Look here you stupid shit. Yes, the banks lost money. How hard is it to understand? From the court ruling,
In order to borrow more and at lower rates, defendants submitted blatantly false financial data to the accountants, resulting in fraudulent financial statements.
Again, how hard is it to understand that the banks would have charged a higher interest rate if they would have known the true value of Trump's assets. The money they lost is the difference between what the rate should have been and what it was.
Another example. You take out a personal loan at the bank, but it is a secured loan, meaning you have to have collateral. You tell them you have a completely restored 1966 Corvette stingray, and you give them pictures of a completely restored Corvette stingray that you pulled off a Barrett Jackson auction catalog. And it is true, you do own a 1966 Corvette stingray, well, at least the body, which is all rusted out, the engine is blown, transmission was parted out, and it is sitting on blocks in a barn at the back of your property with no tires and no rims.
You make all the payments, hell, you pay early. But the bank finds out the true "value" of the Corvette you own. What the fawk do you think the bank is going to do. Go no harm, no foul, we got our money? Hell no, at best, they are just going to call in the loan. At worse, they are going to retroactively implement the correct interest rate, require back payment and if you don't comply, they are going to come get your bucket heap, sell it for scrap metal, and charge you for the money they lost, including the retroactive increased interest rate.
But actually, this court case reveals a huge problem with our current financial laws. See, prior to Ronald Reagan, well Trump would be free and clear. He wouldn't have to pay one damn dime, the accounting firms he used would be the ones on the hook for the penalty. Ironic that is the excuse Trump attempted to make a trail. "The accounting firms certified the statements". But during the Reagan administration they removed the stipulation that held accounting firms responsible for inaccurate statements. Today, it is like this.
So, a company is looking for a new CFO and they call people in for an interview. In the interview the CEO asks one question, "What is 2 plus 2?" The applicant responds, "4". The CEO, "your dismissed". It happens again and again, and then this dude shows up and when asked the question, "What is 2 plus 2?", He responds, "what do you want it to be". YOUR HIRED. That is precisely what happened here.
.png)
www.enzuzo.com
