Congress (Freddie and Fannie Mac) lowered the qualification standards, because the Dems believed owning a home is a "right."  So, the industry started doing all kinds of creative financing -- no principle/interest only payments, low payments for 3 years then massive balloon payments, variable interest rate loans, etc.

Then, when they got the bright idea of selling these toxic loans bundled as investments, the bottom fell out when the truth was publicized.  Homes lost all that inflated value caused by increased demand for loans they never would qualify for before.  The bubble burst, and that's when the banks that played ball with Obama were bailed out.  Bears Stearns was the first to fail.  The bail outs started the next week.  They were sold to JPMorgan.

All that borrowing going on because Congress wanted to have everyone owning homes -- whether they could afford it or not.  And the banks playing "Hot potato" with the loans they were certain would be foreclosed on let them reduce their risk.  BtW, the banks downplayed the risk for those bundled loans to get them sold.  Anyone go to jail for fraud?

Absolutely Right. Many of the toxic mortgages were indeed bundled together and sold as "A" paper investments.
Institutions like pension funds bought these investments. Banks gave zero down mortgages to people with bad
credit and who were also on welfare. This was done in the name of social justice.The Clintons were proponents
of this insanity. As if this wasn't bad enough, no one I know of went to jail for this fraud.   

This is based on your years of experience in investment banking…?

Maybe that’s why we have laws that say you can’t misrepresent material information when you apply for a loan?

I’m not saying Trump did or didn’t misrepresent information in this case, but if he did, seems like pretty clear fraud to me…

Rather than insult me, show what you believe I said that's wrong and give some sort of proof -- other than detailing your vast experience in the financial and legal sectors.

Material misrepresentation is the act of intentional hiding or
fabrication of a material fact which, if known to the other party, could
have terminated, or significantly altered the basis of, a contract, deal,
or transaction. It is a misrepresentation that would be likely to induce
a reasonable person to manifest his assent, or that the maker knows
would be likely to induce the recipient to do so.

So far, not a single lender has come forward to say they would have withdrawn a loan offer or offered significantly less favorable terms had the valuations been less than reported.

And so far, nobody hating on Trump seems to get the important and basic fact that every single lender pays for property value assessments independent of the borrower's "guarantees".

Every house I've closed on -- buyer or seller -- the lender required an independent survey of property values that recently sold in my area and an inspection to make sure the property is in an appropriate condition.  Without that appraisal, the loan doesn't get approved.

I wonder if any of the anti-Trumper's here think Trump bribed the appraisers to get those "fraudulent" valuations?  Now THAT would be actual fraud.

I asked my Virginia realtor and property manager to do a quick appraisal of my rental home there for an estimate of where I might price my home should i sell.  At the same time, i went online and did my own survey using tax information, property sales, and anything else publicly available, and I came up with what I would price it at.

My realtor called back about 4 days later, and the range they came up with put the price I estimated exactly in the middle.

It's not that hard to come up with a property value if you do the work.  If the bank were buying the property, that's one thing.  They'd want to know at what price they can be guaranteed of realizing a profit.  All they needed for the loan was whether the property covered the amount borrowed and how much profit that represented in interest.

Rather than insult me, show what you believe I said that's wrong and give some sort of proof -- other than detailing your vast experience in the financial and legal sectors.

Because you’re the heart of civility in this forum?  Irony, thy name is Flapp.

So far, not a single lender has come forward to say they would have withdrawn a loan offer or offered significantly less favorable terms had the valuations been less than reported.

And so far, nobody hating on Trump seems to get the important and basic fact that every single lender pays for property value assessments independent of the borrower's "guarantees".

Every house I've closed on -- buyer or seller -- the lender required an independent survey of property values that recently sold in my area and an inspection to make sure the property is in an appropriate condition.  Without that appraisal, the loan doesn't get approved.

I wonder if any of the anti-Trumper's here think Trump bribed the appraisers to get those "fraudulent" valuations?  Now THAT would be actual fraud.

I asked my Virginia realtor and property manager to do a quick appraisal of my rental home there for an estimate of where I might price my home should i sell.  At the same time, i went online and did my own survey using tax information, property sales, and anything else publicly available, and I came up with what I would price it at.

My realtor called back about 4 days later, and the range they came up with put the price I estimated exactly in the middle.

It's not that hard to come up with a property value if you do the work.  If the bank were buying the property, that's one thing.  They'd want to know at what price they can be guaranteed of realizing a profit.  All they needed for the loan was whether the property covered the amount borrowed and how much profit that represented in interest.

Maybe because it goes without saying that if he had misrepresented his net worth, and they knew the accurate number, that they would’ve given less favorable terms?

There is information in the complaint that indicates the only way to get the deal he wanted was to provide a personal guaranty, in the particular case I was looking at.

Also, I think what you’re saying isn’t quite the same as what I’m saying.  Yes, I know lenders get appraisals of property used as collateral. In a recourse loan, they also retain the option of going after other assets the borrower has.  Example: let’s say I own a house, and I want to buy another one.  When I apply for a mortgage for the second house, the lender gets an appraisal of that property… but since it’s most likely a recourse loan, they can go after my first house, and my car, and whatnot, if I default.  Do they order appraisals for all of that property, to verify my net worth?  Doubtful.  For somebody like Donald Trump? I expect they would rely on the Statements of Financial Condition that he has attested to.

Like I said, I’m not saying he did anything wrong, or didn’t do anything wrong.  I’m saying that if he did misrepresent his net worth in order to get more favorable terms in financial dealings with banks and/or insurance companies, that seems to me like it would be fraud, whether or not any banks have explicitly said “we wouldn’t have written the same loan if we knew his net worth was different than what he said.”

Because you’re the heart of civility in this forum?  Irony, thy name is Flapp.


Maybe because it goes without saying that if he had misrepresented his net worth, and they knew the accurate number, that they would’ve given less favorable terms?

There is information in the complaint that indicates the only way to get the deal he wanted was to provide a personal guaranty, in the particular case I was looking at.

Also, I think what you’re saying isn’t quite the same as what I’m saying.  Yes, I know lenders get appraisals of property used as collateral. In a recourse loan, they also retain the option of going after other assets the borrower has.  Example: let’s say I own a house, and I want to buy another one.  When I apply for a mortgage for the second house, the lender gets an appraisal of that property… but since it’s most likely a recourse loan, they can go after my first house, and my car, and whatnot, if I default.  Do they order appraisals for all of that property, to verify my net worth?  Doubtful.  For somebody like Donald Trump? I expect they would rely on the Statements of Financial Condition that he has attested to.

Like I said, I’m not saying he did anything wrong, or didn’t do anything wrong.  I’m saying that if he did misrepresent his net worth in order to get more favorable terms in financial dealings with banks and/or insurance companies, that seems to me like it would be fraud, whether or not any banks have explicitly said “we wouldn’t have written the same loan if we knew his net worth was different than what he said.”

earlier you said, "seems like pretty clear fraud to me…"
and now you are saying, "seems to me like it would be fraud"
goalposts moved...

earlier you said, "seems like pretty clear fraud to me…"
and now you are saying, "seems to me like it would be fraud"
goalposts moved...

Because I left out the words “pretty clear”?  Yep, you’re right.  Totally reversed my position by saying “would be fraud” instead of “pretty clear fraud.” 

Because I left out the words “pretty clear”?  Yep, you’re right.  Totally reversed my position by saying “would be fraud” instead of “pretty clear fraud.” 

you didn't say, "would be fraud"
you said, "like it would be fraud"

there's a difference between "pretty clear" and "like it would"...

you didn't say, "would be fraud"
you said, "like it would be fraud"

there's a difference between "pretty clear" and "like it would"...

I didn’t categorically say it would be fraud because I haven’t read the New York law that applies to see what the elements of the offense are, but it seems to me that if one were to intentionally misrepresent their Statement of Financial Conditions in order to get better loan terms, that would likely be fraud. 

That’s seriously the nit you’re going to pick?

If they hate him so much to go after him like this then he must be doing something right

I didn’t categorically say it would be fraud because I haven’t read the New York law that applies to see what the elements of the offense are, but it seems to me that if one were to intentionally misrepresent their Statement of Financial Conditions in order to get better loan terms, that would likely be fraud. 

That’s seriously the nit you’re going to pick?

so you admit you didn't read the law, yet you said it was "pretty clear"?
got it...

If they hate him so much to go after him like this then he must be doing something right

They hate him so much they're not thinking straight.  Making themselves look like fools.

funny how there's so much financial talk on a 2a site but less firearms talk

funny how there's so much financial talk on a 2a site but less firearms talk

I'll take "Political Discussions" for $1000 ....

 

so you admit you didn't read the law, yet you said it was "pretty clear"?
got it...

I was considering the general definition and elements of fraud, which I had heard a while ago.  Under that definition, the plaintiff(s) would need to have suffered harm, which is what it seems to me that several posts in this thread have focused on.

I’ve now read the applicable section of NY law, and it’s even more broad than what I was thinking; it covers way more than the traditional general definition, and allows the AG of NY to bring suit (doesn’t have to be a harmed party, like a bank in this case).  Under the law cited in the complaint, former President Trump’s alleged conduct would absolutely constitute fraud.

Now we’ll see if the State of New York can prove it by “clear and convincing” evidence.

Sounds like Mr. Trump may also be considering challenging the law on constitutional grounds, which will be interesting to watch.

I'll take "Political Discussions" for $1000 ....

 

BBUUURRRRNNNNNNNNN

They hate him so much they're not thinking straight.  Making themselves look like fools.

They only look like fools to people who don't have TDS or know how to use logic and recognize another witch hunt.

funny how there's so much financial talk on a 2a site but less firearms talk

I get all my finance advice from 2ahi. Well here and Russell Peters ($0.50)

you guys can argue about all the details etc. but when you step back and think about what really is going on - the purposeful targeting of a former President who is running for re election. This undermines everything no matter what party you belong to - in our supposedly free country. Weak men create hard times. And most of you that argue here don't shoot / train - just collect ...and argue

you guys can argue about all the details etc. but when you step back and think about what really is going on - the purposeful targeting of a former President who is running for re election. This undermines everything no matter what party you belong to - in our supposedly free country. Weak men create hard times. And most of you that argue here don't shoot / train - just collect ...and argue

Most here are aware of this, which is why all the post are a bigger deal than they sound. Those who support these fraudulent indictments are the unaware ones.  At this point, even if a legitimate crime was commited, it took so many false claims that I would most likely overlook said crime.

you guys can argue about all the details etc. but when you step back and think about what really is going on - the purposeful targeting of a former President who is running for re election. This undermines everything no matter what party you belong to - in our supposedly free country. Weak men create hard times. And most of you that argue here don't shoot / train - just collect ...and argue

It makes no sense to cast aspersions on people who have the same values as yourself.

Everybody has a different set of circumstances.  We can't all spend $$$$ and hours going to the range, cleaning guns, reloading/finding ammo, etc.

Also, how difficult has the C&C made it to even go to the range?  Closed for how long?  Reopened for fewer days per week, reservation system, etc.

No skeet, no MPPL, no action bay events at all.

So, yeah. It's our fault if we "don't shoot / train - just collect".

 

It makes no sense to cast aspersions on people who have the same values as yourself.

Everybody has a different set of circumstances.  We can't all spend $$$$ and hours going to the range, cleaning guns, reloading/finding ammo, etc.

Also, how difficult has the C&C made it to even go to the range?  Closed for how long?  Reopened for fewer days per week, reservation system, etc.

No skeet, no MPPL, no action bay events at all.

So, yeah. It's our fault if we "don't shoot / train - just collect".

 

I never really thought about this until now. Since I haven't shot since November 2022. does this mean I don't shoot?  Its not by choice, but bays closed and I'm not about to waste $ at the bench side or at an indoor range.  Nov was to do my CCW test. Shot 50rds. Prior to that, shot in Vegas to zero the red dots. Total 50rds in the same month. Then last time I really shot was in Sept 2022 just before the range closed.