quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
i guess -- it's a corporate depreciation clause - the book value (of any successful, well managed business) is ALWAYS less than the resale value - for example, if you bought a vehicle with a 5 year useful life, you could depreciate it over those 5 years, paying tax on that 20% of the value, and at the end of 5 years, the book value would be zero -

it is usually 40 years for a building, though may be 50, unless it's a temp building (modular office space, trailers, etc) then it can be lower

a like concept, for oil and minerals is called depletion, but i didn't study oil and gas accounting.

So, if you build a 2000 unit, $50,000,000 (under estimated intentionally) and lease those units, at the end of the assigned depreciation period, assuming ZERO dollars spent for replenishment (this is a very simple, non-real world example), you would have paid the tax on $50,000,000, have a book value of $0, and the building, at 3.5%x50 years, would have a likely sale value of roughly $280million - again, assuming zero additional investment... but the BOOK value would be $0

how "well run, well managed" applies to a trump enterprise, i would be at a loss to say

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
as an "accredited investor" i've seen lots of, well, INTERESTING things in documents, with lots of words saying "this is all based on conjecture" or "the pat value of the stock is [so close to zero it has to be expressed in scientific notation], to the point where there's a statement that the likely outcome is you lose everything

but never a "this is all a lie, made up by crack addicted spider monkeys" clause, or words to that effect -

and banks loaned this guy money, and investors gobbled it up?

i don't get that --i do get "it's all crap, and worthless" clause getting him out of lawsuits, as "exhibit a" ...

people buy into this? is there complementary cocaine provided before or after the hookers?

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
ah, the old "not audited findings" disclaimer - THAT i have seen - never heard it called worthless clause, but if i squint really hard, i can see it being called that -- yeah, for non-public offerings, it's usually a thing -- when I consider investing in a small tech firm, that has this -- also dire language about "this is an unsecured...." and "you may lose it all" and only open to accredited investors (which means not much in today's world, btw) as the government (SEC) considers them to be more savvy ...

if by losing my investment 80+% of the time means i am savvy, that's not a good time -- i am a techie-- i like to invest in tech,

but yeah, i've seen "unaudited" disclaimers -- which means some guys in the back made this up and we know it's "highly leveraged" to say the least

But I wouldn't swap 4x$5 for a twenty with him, unless I was holding his twenty first

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Of all the trump cases, this is the least likely to produce jailtime - he told them these were unaudited ... and banks are certainly accredited investors -

I hope the Georgia case is more substantive - he's dirty businessman -- and might just be smart enough to tell enough of the truth, and his lawyer might educate the jury, through expert witnesses, to make the point ...

but yeah, I don't think "no take backsies" is a strong case ..

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:
If you were a banker contemplating loaning someone $300 million for real estate wouldn't you want some sort of appraisal of value for one? Plans on how the property will produce income for two. What have you to offer for collateral for three? Maybe financial statements showing that you can make the payments for four?

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:
If you were a banker contemplating loaning someone $300 million for real estate wouldn't you want some sort of appraisal of value for one? Plans on how the property will produce income for two. What have you to offer for collateral for three? Maybe financial statements showing that you can make the payments for four?

They got those but the first page-and-a-half, according to Trump, said that none of the numbers to follow should be credited. In Trump's words "I have a clause in there that says don't believe the statement, go out and do your own work. The statement is "worthless". It means nothing." A minute later he says:"I never felt that these statements would be taken very seriously, because you open it up and right at the beginning of the statement, you read a page and a half of stuff saying, go get your own accounting, go get your own this, go get your own that."

Yes, a lender would want an appraisal and financial statements, and New York Law requires them, but Trump's position is that by putting his "worthless clause" in at the top he can just make up any number that pops in his mind and the worthless clause will nullify his accountants certifying the statements and the State law requiring they be accurate.

Seriously, his deposition is some of the most amazing shit you'll ever read.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:
If you were a banker contemplating loaning someone $300 million for real estate wouldn't you want some sort of appraisal of value for one? Plans on how the property will produce income for two. What have you to offer for collateral for three? Maybe financial statements showing that you can make the payments for four?

They got those but the first page-and-a-half, according to Trump, said that none of the numbers to follow should be credited. In Trump's words "I have a clause in there that says don't believe the statement, go out and do your own work. The statement is "worthless". It means nothing." A minute later he says:"I never felt that these statements would be taken very seriously, because you open it up and right at the beginning of the statement, you read a page and a half of stuff saying, go get your own accounting, go get your own this, go get your own that."

Yes, a lender would want an appraisal and financial statements, and New York Law requires them, but Trump's position is that by putting his "worthless clause" in at the top he can just make up any number that pops in his mind and the worthless clause will nullify his accountants certifying the statements and the State law requiring they be accurate.

Seriously, his deposition is some of the most amazing shit you'll ever read.

Several bankruptcies should tell you all that you need to know about worthless.