(06-12-2017 04:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Does Trump remind anyone else of Edwin Edwards?

(06-12-2017 06:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 04:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Does Trump remind anyone else of Edwin Edwards?

Trump doesn't play the piano as well.

Fun story: had to be in Louisiana much in my early first career, and one time I was there during the Edwin Edwards graft trial. Walked into the hotel, dirty and dedraggled from being offshore for two weeks and ambled into the hotel bar.

The place was rocking, with much of the attention being paid to the pianist who was drunk as a skunk and really jamming the ivories. After a drink or two, the woman next to me, whom I was really, really trying to chat up, told me that the bar was attracting a lot of local patrons, since the pianist doing the work was Edwin himself. Turns out he was trading the hotel room and board for keeping the bar full as a pianist for the time of trial.

Only in Louisiana.......

(06-09-2017 07:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 09:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There really has never been a strong case of collusion against Trump himself. The issue primarily focused on his election/transition team, and the role they played. There are/were so many figures involved that had significant connections to Russia and who were then never upfront about their Russian interactions, leading to suspicion. I mean, you had Flynn repeatedly contacting a senior Russia official, lying about those interactions, and then being forced to resign.
The most likely issue Trump himself may have to deal with is obstructing an investigation or helping to cover up misdeeds.
I think Trump likely has non-collusion related issues he is more worried about (like being in debt to shady characters or laundering money), but that does go into the tin foil hat arena.
The Comey testimony does not really clear up anything outside of the fact that Trump was not under investigation while Comey was in charge of the FBI. Or, as Dershowitz actually points out, Trump TECHNICALLY couldn't obstruct justice by pressuring Comey because he argues that Trump has the Constitutional authority to direct investigations, even ones that may implicate himself.

If Dershowitz is right, there is really no legal case against Trump. But I don't think this has ever been about legal/illegal or right/wrong. I think the left saw an issue that they could make a bunch of allegations and conjectures about, and thus tie up the Trump team to keep them from pursuing their agenda. This has always sounded to me like, "Well, so-and-so talked to so-and-so, and Hillary lost, so there must have been collusion." What I've seen is a lot of dots without any lines to connect them. With the appointment of a special prosecutor, they can tie this up a while longer, I'm guessing probably another six months. Maybe a year, depending on how slowly things move. But Bobby Three Sticks has the reputation for moving in a hurry, and I would expect him to do that here. Unless there is something big that has not shown any signs of existence so far, this is going to unravel at some point. And when it does, I think the democrats will pay a high price in the form of backlash. They went all in on this. Why, I don't know. It never looked like more than a long shot to me. But maybe they were just so blinded by Trump hatred that they made the same mistake that republicans made with Monicagate. Or maybe this is what our political process has become. Nobody has any good ideas, so instead of a campaign of ideas, it is now all about smearing the other guy. I hope we get past that, but I am not optimistic. If anything does get us over it, it may be the realization that they threw everything but the kitchen sink at Trump and unless something comes out of the woodwork on this, it didn't work.

I also doubt that Trump has the kinds of financial worries that are being projected onto him by some. Yes, he has borrowed a lot of money. That's what you do when you are a real estate developer. But he's also got a lot of assets. And with proper legal advice--and that takes only money, which he has--you structure those deals so that you don't have much personal exposure. He's got some risk, to be sure. In the face of total economic meltdown, he probably could get hurt some. But as long as he has been doing the game, and assuming he has followed competent financial advice, he has enough free and clear that he will be comfortable forever. Quite honestly, if he weren't in that position he could never have afforded to run for president. He had made a couple of abortive attempts in the past. My guess is that he realized that he was not in financial position to make a run and pulled back. So he solved that problem before running for real. As far as ideas that he has borrowed from "the Russians" or "shady characters," sometimes that's who's lending. If you structure the deals properly, you are pretty well insulated. I'm going to assume that he did, because that's pretty easy for a prudent person with competent advice to do.

(06-14-2017 11:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The percentage of Trump properties purchased in the past year by LLCs increased to 70% from...
4% in the previous two years.
I wonder what changed? Did some new financial regulation get passed that significantly increased the desirability of using shell companies?
Doesn't appear to be. Condos owned by others in the same building in the same period sold to LLCs at a rate of 20%.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/06/13/trump-property-buyers-make-clear-shift-secretive-llcs/102399558/

(06-14-2017 11:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-14-2017 11:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The percentage of Trump properties purchased in the past year by LLCs increased to 70% from...
4% in the previous two years.
I wonder what changed? Did some new financial regulation get passed that significantly increased the desirability of using shell companies?
Doesn't appear to be. Condos owned by others in the same building in the same period sold to LLCs at a rate of 20%.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/06/13/trump-property-buyers-make-clear-shift-secretive-llcs/102399558/

In general, the LLC is probably going to be the best vehicle for owning investment real estate. LLC's combine the liability limitation off a corporation with the tax advantages of a partnership, kind of the best of both worlds. If the real estate appreciates, it's much easier to get the profits out of an LLC than a corporation. An S Corporation might be an option in certain circumstances, but I would expect it to be less attractive in many cases because of the inability to special allocate. You're not going to hold commercial real estate (including apartment buildings) personally or in a general partnership if you can avoid it because of liability issues.

That being the case, the more interesting question IMO would not be why the percentage going to LLC's is so high now, but rather why it was so low before. I would be interested in knowing why buyers in prior years were not using LLCs. One possibility is that what they were selling in prior years were primarily single family properties purchased as homesteads, whereas what has sold recently is mostly investment properties. Let me be clear. That's a guess, I don't know that to be a fact, but obviously there's some reason. I would be interested in knowing the breakdown of types of entities that bought in prior years.

Several statements in the article indicate that the author doesn't really understand his subject matter. For example, "For instance, President Obama and his wife are behind Homefront Holdings LLC, a corporation registered in Delaware which in May purchased the family’s home in the Kalorama neighborhood of Washington D.C. for $8.1 million, according to district property records."

Quote: The initiative is part of a broader federal effort to increase the focus on money laundering in real estate. Treasury and federal law enforcement officials said they were putting greater resources into investigating luxury real estate sales that involve shell companies like limited liability companies, often known as L.L.C.s; partnerships; and other entities...

The use of shell companies in real estate is legal, and L.L.C.s have a range of uses unrelated to secrecy. But a top Treasury official, Jennifer Shasky Calvery, said her agency had seen instances in which multimillion-dollar homes were being used as safe deposit boxes for ill-gotten gains, in transactions made more opaque by the use of anonymous shell companies.

“We are concerned about the possibility that dirty money is being put into luxury real estate,” said Ms. Calvery, the director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, the Treasury unit running the initiative. “We think some of the bigger risk is around the least transparent transactions.”

(06-15-2017 06:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2017 11:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Several statements in the article indicate that the author doesn't really understand his subject matter. For example, "For instance, President Obama and his wife are behind Homefront Holdings LLC, a corporation registered in Delaware which in May purchased the family’s home in the Kalorama neighborhood of Washington D.C. for $8.1 million, according to district property records."

Can you explain why the last sentence indicates a misunderstanding of LLCs and commercial property?

Quote:You're right that LLCs are a great vehicle for owning investment property. They are also a great way to hide the identity of a property owner, either for privacy purposes (e.g. the Obama's in the example above) or for more nefarious actions. See this article from the NYTs from early January, about how the government is focusing on LLCs' roles in money laundering.

Quote:The use of shell companies in real estate is legal, and L.L.C.s have a range of uses unrelated to secrecy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/us/us-will-track-secret-buyers-of-luxury-real-estate.html?_r=0

(06-15-2017 08:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 06:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-14-2017 11:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Several statements in the article indicate that the author doesn't really understand his subject matter. For example, "For instance, President Obama and his wife are behind Homefront Holdings LLC, a corporation registered in Delaware which in May purchased the family’s home in the Kalorama neighborhood of Washington D.C. for $8.1 million, according to district property records."

Can you explain why the last sentence indicates a misunderstanding of LLCs and commercial property?

I'll give you a hint. The word that gives it away starts with the letter "c."

Quote:You're right that LLCs are a great vehicle for owning investment property. They are also a great way to hide the identity of a property owner, either for privacy purposes (e.g. the Obama's in the example above) or for more nefarious actions. See this article from the NYTs from early January, about how the government is focusing on LLCs' roles in money laundering.

Quote:The use of shell companies in real estate is legal, and L.L.C.s have a range of uses unrelated to secrecy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/us/us-will-track-secret-buyers-of-luxury-real-estate.html?_r=0

You're not going to own commercial real estate in your name because of the liability issues, so the transactions are almost always going to be with some form of business organization. LLCs are pretty much the default form of organization for owning commercial real estate. I'm an investor in a couple of them myself. I'm frankly surprised that the number is as low as 70% if they are dealing in commercial properties, and the 4% number for prior years is astonishingly low. I'd need to know a lot more before making any judgements. I'd really be interested in knowing how the other 96% in prior years were owned, because that looks like the anomaly.

In any event, I think it's quite a reach, and quite an unjustified and inappropriate reach, to somehow conclude that the use of the most appropriate form of business organization somehow justifies any supposition about nefarious intent.

I'm reminded of a post on another site by a friend of mine a couple of years ago, noting that one of the Bushes, Jeb IIRC, had just formed a new corporation for the stated purpose of pursuing "any lawful purpose" or some other words to that effect. Her comment was, "Gee, I wish I could form a corporation for any lawful purpose." I pointed out to her that such wording was boilerplate language used in almost every state to get around the ultra vires issue.

Things that may look suspicious to those with limited understanding appear quite differently to those who understand the issues.

(06-15-2017 10:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And, after now realizing what your critique of the USA Today article is about, I disagree that it indicates that the author doesn't know what they are talking about. LLCs are often used to cover up the identity of a buyer of a residential piece of property. Sometimes for very non-shady reasons, like a famous person wanting their identity kept secret - something the article explicitly discusses in detail.

Quote:I don't think the 70% number itself is the issue that should be focused on, because that number alone has no context. I think the comparison of that rate to the LLC purchase rates to previous years (prior to nomination) and the rates of other units in the same buildings is the most interesting aspect. Both of those were well below the 70% LLC purchasing rate for Trump properties post-nomination. They were around 4% and 20%. That is a big difference - one that is likely statistically significant.

Quote:You can try and suggest that it is a lack of understanding of the issues is what is driving this article, but it isn't. Reading the article makes it clear that the authors understand the realm (there is plenty of discussion of how the simple use of an LLC for investing in residential real estate itself is not a red flag). However, it is the trend they found that piques their (and my) interest. To see such a drastic change in LLC purchasing to both previous years and properties in the same building, seems odd and potentially concerning. Odd and concerning are not damning, however.

(06-15-2017 10:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 10:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And, after now realizing what your critique of the USA Today article is about, I disagree that it indicates that the author doesn't know what they are talking about. LLCs are often used to cover up the identity of a buyer of a residential piece of property. Sometimes for very non-shady reasons, like a famous person wanting their identity kept secret - something the article explicitly discusses in detail.

I'm sorry, but you obviously do not understand my comment. It's much simpler than that. An LLC is NOT a corporation. Period. It's very much like a recent article I saw on our sending an aircraft carrier to the vicinity of North Korea, where the author wrote about how many "soldiers" were on the carrier and about Japanese "battleships." When people know the subject matter, they don't make stupid terminology errors like that. That aircraft carrier article, by the way, was clearly intended as a hit piece aimed at the Trump administration, and I have to wonder if that isn't what is going on here.

Quote:I don't think the 70% number itself is the issue that should be focused on, because that number alone has no context. I think the comparison of that rate to the LLC purchase rates to previous years (prior to nomination) and the rates of other units in the same buildings is the most interesting aspect. Both of those were well below the 70% LLC purchasing rate for Trump properties post-nomination. They were around 4% and 20%. That is a big difference - one that is likely statistically significant.

My question is simple. What were the other 96% or the other 80% in the comparables? For that matter, what were the 30% after the nomination? The fact that they were residential units does not mean that they were not being bought for commercial purposes. If the other 96% were being bought by individuals in prior years, but were suddenly being bought by LLCs, that would at least be interesting, but not indicative of the level of negativity the article implies. I can certainly imagine that because of the fire that Trump drew once he became the nominee, normal people might not want to be on the record buying properties from him. I've certainly been involved in transactions like that before. The bottom line is that there are so many legitimate business reasons for transactions like this that trying to impute a nefarious aspect is well beyond what is justified.

Who are the LLC buyers after the nomination by the way? If one LLC is buying a bunch of units, that would be significant. I can see Trump properties having appeal to investors. What has the market been doing? How many units were sold in prior years versus since the nomination? Percentages often don't mean a whole lot without knowing actual numbers. There are just a lot of questions that need answers before any kind of conclusions like those suggested in the article would be reasonable or appropriate.

Quote:You can try and suggest that it is a lack of understanding of the issues is what is driving this article, but it isn't. Reading the article makes it clear that the authors understand the realm (there is plenty of discussion of how the simple use of an LLC for investing in residential real estate itself is not a red flag). However, it is the trend they found that piques their (and my) interest. To see such a drastic change in LLC purchasing to both previous years and properties in the same building, seems odd and potentially concerning. Odd and concerning are not damning, however.

I'm not saying that lack of understanding is driving the article. I don't know what is driving the article. I would guess the article is driven by hatred of Trump, and trying to make something look as bad as possible in furtherance of that hatred. I know you don't make stupid mistakes like confusing LLCs and corporations if you understand the subject matter. That's just not a mistake that a knowledgeable person would make. I suppose it could happen in off the cuff conversation, but not in an article that got reviewed. That would jump out at any knowledgeable reviewer. That suggest to me that it is more hit piece than reasoned analysis.

(06-15-2017 12:11 PM)Barrett Wrote:  Earnest question for 69: what is the distinction between a corporation and an LLC that is relevant to the question of DJT's property holdings here? An LLC is a limited liability company and not a corporation, so you're absolutely right that the two are distinct business associations. But they of course also share some commonalities, one of which is that both provide a corporate veil that could, under most circumstances, shield against personal liability. But I agree they are not the same. What is the meaningful difference between them in the context of the DJT story, in your mind?

(06-15-2017 01:49 PM)Barrett Wrote:  69 is definitely correct that the two entity types are different. No argument there. I just want to understand how he perceives the distinction to be relevant or a difference maker on whatever point the article is making about Trump. In other words, if the article had said "LLC" instead of "corporation," does the article's point (explicitly or implicitly) change in some way?
Both corporations and LLCs provide some protections against personal liabilities, both are entities that allow for individuals to act as a single entity. Both also allow an individual to avoid using his personal name and instead use an entity name, and to act through that entity.

(06-15-2017 01:49 PM)Barrett Wrote:  69 is definitely correct that the two entity types are different. No argument there. I just want to understand how he perceives the distinction to be relevant or a difference maker on whatever point the article is making about Trump. In other words, if the article had said "LLC" instead of "corporation," does the article's point (explicitly or implicitly) change in some way?

(06-15-2017 03:00 PM)Barrett Wrote:  I can see your point as stated, Tanq. It's not that there's any meaningful difference in nefariousness between an LLC or a corporation (i.e., you're not saying that the author's use of "corporation" was meant to, or at least had the effect of, painting a more nefarious picture than if he had simply used "LLC"), but rather, you're saying the author's lack of understanding of the difference between the two is *further* indication that the author doesn't understand the subject matter of his article in the first place. I can accept that as a reasonable criticism--setting aside that I probably feel less prickly about (and assign less weight to) that misuse in terms by the author than you might. But I get your point.

(06-15-2017 03:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 03:00 PM)Barrett Wrote:  I can see your point as stated, Tanq. It's not that there's any meaningful difference in nefariousness between an LLC or a corporation (i.e., you're not saying that the author's use of "corporation" was meant to, or at least had the effect of, painting a more nefarious picture than if he had simply used "LLC"), but rather, you're saying the author's lack of understanding of the difference between the two is *further* indication that the author doesn't understand the subject matter of his article in the first place. I can accept that as a reasonable criticism--setting aside that I probably feel less prickly about (and assign less weight to) that misuse in terms by the author than you might. But I get your point.

I think it is twofold. The author both implies nefariousness in a perfectly ordinary set of circumstances, then uses an incorrect example that both shows the ignorance on the subject matter, *and* doubles down on the implication of wrongdoing embedded *with* the showing that he doesn't understand what he is talking about.
All my opinion, of course.