|
V-Men posted:The way this article is written, it just easily sounds like Trump was making up a non-existent document in the same way that he constantly lies. "Oh yeah, I have a classified document that would undermine what Milley is saying. I could show it to you right now if I wanted to. (but I won't)" Which is pretty Trump. that said, if we were to assume he had made up an imaginary document, it would also be very trump to continue lying about it and refuse to admit that he had made up an imaginary document. Best response his lawyers could hope for there is "i don't remember the document", you'd never get him to admit to making it up whole cloth
|
#
¿
May 31, 2023 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
Jean-Paul Shartre posted:The law basically recognises this. There’s a minor good-faith mistake or restatements, you make them and it’s copacetic. You’re just lying out your rear end and then rely on the disclaimer to save you, you’re in trouble. The disclaimer is only of legal effect until it isn’t, basically; “hey, we’re all humans, don’t count on this to be perfect” is what they protect against, not intentional fraud. so yes, if the disclaimers said what trump claims they say, it still wouldn't hold up in court, but this is trump so he's also lying about what the disclaimers actually say e: Eric Cantonese posted:I find it amazing how it's totally normal to be given audit reports and financial documents that contain non-reliance warnings. You request these documents to rely on them! No one reads these because they're looking for fiction. point I'm trying to make here is... this is a little bit on the banks. If you work at the bank and you have a nine-figure lending client, and you ask that client for audited and complete financial statements, and they come back with "hmmm how about some compiled personal balance sheets instead?", that's a fuckin' big ol' red flag that you, mr. bank vice president, chose to ignore. that should absolutely not get trump off the hook for deliberately inflating values, but there is some truth to the accountants and the banks willfully sticking their heads in the sand in order to ignore trump's obvious lies and continue doing business e2: to be absolutely clear, i am saying that i would be fine with hammering the accountants and the bankers too, not just the trumps. they are not naive waifs who were clueless about the trumps' corruption, many of them absolutely knew or suspected and just treated it as the cost of doing business. if the accountants were smart then it might be difficult to prove that they knew this was bullshit, but they're not complete idiots, they can tell when clients are full of poo poo Blotto_Otter fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Nov 7, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:If you hire a 3rd party accounting firm to audit some company's books.... They're not going to go do things like physically check that the a warehouse contains what the inventory spreadsheet says, or whether your list of customer invoices are complete fabrications
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2023 07:40
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:I'd honestly not considered how his immunity stance while president (and siccing Justice on it) was going to be a barrier here but it's a worthy point: Staking Trump for his appeal is a hell of a risk when there's zero chance it's overturned but a somewhat realistic chance he's President and you can't do anything until the end of his term when he tries to stiff you. if Trump decides not to appeal the judgement, but also resists paying, how quickly would they be able to start seizing his assets? I could see him going that route if he thought he could stall until after the election, but I have no idea how quickly the state of New York could move on that
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2024 18:40
|
|
|
Donkringel posted:Does Trump need to show how he got that money? Are there checks on the transfer process? I've been wondering this too. I'm aware of a few mechanisms that might flag a suspicious transfer when it happens, and a few mechanisms that would eventually catch it, but I have no idea if the NY courts have other tools (or are even interested in) finding out the source of whatever money he shows up with. Any big transfers that ran through the Trump Org would get noticed fairly quickly, since there's a court-appointed former judge overseeing all of that. But (I think?) the special master does not have insight into Trump's personal finances, so she would not see any transactions that only flow through Trump personally. What if some foreign actor wanted to wire him the cash? Well, you can't send anything directly from a Russian bank, those are all sanctioned to hell. If you send something from a non-sanctioned international bank, well... I don't know what the specific requirements are for a bank to file a Suspicious Activity Report with FinCEN for a wire transfer, but I would think a bank would be playing with fire if they saw "incoming international 9-figure wire to Donald J. Trump" and did not immediately write up a SAR. I'm sure there are ways around that, but I'm less sure that those ways can be made to work for moving half a billion in less than a month. Morrow posted:Normally there's a lot of ways for a wealthy person with illiquid assets to come up with cash, but these typically involve taking out loans using existing property as collateral. Since Trump has been on the Do Not Lend list for reputable banks for over twenty years this becomes much more difficult. yes, and even if reputable banks were willing to lend to him, getting a half-billion dollar mortgage prepared, approved, signed on the dotted line, and disbursed in less than 30 calendar days is no small feat! I'm sure it can happen for the right high-value clients in the right circumstances... but these are not ideal circumstances, and any big reputable bank would be overriding and short-cutting its usual lending processes for a massive transaction with one of the most radioactive clients in banking history. And also! To get that kind of loan, Trump would need a property 1) that he personally owns, not one owned by the Trump Org (as that could be flagged or stopped by the court-appointed monitor); and 2) that clearly has at least half a billion in equity (i.e., that the market value of the property minus any mortgages he already has on it is more than half a billion.) Trump is famously leveraged every which way, so I would not be surprised if he didn't actually have any properties that checks those two boxes. Oil! posted:You just cover it up the easiest way possible, inflate the value of a property and have the bribe be a purchase of that. Good thing Trump doesn't have a history of getting caught inflating the value of his properties. That's a lot of ifs! And even if he cleared those hurdles... real estate transactions are public record, so everyone would find out about it fairly quickly, and you'd have a whole bunch of government agencies looking at it if the sale price was obviously overinflated. And he would end up owing taxes on that profit from that sale, actual amount TBD but federal taxes of 20% for long-term capital gains would be a good starting point for taking guesses. tl;dr - if you're an accountant or a banker or tax lawyer or some similar kind of professional nerd, the New York state judicial system has generated some incredible content for you
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2024 18:48
|
|
|
Apparently this Federal Insurance Company (which has an address just a ways down the road from Trump's Bedminster NJ hotel) is a subsidiary of Chubb, which is a very big and high profile insurance company, I've got several business and nonprofit clients that have insurance policies through Chubb. I'm a bit surprised that they're willing to deal with the potential reputational hit of having their name associated with Trump now, Trump-style business shenanigans and financial crimes are generally not the kind of thing you want people to think about when they think "insurance company"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2024 17:33
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I think Trump tower alone is worth over $300 million. Even if it were, the next question would be “how much of his assets are already pledged as collateral?” If one of his properties has a market value of $300m but he’s got an outstanding mortgage of, say, $250m on the property, then at best he’s only got $50m in equity that can be used to secure a bond like that. (And Trump is famous for leveraging everything he has to the hilt, so how much equity he actually has in his real estate properties is an open question.) dr_rat posted:He apparently only owns 30% and could have issues selling due to rules involving the other owners, also if theirs a lien on it or what not. End of the day I'm not really sure anyone knows what proprieties he even has available to sell and what he could get for them. One thing that’s occurred to me is that, even if he does have half a billion in equity across all his properties, there will be a lot of extra due diligence needed if he has to bundle a bunch of properties together as collateral towards his half-a-billion bond. The amount of research and paperwork you have to do to make sure that Trump is not bullshitting you about his equity goes up with each property he has to add as collateral
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2024 17:06
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Cannon doing one non-dogshit ruling for every 40 dogshit rulings: some folks I follow seem to believe that this ruling is also dogshit in that it foreshadows some bullshit that is to come:  I'm no lawyer, but is it typical for a judge to say "motion denied without prejudice, but hey it's just a bit premature, maybe try again once we've seated a jury" instead of just saying "motion denied without prejudice"?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2024 23:03
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:And/or they wanted a really iniquitous amount of collateral because they know they have Trump over a barrel. if your client is the most noted liar of our age, and he’s trying to use real estate as collateral for a bond related to fraudulent valuations of his real estate, there is no such thing as an iniquitous amount of collateral that you could demand from that client. trump definitely feels otherwise (and I agree that’s why he would reject it), but if you’re an underwriter coldly looking at the facts as we know them today while being pressed to make a half-a-billion dollar decision in a timeline of < 30 days, “every single property you own” seems an entirely justifiable collateral demand when the client is the fraud-golem we know as donald john trump
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2024 18:24
|
|
|
Randalor posted:there's nothing stopping Biden from ordering Seal Team Six to take out Trump. kidding aside, the very nature of our two political factions means that biden is both less likely to order a political assassination, and less likely to have such an order carried out, than trump would be - and trump and his people know that and are counting on it. units like seal team six naturally tend towards murderous aggro types who are much more likely to be sympathetic to a trump type than any woke communist democrat, and the us military's command officers (who are currently at least somewhat competent and independent of the political parties) will be purged in a second trump admin and replaced with loyalists who would not refuse such orders from trump. Trump's argument is predicated on the assumption that, in practice, Biden will be unwilling and/or unable to use the military to hurt trump, even if there were no legal restrictions against it. (imo, that assumption is probably correct!)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2024 15:26
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:If you guys want to figure out how Trump can raise enough money from "various sources" (my interpretation): short version: trump is restricted from selling any of his shares until the fall. it is possible that someone could decide to give him a big loan that is collateralized by those shares, but that's not the kind of loan that comes together the day the new merged company starts trading on the market. if he gets a loan like that within the next week, it will be because some corrupt actor wanted to give him the money and this is just useful pretext for it. longer version effortpost: that "$3 billion" figure that keeps going around is an extremely squishy number mostly powered by hopes and dreams of some MAGA morons with more money than sense, and probably some hedge funds looking to take advantage of those morons. That figure is an estimate based on the pre-merger market cap of Digital World, which is basically acting like a meme stock that's being bid up by people buying into the hype that is completely and utterly devoid of the actual financial performance of the underlying business. Trump Media & Technology aka TMTG (the Truth Social parent company, a private company owned mostly by Trump), which is the entity being merged into Digital World (aka DWAC, the company that is traded on the stock market and which will be ~58% owned by Trump next week), is an absolute turd of a business right now. As of the last filing, it had a couple million in cash on hand against 60 million in debts. For the first 9 months of 2023, it only earned $3 million in revenues while losing $49 million. TMTG's interest payments alone are ten times the amount of revenue it's bringing in. Their last set of audited financials had a "going concern" disclosure, which is when a company's auditors say "hey we're required to tell you that as it stands now, it looks like this company might not have enough cash coming in to keep the lights on for another year." It's not the kind of poo poo that usually gets you a merger with a valuation in the billions! Now, DWAC has a few hundred million in cash so that'll easily plug the holes in TMTG's balance sheet. But it's worth noting that DWAC is not exactly a clean operation either, with its own accounting and regulatory troubles - their original 2021 and 2022 financials were wrong and got restated last year (along with them changing auditors), they've been dealing with shareholder lawsuits, and they've had to settle with the SEC for fuckery and maybe a little dash of insider trading around this merger. I say all that to say this: if you strip the names off of this deal, if you disregard the hype and just look at the figures and the underlying business, it's loving insane to think that this company will be worth the >$5 billion valuation that the headlines are implying. It's like a meme stock or cryptocurrency, in that there's not actually anything remotely worth that there, it's all just a speculative investment bubble borne of hype and name recognition. Obviously those bubbles can stay inflated for a while because people are silly and stupid, but usually, at some point, they come crashing back down - and what generally starts that crash is when someone decides its time to start selling a whole bunch. Which means that if Trump does start dumping stock at some point to raise cash, the price will start falling, and what was once an "estimated $3 billion" in stock will become cash in an amount much less than that. He'll be in a similar (but much smaller scale) position as Elon Musk and Tesla, in that Tesla stock is massively overvalued because of Elon hype, and Elon can't sell much without crashing the stock price and shrinking the main component of his wealth. Musk avoids that somewhat by taking out loans against his Tesla shares instead of selling them, and it's plausible that Trump could do the same... if he can find a lender that actually thinks his company is worth billions and also doesn't care about him being a known financial fraudster who lies about the value of every single thing he owns. tl;dr - that $3 billion figure is an extremely optimistic estimate, the actual amount of cash he could raise with that is probably somewhere between a couple hundred million and that estimate, and there's a lot of complicating factors that will make it difficult for him to cash all that in any time soon. edit: walked away from the computer mid-posting and took too long and missed all those new posts, whoops sorry folks Murgos posted:If a bunch of 'apes' can hold gamestop at orders of magnitude over and above the any reasonable valuation for years based on some fiction about unlimited wealth then they can do it for Truth Social. BUT, I don't think MAGA has that kind of solidarity. They will absolutely try and sell at the peak convinced that the whole world is trying to buy DJT's next super success story and the price will plummet at opening to essentially nothing. Blotto_Otter fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Mar 22, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2024 16:34
|
|
|
so this appears to be the actual lockup agreement that Trump will be under, and while this is getting out of accounting territory and into legal territory, and I'm no lawyer... I think he may be prohibited from using these shares as collateral to get a loan? (conceptually that makes sense I think - if you didn't prohibit that as well as selling, someone clever could come up with a loan structure that would be more or less equivalent to a sale in practice.) I've seen reporting that there is a mechanism by which this lockup period can be waived, but I can't find that spelled out here (but again, not a lawyer). if that's true, perhaps this happens sooner than 6 months from now, but 1) at the absolute earliest that can't happen until sometime after Monday, and 2) if would require someone (board members or shareholders, I'm not clear on it) placing the MAGA cause above everything else and voting against their own financial interests, which is possible, but these people are often greedy bastards first and Trump devotees second, so who knows. edit: ok, there is a clause in there saying anything in that agreement can be waived with "the written consent of the Purchaser, the Purchaser Representative and Holder", which I think are DWAC, Arc Global Investments, and Trump. I'm sure there's a lot of details and caveats to how that actually happens in practice, but I'll leave that to the lawyers. Blotto_Otter fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Mar 22, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2024 17:36
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I recall reading that some of the shareholders are already suing the others over something so I have to imagine this whole thing is actually more dysfunctional that it appears. Yeah, I've read that too but I haven't seen a clear account of who the parties are and what the disputes are. Some folks seemed to think that today's shareholder vote might not go Trump's way this morning as a result, but I guess someone got talked into it. Anything's possible but I suspect someone with a say in the matter will be more interested in keeping Trump tied to the mast as long as possible rather than let Trump have a fire sale of stock and tank the market cap.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2024 17:44
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:As I understand it, DWAC is a special purpose acquisition company, which has no underlying business apart from finding companies to buy. And I was going to question who are the shareholders and why they aren't suing the hell out of the board of directors for this turd of a merger, but the shareholders themselves just voted to approve it, and I can't imagine why. Do they really think it's going to attract that many more users if Trump gets elected or something? yeah, DWAC is a SPAC, and when it was first spun up, the initial shareholders bought in at a little over $10/share, which (at 30 million shares issued), put in a bit over $300 million into the company that was to be used in an acquisition or merger. And that's pretty much all DWAC is right now - a shell company with $300 million in cash. But the thing is, this merger between DWAC and TMTG has been in the works since 2021, and people have already been buying and selling DWAC shares ever since then as speculation on whether or not this deal would close. You are sane, so you look at the vote to approve the merger and think "why on earth would we blow $300 million in cold hard cash on a lovely social media site that's got basically zero revenue, is already ~$60 million in debt with no assets, and losing another $60 million a year"? But DWAC shareholders (who are all either MAGA diehards or opportunistic vultures) viewed the merger vote as either "cancel the merger and watch my $40 shares instantly crash back down to $10, with no backup plan for a different merger", or "approve the merger and hope there's enough rubes out there that believe TRUMP TWITTER must be worth billions because it's the only place for genius posts from Donald Trump" This thing really is acting more like a meme stock or cryptocurrency, where there's basically nothing there except a really stupid idea, but its a really stupid idea that a whole lot of really stupid people think is worth money, therefore it might be worth money. It doesn't make sense but the Gamestop bubble didn't make sense and cryptocurrencies didn't make sense and yet some people still made money off of those. DWAC shareholders voted for the merger because they are all either MAGA diehards doing this all for love of TRUMP, or they're cynical gamblers thinking that they can make money off of the MAGA diehards doing this all for love of trump. Morrow posted:I'm not 100% sure if DWAC falls into this category, but there is a whole category of publicly listed companies that exist just to get listed and then merge with another company, letting them get on the market much faster. Blotto_Otter fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Mar 22, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2024 21:51
|
|
|
this AP article is probably the best layman's summary that I've seen yet on the DWAC merger, and this is my favorite detail:quote:The stock will continue to trade under Digital World’s ticker, DWAC, possibly for a couple of days to a couple of weeks, experts say. Then at some point, companies in SPAC deals usually announce that their stock will begin trading under the new ticker symbol. rereading this summary also made me realize the $3 billion figure is even more bullshit than I realized. they're taking today's share price of ~$40, and multiplying it by the number of shares Trump will have post-merger (roughly 73 million). That's reported as a 58% stake in the company, which implies that there will be roughly 135 million shares outstanding next week. Problem is, as of today, there are only ~37 million shares of DWAC outstanding. They're gonna issue a whole bunch of new shares as part of the merger, and the thing about issuing a whole bunch of new shares in an existing company is... the price per share does not stay the same when you do that!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2024 22:25
|
|
|
dpkg chopra posted:I regret to inform you that $DJT is currently 40% over its opening price. On Friday I thought "you can't just take the price of a stock today, issue five times the number of outstanding shares tomorrow, and expect the price to stay the same", and I guess I was right in a very monkey's-paw kind of way. $DJT's current price gives an implied market cap of almost $10 billion, which is similar to Duolingo and American Airlines, and ~1 billion less than Reddit. (those other three companies all have revenues that are between 130x and 13,000x that of Trump Media & Technology Group Corp., because TM&TG is basically a company that has no underlying business. the only thing within it that resembles a "business" is a lovely website with no users and no revenue that is absolutely nowhere near any semblance of profitability whatsoever. none a that poo poo matters because this is basically a Trump cryptocurrency but on the real markets.)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2024 18:21
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Trump truthed out a post making GBS threads on Merchan’s daughter last night. any other person, after getting their rear end handed to them in back-to-back civil trials, would be tossing out the playbook and looking for a whole new strategy. but not our boy donald, he's gonna keep calling the same plays over and over again while screaming at his lawyers to execute better, until he's either in jail or in the white house again
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2024 20:28
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:What about posting the bond for him and just... not collecting from him when the appeal fails? and I'm no expert on campaign finance laws, but even if it were a violation, it seems like the kind of thing that wouldn't result in any legal action until long after the fact, so... it would be the least of his problems if he loses the election, and it won't matter at all if he wins
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2024 15:43
|
|
|
this morning's trump post whining about the revised gag order, which prevents him from talking about the judge's daughter not mentioned in the post: the judge's daughter 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2024 16:25
|
|
|
The "corrected" documents for that $175m bond have been posted online... and I'm just an accountant not a lawyer, but they still don't make sense to me. The included financials suggest that this company is not capitalized enough to cover the $175m payout that could be needed soon with this kind of bond. (They also included their parent company's financials, but... the parent company is not named anywhere in the bond and there is nothing to establish that they are guaranteeing this bond or the debts of the subsidiary company, so I don't know how they're relevant. The financial statements are also unaudited and incomplete, but I dunno how much NY courts care about that.) The language of the bond is weird too, and does not clearly articulate that the bonding company is first on the hook for payment once the time comes. But the NY AG has already filed an objection over the most obvious problem, which is that this company does not appear to have the certification needed to issue this kind of bond in New York. Separate from the actual bond filing, the way the chud in charge of this company talks about the collateral they got from Trump is... vague and contradictory: CBS News posted:The billionaire behind Trump's bond is Don Hankey, the chairman of Knight Insurance, which owns the subsidiary that wrote the bond. I'm not qualified to say how this will ultimately play out, but this does not seem to be the same kind of reputable, t-crossed and i-dotted bond that he got from Chubb (an actual big boy insurance and surety company). Most charitable explanation is that this Hankey guy (a "subprime auto loan" magnate, lol) is throwing his company into a line of business that it's never done before, and setting himself up to be wrecked by one Donald J. Trump when the time comes to collect from one Donald J. Trump. Least charitable explanation is that this Hankey guy is trying to pull a fast one on the court via bonding paperwork, which seems too stupid to be true so I'm not climbing out on that limb yet, but boy that would be something.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2024 20:26
|
|
|
Caros posted:He can't be, though. Right?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2024 21:57
|
|
|
Goatse James Bond posted:If the person who originally posted this and I are reading correctly (and the accountant upthread seems to have a similar take, Knight Insurance would be rendered insolvent if they had to pay up according to their own financial statement filed with the court Raenir Salazar posted:It's nuts but is it illegal for a company to willingly bankrupt itself? dr_rat posted:Is it a publicly traded company, as if so than shareholders should be able to sue to put a stop to it. (if it had been a public issuer, the court's demand for financial statements would not have been such a big deal, since public companies have to put out financial statements each quarter. If they were a December 31 year end, their annual audited financial statements would've been due this past Monday.) e: Contrast this all with Chubb Ltd. (parent company for the issuer of the E. Jean Carroll bond), a $100 billion market cap company with over $60 billion in equity on the books, whose 2023 audited financial statements were already filed over a month ago and can be found in 30 seconds with a search on EDGAR. Blotto_Otter fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Apr 4, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2024 23:44
|
|
|
dpkg chopra posted:Very happy to inform you that $DJT continues to tank despite pretty much the whole market being up. We're already past the point where anyone who bought stock post-merger has lost money. If it goes below $10, all of the original DWAC shareholders that bought in years ago will lose money, and at that point Trump will be one of very few people left with any hope of making any money off this stock haveblue posted:how much does it have to drop before his stake is worth less than his fine
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2024 21:25
|
|
|
mdemone posted:He almost certainly sold some of his stake a few days ago during those trades I singled out. The board of directors would have given him permission to do so. or no, he didn't
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2024 21:49
|
|
|
mdemone posted:He has done many things once thought impossible. I don't think you can be so certain either. a) a criminal mastermind the caliber of Professor Moriarty, capable of pulling off a massive conspiracy based on a truly remarkable amount of people keeping a secret, when most of those people are either 1) idiot MAGA true believers who are absolutely terrible at keeping secrets OR 2) people who would lose money and/or face serious civil and criminal liability for going along with it AND b) a complete loving moron who engineers a historic conspiracy all for the purpose of selling just a slice of his shares in a way that will be easily detected within days or weeks by the federal government, which is currently controlled by his political rivals during an election year, and easily prosecuted both as a civil action by the SEC and a criminal action by the DOJ mdemone posted:It wasn't an IPO.  no, it was a merger with an SPAC that was conditioned on the majority shareholder agreeing to a six-month lockup that is not getting waived in secret and then illegally sold in secret only to get caught by the feds almost immediately after the fact
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2024 23:01
|
|
|
Donkringel posted:Looks like there is more information on the bond with Knight Insurance. for what it's worth, the cash account is (supposedly) property of Trump's trust, which is indeed separate from Trump Org assets. That said, there's a lot about this that seems real sloppy - the only evidence of that cash is a print screen of an account summary page on Schwab.com, purporting to show the total balance of some Schwab brokerage account (there's no markings that indicate the account's owner, or even the full account number for that brokerage account) as of some point on 4/10/24... and that's it, there's no formal account statement. Which is not necessarily sinister, I'm an accountant not a lawyer so maybe the courts are okay with this stuff, but it seems pretty lazy in terms of proving what they're claiming. And for what it's worth, the size and nature of the account balance suggest that investments were sold and cash moved around in order to get to that exact balance in this account, because rich folks don't usually keep that amount of wealth in plain old cash instead of some kind of investment that makes at least a little more interest. Which, again, that's not necessarily sinister, there could be good explanations for that... but since the whole reason this court case happened was because the defendant lies about his finances, it seems like the standards for documentation and due diligence should be higher than usual, not less. some folks also noted more drafting errors in these documents, including the fact that the collateral agreement references the wrong company on the signature page - the page where Don Jr actually signs the agreement (on behalf of the trust) references "Federal Insurance Company", not Knight Specialty Insurance Company. (FIC is the Chubb subsidiary that did the E Jean Carroll bond.) And once again, perhaps that's not necessarily sinister - maybe they just reused the same contract language as the Carroll bond and forgot to ctrl-F that page and then forgot to proofread everything! - but, boy that's a lot of sloppy and potentially significant errors on behalf of a guy whose only here because of fraud! I've seen some people commenting that the collateral agreements are themselves written weirdly, and may allow for certain periods of time where money could be pulled out of that account. I'm not qualified to interpret all of that contract language, but it does seem weird to me that Knight wouldn't simply take possession of that amount of cash, rather than leave it in Trump's hands under some agreements that may or may not be reliable. I suspect there's probably a lot of weird inconsistencies and omissions in here that one could find with time - personally, I'm curious as to when all of these agreements were executed, particularly the "pledged asset account control agreement" that has a signature page from a Charles Schwab rep, but there's no date or identifying info to prove that it's an attachment to the previous pages, and it appears to be the only page in here that was electronically signed rather than manually signed, and then pieced back together with the other pages. Just a whole lot of stuff that seems very sloppy even if you give them the benefit of the doubt, and this is the last person who deserves the benefit of the doubt. elhondo posted:Is the Schwab account securing the bond holding a large amount of DJT stock?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 21:40
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:If Trump actually does have 175 million in cash why doesn't he post that himself instead of arranging a bond for the same amount good loving question! even if there were some procedural reason for that... why keep it all sitting there in cash? The collateral agreement lists other permissible investments in that account, it's silly to park that amount of money in cash instead of anything else that'll at least generate some interest income, because even a few points of interest on $175 mil adds up quick! the timeline for all this stuff leads to a lot more questions - the bond was filed on April 1, amended April 4, the AG filed an objection to it on April 4.... and then they eventually submit a Schwab.com screenshot dated April 10th? Given that and Don Hankey's ambiguous and inconsistent descriptions of Trump's collateral... was that money actually there when they made the bond, or did they scrape it together into that account after the fact just for the purpose of taking a screenshot on the 10th? also, looks like Engoron has a new order today that tells the AG to file a response this Friday, for a hearing next Tuesday, to decide if the court should accept the bond or not.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 22:15
|
|
|
Jean-Paul Shartre posted:Correct answer to the wrong question. Chubb’s collateral for the Carroll bond was reportedly Trump’s Schwab brokerage account. I doubt this is the same account, nobody would consider an already pledged account realisable collateral, but who tf knows with all the stupid poo poo that’s been going on with this one. was the exact nature of the collateral for that bond ever made public? I was under the impression that the Chubb bond's collateral was not public record, and the only reason we have this amount of insight into the Knight bond is because Trump's lawyers are having to make additional filings to try and convince the court to accept a bond that does not actually meet the stated requirements for such a bond that said, guys like trump usually have multiple brokerage accounts, it'd be entirely normal for him to have multiple accounts. I'd be very surprised if this particular account for the Knight bond were also used as Chubb bond collateral, because I would expect Chubb to have firm control over any account pledged as collateral (or for Chubb to take possession of the collateral themselves), and this account clearly is not under Chubb's control. I do think something looks really goofy here and they may be up to some hijinks, i just don't think it's likely that they're pulling that particular scam.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2024 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Did they keep the thing where the bond company isn't on the hook for the bond, because it's Trump who agrees to pay and the company doesn't have the assets? haveblue posted:Is the cash account controlled by the monitor? Retro42 posted:Yeah, and if I'm understanding the resolution it was simply that as of today the money is solely in the possession of the bond company. Which, while not as dramatic as we would all hope, it is a decent resolution.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2024 18:50
|
|