LaxPower Back-Up Stick

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 3:44 pm

LandM wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 3:19 pm 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...

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:06 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 3:44 pm

LandM wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 3:19 pm 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 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:07 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:06 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 3:44 pm

LandM wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 3:19 pm 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.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:14 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:07 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:06 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 3:44 pm

LandM wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 3:19 pm 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 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:17 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:14 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:07 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:06 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 3:44 pm

LandM wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 3:19 pm 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 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:22 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:17 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:14 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:07 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:06 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 3:44 pm

LandM wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 3:19 pm 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 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:05 pm Particularly Don Jr's coke habit...

LandM wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:40 pm 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

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:05 pm Particularly Don Jr's coke habit...

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 5:18 pm

LandM wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:40 pm 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.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:48 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:05 pm Particularly Don Jr's coke habit...

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

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:05 pm Particularly Don Jr's coke habit...

njbill wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 6:33 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:05 pm Particularly Don Jr's coke habit...

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

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:43 am 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.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 7:04 pm

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:43 am 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.