Trump didn't know what was in the executive order he signed.

[momeNt]

No. You're just wrong. You don't understand what fraud is, and you don't have the facts of the Shkreli case right. He told MSMB investors that they had doubled their money when he had actually lost almost all of it, then he used real profits from Retrophin to pay those investors the fake returns. So he stole money from Retrophin investors, defrauding them, even though the investors still had positive returns.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...i-accused-of-being-surprisingly-good-at-fraud



No one is accusing Trump of any specific fraud. We're just pointing out that it has to be incompetence or fraud. I don't think you're equipped to have this discussion though because you don't understand basic terms.

So they LOST something? Right? Did the banks lose anything with Trump?

It doesn't have to be incompetence or fraud. That's just displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of highly leveraged real estate investments in a fast moving booming real estate market. Remember the game hungry hungry hippos? Gotta get em all. Whoever has their hands on the most property by the time the bubble bursts wins. Banks are more than willing to restructure burdensome loans, and you still end up with something at the end. Certainly not pre-bubble holdings, but if you sat on the sidelines what would you have made in that time?

 

[Blackjack200]

So they LOST something? Right? Did the banks lose anything with Trump?

You unambiguously and wrongly said that fraud required a loss of principal. the Retrophin investors did not lose any principal.

 

[fskimospy]

So they LOST something? Right? Did the banks lose anything with Trump?

It doesn't have to be incompetence or fraud. That's just displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of highly leveraged real estate investments in a fast moving booming real estate market. Remember the game hungry hungry hippos? Gotta get em all. Whoever has their hands on the most property by the time the bubble bursts wins. Banks are more than willing to restructure burdensome loans, and you still end up with something at the end. Certainly not pre-bubble holdings, but if you sat on the sidelines what would you have made in that time?

The real estate crash in the 90's drove Trump to the brink of insolvency as he had personally guaranteed a good part of the loans for the Taj Mahal. This lost him about half a billion dollars and lost investors god only knows how much. Maybe you can describe to me how that's something other than incompetence or fraud.

 

[momeNt]

The real estate crash in the 90's drove Trump to the brink of insolvency as he had personally guaranteed a good part of the loans for the Taj Mahal. This lost him about half a billion dollars and lost investors god only knows how much. Maybe you can describe to me how that's something other than incompetence or fraud.

He is not responsible for the crash. Is he incompetent for participating in a booming market? Otherwise I cannot see the justification that he grew his wealth over that period of time as incompetency. Obviously in those final years his wealth took a huge hit, but from cycle beginning to end, he came out on top.

You unambiguously and wrongly said that fraud required a loss of principal. the Retrophin investors did not lose any principal.

I was referring to how he could have defrauded the banks, not fraud in general. The banks loaned him money, referred to as principal, secured against the value of the real estate, in order for that transaction to be fraudulent he would have had to have somehow provided them a faulty appraisal, which in the first place is not his responsibility to provide. They had appraisals to support the lending. No fraud was committed. I'm sure he had every intention of paying off t he loan but when things changed he made remarkably savvy restructuring deals. It's strikingly similar to his behavior in this topic. He saw a failure in how he was briefed and a contents of an executive order which may have not been fully vetted, and immediately corrected course. Somebody incompetent we would have heard about this maybe 2-3 years later, or maybe never.

 

[Blackjack200]

He saw a failure in how he was briefed and a contents of an executive order which may have not been fully vetted, and immediately corrected course. Somebody incompetent we would have heard about this maybe 2-3 years later, or maybe never.

Yeah, okay.

 

[fskimospy]

He is not responsible for the crash. Is he incompetent for participating in a booming market? Otherwise I cannot see the justification that he grew his wealth over that period of time as incompetency. Obviously in those final years his wealth took a huge hit, but from cycle beginning to end, he came out on top.

Can you explain why he claimed to have a net worth of approximately -$1 billion during that time then? I'm no expert, but that doesn't sound like 'coming out on top' to me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/23/business/yourmoney/whats-he-really-worth.html?_r=1

"When I was in trouble in the early 90's, I went around and -- you know, a lot of people couldn't believe I did this because they think I have an ego -- I went around and openly told people I was worth minus $900 million," Donald recalled. "And then I was able to make a deal with the banks."

 

[fskimospy]

He saw a failure in how he was briefed and a contents of an executive order which may have not been fully vetted, and immediately corrected course. Somebody incompetent we would have heard about this maybe 2-3 years later, or maybe never.

He heard about it because it was literally front page news everywhere. Congratulations, the standard for competence is 'watching the news'.

A competent administration would NEVER sign a legally binding document without properly vetting it. That's such a low, basic standard it should go without even saying.

 

[zinfamous]

Fox News Reports:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...er-that-gave-bannon-seat-at-nsc-meetings.html

President Trump was reportedly not fully briefed on the executive order he signed that allowed his chief strategist Steve Bannon a seat at the meetings of the country’s top national security efforts.

The New York Times reported Sunday that Bannon has been telling allies that he and the White House policy director, Stephen Miller, have a window to push through their vision of Trump’s economic policies.

Trump was frustrated over the executive order and reportedly demanded to be looped in on the executive orders earlier in the drafting process. According to the Times, Trump demanded that his chief of staff Reince Priebus to come up with a fundamental approach to executive orders.

Trump isn't even denying this beyond issuing a statement that any negative news is fake news. Haha. Once he realized what he had signed he was pissed. Isn't that dereliction of duties or something? On top of that he can't even trust his people not to scam him. I don't even think conservative folks think this is good news.

If I am to understand this, Trump is demanding that his aides concoct a more efficient means to "loop him in" on the orders that he is signing?

...he does realize that he is not only supposed to be involved in this policy, but that he is expected to read, right?


Republicans: you own this, you ignorant fucksticks.

 

[Blackjack200]

If I am to understand this, Trump is demanding that his aides concoct a more efficient means to "loop him in" on the orders that he is signing?

...he does realize that he is not only supposed to be involved in this policy, but that he is expected to read, right?


Republicans: you own this, you ignorant fucksticks.

No, don't you understand? Insisting that he actually be told what's in the executive orders he's signing is evidence of his extraordinary competence. LMAO.

 

[momeNt]

Can you explain why he claimed to have a net worth of approximately -$1 billion during that time then? I'm no expert, but that doesn't sound like 'coming out on top' to me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/23/business/yourmoney/whats-he-really-worth.html?_r=1

Yea, "and then I was able to make a deal with the banks". A true stroke of genius. I think we all understand that his crisis management is impeccable.

Imagine if any of the banks during the 2008 collapse had even half the gumption that Trump had. What a beautiful world we would be in today.

 

[agent00f]

He is not responsible for the crash. Is he incompetent for participating in a booming market? Otherwise I cannot see the justification that he grew his wealth over that period of time as incompetency. Obviously in those final years his wealth took a huge hit, but from cycle beginning to end, he came out on top.

There's no evidence he "came out on top", only that he lost others' money, too. If anything failing out of real estate rather explains his venture into entertainment instead.

 

[momeNt]

There's no evidence he "came out on top", only that he lost others' money, too. If anything failing out of real estate rather explains his venture into entertainment instead.

He has a $3b+ real estate portfolio.

 

[fskimospy]

Yea, "and then I was able to make a deal with the banks". A true stroke of genius. I think we all understand that his crisis management is impeccable.

Imagine if any of the banks during the 2008 collapse had even half the gumption that Trump had. What a beautiful world we would be in today.

I imagine you're being sarcastic at this point, haha.

In case you aren't, effectively managing a crisis to prevent insolvency caused by your own incompetence and/or fraud is not the sign of a good organizational manager.

 

[fskimospy]

He has a $3b+ real estate portfolio.

You're confusing net worth with a real estate portfolio, which are two very different things. And again, something similar to that net worth could likely have been achieved with far less work and far less risk by basically doing nothing and parking his money in an index fund.

 

[momeNt]

I imagine you're being sarcastic at this point, haha.

In case you aren't, effectively managing a crisis to prevent insolvency caused by your own incompetence and/or fraud is not the sign of a good organizational manager.

You are basically telling me that nobody should have bought those properties in that time period, or you are making a baseless assumption that those properties could have been ran differently in order to make a profit. So they either needed a bulldozer or a magic wand, which is it? If nobody should have bought the properties, then you are not participating in a bubble, and you make nothing, if its a magic wand, then you believe in fairy tales.

You're confusing net worth with a real estate portfolio, which are two very different things. And again, something similar to that net worth could likely have been achieved with far less work and far less risk by basically doing nothing and parking his money in an index fund.

Parking what money exactly? He would have needed somewhere in the range of 200m in 1980 in order to have 3.2b today if he went straight Dow Jones. He didn't have 200m in 1980. So the statement is just wrong.

Also, I'm just going off of the value of his stake based on Forbes. I am not entirely sure on the methodology Forbes used, but when buying property like that, you are likely using some sort of 10 year or xx year discounted cash flow + the intrinsic value of the property. But at this point we are just nit-picking.

 

[fskimospy]

You are basically telling me that nobody should have bought those properties in that time period, or you are making a baseless assumption that those properties could have been ran differently in order to make a profit. So they either needed a bulldozer or a magic wand, which is it? If nobody should have bought the properties, then you are not participating in a bubble, and you make nothing, if its a magic wand, then you believe in fairy tales.

One of my favorite sayings is 'there are no bad products, only bad prices'. Considering the results of his purchases left him with a net worth of approximately -$900 million I'm going to go out on a limb there and say that's a bad business decision. 😉

Parking what money exactly? He would have needed somewhere in the range of 200m in 1980 in order to have 3.2b today if he went straight Dow Jones. He didn't have 200m in 1980. So the statement is just wrong.

While the exact state of his finances at any point is difficult to determine due to his constant stream of lies about the issue we can at least take an educated guess.

His net worth according to Forbes was $200 million in 1982. If you liquidated that $200 million and invested it in the S&P 500 you would see an annualized rate of return (dividends invested) of about 11.6%, which would make his $200 million worth about $9.3 billion today.

Also, in 1974 he got a stake in his father's company worth $40 million or so and the S&P has had an annualized rate of return with reinvested dividends of about 10.8% since January 1974. Had he liquidated that stake, invested it in the S&P 500 and done literally nothing it would be worth approximately $3.3 billion today.

https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/

Of course this doesn't account for living expenses, the numbers are fuzzy (again in part due to his lies), etc, but it sure seems likely that all of his amazing business acumen and brushes with disaster have given him basically the same returns as if he had been sitting on the couch with his thumb in his ass for the last 40 years. Compare those returns with those of people who are actually good at running businesses like Bill Gates, Bloomberg, etc.

Also, I'm just going off of the value of his stake based on Forbes. I am not entirely sure on the methodology Forbes used, but when buying property like that, you are likely using some sort of 10 year or xx year discounted cash flow + the intrinsic value of the property. But at this point we are just nit-picking.

Forbes is pretty clear on their methodology which is to count all of his assets, not just his real estate.

 

[momeNt]

One of my favorite sayings is 'there are no bad products, only bad prices'. Considering the results of his purchases left him with a net worth of approximately -$900 million I'm going to go out on a limb there and say that's a bad business decision. 😉



While the exact state of his finances at any point is difficult to determine due to his constant stream of lies about the issue we can at least take an educated guess.

His net worth according to Forbes was $200 million in 1982. If you liquidated that $200 million and invested it in the S&P 500 you would see an annualized rate of return (dividends invested) of about 11.6%, which would make his $200 million worth about $9.3 billion today.

Also, in 1974 he got a stake in his father's company worth $40 million or so and the S&P has had an annualized rate of return with reinvested dividends of about 10.8% since January 1974. Had he liquidated that stake, invested it in the S&P 500 and done literally nothing it would be worth approximately $3.3 billion today.

https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/

Of course this doesn't account for living expenses, the numbers are fuzzy (again in part due to his lies), etc, but it sure seems likely that all of his amazing business acumen and brushes with disaster have given him basically the same returns as if he had been sitting on the couch with his thumb in his ass for the last 40 years. Compare those returns with those of people who are actually good at running businesses like Bill Gates, Bloomberg, etc.



Forbes is pretty clear on their methodology which is to count all of his assets, not just his real estate.

Yes, I just added up his real estate holdings.

As to the rest, you have a point, you always should cash out in a bubble and return to safer investments, few are able to do that though, especially those actually in the market that the bubble is taking place.

Comparing the different options one could have taken at any point in time, probably all of most wealthy would be a lot wealthier. Steve Jobs is a great example of that, he lost about 30billion by selling his shares in Apple. Steve Jobs, bad at his job, Terrible!

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, I just added up his real estate holdings.

As to the rest, you have a point, you always should cash out in a bubble and return to safer investments, few are able to do that though, especially those actually in the market that the bubble is taking place.

Comparing the different options one could have taken at any point in time, probably all of most wealthy would be a lot wealthier. Steve Jobs is a great example of that, he lost about 30billion by selling his shares in Apple. Steve Jobs, bad at his job, Terrible!

No, because when people do that with people like Jobs they are cherry picking dates. As for Trump you can simply take the date at which he was given those assets in 1974, which is an entirely reasonable point in time to use. He got index fund comparable returns in exchange for a huge amount of work and extreme volatility. That's one shitty deal.

 

[momeNt]

No, because when people do that with people like Jobs they are cherry picking dates. As for Trump you can simply take the date at which he was given those assets in 1974, which is an entirely reasonable point in time to use. He got index fund comparable returns in exchange for a huge amount of work and extreme volatility. That's one shitty deal.

As for Jobs you can simple take the date at which he was removed from Apple and sold his stock in 1985, which is an entirely reasonable point in time to use.

http://www.businessinsider.com/stev...-stock-would-be-worth-66-billion-today-2016-4

But Jobs was famously ousted from his company in 1985 after clashing with the board of directors and then CEO John Sculley. In the run-up to and the aftermath of the bitter conflict, Jobs sold his entire Apple stake — save for one share, which gave him access to the company's annual meetings. That 11% stake in the company today would be worth $66 billion, not including any dividends the company would've paid out over the years.

Am I doing it right? Are we both cherry-picking? Or neither of us?

 

[fskimospy]

As for Jobs you can simple take the date at which he was removed from Apple and sold his stock in 1985, which is an entirely reasonable point in time to use.

http://www.businessinsider.com/stev...-stock-would-be-worth-66-billion-today-2016-4

Am I doing it right? Are we both cherry-picking? Or neither of us?

Sure looks like Jobs made a yuge mistake there, huh? Regardless, you kind of proved my point there. You can easily show that Jobs created returns for Apple stock that vastly exceeded the S&P 500 over the course of his tenure. That's the sign of good organizational leadership! Trump on the other hand has been apparently unable to exceed index fund returns, which is a sign of crappy leadership.

I am frankly baffled as to why you're trying to hard to defend Trump's business skills. You've jumped between three or four different points and each time they are disproven you just pick a new one. I mean saying he's a good leader because he noticed his colossal fuckup was on TV, claiming his business decisions in the 90's were good ones, etc, etc. None of this makes sense. If someone can replicate the returns that have come from your life's work by sitting on their couch you are not a good businessman.

 

[momeNt]

Sure looks like Jobs made a yuge mistake there, huh? Regardless, you kind of proved my point there. You can easily show that Jobs created returns for Apple stock that vastly exceeded the S&P 500 over the course of his tenure. That's the sign of good organizational leadership! Trump on the other hand has been apparently unable to exceed index fund returns, which is a sign of crappy leadership.

I am frankly baffled as to why you're trying to hard to defend Trump's business skills. You've jumped between three or four different points and each time they are disproven you just pick a new one. I mean saying he's a good leader because he noticed his colossal fuckup was on TV, claiming his business decisions in the 90's were good ones, etc, etc. None of this makes sense. If someone can replicate the returns that have come from your life's work by sitting on their couch you are not a good businessman.

I'm just trying to reconcile it with the fact that he was elected President so there must be some redeeming quality somewhere. Maybe it isn't his business acumen. Unless he truly is a pawn in somebody else's game, he had identify talent to run a campaign, create a message, get votes, and win. I think not just any celebrity loud-mouth could be elected President. He has to have a talent. If you say he has none, you have to be denying reality or believe somebody else is at the wheel and he is a mouthpiece.

He cannot be purely incompetent, which is why I jumped into this thread to begin with, to defend some level of competency that he must possess.

 

[Blackjack200]

I am frankly baffled as to why you're trying to hard to defend Trump's business skills.

Trump's supporters are heavily invested in the idea that success is elusive because of immigrants, black people, government regulation, and whiney liberals, and not because they're a bunch of fucking idiots that couldn't run a shoe store.

Trump is a bellicose idiot like they are, and has the trappings of success. If Trump is actually a failure though, the whole house of cards comes down.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm just trying to reconcile it with the fact that he was elected President so there must be some redeeming quality somewhere. Maybe it isn't his business acumen. Unless he truly is a pawn in somebody else's game, he had identify talent to run a campaign, create a message, get votes, and win. I think not just any celebrity loud-mouth could be elected President. He has to have a talent. If you say he has none, you have to be denying reality or believe somebody else is at the wheel and he is a mouthpiece.

He cannot be purely incompetent, which is why I jumped into this thread to begin with, to defend some level of competency that he must possess.

I thought I covered here:

In its more successful phase it appears to be mostly a licensing business where his need for self aggrandizement and the business's need for publicity (to license more Trump stuff) are one and the same. I'm confident he knows how to run that kind of business but I'm not at all confident he knows how to run anything else.

I think he's good at self promotion and it seems like he's built a quite successful business doing that. I just don't think being successful at that is particularly useful experience for being successful in the White House. (although it's clearly quite useful for getting you there)

 

[momeNt]

Trump's supporters are heavily invested in the idea that success is elusive because of immigrants, black people, government regulation, and whiney liberals, and not because they're a bunch of fucking idiots that couldn't run a shoe store.

Trump is a bellicose idiot like they are, and has the trappings of success. If Trump is actually a failure though, the whole house of cards comes down.

Cool thanks for the name-calling bro. I share a potential common cause with him, I'm not a hardliner by any means.

I thought I covered here:


I think he's good at self promotion and it seems like he's built a quite successful business doing that. I just don't think being successful at that is particularly useful experience for being successful in the White House. (although it's clearly quite useful for getting you there)

His licensing value is comparatively small. So honestly, I think that is mostly perception. Most of his wealth is in his real estate holdings, which, I think we agree, could be a lot larger than it is if he possessed the ability to scrutinize the market better and get out while the getting was good. Which isn't an entirely unreasonable request if the buyers were there in the mid-late 1980s. Which I'm sure there were.

It isn't unlikely that he is basically a Kardashian with some real estate holdings. Hopefully he straightens out the 2nd amendment soon otherwise I share no common cause with him.

 

[raildogg]

They call America a Democracy (or Republic).

We have Presidents signing these so-called executive orders and making them law. Is that a Democracy? I would say no. It's similar to what Putin does.

It's not just Trump. The previous Presidents also signed these executive orders and forced them upon the country whether they liked it or not. Just like what Trump is doing.