Orange Duce

[MDlaxfan76]

Yes, that's a much better explanation of how the 'fraud' aspect would be proven.

I was short handing the 'valuation' aspect, a mere difference in 'valuation' is not evidence of actual fraud...it's not simply what Trump and co would have 'claimed' the valuation was, but rather the underlying cash flows etc related to those properties...'two sets of books'.

The IRS would not know whether the cash flows were necessarily accurate or not, as the web of financial transactions are undoubtedly immensely complicated.

Nor would the lender necessarily know that the cash flows were overstated in whatever data was presented to them to justify their valuation support.

'Presentation' of the same numbers can result in significant differences in valuation simply by emphasizing different factors. For instance, I manage on the side a small 40k sq ft quasi retail/industrial building for our family, inherited from my dad who built it and managed it as part of his on the side work. My dad emphasized with the real estate tax authorities the inherent risks of just two tenants (when there's turnover, it's a huge whack to revenue), the aging roof, the aging HVAC, the limitations on parking, etc to achieve some relief in their assessments. When he passed, I emphasized the historical revenue cash flows, the long term escalating leases, and the high demand in that area for retail spaces (used to be industrial area) to achieve a strong valuation for the increased basis upon his death. The latter will save us some capital gains tax if/when we sell.

Now, if either of us had misreported the cash flows, or the age of the roof, or any other material facts...that would be fraud. He did not, I did not.

But it would not have been all that difficult to have done so...though it would have needed a conscious effort to produce phony leases etc on any required due diligence. Our valuation for basis purpose did require review of the leases, so they needed to match up exactly with our projected cash flow statements. According to Cohen, I believe, the leases may have been doctored and the cash flow projections may have included wishful thinking assumptions unsupported by any reality.

In our valuation for basis, the appraisers asked very detailed questions, requiring documentation etc, about ages of various items, got deeply into how the cash flows worked, etc. Again, would have required a conscious effort to have mis-reported anything.

There's been quite a lot of speculation about Trump's bankers over the years doing either shoddy due diligence, or worse, being complicit in accepting documents they knew were fraudulent...even speculation that dirty money on the other side of the bank needed assets to wash through...

The IRS on the other hand typically don't do this sort of due diligence, so would have little insight into whether the numbers being shown them were accurate or not.

If I'm not mistaken about the IRS 'audits' they've been more about the aggressive deductions claimed than the accuracy of the data presented. Aggressive deductions get argued by tax counsel, and aren't necessarily 'fraud'...just beyond the intent or fair reading of the law. And those arguments can take years and years of arguing without coming to fruition, usually settled eventually.

It would not be a big surprise to learn that Trump and co doctored their reported cash flows to reflect lower income production than reality.

The practice of Trump has always been to get away with whatever he could, no ethical limits. Including over the line legally...anything, if he could get away with it.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Yes, that's a much better explanation of how the 'fraud' aspect would be proven.

I was short handing the 'valuation' aspect, a mere difference in 'valuation' is not evidence of actual fraud...it's not simply what Trump and co would have 'claimed' the valuation was, but rather the underlying cash flows etc related to those properties...'two sets of books'.

The IRS would not know whether the cash flows were necessarily accurate or not, as the web of financial transactions are undoubtedly immensely complicated.

Nor would the lender necessarily know that the cash flows were overstated in whatever data was presented to them to justify their valuation support.

'Presentation' of the same numbers can result in significant differences in valuation simply by emphasizing different factors. For instance, I manage on the side a small 40k sq ft quasi retail/industrial building for our family, inherited from my dad who built it and managed it as part of his on the side work. My dad emphasized with the real estate tax authorities the inherent risks of just two tenants (when there's turnover, it's a huge whack to revenue), the aging roof, the aging HVAC, the limitations on parking, etc to achieve some relief in their assessments. When he passed, I emphasized the historical revenue cash flows, the long term escalating leases, and the high demand in that area for retail spaces (used to be industrial area) to achieve a strong valuation for the increased basis upon his death. The latter will save us some capital gains tax if/when we sell.

Now, if either of us had misreported the cash flows, or the age of the roof, or any other material facts...that would be fraud. He did not, I did not.

But it would not have been all that difficult to have done so...though it would have needed a conscious effort to produce phony leases etc on any required due diligence. Our valuation for basis purpose did require review of the leases, so they needed to match up exactly with our projected cash flow statements. According to Cohen, I believe, the leases may have been doctored and the cash flow projections may have included wishful thinking assumptions unsupported by any reality.

In our valuation for basis, the appraisers asked very detailed questions, requiring documentation etc, about ages of various items, got deeply into how the cash flows worked, etc. Again, would have required a conscious effort to have mis-reported anything.

There's been quite a lot of speculation about Trump's bankers over the years doing either shoddy due diligence, or worse, being complicit in accepting documents they knew were fraudulent...even speculation that dirty money on the other side of the bank needed assets to wash through...

The IRS on the other hand typically don't do this sort of due diligence, so would have little insight into whether the numbers being shown them were accurate or not.

If I'm not mistaken about the IRS 'audits' they've been more about the aggressive deductions claimed than the accuracy of the data presented. Aggressive deductions get argued by tax counsel, and aren't necessarily 'fraud'...just beyond the intent or fair reading of the law. And those arguments can take years and years of arguing without coming to fruition, usually settled eventually.

It would not be a big surprise to learn that Trump and co doctored their reported cash flows to reflect lower income production than reality.

The practice of Trump has always been to get away with whatever he could, no ethical limits. Including over the line legally...anything, if he could get away with it.

Would be interested in finding out if Trump was kicking back to appraisers to get an inflatable value to procure loans and then using same property in same timeframe at a lower valuation to reduce taxes. A pattern would be a problem and it would involve some degree of conspiracy.

[MDlaxfan76]

Yes, that's a much better explanation of how the 'fraud' aspect would be proven.

I was short handing the 'valuation' aspect, a mere difference in 'valuation' is not evidence of actual fraud...it's not simply what Trump and co would have 'claimed' the valuation was, but rather the underlying cash flows etc related to those properties...'two sets of books'.

The IRS would not know whether the cash flows were necessarily accurate or not, as the web of financial transactions are undoubtedly immensely complicated.

Nor would the lender necessarily know that the cash flows were overstated in whatever data was presented to them to justify their valuation support.

'Presentation' of the same numbers can result in significant differences in valuation simply by emphasizing different factors. For instance, I manage on the side a small 40k sq ft quasi retail/industrial building for our family, inherited from my dad who built it and managed it as part of his on the side work. My dad emphasized with the real estate tax authorities the inherent risks of just two tenants (when there's turnover, it's a huge whack to revenue), the aging roof, the aging HVAC, the limitations on parking, etc to achieve some relief in their assessments. When he passed, I emphasized the historical revenue cash flows, the long term escalating leases, and the high demand in that area for retail spaces (used to be industrial area) to achieve a strong valuation for the increased basis upon his death. The latter will save us some capital gains tax if/when we sell.

Now, if either of us had misreported the cash flows, or the age of the roof, or any other material facts...that would be fraud. He did not, I did not.

But it would not have been all that difficult to have done so...though it would have needed a conscious effort to produce phony leases etc on any required due diligence. Our valuation for basis purpose did require review of the leases, so they needed to match up exactly with our projected cash flow statements. According to Cohen, I believe, the leases may have been doctored and the cash flow projections may have included wishful thinking assumptions unsupported by any reality.

In our valuation for basis, the appraisers asked very detailed questions, requiring documentation etc, about ages of various items, got deeply into how the cash flows worked, etc. Again, would have required a conscious effort to have mis-reported anything.

There's been quite a lot of speculation about Trump's bankers over the years doing either shoddy due diligence, or worse, being complicit in accepting documents they knew were fraudulent...even speculation that dirty money on the other side of the bank needed assets to wash through...

The IRS on the other hand typically don't do this sort of due diligence, so would have little insight into whether the numbers being shown them were accurate or not.

If I'm not mistaken about the IRS 'audits' they've been more about the aggressive deductions claimed than the accuracy of the data presented. Aggressive deductions get argued by tax counsel, and aren't necessarily 'fraud'...just beyond the intent or fair reading of the law. And those arguments can take years and years of arguing without coming to fruition, usually settled eventually.

It would not be a big surprise to learn that Trump and co doctored their reported cash flows to reflect lower income production than reality.

The practice of Trump has always been to get away with whatever he could, no ethical limits. Including over the line legally...anything, if he could get away with it.

Would be interested in finding out if Trump was kicking back to appraisers to get an inflatable value to procure loans and then using same property in same timeframe at a lower valuation to reduce taxes. A pattern would be a problem and it would involve some degree of conspiracy.

Yes...very possibly, though I'd think that the sheer scale of the appraisal fees might be sufficient wink wink 'kickback'. Promise of ongoing fees. But direct to individuals also possible.

Also with bankers.
The two bankers who recently left DB would be a good bet...

[Typical Lax Dad]

Yes, that's a much better explanation of how the 'fraud' aspect would be proven.

I was short handing the 'valuation' aspect, a mere difference in 'valuation' is not evidence of actual fraud...it's not simply what Trump and co would have 'claimed' the valuation was, but rather the underlying cash flows etc related to those properties...'two sets of books'.

The IRS would not know whether the cash flows were necessarily accurate or not, as the web of financial transactions are undoubtedly immensely complicated.

Nor would the lender necessarily know that the cash flows were overstated in whatever data was presented to them to justify their valuation support.

'Presentation' of the same numbers can result in significant differences in valuation simply by emphasizing different factors. For instance, I manage on the side a small 40k sq ft quasi retail/industrial building for our family, inherited from my dad who built it and managed it as part of his on the side work. My dad emphasized with the real estate tax authorities the inherent risks of just two tenants (when there's turnover, it's a huge whack to revenue), the aging roof, the aging HVAC, the limitations on parking, etc to achieve some relief in their assessments. When he passed, I emphasized the historical revenue cash flows, the long term escalating leases, and the high demand in that area for retail spaces (used to be industrial area) to achieve a strong valuation for the increased basis upon his death. The latter will save us some capital gains tax if/when we sell.

Now, if either of us had misreported the cash flows, or the age of the roof, or any other material facts...that would be fraud. He did not, I did not.

But it would not have been all that difficult to have done so...though it would have needed a conscious effort to produce phony leases etc on any required due diligence. Our valuation for basis purpose did require review of the leases, so they needed to match up exactly with our projected cash flow statements. According to Cohen, I believe, the leases may have been doctored and the cash flow projections may have included wishful thinking assumptions unsupported by any reality.

In our valuation for basis, the appraisers asked very detailed questions, requiring documentation etc, about ages of various items, got deeply into how the cash flows worked, etc. Again, would have required a conscious effort to have mis-reported anything.

There's been quite a lot of speculation about Trump's bankers over the years doing either shoddy due diligence, or worse, being complicit in accepting documents they knew were fraudulent...even speculation that dirty money on the other side of the bank needed assets to wash through...

The IRS on the other hand typically don't do this sort of due diligence, so would have little insight into whether the numbers being shown them were accurate or not.

If I'm not mistaken about the IRS 'audits' they've been more about the aggressive deductions claimed than the accuracy of the data presented. Aggressive deductions get argued by tax counsel, and aren't necessarily 'fraud'...just beyond the intent or fair reading of the law. And those arguments can take years and years of arguing without coming to fruition, usually settled eventually.

It would not be a big surprise to learn that Trump and co doctored their reported cash flows to reflect lower income production than reality.

The practice of Trump has always been to get away with whatever he could, no ethical limits. Including over the line legally...anything, if he could get away with it.

Would be interested in finding out if Trump was kicking back to appraisers to get an inflatable value to procure loans and then using same property in same timeframe at a lower valuation to reduce taxes. A pattern would be a problem and it would involve some degree of conspiracy.

Yes...very possibly, though I'd think that the sheer scale of the appraisal fees might be sufficient wink wink 'kickback'. Promise of ongoing fees. But direct to individuals also possible.

Also with bankers.
The two bankers who recently left DB would be a good bet...

One of my old companies shut down a whole business because the guy running it was working with appraisers and companies to get numbers that worked. Wasn’t prosecuted. Died from a heart attack within 2 years.

[njbill]

The only time I ever prepared phony leases was years ago when I managed a men’s softball team in my town. The league rules allowed only a limited number of non-residents on the roster. You had to prove residency for the town residents. So I made up one or two leases. Hey, the out of town guy had a lot of power. We needed him to keep the outfielders pushed back.

[MDlaxfan76]

The only time I ever prepared phony leases was years ago when I managed a men’s softball team in my town. The league rules allowed only a limited number of non-residents on the roster. You had to prove residency for the town residents. So I made up one or two leases. Hey, the out of town guy had a lot of power. We needed him to keep the outfielders pushed back.

ahhh counselor...

[Farfromgeneva]

Yes, that's a much better explanation of how the 'fraud' aspect would be proven.

I was short handing the 'valuation' aspect, a mere difference in 'valuation' is not evidence of actual fraud...it's not simply what Trump and co would have 'claimed' the valuation was, but rather the underlying cash flows etc related to those properties...'two sets of books'.

The IRS would not know whether the cash flows were necessarily accurate or not, as the web of financial transactions are undoubtedly immensely complicated.

Nor would the lender necessarily know that the cash flows were overstated in whatever data was presented to them to justify their valuation support.

'Presentation' of the same numbers can result in significant differences in valuation simply by emphasizing different factors. For instance, I manage on the side a small 40k sq ft quasi retail/industrial building for our family, inherited from my dad who built it and managed it as part of his on the side work. My dad emphasized with the real estate tax authorities the inherent risks of just two tenants (when there's turnover, it's a huge whack to revenue), the aging roof, the aging HVAC, the limitations on parking, etc to achieve some relief in their assessments. When he passed, I emphasized the historical revenue cash flows, the long term escalating leases, and the high demand in that area for retail spaces (used to be industrial area) to achieve a strong valuation for the increased basis upon his death. The latter will save us some capital gains tax if/when we sell.

Now, if either of us had misreported the cash flows, or the age of the roof, or any other material facts...that would be fraud. He did not, I did not.

But it would not have been all that difficult to have done so...though it would have needed a conscious effort to produce phony leases etc on any required due diligence. Our valuation for basis purpose did require review of the leases, so they needed to match up exactly with our projected cash flow statements. According to Cohen, I believe, the leases may have been doctored and the cash flow projections may have included wishful thinking assumptions unsupported by any reality.

In our valuation for basis, the appraisers asked very detailed questions, requiring documentation etc, about ages of various items, got deeply into how the cash flows worked, etc. Again, would have required a conscious effort to have mis-reported anything.

There's been quite a lot of speculation about Trump's bankers over the years doing either shoddy due diligence, or worse, being complicit in accepting documents they knew were fraudulent...even speculation that dirty money on the other side of the bank needed assets to wash through...

The IRS on the other hand typically don't do this sort of due diligence, so would have little insight into whether the numbers being shown them were accurate or not.

If I'm not mistaken about the IRS 'audits' they've been more about the aggressive deductions claimed than the accuracy of the data presented. Aggressive deductions get argued by tax counsel, and aren't necessarily 'fraud'...just beyond the intent or fair reading of the law. And those arguments can take years and years of arguing without coming to fruition, usually settled eventually.

It would not be a big surprise to learn that Trump and co doctored their reported cash flows to reflect lower income production than reality.

The practice of Trump has always been to get away with whatever he could, no ethical limits. Including over the line legally...anything, if he could get away with it.

Right, inflate cash flows to lenders and other players and reduce cash flows for tax purposes.

We also would occasionally get something called an AUO (Agreed Upon Procedures) which is like a JV version of a quality of earnings report. In it I made an argument to the accountants that some operating expenses like R&M, had one time expenses like “high than usual snow plowing expenses” and knocked like $45k off expenses into the bottom line and got the borrower a smaller capex/replacement reserve plus another near $700k in proceeds because simply using the same multiplier (or capitalization rate, which is the inverse of a valuation multiple,or going in all equity cash yield in year 1). That 7% cap rate equates to a 14x cash flow so $50k x 14 = $700k just by manufacturing higher cash flows simply striping some snow removal out of R&M.

So valuation comes from cash flows but to your point,the same asset with cash flows can be valued differently based on market perception of the quality of those cash flows and willingness of a buyer to accept a lower year 1 and long run return/yield on the investment because of the perceived quality of those cash flows. To your point, MD, valuation of any asset is amorphous based on perception of risk as well as coming up with what those cash flows actually are.

I worked for this French bank formerly known as CDC Ixis (called Natexis now) and they had an old legendary CMBS group from Normura including a Chicago trainer award winning economist. The head of originations told me how one of they manipulated one of the constraints to how much you can lend. The ratings agencies apply “stressed” interest rate (stressed mortgage constant payment) and “stressed cap rate” to identify the day one risk of a refinancing of interest rates rose and cap rates rose at the point of the balloon maturity coming due. Because of some issues class B mall stressed cap rates were inside of actually trading multiples so they started financing 100% of these assets. Of course Nomura (CCA) blew up in fall of 1998 when you had LTCM, Ruble devaluation and SE Asia issue and they got caught upside down holding over $5Bn in funded commercial mortgages they now couldn’t sell and had a mark to market problem with their warehouse lender (CDC Ixis-Natixis, the group had gotten big and wanted yo be independent from Nomura who said cool “we supply the equity at arms length and help you get a facility to hold the loans but don’t come to us for support and when stuff hit the fan they had to shut the unit down) as all sexuritization is a skim (“arbitrage”) game and they were 5-10pts upside down on the loans.

[Farfromgeneva]

The only time I ever prepared phony leases was years ago when I managed a men’s softball team in my town. The league rules allowed only a limited number of non-residents on the roster. You had to prove residency for the town residents. So I made up one or two leases. Hey, the out of town guy had a lot of power. We needed him to keep the outfielders pushed back.

ahhh counselor...

Wonder how involved he was with the plethora of roundabouts that plague NJ? Or perhaps the original Xanadu and related development project where over $1Bn of funds is basically unaccounted for...

[Farfromgeneva]

Yes, that's a much better explanation of how the 'fraud' aspect would be proven.

I was short handing the 'valuation' aspect, a mere difference in 'valuation' is not evidence of actual fraud...it's not simply what Trump and co would have 'claimed' the valuation was, but rather the underlying cash flows etc related to those properties...'two sets of books'.

The IRS would not know whether the cash flows were necessarily accurate or not, as the web of financial transactions are undoubtedly immensely complicated.

Nor would the lender necessarily know that the cash flows were overstated in whatever data was presented to them to justify their valuation support.

'Presentation' of the same numbers can result in significant differences in valuation simply by emphasizing different factors. For instance, I manage on the side a small 40k sq ft quasi retail/industrial building for our family, inherited from my dad who built it and managed it as part of his on the side work. My dad emphasized with the real estate tax authorities the inherent risks of just two tenants (when there's turnover, it's a huge whack to revenue), the aging roof, the aging HVAC, the limitations on parking, etc to achieve some relief in their assessments. When he passed, I emphasized the historical revenue cash flows, the long term escalating leases, and the high demand in that area for retail spaces (used to be industrial area) to achieve a strong valuation for the increased basis upon his death. The latter will save us some capital gains tax if/when we sell.

Now, if either of us had misreported the cash flows, or the age of the roof, or any other material facts...that would be fraud. He did not, I did not.

But it would not have been all that difficult to have done so...though it would have needed a conscious effort to produce phony leases etc on any required due diligence. Our valuation for basis purpose did require review of the leases, so they needed to match up exactly with our projected cash flow statements. According to Cohen, I believe, the leases may have been doctored and the cash flow projections may have included wishful thinking assumptions unsupported by any reality.

In our valuation for basis, the appraisers asked very detailed questions, requiring documentation etc, about ages of various items, got deeply into how the cash flows worked, etc. Again, would have required a conscious effort to have mis-reported anything.

There's been quite a lot of speculation about Trump's bankers over the years doing either shoddy due diligence, or worse, being complicit in accepting documents they knew were fraudulent...even speculation that dirty money on the other side of the bank needed assets to wash through...

The IRS on the other hand typically don't do this sort of due diligence, so would have little insight into whether the numbers being shown them were accurate or not.

If I'm not mistaken about the IRS 'audits' they've been more about the aggressive deductions claimed than the accuracy of the data presented. Aggressive deductions get argued by tax counsel, and aren't necessarily 'fraud'...just beyond the intent or fair reading of the law. And those arguments can take years and years of arguing without coming to fruition, usually settled eventually.

It would not be a big surprise to learn that Trump and co doctored their reported cash flows to reflect lower income production than reality.

The practice of Trump has always been to get away with whatever he could, no ethical limits. Including over the line legally...anything, if he could get away with it.

Would be interested in finding out if Trump was kicking back to appraisers to get an inflatable value to procure loans and then using same property in same timeframe at a lower valuation to reduce taxes. A pattern would be a problem and it would involve some degree of conspiracy.

Lenders have to control the appraisal but they’re generally in on the game such that the appraisers know what’s up. They are the term sheet and know what the proposed loan terms and constraints are.

As for property taxes they could get their own appraisal to use, but not sure it’s even necessary for that objective.

[MDlaxfan76]

The only time I ever prepared phony leases was years ago when I managed a men’s softball team in my town. The league rules allowed only a limited number of non-residents on the roster. You had to prove residency for the town residents. So I made up one or two leases. Hey, the out of town guy had a lot of power. We needed him to keep the outfielders pushed back.

ahhh counselor...

Wonder how involved he was with the plethora of roundabouts that plague NJ? Or perhaps the original Xanadu and related development project where over $1Bn of funds is basically unaccounted for...

Bill's a straight shooter...only a straight shooter would admit his story! Sometimes you need the power hitter....and a men's softball league is not exactly big time...

[Farfromgeneva]

Oh I’m all for Gerry rigging a competition for my own benefit. No problems there. Just wish I had done more for my son whos pissed he care in 4th in the regional Cub Scout pinewood derby this morning. Like 50 kids, he’s not hearing how his time of 3.19 seconds is actually better than his 3.22 last year and only 3/100 off but he’s like 4th isn’t as good as third period. I should’ve greased some troop leader palms a little better this time around clearly. Can learn something from Jersey.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Yes, that's a much better explanation of how the 'fraud' aspect would be proven.

I was short handing the 'valuation' aspect, a mere difference in 'valuation' is not evidence of actual fraud...it's not simply what Trump and co would have 'claimed' the valuation was, but rather the underlying cash flows etc related to those properties...'two sets of books'.

The IRS would not know whether the cash flows were necessarily accurate or not, as the web of financial transactions are undoubtedly immensely complicated.

Nor would the lender necessarily know that the cash flows were overstated in whatever data was presented to them to justify their valuation support.

'Presentation' of the same numbers can result in significant differences in valuation simply by emphasizing different factors. For instance, I manage on the side a small 40k sq ft quasi retail/industrial building for our family, inherited from my dad who built it and managed it as part of his on the side work. My dad emphasized with the real estate tax authorities the inherent risks of just two tenants (when there's turnover, it's a huge whack to revenue), the aging roof, the aging HVAC, the limitations on parking, etc to achieve some relief in their assessments. When he passed, I emphasized the historical revenue cash flows, the long term escalating leases, and the high demand in that area for retail spaces (used to be industrial area) to achieve a strong valuation for the increased basis upon his death. The latter will save us some capital gains tax if/when we sell.

Now, if either of us had misreported the cash flows, or the age of the roof, or any other material facts...that would be fraud. He did not, I did not.

But it would not have been all that difficult to have done so...though it would have needed a conscious effort to produce phony leases etc on any required due diligence. Our valuation for basis purpose did require review of the leases, so they needed to match up exactly with our projected cash flow statements. According to Cohen, I believe, the leases may have been doctored and the cash flow projections may have included wishful thinking assumptions unsupported by any reality.

In our valuation for basis, the appraisers asked very detailed questions, requiring documentation etc, about ages of various items, got deeply into how the cash flows worked, etc. Again, would have required a conscious effort to have mis-reported anything.

There's been quite a lot of speculation about Trump's bankers over the years doing either shoddy due diligence, or worse, being complicit in accepting documents they knew were fraudulent...even speculation that dirty money on the other side of the bank needed assets to wash through...

The IRS on the other hand typically don't do this sort of due diligence, so would have little insight into whether the numbers being shown them were accurate or not.

If I'm not mistaken about the IRS 'audits' they've been more about the aggressive deductions claimed than the accuracy of the data presented. Aggressive deductions get argued by tax counsel, and aren't necessarily 'fraud'...just beyond the intent or fair reading of the law. And those arguments can take years and years of arguing without coming to fruition, usually settled eventually.

It would not be a big surprise to learn that Trump and co doctored their reported cash flows to reflect lower income production than reality.

The practice of Trump has always been to get away with whatever he could, no ethical limits. Including over the line legally...anything, if he could get away with it.

Would be interested in finding out if Trump was kicking back to appraisers to get an inflatable value to procure loans and then using same property in same timeframe at a lower valuation to reduce taxes. A pattern would be a problem and it would involve some degree of conspiracy.

Lenders have to control the appraisal but they’re generally in on the game such that the appraisers know what’s up. They are the term sheet and know what the proposed loan terms and constraints are.

As for property taxes they could get their own appraisal to use, but not sure it’s even necessary for that objective.

Yep. I am curious about Trump’s case because he supposedly had inflated value for loans and depressed values for taxes. I don’t quite understand it. My guess is that he was inflating values on a PFS and somehow using those claims as the basis for loans.

[Farfromgeneva]

If he inflated the cash flows that gets to a higher valuation. Could’ve been that simple. Or obtaining reduced value appraisals for court to fight tax assessment. Guess the point is that leaning on an appraisal as the determinant of value is kind of dumb and yet we all do it.

If it’s Section 8 at al, best practice is to get housing authority certified rent roll, but not always required.

[njbill]

Wonder how involved he was with the plethora of roundabouts that plague NJ?

Love them, though they are dying out. We call them circles, by the way. Best way to handle them is close your eyes and put your foot on the gas.

They scared me to death in England, however. Always got confused about which way to rotate, clockwise or counterclockwise. Then when you exit the roundabout you have to make sure to stay on the right, I mean the left, I mean the wrong, side of the road.

[njbill]

a men's softball league is not exactly big time...

I beg your pardon.

I played well into my 50s until one year I didn’t get the organizational meeting email.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Wonder how involved he was with the plethora of roundabouts that plague NJ?

Love them, though they are dying out. We call them circles, by the way. Best way to handle them is close your eyes and put your foot on the gas.

They scared me to death in England, however. Always got confused about which way to rotate, clockwise or counterclockwise. Then when you exit the roundabout you have to make sure to stay on the right, I mean the left, I mean the wrong, side of the road.

I thought jug handles were more prevalent than roundabouts in NJ?

[njbill]

Definitely. They have largely survived, but the circles are a dying breed. Probably half a dozen in my area have been shut down in my lifetime. A couple on the way to the shore still exist.

I used to work with traffic engineers when I did zoning and planning work. They had all these formulas about the most efficient way to handle traffic at an intersection. Stop signs, traffic lights, circles, overpasses. I forget all the details, but those guys loved to talk traffic flows.

[Farfromgeneva]

Wonder how involved he was with the plethora of roundabouts that plague NJ?

Love them, though they are dying out. We call them circles, by the way. Best way to handle them is close your eyes and put your foot on the gas.

They scared me to death in England, however. Always got confused about which way to rotate, clockwise or counterclockwise. Then when you exit the roundabout you have to make sure to stay on the right, I mean the left, I mean the wrong, side of the road.

They’ve got them in western mass as well. Joke was my understanding is they exist because the union/mob insisted on them to create more concrete paving and asphalt work for their guys in the 60s and 70s.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Definitely. They have largely survived, but the circles are a dying breed. Probably half a dozen in my area have been shut down in my lifetime. A couple on the way to the shore still exist.

I used to work with traffic engineers when I did zoning and planning work. They had all these formulas about the most efficient way to handle traffic at an intersection. Stop signs, traffic lights, circles, overpasses. I forget all the details, but those guys loved to talk traffic flows.

I was exit 131A

[cradleandshoot]

Definitely. They have largely survived, but the circles are a dying breed. Probably half a dozen in my area have been shut down in my lifetime. A couple on the way to the shore still exist.

I used to work with traffic engineers when I did zoning and planning work. They had all these formulas about the most efficient way to handle traffic at an intersection. Stop signs, traffic lights, circles, overpasses. I forget all the details, but those guys loved to talk traffic flows.

Interesting that here in my little part of upstate ny roundabouts are all the brand new rage. They put them in a couple of years ago in the Seabreeze expressway near my house. They replaced traffic lights at 4 intersections. Everybody was confused how they worked at first and many people still have not figured them out yet. They theory was they maintain a flow of traffic going in all directions. The reality is cars entering the roundabout have no clue as to which vehicle has the right if way.