whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[Contrary to the prosecution's claims that Donald Trump had somehow pulled a fast one on the banks, Haigh testified that they frequently gave "sizable haircuts" to the values that Trump's attorneys assigned to his properties. That's what Haigh referred to as "sanity checks." When Trump claimed his total worth was $4.3 billion, Deutsche Bank trimmed it down to $2.5 billion. (That's a rather hefty "trim," isn't it?) Of Trump's financial standing, Haigh testified that the "representations of the assets and liabilities were broadly accurate."

When estimating the value of undeveloped property that Trump was seeking a loan to develop, Deutsche Bank knocked 75% off of Trump's claim in one case. They similarly slashed Trump's claimed value of his golf courses in at least one instance. In the end, both parties agreed to the terms. The loans were made and they were repaid on schedule.

And that's the major point of the trial, isn't it? In order for Letitia James and her friends to claim that Donald Trump "committed years of fraud," then someone must have been defrauded. There would have to have been "victims." And Nicholas Haigh was a highly placed individual with one of the supposed victims. They made the amount of money they expected to make on the schedule they agreed to. They were "satisfied."

I'm not sure what the court thought they were going to accomplish by bringing this guy in to testify. It sounds like he did nothing more than describe business as usual in Manhattan. Or at least it was "usual" by the standards of people who travel in Donald Trump's financial circles. Most of the questions being raised deal with the estimated values of various properties. And in the business world, a thing is worth precisely as much as someone is willing to pay for it.]

https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2023/10/12/banker-we-had-sanity-checks-on-trumps-loans-n584216

---

Prosecutors are playing on the differing concepts of values between what a property is theoretically worth (what I'd sell it for), what is its appraised value (what similar assets have sold for in recent past), and what is worth as collateral (should a bank have to seize and liquidate it).

I sell $1m worth of goods, today, October 17th, on 30 day terms to (insert blue-chip business entities here). I have $1m of Accounts Receivables on my balance sheet. No one will contest that. I sold good stuff to good people. I have every reason to expect to get paid. And at year end. I will even have to pay taxes on all that stuff I sold in December (but didn't get paid on), as well as anything from November of October for which checks are still in the mail.

But. If upon the 18th of October I go to my banker, is he going to give me a $1m loan using those receivables as collateral? Nope. Probably only going to get, at best, 750k (75%).

I could put up $1m in paid-in-full inventory as collateral. Stuff I purchased last month and are top selling items. Am I going to get a $1m loan on that? Nope. Probably only $500k. (50%)

I could put up my $1m, paid-in-full building as collateral. Am I going to get $1m for that? Nope. at best probably$800k (80%).

Prosecutor is playing a shell game with differing concepts of values. Trump asserts his estimated value; bank lowers it to collateral value....boom, that MUST be fraud.

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

[Contrary to the prosecution's claims that Donald Trump had somehow pulled a fast one on the banks, Haigh testified that they frequently gave "sizable haircuts" to the values that Trump's attorneys assigned to his properties. That's what Haigh referred to as "sanity checks." When Trump claimed his total worth was $4.3 billion, Deutsche Bank trimmed it down to $2.5 billion. (That's a rather hefty "trim," isn't it?) Of Trump's financial standing, Haigh testified that the "representations of the assets and liabilities were broadly accurate."

When estimating the value of undeveloped property that Trump was seeking a loan to develop, Deutsche Bank knocked 75% off of Trump's claim in one case. They similarly slashed Trump's claimed value of his golf courses in at least one instance. In the end, both parties agreed to the terms. The loans were made and they were repaid on schedule.

And that's the major point of the trial, isn't it? In order for Letitia James and her friends to claim that Donald Trump "committed years of fraud," then someone must have been defrauded. There would have to have been "victims." And Nicholas Haigh was a highly placed individual with one of the supposed victims. They made the amount of money they expected to make on the schedule they agreed to. They were "satisfied."

I'm not sure what the court thought they were going to accomplish by bringing this guy in to testify. It sounds like he did nothing more than describe business as usual in Manhattan. Or at least it was "usual" by the standards of people who travel in Donald Trump's financial circles. Most of the questions being raised deal with the estimated values of various properties. And in the business world, a thing is worth precisely as much as someone is willing to pay for it.]

https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2023/10/12/banker-we-had-sanity-checks-on-trumps-loans-n584216

---

Prosecutors are playing on the differing concepts of values between what a property is theoretically worth (what I'd sell it for), what is its appraised value (what similar assets have sold for in recent past), and what is worth as collateral (should a bank have to seize and liquidate it).

I sell $1m worth of goods, today, October 17th, on 30 day terms to (insert blue-chip business entities here). I have $1m of Accounts Receivables on my balance sheet. No one will contest that. I sold good stuff to good people. I have every reason to expect to get paid. And at year end. I will even have to pay taxes on all that stuff I sold in December (but didn't get paid on), as well as anything from November of October for which checks are still in the mail.

But. If upon the 18th of October I go to my banker, is he going to give me a $1m loan using those receivables as collateral? Nope. Probably only going to get, at best, 750k (75%).

I could put up $1m in paid-in-full inventory as collateral. Stuff I purchased last month and are top selling items. Am I going to get a $1m loan on that? Nope. Probably only $500k. (50%)

I could put up my $1m, paid-in-full building as collateral. Am I going to get $1m for that? Nope. at best probably$800k (80%).

Prosecutor is playing a shell game with differing concepts of values. Trump asserts his estimated value; bank lowers it to collateral value....boom, that MUST be fraud.

---