Orange Duce

[ggait]

Seems like the unexplained $25 million of consulting fees is pretty likely illegal.

The $750k going to Ivanka only was able to be identified because Ivanka had to disclose that recent payment as part of her govt disclosure forms.

The rest of the $25 million is probably also payments going to the kids. Trump is cutting his taxes by paying deductible fees from the projects, which depress/hide the income from those projects. While the kids presumably pay taxes on the fees received, they are dodging the much higher rates of the gift/estate tax that would otherwise apply if Trump just gave them the dough.

FYI, Trump's tax plan doubled the exemption under the estate/gift tax to $11.4 million per person; $22.8 million for a married couple. Nice, but not enough to keep Ivanka and siblings in the style to which they are accustomed.

[MDlaxfan76]

Particularly Don Jr's coke habit...

[Typical Lax Dad]

MD,
I would think with real estate there would be appraisals done on the property and rental contracts reviewed? Never used real estate for a business bank loan or LOC. As you know bankers hate software companies as there is no tangible assets Old school.

GG,
FTW - seen many people use bank loans as credit cards and I have seen many people somehow renegotiate the bank loans as no banker wants to be stuck with a fire sale on property. Fine line with going out of bank regulations and covenants.

Sure, one would certainly think that a traditional lender would do due diligence. (Little appreciated secret, the super big deals sometimes receive far less scrutiny than you and I would on our building a warehouse or a strip center, etc.) However, we know from lots and lots of reporting (and in some cases our own contact networks) that Trump lost the backing of US lenders who'd already been burned by him. Not because he was simply not that good a business manager, but because he'd been dishonest with them.

He settled various claims with lenders/investors, but that doesn't mean that the government ever examined whether those blown up deals included misrepresentations to the lenders/investors. The lenders/investors agreed to walk away with what they felt they could get, and Trump turned around and used the "losses" of the entire transaction to shelter his income from other sources, even though the losses were not actually his own. It's a crazy darn system, but part of that is actually legal or was at the time. But not any misrepresentations in the first place. They'd be illegal.

From his attorney/fixer Cohen we hear the accusation that Trump more recently would tell the government one set of cash flows and the lenders a different set of cash flows. Kept two sets of books. that's where I'd be focused if I were investigating for bank fraud and tax fraud.

Back to no US lenders...now we're in the territory of whether the motivations of the lenders in the last two decades was entirely the same as would be with a traditional banker. Or were the sources of these funds needing to move capital outside the reach of their own governments, whether for political or criminal protection? Who lent him the money may be the most important aspect in the latter transactions. And these lenders may well have not actually been all that concerned with whether the representations were accurate or not, they simply needed hard assets underlying, and were willing to take a big haircut if necessary. So minimal due diligence, if any, other than what Trump produced and maybe a flyby at the golf course, etc.

Con man.

and yes, software companies generally have no hard assets, little protection to the downside...on the other hand, sounds like you managed ok...

Of course, if you can convince a mega investor that your software/service co actually has hard underlying real estate assets, yet will perform exponentially like a tech co, when it has very little such likelihood or assets, you can pull a WeWork...

Rock solid and persistent cash flow can result in tremendous debt capacity for a “software” company.

[MDlaxfan76]

MD,
I would think with real estate there would be appraisals done on the property and rental contracts reviewed? Never used real estate for a business bank loan or LOC. As you know bankers hate software companies as there is no tangible assets Old school.

GG,
FTW - seen many people use bank loans as credit cards and I have seen many people somehow renegotiate the bank loans as no banker wants to be stuck with a fire sale on property. Fine line with going out of bank regulations and covenants.

Sure, one would certainly think that a traditional lender would do due diligence. (Little appreciated secret, the super big deals sometimes receive far less scrutiny than you and I would on our building a warehouse or a strip center, etc.) However, we know from lots and lots of reporting (and in some cases our own contact networks) that Trump lost the backing of US lenders who'd already been burned by him. Not because he was simply not that good a business manager, but because he'd been dishonest with them.

He settled various claims with lenders/investors, but that doesn't mean that the government ever examined whether those blown up deals included misrepresentations to the lenders/investors. The lenders/investors agreed to walk away with what they felt they could get, and Trump turned around and used the "losses" of the entire transaction to shelter his income from other sources, even though the losses were not actually his own. It's a crazy darn system, but part of that is actually legal or was at the time. But not any misrepresentations in the first place. They'd be illegal.

From his attorney/fixer Cohen we hear the accusation that Trump more recently would tell the government one set of cash flows and the lenders a different set of cash flows. Kept two sets of books. that's where I'd be focused if I were investigating for bank fraud and tax fraud.

Back to no US lenders...now we're in the territory of whether the motivations of the lenders in the last two decades was entirely the same as would be with a traditional banker. Or were the sources of these funds needing to move capital outside the reach of their own governments, whether for political or criminal protection? Who lent him the money may be the most important aspect in the latter transactions. And these lenders may well have not actually been all that concerned with whether the representations were accurate or not, they simply needed hard assets underlying, and were willing to take a big haircut if necessary. So minimal due diligence, if any, other than what Trump produced and maybe a flyby at the golf course, etc.

Con man.

and yes, software companies generally have no hard assets, little protection to the downside...on the other hand, sounds like you managed ok...

Of course, if you can convince a mega investor that your software/service co actually has hard underlying real estate assets, yet will perform exponentially like a tech co, when it has very little such likelihood or assets, you can pull a WeWork...

Rock solid and persistent cash flow can result in tremendous debt capacity for a “software” company.

It's that "rock solid and persistent" thingy that gives most of us in the tech/software sector the willies.

[wgdsr]

use models.

[Typical Lax Dad]

MD,
I would think with real estate there would be appraisals done on the property and rental contracts reviewed? Never used real estate for a business bank loan or LOC. As you know bankers hate software companies as there is no tangible assets Old school.

GG,
FTW - seen many people use bank loans as credit cards and I have seen many people somehow renegotiate the bank loans as no banker wants to be stuck with a fire sale on property. Fine line with going out of bank regulations and covenants.

Sure, one would certainly think that a traditional lender would do due diligence. (Little appreciated secret, the super big deals sometimes receive far less scrutiny than you and I would on our building a warehouse or a strip center, etc.) However, we know from lots and lots of reporting (and in some cases our own contact networks) that Trump lost the backing of US lenders who'd already been burned by him. Not because he was simply not that good a business manager, but because he'd been dishonest with them.

He settled various claims with lenders/investors, but that doesn't mean that the government ever examined whether those blown up deals included misrepresentations to the lenders/investors. The lenders/investors agreed to walk away with what they felt they could get, and Trump turned around and used the "losses" of the entire transaction to shelter his income from other sources, even though the losses were not actually his own. It's a crazy darn system, but part of that is actually legal or was at the time. But not any misrepresentations in the first place. They'd be illegal.

From his attorney/fixer Cohen we hear the accusation that Trump more recently would tell the government one set of cash flows and the lenders a different set of cash flows. Kept two sets of books. that's where I'd be focused if I were investigating for bank fraud and tax fraud.

Back to no US lenders...now we're in the territory of whether the motivations of the lenders in the last two decades was entirely the same as would be with a traditional banker. Or were the sources of these funds needing to move capital outside the reach of their own governments, whether for political or criminal protection? Who lent him the money may be the most important aspect in the latter transactions. And these lenders may well have not actually been all that concerned with whether the representations were accurate or not, they simply needed hard assets underlying, and were willing to take a big haircut if necessary. So minimal due diligence, if any, other than what Trump produced and maybe a flyby at the golf course, etc.

Con man.

and yes, software companies generally have no hard assets, little protection to the downside...on the other hand, sounds like you managed ok...

Of course, if you can convince a mega investor that your software/service co actually has hard underlying real estate assets, yet will perform exponentially like a tech co, when it has very little such likelihood or assets, you can pull a WeWork...

Rock solid and persistent cash flow can result in tremendous debt capacity for a “software” company.

It's that "rock solid and persistent" thingy that gives most of us in the tech/software sector the willies.

Yes I know! They don’t grow on trees. I was just reviewing one that we are involved with. Can print money and 95% of revenue is multi year recurring.....mission critical software.....Basically runs the economy.

[MDlaxfan76]

MD,
I would think with real estate there would be appraisals done on the property and rental contracts reviewed? Never used real estate for a business bank loan or LOC. As you know bankers hate software companies as there is no tangible assets Old school.

GG,
FTW - seen many people use bank loans as credit cards and I have seen many people somehow renegotiate the bank loans as no banker wants to be stuck with a fire sale on property. Fine line with going out of bank regulations and covenants.

Sure, one would certainly think that a traditional lender would do due diligence. (Little appreciated secret, the super big deals sometimes receive far less scrutiny than you and I would on our building a warehouse or a strip center, etc.) However, we know from lots and lots of reporting (and in some cases our own contact networks) that Trump lost the backing of US lenders who'd already been burned by him. Not because he was simply not that good a business manager, but because he'd been dishonest with them.

He settled various claims with lenders/investors, but that doesn't mean that the government ever examined whether those blown up deals included misrepresentations to the lenders/investors. The lenders/investors agreed to walk away with what they felt they could get, and Trump turned around and used the "losses" of the entire transaction to shelter his income from other sources, even though the losses were not actually his own. It's a crazy darn system, but part of that is actually legal or was at the time. But not any misrepresentations in the first place. They'd be illegal.

From his attorney/fixer Cohen we hear the accusation that Trump more recently would tell the government one set of cash flows and the lenders a different set of cash flows. Kept two sets of books. that's where I'd be focused if I were investigating for bank fraud and tax fraud.

Back to no US lenders...now we're in the territory of whether the motivations of the lenders in the last two decades was entirely the same as would be with a traditional banker. Or were the sources of these funds needing to move capital outside the reach of their own governments, whether for political or criminal protection? Who lent him the money may be the most important aspect in the latter transactions. And these lenders may well have not actually been all that concerned with whether the representations were accurate or not, they simply needed hard assets underlying, and were willing to take a big haircut if necessary. So minimal due diligence, if any, other than what Trump produced and maybe a flyby at the golf course, etc.

Con man.

and yes, software companies generally have no hard assets, little protection to the downside...on the other hand, sounds like you managed ok...

Of course, if you can convince a mega investor that your software/service co actually has hard underlying real estate assets, yet will perform exponentially like a tech co, when it has very little such likelihood or assets, you can pull a WeWork...

Rock solid and persistent cash flow can result in tremendous debt capacity for a “software” company.

It's that "rock solid and persistent" thingy that gives most of us in the tech/software sector the willies.

Yes I know! They don’t grow on trees. I was just reviewing one that we are involved with. Can print money and 95% of revenue is multi year recurring.....mission critical software.....Basically runs the economy.

sounds sweet...
Still don't think I'd give them a '30-year mortgage'...

[Typical Lax Dad]

MD,
I would think with real estate there would be appraisals done on the property and rental contracts reviewed? Never used real estate for a business bank loan or LOC. As you know bankers hate software companies as there is no tangible assets Old school.

GG,
FTW - seen many people use bank loans as credit cards and I have seen many people somehow renegotiate the bank loans as no banker wants to be stuck with a fire sale on property. Fine line with going out of bank regulations and covenants.

Sure, one would certainly think that a traditional lender would do due diligence. (Little appreciated secret, the super big deals sometimes receive far less scrutiny than you and I would on our building a warehouse or a strip center, etc.) However, we know from lots and lots of reporting (and in some cases our own contact networks) that Trump lost the backing of US lenders who'd already been burned by him. Not because he was simply not that good a business manager, but because he'd been dishonest with them.

He settled various claims with lenders/investors, but that doesn't mean that the government ever examined whether those blown up deals included misrepresentations to the lenders/investors. The lenders/investors agreed to walk away with what they felt they could get, and Trump turned around and used the "losses" of the entire transaction to shelter his income from other sources, even though the losses were not actually his own. It's a crazy darn system, but part of that is actually legal or was at the time. But not any misrepresentations in the first place. They'd be illegal.

From his attorney/fixer Cohen we hear the accusation that Trump more recently would tell the government one set of cash flows and the lenders a different set of cash flows. Kept two sets of books. that's where I'd be focused if I were investigating for bank fraud and tax fraud.

Back to no US lenders...now we're in the territory of whether the motivations of the lenders in the last two decades was entirely the same as would be with a traditional banker. Or were the sources of these funds needing to move capital outside the reach of their own governments, whether for political or criminal protection? Who lent him the money may be the most important aspect in the latter transactions. And these lenders may well have not actually been all that concerned with whether the representations were accurate or not, they simply needed hard assets underlying, and were willing to take a big haircut if necessary. So minimal due diligence, if any, other than what Trump produced and maybe a flyby at the golf course, etc.

Con man.

and yes, software companies generally have no hard assets, little protection to the downside...on the other hand, sounds like you managed ok...

Of course, if you can convince a mega investor that your software/service co actually has hard underlying real estate assets, yet will perform exponentially like a tech co, when it has very little such likelihood or assets, you can pull a WeWork...

Rock solid and persistent cash flow can result in tremendous debt capacity for a “software” company.

It's that "rock solid and persistent" thingy that gives most of us in the tech/software sector the willies.

Yes I know! They don’t grow on trees. I was just reviewing one that we are involved with. Can print money and 95% of revenue is multi year recurring.....mission critical software.....Basically runs the economy.

sounds sweet...
Still don't think I'd give them a '30-year mortgage'...

Oh no. That’s a different animal! I want to see the ability to amortize ALL debt in 7 years.....

[MDlaxfan76]

MD,
I would think with real estate there would be appraisals done on the property and rental contracts reviewed? Never used real estate for a business bank loan or LOC. As you know bankers hate software companies as there is no tangible assets Old school.

GG,
FTW - seen many people use bank loans as credit cards and I have seen many people somehow renegotiate the bank loans as no banker wants to be stuck with a fire sale on property. Fine line with going out of bank regulations and covenants.

Sure, one would certainly think that a traditional lender would do due diligence. (Little appreciated secret, the super big deals sometimes receive far less scrutiny than you and I would on our building a warehouse or a strip center, etc.) However, we know from lots and lots of reporting (and in some cases our own contact networks) that Trump lost the backing of US lenders who'd already been burned by him. Not because he was simply not that good a business manager, but because he'd been dishonest with them.

He settled various claims with lenders/investors, but that doesn't mean that the government ever examined whether those blown up deals included misrepresentations to the lenders/investors. The lenders/investors agreed to walk away with what they felt they could get, and Trump turned around and used the "losses" of the entire transaction to shelter his income from other sources, even though the losses were not actually his own. It's a crazy darn system, but part of that is actually legal or was at the time. But not any misrepresentations in the first place. They'd be illegal.

From his attorney/fixer Cohen we hear the accusation that Trump more recently would tell the government one set of cash flows and the lenders a different set of cash flows. Kept two sets of books. that's where I'd be focused if I were investigating for bank fraud and tax fraud.

Back to no US lenders...now we're in the territory of whether the motivations of the lenders in the last two decades was entirely the same as would be with a traditional banker. Or were the sources of these funds needing to move capital outside the reach of their own governments, whether for political or criminal protection? Who lent him the money may be the most important aspect in the latter transactions. And these lenders may well have not actually been all that concerned with whether the representations were accurate or not, they simply needed hard assets underlying, and were willing to take a big haircut if necessary. So minimal due diligence, if any, other than what Trump produced and maybe a flyby at the golf course, etc.

Con man.

and yes, software companies generally have no hard assets, little protection to the downside...on the other hand, sounds like you managed ok...

Of course, if you can convince a mega investor that your software/service co actually has hard underlying real estate assets, yet will perform exponentially like a tech co, when it has very little such likelihood or assets, you can pull a WeWork...

Rock solid and persistent cash flow can result in tremendous debt capacity for a “software” company.

It's that "rock solid and persistent" thingy that gives most of us in the tech/software sector the willies.

Yes I know! They don’t grow on trees. I was just reviewing one that we are involved with. Can print money and 95% of revenue is multi year recurring.....mission critical software.....Basically runs the economy.

sounds sweet...
Still don't think I'd give them a '30-year mortgage'...

Oh no. That’s a different animal! I want to see the ability to amortize ALL debt in 7 years.....

yup, a lot more demanding than a golf course loan. Can always turn the golf course into office park, industrial park...

[LandM]

When you need a bank for money to grow, they are never around, when you do not need money they are banging on your door.
Receivables are everything if you have no hard assets that or a very wealthy family member
I have two friends that factor receivables - that is a legal racquet

[cradleandshoot]

Particularly Don Jr's coke habit...

How much coca-cola does he drink? Apparently not enough to keep me employed.

[Typical Lax Dad]

When you need a bank for money to grow, they are never around, when you do not need money they are banging on your door.
Receivables are everything if you have no hard assets that or a very wealthy family member
I have two friends that factor receivables - that is a legal racquet

Yes it is.

[Peter Brown]

Particularly Don Jr's coke habit...

I thought MD prided himself on being the moral North Star here?

[a fan]

When you need a bank for money to grow, they are never around, when you do not need money they are banging on your door.
Receivables are everything if you have no hard assets that or a very wealthy family member
I have two friends that factor receivables - that is a legal racquet

Yes it is.

+1000

[ardilla secreta]

Particularly Don Jr's coke habit...

How much coca-cola does he drink? Apparently not enough to keep me employed.

Are Big Don’s Adderall “hair supplements” deductible? How much will he need for the debate?

[njbill]

Particularly Don Jr's coke habit...

We may be seeing a video of Junior similar to the Brad Parscale one pretty soon.

[MDlaxfan76]

Particularly Don Jr's coke habit...

We may be seeing a video of Junior similar to the Brad Parscale one pretty soon.

Indeed.
That 'army recruiting' video was quite the doozy, way more even than the weird speech at the convention.

[old salt]

From Daniel Reck, from the London School of Economics on Twitter:

This take is always bad because we the people get to decide whether it matters with our votes and our speech. But also, think about what a potential future Biden administration (*knocks on wood*) can do with this story.

This reporting created more public attention to tax avoidance and evasion by the rich in one day than we have ever had. It is a roadmap of ways the wealthy aggressively minimize their taxes. Democrats can and should leverage this story to level the tax playing field for everyone.

....yeah, look at all the msm scrutiny this is generating in the Biden family finances & business dealings.

[MDlaxfan76]

From Daniel Reck, from the London School of Economics on Twitter:

This take is always bad because we the people get to decide whether it matters with our votes and our speech. But also, think about what a potential future Biden administration (*knocks on wood*) can do with this story.

This reporting created more public attention to tax avoidance and evasion by the rich in one day than we have ever had. It is a roadmap of ways the wealthy aggressively minimize their taxes. Democrats can and should leverage this story to level the tax playing field for everyone.

....yeah, look at all the msm scrutiny this is generating in the Biden family finances & business dealings.

Biden posts his tax returns on his campaign website...go ahead and chew on them all you want.

[ggait]

Biden posts his tax returns on his campaign website...go ahead and chew on them all you want.

Exactly.

For example, Joe/Jill made $315k in 2016 and then $11 million (what the heck???) in 2017. Those are certainly some eye popping numbers that raise some questions.

But at least you can find the numbers with a google search. No SCOTUS decision required like with Trump.