290
submitted 10 months ago by flyingsheep@lemmyhub.com to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 47 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

No bank in the world is going to hand anybody millions (never mind over a billion) without some reasonable assurance it can be paid back one way or another.

If he was in real estate, they’re taking his property.

IIRC, the advice was basically a recipe for overleveraging yourself in debt trying to make money with “throw everything and see what sticks” (and then blaming them for not being “savy” enough when it becomes apparent they can’t manage the debt.)

Which is what happened to a friend of mine that kept bouncing from one self help book to the next (he was a big fan of what’s-his-but-zero-debt-guy until his church group read it.)

“It really resonated with what you said… I have a responsibility to my kids!”

“Uhm, I was talking about not having a third when you already need help with two.”

“No no. I get it now…” (and now we’re not friends because he asks for advice, doesn’t listen to it and blames you for when it doesn’t work. It also wasn’t about finances per se.)

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 28 points 10 months ago

No bank in the world is going to hand anybody millions (never mind over a billion) without some reasonable assurance it can be paid back one way or another.

You say that, but Deutsche Bank and others have been very happy to loan Trump money over the years and they must know he won't pay it back.

[-] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 40 points 10 months ago

… but Deutsche Bank and others have been very happy to launder payments from Russian mobsters via unpaid loans …

FTFY

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

Some of those loans are predicated on extremely inflated business dealings. For example, in the NY fraud trial, the collateral was Trump's properties. Some of those loans, as already mentioned, were also straight up bribes.

also its extremely unlikely this guy is going to be somebody that people want to bribe. Remember, mortgages count against networth, so this guy isn't that rich.

[-] throwwyacc@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

They likely make him pledge something as collateral. I doubt they're just giving him unsecured loans just for fun

[-] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago

He was committing fraud. That's why Deutsche Bank no longer does business with the Trump organization.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

No that's because the fraud got discovered. Else they would still do business with Trump. They were likely giving Trump Russian money as "loans".

[-] Rooskie91@discuss.online 14 points 10 months ago

It was basically instructions on how to become a grifter, with very little actionable advice. Here is a podcast the breaks down books like this.

https://pod.link/1651876897/episode/1a9316ba1134a0c2484e8fc6e416b978

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

To be fair, a lot- probably most- of the self-help book authors are at least toeing the line of grifter. and a fairly large number straight up are.

[-] Cheers@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

Remember we're probably not talking about a single person, but an company. His company is likely over valued because of how famous his books/seminars are. And yes, while he probably has real estate, it's probably not the same business. When they come after him, they probably hit one side of the business and not the other.

It's very possible someone gave him a ton of loans that are undeserved because they overvalued the names. We see it all the time in the stock market.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Given what I understand of his 'advice'... he may not in fact be smart enough to split his assets up like that. Also, if you do split up your assets into LLCs or whatever; then they're loaning to the LLC, and they will be looking at its financial ability to pay back... banks are generally rather careful with these kinds of things.

if he's using [assets of company a] to inflate the [assets of company b] (IE IP on his books etc,) then that's fraud.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

You have a lot of confidence in the financial system and I wonder given what is known if it is justified

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

more like, confidence in human greed.

Banks don't cut people breaks just because they're famous. keep in mind, this guy's net assets are not 1.2 billion- that's his debt. He's over extended and they're taking them up. long-time business partners might get less scrutiny on the inflated values, but this guy? naw. he took out massive loans on proprieties or whatever, they'll be taking whatever collateral he used, and whatever other assets are associated.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago
[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago

if you'll ask a question?

But if you're referring to the 2007-08 financial crisis caused by MBS going tits up, you'll have to do better than that, since MBS's were packaged loans to lots of individuals. Each individual loan was risky because of the sub-prime market being largely unregulated at the time, however, it was assumed the risks were acceptable because the loans that didn't go up were profitable to offset them.

The problem with that, of course, was that the entire industry kept ramping up sub-prime loans building up a slow, but increasingly high risk of total collapse on the value. but this is an entirely different situation than giving one guy a billion dollar in loans. And you'll note, that the MBS's were backed with collateral in the form of houses that they subsequently foreclosed on. (and later sold for much more in profit, while also getting bailed out by the government.)

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

You got two explainations. 1 the banks didn't know what was going to happen, despite all the obvious signs, in which case they have no idea what they are doing 2 they knew exactly what they were doing and engineered a crisis for a bailout and market dominance.

So do you want your friends to be fucking morons or fucked up?

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

or do you want to stop confusing issues here?

'07-08 crisis is a fundamentally different scenario that built over time. The toxic assets totaled something like 1 trillion; they were built over time, and the problem rose when home values stopped going up. let me compare the orders of magnitude on the debt that caused that crisis vs this:

    1,200,000,000 (Kiyoski's debt)
1,000,000,000,000 (Toxic assets in the great recession) 

Do you see the difference now? It's a nice whataboutism, but it's fundamentally irrelevant. the only thing that's going to get fucked is Kiyoski, and the people who work for him. The difference between a billion and a trillion is... about a trillion. more preciesly, .1%.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Gotcha they fucked up and don't know what they are doing.

this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
290 points (94.5% liked)

News

23275 readers
1340 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS