Trump’s Debts Are Widely Held on Wall Street, Creating New Potential Conflicts

[Absentglare]

nope not conflict of interest at all.

Um... as soon as he is president, there will be conflicts of interest. His business influence is so broad that his executive power will reach well back into those businesses coffers.

 

[upsideguy]

A "D" is passing. I don't have a problem with anyone doing the bare minimum. It kinda reminds me of that scene from "Office Space" where they're talking about how much "sparkle" is being worn. If you want more, raise the bare minimum.




No, you're thinking of the people who supported Hillary and are demanding investigations into Russian "hacking". They're outraged the truth got told about Hillary and are demanding that someone be made to pay for it.

Well, that is what you got as a president: A "D" player. I just thought Americans were smarter than this. Our system of education is obviously pathetic as are American values. Roman lasted 500 years. It does not look like America has its durability.

 

[JasperL]

Businessmen accrue debt

Part of being in business....you try to use other people's money as much as possible to keep your capital always ready and handy

Does it surprise me or bother me that a huge construction businessman has accrued debts with numerous entities?

No....I am only surprised that it bothers you

Sounds very partisan to me....

The rules will change with this president....he is the first to be a true businessman, and with that will come things we haven't seen before

Do those things bother me....absolutely not.....but then again, I am a businessman, and understand how it all works

Do you?

Give me a break. It's not "partisan" to recognize that being indebted to a lender that has important regulatory or foreign policy interests in front of the U.S. government creates potentially massive conflict of interest. It is effectively impossible for a major lender to treat a loan to any entity owned, in full or in part, by Trump as just another loan. And in the event of a recession or trouble with any of those properties, it's also virtually impossible for someone with loans that can be called to ignore that when making tough decisions about prosecutions, regulations, etc.

If you're a "businessman" then this is blindingly obvious to you, especially when you consider the discretion that a major lender has to call a loan, force a sale, force a bankruptcy, seize all or part of the ownership of the entity, or simply waive/ignore technical defaults of loan covenants, and or actual defaults on payments.

 

[JasperL]

Show he hasn't paid them off or isn't paying them.
Again assuming facts in evidence.

OK, no surprise, when shown that your assertions Trump isn't personally liable on any of the loans is dead wrong, you move the goal posts. Nothing more you can do, I guess.

 

[Chomsky]

Last time I checked, revealing tax returns was not a requirement to become president in the Constitution. Why do you think the founding fathers didn't put that in there?

:lamo

 

[JasperL]

Where has the panty wetting been all this time?

Crony Capitalism: $737 Million Green Jobs Loan Given to Nancy Pelosi's Brother-In-Law | The Weekly Standard

What is it with the red herrings? We're talking about Trump, and all you guys can do is say, "Pay no attention to our POTUS, lookee over here!!"

If you want to talk about Pelosi, start a thread.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

Well, that is what you got as a president: A "D" player. I just thought Americans were smarter than this. Our system of education is obviously pathetic as are American values. Roman lasted 500 years. It does not look like America has its durability.

Well what do you expect, the right has been sabotaging education for about thirty years now. Now we know why, it's how they intend to stay in power. Can't have people smart enough to think for themselves, then they wouldn't need them to tell them what to think...

 

[ThoughtEx.]

Last time I checked, revealing tax returns was not a requirement to become president in the Constitution. Why do you think the founding fathers didn't put that in there?

They were to busy seizing Native land to sell and fund the government. Taxes didn't come around til they found Natives healthy enough to fight back...

 

[JasperL]

The fact is his sons will be running the company as soon as they get the legal matter.
Either way trump could stay in charge there is no issue.

OK, so he hasn't transferred ownership, at least not yet, which is what I said earlier. And if he owns all those properties, everyone but Trump lemmings and partisans recognize the huge potential conflicts of interests.

Yea lol only if the company has committed some kind of fraud can that occur. If not then they can't do it you didn't read your own article very well.

I did read the article, and have a lot of experience with these things, and you're wrong - demonstrating fraud is not the only way to pierce the corporate veil. Ask a bankruptcy lawyer if you don't believe me. And as I pointed out was probable, and the article confirms, Trump IS personally liable on at least part of the loans, with or without piercing the corporate veil. The lenders required his personal guarantee to extend the loans, and if the company or companies default, can seize his personal assets to fulfill the loan requirements.

Lol only if the company doesn't have the assets to cover the loan. You keep making claims that are disposed of by people that actually know how it works. You 28 years is looking shaken.

Well, at least some of Trump's lenders required personal guarantees, so I guess his companies did NOT have the "assets to cover the loan." Not sure why you think this is a meaningful counterpoint.

No it isn't if trump ink losses 1m dollars it doesn't mean his personal bank account goes down by. 1m dollars.
What a load of nonsense. I suggest taking an accounting class.

Not his personal "bank account" but his personal balance sheet. And like I said, I have a MAcc.

We are not talking tax law we are talking lending laws. They are not the same even so and even in tax law any taxes owed by the company cannot be collected through personal assets unless ere was some kind of fraud or other illegal activity.

According to depositions of Trump, his projects are typically organized as S Corporations - see here. If so, the income or losses are reported on his 1040, and there are no corporate income taxes owed - he'll owe personal income taxes if the company generates a profit.

If all the rain drops were sugar drops and gum drops. If is meaninglesss you are using conjecture without evidence.

See link above for the evidence.

Yep because unlike you I know what coporations are. I know what they are used for and how they operate in the lending world.
You learn this in finance 101 or in any low level business or business management course.

And I've quoted the WSJ indicating Trump PERSONALLY GUARANTEED all or part of at least some of those loans.

No they wouldn't lose their job just another blanket statement of nonsense that you have been spewing the whole thread.

Well, if you're suggesting lenders would be indifferent to whether Trump had personal guarantees on, say, $500 million in business loans, you're just flat dead wrong, on a fact that might cost the lenders 10s or 100s of $millions. No need to explain. Everyone who's dealt with any large bankruptcy knows this to be true.

 

[radcen]

Last time I checked, revealing tax returns was not a requirement to become president in the Constitution. Why do you think the founding fathers didn't put that in there?

Nor is it a disqualification. Point, weak as it was, denied.

 

[radcen]

I blame the education system in the United States for causing people to believe they have the slightest clue how business finance works.

That public education also gives them a false sense of confidence to prove what they don't know on public blogs is even more remarkable.

Isn't a forum such as this really nothing more than a series of "mini blogs"?

 

[gdgyva]

Give me a break. It's not "partisan" to recognize that being indebted to a lender that has important regulatory or foreign policy interests in front of the U.S. government creates potentially massive conflict of interest. It is effectively impossible for a major lender to treat a loan to any entity owned, in full or in part, by Trump as just another loan. And in the event of a recession or trouble with any of those properties, it's also virtually impossible for someone with loans that can be called to ignore that when making tough decisions about prosecutions, regulations, etc.

If you're a "businessman" then this is blindingly obvious to you, especially when you consider the discretion that a major lender has to call a loan, force a sale, force a bankruptcy, seize all or part of the ownership of the entity, or simply waive/ignore technical defaults of loan covenants, and or actual defaults on payments.

So you think a bank will forego their own rights because Trump is president?

Are you nuts?

Nobody is immune to banking....including billionaires and millionaires.

Debts will be paid, or assets seized....it is the one constant in the banking world

There are now companies who specialize in repossession of mega yachts, airplanes, etc

Just because he is president you think the rules change?

"Don't call my loan, or I'll sic my agencies on you guys".....lmfao

What next....I am sure there will be another crisis looming as soon as this one peters out

What will you guys come up with next......:lamo

 

[radcen]

Virtually everybody in Washington is indebted to special interest groups that financed and promoted their campaigns.

At least Trump's are the result of real business instead of just politics.

Fair point, but the "just politics" groups you speak of are usually real businesses, too.

 

[JasperL]

Congressmen Maintain Massive Portfolio of Oil and Gas Investments - OpenSecrets Blog

Why is Congress a millionaires club? - CBS News

RollCall.com - Wealth of Congress

Then, of course, you are accusing these congressmen of unethical conduct as well, right??? And want to drum them out of politics, right? Such hypocrites all.

Not sure what your point is. We're talking about Trump, the POTUS elect. Are you saying that because Congressmen have conflicts, we must not care that the POTUS elect has these conflicts?

And you say, "hypocrites all" but don't quote anyone being hypocritical on this issue. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm 100% positive you cannot quote me saying that investments held by people wielding power in D.C. - Congressmen, regulators, defense department officials, WH staff, POTUS, etc. - do not create possibly large conflicts of interests when their financial interests are affected by their decisions on legislation, prosecution, regulations, etc.

 

[radcen]

You mean the government operated education system isn't working?

As Maggie pointed out, that's a Democrat creation.

No. We've had decades of Dem and Rep Presidents, Congresses, Governors, school boards, and so on. Each has had a legit chance to make it better, and they haven't.

 

[Ragin Cajin]

Nobody cares, I agree. It is not like he will be able to control our nations budget....

 

[Ragin Cajin]

Unless you are gay, Muslim, Mexican, Asian, any race besides Caucasian, female, an immigrant. Your profile says you are very conservative and it seems you voted for Trump, I don't see how you should get to make a statement on diversity.

 

[radcen]

Nobody cares.

Actually, everybody should care. "Caring" can be either approving or disapproving, both after thoughtful consideration preferably (though that might be a wee bit too hopeful, knee-jerk responses seem to be the norm). Not caring is the apathy that brings us the crap-fest of leadership that we have come to know and loathe.

And for what it's worth, your actions betray your words. You, Maggie, DO care, because you're actively in here defending it.

 

[Mason66]

There has never been a President who was so deeply in debt. Not only does Trump owe money on Wall Street but he - his companies - are beholden for cash and benefits to multiple foreign entities

Wall Street Journal

for those who don't have a subscription to the WSJ - read more in the London Independent


It looks like Mr Trump hasn't been telling the public the whole story about his financial situation. Gee, I wonder why. Now combine this with the three lawsuits recently filed by contractors who worked on the new Trump hotel in DC with his past, some ongoing, lawsuits for not paying other businesses after they had completed assigned jobs and one might, I say might, begin to wonder about the moral code to which Trump adheres.

Contractors file liens against Trump D.C. hotel for unpaid labor Dozens of lawsuits accuse Trump of not paying his bills

So how many are personal debts and how many are corporate?

Do you know the difference?

 

[radcen]

Unless you are gay, Muslim, Mexican, Asian, any race besides Caucasian, female, an immigrant. Your profile says you are very conservative and it seems you voted for Trump, I don't see how you should get to make a statement on diversity.

I nominate this for "Bizarre Post of the Day".

 

[Mason66]

Except perhaps half the country.

This is a pretty serious issue. Trump is ultimately responsible for regulating the banks, to whom he may owe $1.5 billion.

He owes Wells Fargo $282 million. They're under investigation for wrongdoing relating to defrauding 2 million customers. That's not a problem for you?

He owes Met Life, which is fighting the US government in court. He could drop the case. That's not a problem for you?

He owes money to the Bank of China. That's not a problem for you?

What is it exactly you think the President can do about that?

How can he influence this situation?

 

[TheGoverness]

Unless you are gay, Muslim, Mexican, Asian, any race besides Caucasian, female, an immigrant. Your profile says you are very conservative and it seems you voted for Trump, I don't see how you should get to make a statement on diversity.

Because anybody can make a statement on diversity?

 

[Mason66]

I know it is difficult for the True Believers to accept nuance but shall I try -eh, why not.

A person - male, female, white, black, red, blue - who has personal assets with a value of $1 million, owes a bank $500,000 for a business loan or mortgage. No one sees this as a problem, it is normal business - when the millionaire has no power to affect decisions made by the bank.

A person - male with orange skin - who has personal assets of unknown value, seen by some as much less than the amount claimed - owes multiple institutions more than $1.5 billion just as the orange skinned person is about to assume a position with the potential to control - or not - said institutions, the potential for conflict of interest must be front and center for the American public. Remember, Trump lost a lawsuit against a reporter who wrote that Trump was worth no more than $250 million and perhaps as little as $100 million. So - when the President gets a phone call from a lender who asks for "just a little favour, Donald" combined with a reminder of just how much he owes that lender - what do you think will happen? The possibilities are multiple

If one does not accept the potential for harm to be inflicted upon the public by the financial demands of the lending agencies, then one has a problem.

When the conflict happens or when Trump influences the outcome of his debt please feel free to let us know.

 

[Mason66]

Does she still owe them and foreign nations millions of dollars??? eace

She owes the favors she was going to give them when she became President.

I wonder how she is going to pay them off now.

 

[Mason66]

First of all, these conflicts are just ONE reason why Presidents normally release several tax returns, so at least we're all fully informed about who our POTUS has business relationships with, so we can evaluate whether there are conflicts, then hold him accountable when dealing with those entities.

But second, if you're a regulated bank or foreign entity that has loaned the Trump organization $200 million, just as a business matter, are you going to hold the Trump organizations to the terms of a loan should it default, and call in the loan, potentially putting the POTUS into bankruptcy court? Or just ignore the default on the loan?

Unless you're a f'ing idiot as a CEO, it's the latter. That's why this stuff matters. Any moron banker/foreign entity with the good sense to dress himself in the morning calls up one of the sons or other person close to Trump, explains they're in default, but the bank chooses to waive the default. They don't even need to ask for anything - just point out that they can default the loan at any time. It could easily have the same effect as a $200 million or more BRIBE, and we'd never know, not without knowing the details of the loan, the company's financials, etc. which Trump is of course hiding from the public by, among other things, not releasing his tax returns.

Why do you say Trump Organization then say Trump personally would be in court?

Do you know how corporations work?