get money from federally insured banks.
They want that swept under the rug."

Facts not in evidence.

"And all that is being requested is that Trump and his organization pay a fine for what they did."

Have you been paying so little attention to this that that is all that you think is being requested? Really??? Basically is telling anyone reading your post "I don't know what I'm talking about, please ignore me".

"Justice Engoron already stripped the Trumps of control over their signature New York properties — a move that could crush much of the business known as the Trump Organization. Ms. James is now asking for more.

She is seeking to recover $250 million in ill-gotten gains. She wants to prohibit Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization from entering into any New York State commercial real estate deals for the next five years and to bar them from applying for loans from any New York bank during that same period.

As a final blow, Ms. James wants to permanently prevent Mr. Trump and his adult sons from running any New York companies."

https://www.nytimes.com/article/trump-fraud-ruling.html

All of which is ignoring that she (and Bragg) made campaign promises to go after a US Citizen. If that doesn't cause you some pause, you need to wake up. If they can do this to Trump, they can sure as heck do it to you. Are you really ok with the government going after you over YOUR political beliefs (and yes, that's why they campaigned on it...that isn't even remotely debatable)

"Political persecution" because you broke the law isn't really political. It's the law breaking you are overlooking.

No victims? Baloney. I list them several times in various posts here and elsewhere.

They ran on controlling Trump's 'criminal' enterprise?
Rudy did it with the MoB! As did Eliot Ness with Al Capone.
They uncovered the lies and prosecuted the crimes.

You can't catch criminals who don't commit crimes or conspire to do crimes.


It's laughable that you all want small time thieves who steal from retail chains or stores put in jail, but a guy cooks his books and lies on paper even though, under penalty of perjury or fraud, gets a free pass!

It's pretty hypocritical all over.

Criminals (all of them) including shoplifting and white collar crimes need to be prosecuted.

Isn’t anyone concerned about the actual lying going on here. I know that Trump lies every time he opens his mouth but it’s another thing to put those lies down on paper and sign your name. Trump and his company told actual lies about the size and worth of their assets in order to get favorable loans. That’s fraud whether anyone was hurt by it or not.

I get that you don't get it.

Interesting that the seller or holder in this case has claimed the valuations of the property to be low when it comes to taxable amounts, but yet says the property is of HIGH value when it comes time to sell. Do you not see the incongruency of those two?... Originally Posted by eyecu2

incongruency is often spelled TIME. To date, I've not heard of anyone going to their local appraisal district to claim a higher tax valuation, but I am aware of an entire industry existing to protest and challenge tax valuations.

...Value is value- it's an estimated "good faith" appraisal and is what both parties of taxation and buyers rely upon... Originally Posted by eyecu2

Estimated value is used in the calculation by a willing buyer, as are forecast of markets, plus knowns and unknowns. Regardless, I stick with my definition of value: What a seller is willing to accept from a willing buyer. Frankly, not sure what grounds you think you can debate that on. It is actually how it works.

...I realize that it's a great playground for uncouthly oriented folks to dabble and because they can inflate values high or low in most cases with relative impunity. That is until someone screams rat. And indeed someone has screamed it, proved it, and now wants punitive compensation for systemic abuse... Originally Posted by eyecu2

They have not proved Jack Shit, in the Trump case. Certainly not with a jury of his peers. They compared an empty lot of significantly smaller land locked size (apples versus oranges) to one with 2 miles of beach front and massive "improvements" and said the empty lot was worth more. Ironically the amount they claimed was as listed in Zillow at the time and was so laughably wrong on so many fronts that even yourself should see it as such.

...Why have accounting valuations at all in the world you describe- as to where the seller sets the market and all machinations thereto are subject to what a buyer would pay?? Who would benefit from any accounting valuations in that world?? Originally Posted by eyecu2

OK. We'll just let the gubment decide what you must pay for a property. Eh Comrade?

Well I would say the courts, and litigators and state laws, legal disclosure statements on bank documents and even tax return reviews would say I'm right....

But- your sniveling is funny to read.

But thanks for your reply valued poster.

From #64 by eyecu2
It's laughable that you all want small time thieves who steal from retail chains or stores put in jail, but a guy cooks his books and lies on paper even though, under penalty of perjury or fraud, gets a free pass!

This reminds me of a Theadore Roosevelt quote, "A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car, but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad."

midvale

You say it's all on the banks' responsibility side.

They have to do the due diligence.

Then why do they ask for ANY input from a borrower?

Why do they want income statements?

Don’t be daft. Start your own bank and tell everyone who walks in the door you will lend them money without proof of income or repayment ability. See how long your bank stays open. You need income and cashflow statements to see if the borrower is profitable and can repay the loan.

When lending to an individual, you require copies of W-2s, 1099s, paystubs and tax returns. When lending to a company, you need to see audited annual & interim financial statements. Nobody gives a fuck about some flaky boilerplate form signed by the borrower as part of the application. In the words of the great Ronald Reagan, it’s called - TRUST BUT VERIFY. If you’re too stupid or lazy to do the necessary due diligence and verify everything the borrower tells you, then you deserve to have the loan go south on you!

Except that’s not even what happened here. Trump made all his payments on time and repaid the loans in full. And yet, he’s still being hauled into court for “fraud”.


Why is (sic) there disclaimers on the application side about being truthful and best of knowledge and subject to legal review etc. and under penalty of law?

Hmmm... is it so unscrupulous bitches like Tish James can find laughable pretexts to harass her political enemies and distract them from running for President?


Why do you not acknowledge there are responsibilities for borrowers to be truthful on their applications when there are clearly marked disclosures stating they must be.

It's called boilerplate. Why are there disclaimers telling lenders they have to rely on their own due diligence and not merely assume all representations made by the borrower are 100% accurate? And why do you not acknowledge there isn’t a chance in the world that this frivolous case would be pursued against trump if he wasn’t running for President?


A loan doesn't have to be in default for a bank to be harmed, or it's shareholders defrauded, unlike the claims of our conservative talking heads and supporters.

Oh shit, here we go again!

Every loan is an investment. All investments have grades of quality. If a loan is written below grade the bank suffers by reputation and normally is compensated at a higher rate of return for the higher risk. All things aside Trump loans are likely some of the lowest quality while reviewing the above Cs. If the loans were in any way reliant on false data, the bank and it's shareholders are harmed by not receiving the interest or down payment or classification of the loans and it's perceived quality....

Your penchant for spouting sweeping generalizations without a shred of backup makes me wince. You say “Trump loans are likely some of the lowest quality” - what do you base that on, other than your disdain for the guy? When are you going to stop speculating and get real? Some of Trump’s loans have performed well, others not. Did you call up Moody’s and S&P and Fitch’s and ask them how many Trump entities or Trump debt they have rated over the years? Did you contact the banks and ask them how many Trump loans they have on their books that are classified as OAEM? Didn’t think so. In other words, all you are doing is ranting without evidence.

And you think the banks in question - Deutsche Bank et alia - suffered damage to their “reputation” because... why? Because Donald Trump exaggerated the square footage of his Trump Tower penthouse? Yeah, good luck with that one!

What you have outlined is a ridiculous theory concocted by a corrupt partisan prosecutor in order to strip Trump of his business and his assets. If the bank and its shareholders were truly harmed, they would’ve sued for damages. They didn’t. None of the banks even testified at Judge Kangaroo’s trial to say they were defrauded. None of them said they would have charged a higher interest rate if Trump had not inflated a few items on his Statement of Financial Condition (SFC). Perhaps you missed the quote by former US Attorney Andrew McCarthy that I posted in another thread:

I hate to keep repeating points that have already been made, but here's how Andrew McCarthy explained it:

"...there is no evidence that the banks would have charged a higher interest rate if Trump had lowered his valuations. McCarty is entitled to his opinion, but so were the banks, which actually had skin in the game. There is no state-law requirement holding that if an asset is valued at X amount, a bank must charge a set interest rate. These are arms-length transactions. The banks made the loans because (a) Trump was a good customer who had a history of paying up; (b) if a bank had proposed a too-high interest rate, Trump could simply have gone to a different bank that would have welcomed the business; and (c) the banks don’t make money if they don’t lend, and they were happy with the tidy profits they consistently made on Trump loans. Yet, again, when Trump’s lawyers posited these points, Engoron peremptorily declared that he had already decided Trump’s loans were “ill-gotten,” and that McCarty was just “deciding the number.”" Originally Posted by lustylad

So now that bitch DA Tish James is asking for a whopping $370 million in “disgorgement” of supposedly ill-gotten profits from the Trump Organization. Guess how much of that obscene amount will go to compensate the banks and the shareholders - the people you argue were harmed by Trump’s alleged fraud? ZERO. That’s kinda odd, isn’t it? You insist the folks who don’t think they were defrauded were in fact harmed, yet you’re not willing to share any of the bloated, obscene “damage” proceeds you are seeking with those folks on whose behalf you brought the lawsuit in the first place?

Oh dear! Something just doesn’t look right with this picture!

Maybe it’s because your entire theory is flaky, frivolous, implausible, over-reaching, confiscatory and transparently political!!


It would not surprise me at all if Trump's loans are almost all interest only loans and considered below standards. It would be interesting to see if he ever paid off any property with either cash or full amortization of payments. I'd say that is 100% unlikely. Originally Posted by eyecu2

There you go again - “It would not surprise me at all if… (insert another baseless allegation here)...” Please stop. Term loans amortize, LOCs typically don't. I'm sure trump utilized both. I've already spanked you for speculating all the time. Do you want to have an intelligent conversation grounded in facts, or continue with your non-stop speculation and conspiracy theories?

When it comes to trump, you DO live in a world of conspiracies. You indulge in constant speculation about crimes you think he maybe, coulda, shoulda, woulda committed. You muse about how he must have cooked the books and insinuate he is guilty of every type of business and financial misconduct you can imagine. Originally Posted by lustylad

You should be able to recognize sarcasm when you see it. You provide plenty. Such as abolishing the income tax
and let the government borrow all its funding requirements.



As you have a penchant for posting on prolonged threads with economic issues, why not provide your
educational background and work experience ? That will give a reference point for where you are getting your views. And
you request that from other posters.



You should want to provide that.

The MAGAs cannot understand the ends don't justify the means. Originally Posted by VitaMan

Don't know who the "MAGAs" are, but I agree 100%. The ends don't justify the means.

Why can't all the far-left TDS afflictees out there understand that hating trump doesn't justify their gross, partisan abuse of our judicial system?

As you have a penchant for posting on prolonged threads with economic issues, why not provide your
educational background and work experience ? That will give a reference point for where you are getting your views. And
you request that from other posters.

You should want to provide that. Originally Posted by VitaMan

Actually not. This is an anonymous board and I prefer to keep it that way. Eye provided tmi. I probably shouldn't have asked him for any RL info, but some of his comments were too inconsistent with what I know from personal experience. Suffice it to say my own background is steeped in economics, finance, accounting, banking, business and writing. Which should be obvious to anyone who takes the time to read my 18,000+ posts.

There you go again - “It would not surprise me at all if… (insert another baseless allegation here)...” Please stop. Term loans amortize, LOCs typically don't. I'm sure trump utilized both. I've already spanked you for speculating all the time. Do you want to have an intelligent conversation grounded in facts, or continue with your non-stop speculation and conspiracy theories? Originally Posted by lustylad

Sure- on the offer of intelligent conversation, but purely by the nature of this board, more than 3/4 are speculation, and yet I see you only reply to my thread comments on anti trump posts.

If you have a problem with amortization schedules vs. a Line of credit, (your choice- not mine), why would you instantly say infer that these are not term loans and open ended LOC's since you are the one bringing them up- perhaps you can cite a source for your LOC Theory.

My comments are based in experience on banking, lending, and knowing that there are a variety of loan types; some are closed ended- some are open ended, all are originated, and some are sold, and have a quantitative value vs. this arbitrary comments about them having none except the banks consideration of the value, vs. the borrowers input.

You've challenged me that only the appraisal is of importance, and everything else is bullshit- IE. a loan committee would laugh you out of the office, but I seriously doubt that.

I would ask you why do we have applications and disclosures on them if that's the case? Who is being protected? Only the borrower; only the lender? the Banking system, FDIC, PMI, subrogated partnerships on the loans?...in the world you are suggesting, any value is ok as long as a bank appraises it for that value.

I'm saying there are lots of other things that go into it, and in fact, you've completely forgone the grading of loans on hand as assets and failed to address those who are sold at discount for being below standard. So yeah- to get back to the topic- start talking about the false statements vs. your version of what counts vs. what doesn't.

Are false statements even relevant to banking? If not why?


Why does a bank have a disclosure on any application to the fact that you are providing truthful information ?
example:
"I do hereby attest that this information is true, accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and I understand that any falsification, omission, or concealment of material fact may subject me to administrative, civil, or criminal liability"


btw- when it comes time to value a trump loan, here's some good intel- somewhat dated but still relevant for this discussion.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics...a-possible-100

The Trump Organization’s Business Credit Score

According to Nav, The Trump Organization, Inc.’s business credit score is a 19 out of 100 as of Sept. 23, 2016, which puts it below the national average score by more than 30 points. The Nav report said the score indicates the Trump Organization “is very likely to default on its credit payments” and that “this will make it difficult to get financing.” It puts Trump’s Organization in a “medium-to-high risk” category.

more recently:
The outlook on Trump’s 40 Wall Street is looking worse for wear after Fitch Ratings downgraded a portion of a security tied to the Financial District office building.

Fitch downgraded the portion from investment-grade BBB- to BB, a junk credit rating, Crain’s reported. The ratings agency pointed to “performance concerns” when casting a more negative pall over the security, which is also tied to three additional properties.

Mazars:
“While we have not concluded that the various financial statements, as a whole, contain material discrepancies, based upon the totality of the circumstances, we believe our advice to you to no longer rely upon those financial statements is appropriate,” Mazars General Counsel William J. Kelly wrote to his Trump Organization counterpart, Alan Garten.

Perhaps it was the shitty investments that have been part of the reason for a lawsuit from NY AG' James: — 40 Wall Street, Trump’s Chicago hotel, the Old Post Office-turned-hotel and Trump’s golf course in Doral, Fla. — each lost banks tens of millions of dollars in interest across nearly a decade, according to assessments.

AND since Trump owns about 250 (give or take) businesses, under different names and entities, the piecing together of all the different accountings would be a difficult case for most AGs let alone proving that the guy has been lying - all along. But that's what was done. And as far as Trumps defense- everybody got paid, everyone was flush. Maybe in principal, but we'll not know for certain if those loans were on the brink of default, or worse, cause no bank is going to disclose that publicly. But one could guess!!

Spank away

Actually not. This is an anonymous board and I prefer to keep it that way. Eye provided tmi. I probably shouldn't have asked him for any RL info, but some of his comments were too inconsistent with what I know from personal experience. Suffice it to say my own background is steeped in economics, finance, accounting, banking, business and writing. Which should be obvious to anyone who takes the time to read my 18,000+ posts. Originally Posted by lustylad

You should want to.

Actually not. This is an anonymous board and I prefer to keep it that way. Eye provided tmi. I probably shouldn't have asked him for any RL info, but some of his comments were too inconsistent with what I know from personal experience. Suffice it to say my own background is steeped in economics, finance, accounting, banking, business and writing. Which should be obvious to anyone who takes the time to read my 18,000+ posts. Originally Posted by lustylad

Yes, . . . but not manufacturing. Or logistics. Anyways, I've aways enjoyed reading your posts.

I'm just here to ask the stupid questions. And learn.


P.S. Hating Dumpster for his own partisan abuse of our judicial system to his own far-right ends is totally justified. Easy. Sir.

Namely the SCOTUS.