Let me rephrase, is there a billionaire in America that would survive an open book audit from the IRS?
Let me rephrase, is there a billionaire in America that would survive an open book audit from the IRS?Welp, the owner of the company is apparently worth 9 billion dollars. The question is why would a billionaire business man like that risk $175 million on Trump. You don't become a billionaire by lending people like Trump money. The odds of not getting it back would be pretty damn high. But what I read about him, his 1st business was auto loans to super high risk people at basically loan shark rates when nobody else would loan them money.. You don't get much higher risk that giving $175 to Diaper Don I guess lol.
The paperwork mistake for such a large company seems odd, maybe it was intentional so they could drag this out as long as possible.
But what I read about him, his 1st business was auto loans to super high risk people at basically loan shark rates when nobody else would loan them money.. You don't get much higher risk that giving $175 to Diaper Don I guess lol.
Does this extend the 10 day deadline?Looks like the bond is in question
New York AG questions out-of-state underwriter of $175 million Trump bond | CNN Politics
The New York attorney general’s office is raising questions about the $175 million bond Donald Trump posted in the civil fraud case and has asked for more information to prove it’s financially sound.amp.cnn.com
I will put my tin foil hat on… and say the bond company did not want to put in writing where the money is coming from. Or that they don’t have it..
So we have a few more days to wait
Does this extend the 10 day deadline?
If I understood correctly, the premium is the fee for underwriting the bond. It's typically around 2.5%. I believe Hankey had said the other day they didn't try to squeeze a bigger fee out of DJT.The article I linked to did say that the bond company was paid a premium by Trump but wouldn't say how much. So, perhaps Trump didn't actually have the cash and paid shark rates to keep up appearances. No actual explanation of it all would surprise me.
You make it sound so dirtyJust so I understand. Trump may have committed fraud posting bond on his fraud trial?
If the entity doesn’t have the assets to cover the bond it still sounds like fraud.Eh, this really isn't a fraud situation, it's more like pushing the boundaries of insurance law.
To begin with, typically government entities require sureties to hit a minimum rating from AM Best or a similar rating agency. An AM Best rating is comprised of two parts, a letter grade and a number grade. The letter grade will be A+/A/A-/B+ etc. It represents the sureties general credit worthiness and their overall financial outlook. The number grade will be I/II/III/IV etc. It represents the sureties general size and surplus, the larger the Roman numeral the larger the surplus. In my experience most governments require AT LEAST an A- VII surety, but that could go higher if the bond obligation is larger.
There's been no discussion of the court requiring a minimum rating, which I find odd.
Apparently the main issue is the surety isn't authorized (licensed) in New York. This is both odd and not odd. It's not odd because insurance companies ARE allowed to do business in states in which they're not licensed. It's called the nonadmitted/surplus lines market. In most states if you can't find insurance through an admitted carrier (i.e., you've got three denials) you're free to shop the surplus lines market. Surplus lines carriers tend to be more expensive than admitted insurers. What makes this odd is that surety is NOT generally allowed on a surplus lines basis, especially by government entities. The only time I've seen nonadmitted bonds accepted are on federal obligations where the surety doesn't have to be licensed in the state because it's a federal job and the surety is on the list of approved federal sureties.
The quotes I've seen about New York needing to verify that the bond was collateralized properly are wrong. The obligee has no right to verify the collateralization of the bond. The surety stands in the place of the applicant and owes the face value of the bond without regard to the quality of the collateral.
New York claims that their laws prohibit a single bond obligation is excess of 10% of surplus. The bond company states that this doesn't matter since they're a nonadmitted carrier not subject to New York regulation. The bond company is right, but New York still could reject the bond for being nonadmitted. Also, I'd be interested to know where the bond company is domiciled as THAT state may take umbrage with a bond of this size.
New Yorks questions about short term cash are also off point. The bond secures an obligation on appeal. The appeal is scheduled for much later in the year. Instant cash on hand is a red herring if the surety has months to liquidate other investments if necessary. Cash on hand is only relevant if there is some way for the appellant to default on the obligation before the appeal is heard. I'm not sure what could transpire to make the bond immediately callable.
Just so I understand. Trump may have committed fraud posting bond on his fraud trial?
It wouldn't shock me at all that a company that would actually post a $175,000,000 bond for Trump would commit fraud. I know some of the Trumpers are saying the guy did the bond because Trump offered him favors when he's back in office. His winning is a super long shot, and a 175 million bond on a long shot seems like a bad way to run a business.
The irony in this happening to Trump is great, just a few short weeks ago he claimed he had enough to cover $455, but needed a bond for $175? After the Bibles sell out, I wonder what he'll start peddling next. He sure does am awful lot of fleemarket level hawking for a man who had $455 million in March.
I guess in Trumpworld he is entitled to "presidential immunity" before he was elected. I'm sure there was plenty of precedent to cite to support that fantasy.Lol back to presidential immunity. In fall 2016??? Like really clown lawyers
Lol back to presidential immunity. In fall 2016??? Like really clown lawyers
Is this in reference to some new filing/motion?
Technically, I think this case is about the falsified business records that were hiding the 2016 payments - and those false business records were issued after being elected.I guess in Trumpworld he is entitled to "presidential immunity" before he was elected. I'm sure there was plenty of precedent to cite to support that fantasy.
Probably would be similar to getting a security clearance. I don't know that there are diced ratios or anything, but if the government feels you could be compromised because of it, no clearance for you.What would be the debt limit in your rational world? Would it be a hard number or a percentage of assets? Would it also include credit score? Should we also look at where income originates? Maybe an in depth audit of the persons complete financial history would be the way to go?
I'm not against the idea, but I wonder how it would work.
So Trump really has no money, or thinks he can delay his way out of losing his property.Looks like the bond is in question
New York AG questions out-of-state underwriter of $175 million Trump bond | CNN Politics
The New York attorney general’s office is raising questions about the $175 million bond Donald Trump posted in the civil fraud case and has asked for more information to prove it’s financially sound.amp.cnn.com
I will put my tin foil hat on… and say the bond company did not want to put in writing where the money is coming from. Or that they don’t have it..
So we have a few more days to wait
So Trump really has no money, or thinks he can delay his way out of losing his property.
Trump chooses only the best lawyers and insurers. Surprise surprise, the bond itself is also fraudulent.
“Incomprehensible”: Experts say Trump’s $175 million bond makes no sense
A former top financial regulator in New York told The Daily Beast that Trump's bond only raises more questionsfinance.yahoo.com
The best part is at the bottom of the articleHoly crow! Will the fraud in that case ever end?