Overvalued Real Estate - Is Latisha James Playing With Fire in Trump matter?

[Kilroy2]

Who did the valuation? If it was fraudulent, they should be facing prosecution. We know TRUMP! didn't do it, because no bank would EVER accept the land owner's valuation at face value, so who did it and why haven't we seen that name get vilified by the usual suspects?

I do not believe that those who crunch the numbers can be held liable. He has people who do the work.

But in typical trump ranting, he approves the figures given as accurate.

Does it matter who did it. He is president of the company and they have to submit it for him to approve or disapprove. Trumps testimony is that the figures are accurate when he not on a rant Any loan agreements are signed by officers of the company or the owner of that company that the figures submitted are accurate.

So he approved the numbers as the president and officer of the company.

 

[BackAgain]

The argument, that the New York lawsuit against Donald Trump for allegedly overvaluing his properties is baseless because banks use their own appraisers, contains several flaws:

Financial institutions often rely on the financial statements and disclosures provided by their clients. While banks do employ their own appraisers, they also depend on the honesty and accuracy of the information provided by clients. If a client intentionally misrepresents their assets' value, it can affect the bank's risk assessment and lending decisions.

If widespread asset overvaluation like the kind alleged in the New York lawsuit against Donald Trump were to become common, it could distort risk assessments, potentially leading to higher interest rates for all borrowers. This lawsuit, represented as "The People of New York versus Donald Trump," highlights the broader public interest at stake. The point is, someone asked 'who is the victim?", it's the plaintiff, "The People Of New York". Moreover, providing inconsistent valuations for the same property in different contexts, such as to banks and insurance companies, could constitute fraud, underscoring the serious legal implications of such actions.

The core issue in the lawsuit is not merely about the difference in valuation but the intent behind it. If it can be proven that there was a deliberate attempt to mislead or commit fraud, the argument of banks using their own appraisers becomes secondary. Fraudulent intent in financial dealings is a serious legal issue, regardless of the safeguards in place.

Overvaluation of assets can also impact tax assessments and other regulatory compliances. If properties are overvalued, it might lead to reduced tax liabilities or other undue advantages, affecting state revenue and compliance with laws.

Bank appraisals are a part of the due diligence process but do not absolve the borrower from the responsibility of accurate representation. Banks' appraisals are often based on the information provided by the borrower, so if this information is flawed, the appraisal can also be compromised.

Misrepresentation in financial statements can violate various legal and ethical standards in business practices. The argument that banks should catch every discrepancy overlooks the responsibility of individuals and businesses to engage in honest and transparent dealings.

Addressing alleged overvaluation is also a matter of setting a legal precedent and deterring similar behavior by others. Dismissing such cases on the grounds that banks have their own appraisers could encourage others to attempt similar misrepresentations.

In summary, the argument underestimates the importance of honesty and accuracy in financial disclosures and overestimates the ability of bank appraisals to catch every instance of misrepresentation or fraud. The legal implications of fraudulent misrepresentation are significant, irrespective of the checks and balances employed by financial institutions.

I see Mr. Verbose ^ has struck again. But the use of so very many words doesn’t actually manage to conceal that, once again, DumpHole doesn’t know what he’s babbling about.

There is zero evidence of any intention to deceive. In fact, there’s no credible evidence that there was even any error by team Trump in its valuations. And there’s no evidence that anybody was injured. There are no alleged “victims” either.

In short, there is no actual case.

 

[BackAgain]

It's irrelevant to the charge. Please reread the post. Thank you.

No. It’s not irrelevant. There was no fraud of any kind whatsoever. And there are no “damages” to any hypothetical
“victim.”

And claiming and establishing damages is also a legal prerequisite.

No case here, whatsoever.

 

[hadit]

I do not believe that those who crunch the numbers can be held liable. He has people who do the work.

The point is, why would a bank accept numbers from people in the employ of the applicant?

But in typical trump ranting, he approves the figures given as accurate.

Does it matter who did it. He is president of the company and they have to submit it for him to approve or disapprove. Trumps testimony is that the figures are accurate when he not on a rant Any loan agreements are signed by officers of the company or the owner of that company that the figures submitted are accurate.

Are you saying that TRUMP!'s own company is allowed to assess the value of his own property, and that a bank would accept that valuation, no independent appraisals necessary?

So he approved the numbers as the president and officer of the company.

Numbers you believe he was allowed to come up with on his own, numbers you think a bank would accept?

It matters who did it, because the appraisal is supposed to be done by an independent source. When I've applied for and refinanced mortgages, not only did I not sign off on the appraiser's estimate, but I also did not do the appraisal myself, nor did I have someone in my employ do it. In fact, the lending company chose the appraiser, and I had to accept his/her numbers. Should a bank accept the word of the applicant when it comes to the value of the property being offered as collateral for a multi-million dollar loan? Think about it, why would a bank accept TRUMP!'s own word that his property is worth some amount of money without hearing from an independent voice not in TRUMP!'s employ? It simply makes no sense. It would seem to me to be the height of incompetence for a bank to accept the following:

TRUMP! - I want to borrow $35 million.
Bank - Okay, what do you have for collateral?
TRUMP! - My property over here, worth $50 million.
Bank - Oh, cool! Do you want that in hundreds or twenties?

Now, obviously, in this case, everything was cool because TRUMP! paid it all back on time (of course), but what if he didn't and the property was only worth $1 million? A bank blindly accepting the word of the applicant as to the value of a property held as collateral for a multi-million dollar loan? It doesn't add up.

 

[hadit]

I see Mr. Verbose ^ has struck again. But the use of so very many words doesn’t actually manage to conceal that, once again, DumpHole doesn’t know what he’s babbling about.

There is zero evidence of any intention to deceive. In fact, there’s no credible evidence that there was even any error by team Trump in its valuations. And there’s no evidence that anybody was injured. There are no alleged “victims” either.

In short, there is no actual case.

That's why this whole thing doesn't pass the smell test. Who CARES what a guy in a pawn shop says his watch is worth when he's trying to get a loan with it? The LAST person a lender is going to listen to is the guy wanting the money. Likewise, when TRUMP! is looking for a loan, who CARES what he says his collateral is worth? Answer, nobody.

 

[JoeB131]

No China lets in a guy whose sister was murdered by your CCP

And when you obtained the mortgage, you told the bank what your property was worth, right?

Yes, but I was honest about it and followed the advice of appraisers. Trump didn't do that you see.

 

[hadit]

Yes, but I was honest about it and followed the advice of appraisers. Trump didn't do that you see.

Did you name the appraiser so the bank could make sure he wasn't your deadbeat brother doing you a favor for 50 bucks?

 

[Leo123]

The rest of the story

He used the valuation to get a loan. It falls under real estate laws


it is aa felony or a misdemeanor

Loan fraud or lending fraud encompasses any kind of deceitful action designed to gain a financial advantage during the loan process. There are many types of loan fraud, such as mortgage fraud,

Trump committed no crime and was not deceitful. You are repeating a lie.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, but I was honest about it and followed the advice of appraisers. Trump didn't do that you see.

LOL!!

That's not how it works in America.

Whatever, play your game. Which one are you?

 

[Leo123]

Did you name the appraiser so the bank could make sure he wasn't your deadbeat brother doing you a favor for 50 bucks?

Banks hire appraisal management companies who pre-qualify certified and State licensed appraisers for a typical mortgage loan. The borrower may tell the bank what they think their property is worth but it’s totally up to the bank to verify the value of the Real Property’s value. Also an Appraiser only provides an opinion of value based on USPAP guidelines as of the specific date of valuation. The borrower has nothing to do with any of that accept to pay a fee to a third party for the appraisal report that only the bank can use.

 

[hadit]

Banks hire appraisal management companies who pre-qualify certified and State licensed appraisers for a typical mortgage loan. The borrower may tell the bank what they think their property is worth but it’s totally up to the bank to verify the value of the Real Property’s value. Also an Appraiser only provides an opinion of value based on USPAP guidelines as of the specific date of valuation. The borrower has nothing to do with any of that accept to pay a fee to a third party for the appraisal report that only the bank can use.

Exactly! That's why I find this whole kerfuffle that "TRUMP! committed fraud! He lied about his property value!" to be, shall we say, rather troublesome, because no lender under the sun is going to accept TRUMP!'s word for how much his collateral is worth, none. They wouldn't accept yours, or mine, or Quid Pro Joe Biden's. They will get a value from an independent appraiser. That's why they don't have a victim and no one was damaged, because the lender did NOT accept TRUMP!'s word.

 

[JoeB131]

LOL!!

That's not how it works in America.

You think China cares about Trump that much?

Um, this is exactly how it works in America, you commit business fraud, you face the consequences.

 

[JoeB131]

Banks hire appraisal management companies who pre-qualify certified and State licensed appraisers for a typical mortgage loan. The borrower may tell the bank what they think their property is worth but it’s totally up to the bank to verify the value of the Real Property’s value. Also an Appraiser only provides an opinion of value based on USPAP guidelines as of the specific date of valuation. The borrower has nothing to do with any of that accept to pay a fee to a third party for the appraisal report that only the bank can use.

So your argument is "You never should have trusted me to start with".

The judge already ruled that wasn't a valid defense.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The argument, that the New York lawsuit against Donald Trump for allegedly overvaluing his properties is baseless because banks use their own appraisers, contains several flaws:

Financial institutions often rely on the financial statements and disclosures provided by their clients. While banks do employ their own appraisers, they also depend on the honesty and accuracy of the information provided by clients. If a client intentionally misrepresents their assets' value, it can affect the bank's risk assessment and lending decisions.

If widespread asset overvaluation like the kind alleged in the New York lawsuit against Donald Trump were to become common, it could distort risk assessments, potentially leading to higher interest rates for all borrowers. This lawsuit, represented as "The People of New York versus Donald Trump," highlights the broader public interest at stake. The point is, someone asked 'who is the victim?", it's the plaintiff, "The People Of New York". Moreover, providing inconsistent valuations for the same property in different contexts, such as to banks and insurance companies, could constitute fraud, underscoring the serious legal implications of such actions.

The core issue in the lawsuit is not merely about the difference in valuation but the intent behind it. If it can be proven that there was a deliberate attempt to mislead or commit fraud, the argument of banks using their own appraisers becomes secondary. Fraudulent intent in financial dealings is a serious legal issue, regardless of the safeguards in place.

Overvaluation of assets can also impact tax assessments and other regulatory compliances. If properties are overvalued, it might lead to reduced tax liabilities or other undue advantages, affecting state revenue and compliance with laws.

Bank appraisals are a part of the due diligence process but do not absolve the borrower from the responsibility of accurate representation. Banks' appraisals are often based on the information provided by the borrower, so if this information is flawed, the appraisal can also be compromised.

Misrepresentation in financial statements can violate various legal and ethical standards in business practices. The argument that banks should catch every discrepancy overlooks the responsibility of individuals and businesses to engage in honest and transparent dealings.

Addressing alleged overvaluation is also a matter of setting a legal precedent and deterring similar behavior by others. Dismissing such cases on the grounds that banks have their own appraisers could encourage others to attempt similar misrepresentations.

In summary, the argument underestimates the importance of honesty and accuracy in financial disclosures and overestimates the ability of bank appraisals to catch every instance of misrepresentation or fraud. The legal implications of fraudulent misrepresentation are significant, irrespective of the checks and balances employed by financial institutions.

Nice reply, except in every case you are making a false assumption. The City of New York is not the victim. Your alleged impact has not yet occurred, called prior restraint. As you stated, it can violate various legal and ethical standards, but Trump did not do this. The City of New York lost nothing. "Can" and "Might" are not violations.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You think China cares about Trump that much?

Um, this is exactly how it works in America, you commit business fraud, you face the consequences.

Knee grow, please!

You’re thinking in Chinese. American banks and GSEs DO NOT loan money because they were directed by The Party or bribed

 

[JoeB131]

Knee grow, please!

You’re thinking in Chinese. American banks and GSEs DO NOT loan money because they were directed by The Party or bribed

No, they do it for the same reason they do it in any country... Because there are different rules for the rich. You and I are going to get a colonic exam of our finances to get a mortgage on a condo, but a guy like Trump can claim a 11,000 SF apartment has 30,000 SF, claim a building with operating revenue of $20 million is producing $100 million in revenue, and the big banks will say, "yup, yup, yup."

Hell, Trump probably would have gotten away with it if he hadn't been such a shitty president.

 

[hadit]

No, they do it for the same reason they do it in any country... Because there are different rules for the rich. You and I are going to get a colonic exam of our finances to get a mortgage on a condo, but a guy like Trump can claim a 11,000 SF apartment has 30,000 SF, claim a building with operating revenue of $20 million is producing $100 million in revenue, and the big banks will say, "yup, yup, yup."

Then they are totally incompetent lenders.

Hell, Trump probably would have gotten away with it if he hadn't been such a shitty president.

He did "get away with it" because there were no damages, no entity was harmed, and he fulfilled the terms of the contract.

 

[Kilroy2]

Trump committed no crime and was not deceitful. You are repeating a lie.

yet you are repeating a delusion. Trump is on trial and nothing you say can make it not so. He will be found guilty and you can scream deep state, weaponization of the government, no victims, etc

It still does not change anything. Multiple cases and he will not win in a single one.

 

[Kilroy2]

The point is, why would a bank accept numbers from people in the employ of the applicant?

Are you saying that TRUMP!'s own company is allowed to assess the value of his own property, and that a bank would accept that valuation, no independent appraisals necessary?

Numbers you believe he was allowed to come up with on his own, numbers you think a bank would accept?

It matters who did it, because the appraisal is supposed to be done by an independent source. When I've applied for and refinanced mortgages, not only did I not sign off on the appraiser's estimate, but I also did not do the appraisal myself, nor did I have someone in my employ do it. In fact, the lending company chose the appraiser, and I had to accept his/her numbers. Should a bank accept the word of the applicant when it comes to the value of the property being offered as collateral for a multi-million dollar loan? Think about it, why would a bank accept TRUMP!'s own word that his property is worth some amount of money without hearing from an independent voice not in TRUMP!'s employ? It simply makes no sense. It would seem to me to be the height of incompetence for a bank to accept the following:

TRUMP! - I want to borrow $35 million.
Bank - Okay, what do you have for collateral?
TRUMP! - My property over here, worth $50 million.
Bank - Oh, cool! Do you want that in hundreds or twenties?

Now, obviously, in this case, everything was cool because TRUMP! paid it all back on time (of course), but what if he didn't and the property was only worth $1 million? A bank blindly accepting the word of the applicant as to the value of a property held as collateral for a multi-million dollar loan? It doesn't add up.

You still miss the point where Trump as the president signs off on it. Trump owns the company. The company does not exist without an owner who is responsible. The employee is not getting the loan.
The owner or owners are responsible. Common sense. Employees may be held responsible by the owner but for a loan it is the owner who signs the agreement for the company. He alone is responsible.

It really an easy concept to understand.

 

[Kilroy2]

The government (FDIC) bails out the depositors. The member banks pay into the FDIC fund using profits collected from their borrowers.

Microsoft Copilot in Bing

Chat, get answers, create amazing content, and discover information effortlessly with Bing's AI-powered chat. Transform the way you search and get answers with Microsoft Copilot in Bing.

www.bing.com

How does the government gets it money?