The Trump ''Haircut''

Today there was an interesting witness that came to the stand in the fraud trial in New York.
One Nicholas Haigh , the former Deutsche Bank banker who oversaw more than 400 million in loans that Deutsche Bank lent to Trump.

According to Haigh, the ''haircut'' was a recalculation of Trumps assets downward from what he had declared as his worth.

"A haircut is a way by which the bank reduces the stated value of the asset in order to form some kind of assessment of what it might be worth" should there be a default, Haigh testified in a crisp British accent.

In 2011, Trump told the bank he was worth $4.26 billion. But after the bank's haircut, meaning in a hypothetical default, he'd be worth as little as $2.365 billion, according to the fourth page of Deutche Bank's 2011 Trump "credit report," an internal banking document entered into evidence in the morning.

I have found numerous people come forward with condemnation of the banks saying that the banks should have done their own research into the value of his collateral, that is his worth, and so placing blame on the banks rather than Trump. This made sense to me as well.

But apparently, THEY DID.

A different haircut would be applied by Deutsche Bank depending on the kind of asset. For instance, the haircut on cash was very small, since cash doesn't really depreciate, Haigh testified Wednesday.

But the haircut on Trump's golf resorts? That was 50%, he testified.

And in 2011, Deutsche Bank gave Trump a 75% haircut on what he said his Seven Springs estate in upstate New York was worth – because that valuation included the development of nine yet-unbuilt luxury "mansions."

www.businessinsider.com...

I thought the haircut was a toupee .

One major reason why the banks don't always double check everything is because there are laws against fraud.

If someone lies to the bank and they don't catch it, they just didn't catch it, the bank didn't commit any fraud, the cheater did.

And in most cases the bank can recover what they lost, because they don't make loans without collateral.

Should they have scrutinized everything a bit better? Yeah, sure. But it still all falls on the cheater, not the one getting cheated. They can always recoup.

a reply to: Gothmog

There are those who focus on his physical appearance, this however is not that. Seems a ''haircut'' is a bankers term for understanding by banking standards the value of a borrowers worth.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
Today there was an interesting witness that came to the stand in the fraud trial in New York.
One Nicholas Haigh , the former Deutsche Bank banker who oversaw more than 400 million in loans that Deutsche Bank lent to Trump.

According to Haigh, the ''haircut'' was a recalculation of Trumps assets downward from what he had declared as his worth.

"A haircut is a way by which the bank reduces the stated value of the asset in order to form some kind of assessment of what it might be worth" should there be a default, Haigh testified in a crisp British accent.

In 2011, Trump told the bank he was worth $4.26 billion. But after the bank's haircut, meaning in a hypothetical default, he'd be worth as little as $2.365 billion, according to the fourth page of Deutche Bank's 2011 Trump "credit report," an internal banking document entered into evidence in the morning.

I have found numerous people come forward with condemnation of the banks saying that the banks should have done their own research into the value of his collateral, that is his worth, and so placing blame on the banks rather than Trump. This made sense to me as well.

But apparently, THEY DID.

A different haircut would be applied by Deutsche Bank depending on the kind of asset. For instance, the haircut on cash was very small, since cash doesn't really depreciate, Haigh testified Wednesday.

But the haircut on Trump's golf resorts? That was 50%, he testified.

And in 2011, Deutsche Bank gave Trump a 75% haircut on what he said his Seven Springs estate in upstate New York was worth – because that valuation included the development of nine yet-unbuilt luxury "mansions."

www.businessinsider.com...

then you realize there is no case here at all right?

He could say anything he wanted, it was up to the banks to do their due diligence. They did, therefore, no fraud. He didn't default, although that wouldn't have mattered for the point you made so well. Great post!

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I wonder if the bank's "haircut" valuation(s) were ever communicated to Trump and/or his organization?


If Trump was made aware of the "devaluations" on which the bank based its calculations, and then went on to use his own "inflated" valuations in other business dealings and filings....it blows a major hole in any claim of innocence regarding fraud he might make.

And would likely inform the extent to which the court levies penalties for said fraud.

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I wonder if the bank's "haircut" valuation(s) were ever communicated to Trump and/or his organization?


If Trump was made aware of the "devaluations" on which the bank based its calculations, and then went on to use his own "inflated" valuations in other business dealings and filings....it blows a major hole in any claim of innocence regarding fraud he might make.

And would likely inform the extent to which the court levies penalties for said fraud.

what is the fudge ratio in giving your numbers to the bank? Do you have to be exact, or is there a percentage where it's fraud vs. dumb? Thanks in advance for your well sourced answer!

a reply to: Mahogany

Yet it also states in the article that all of this has been taken into account by the defense which mean that the banks were not victim here at all. Does this hold true for the taxes owed? I don' t ,know. I wonder if that is standard banking practice or even standard practice for Trump, why inflate his worth in the first place. Why lie. Cuz he wanted to climb the Forbe's richest list?

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Mahogany

Yet it also states in the article that all of this has been taken into account by the defense which mean that the banks were not victim here at all. Does this hold true for the taxes owed? I don' t ,know. I wonder if that is standard banking practice or even standard practice for Trump, why inflate his worth in the first place. Why lie. Cuz he wanted to climb the Forbe's richest list?

if you inflate the worth of something, wouldn't that also increase the tax liability if the income or valuation was involved?

a reply to: Mantiss2021

That is an interesting point Man. Goes to motive I suppose. Did he really think he was that rich or did he know he wasn't yet continued to lie about it, I guess that we will have to wait for the prosecution to present that evidence.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
Today there was an interesting witness that came to the stand in the fraud trial in New York.
One Nicholas Haigh , the former Deutsche Bank banker who oversaw more than 400 million in loans that Deutsche Bank lent to Trump.

According to Haigh, the ''haircut'' was a recalculation of Trumps assets downward from what he had declared as his worth.

"A haircut is a way by which the bank reduces the stated value of the asset in order to form some kind of assessment of what it might be worth" should there be a default, Haigh testified in a crisp British accent.

In 2011, Trump told the bank he was worth $4.26 billion. But after the bank's haircut, meaning in a hypothetical default, he'd be worth as little as $2.365 billion, according to the fourth page of Deutche Bank's 2011 Trump "credit report," an internal banking document entered into evidence in the morning.

I have found numerous people come forward with condemnation of the banks saying that the banks should have done their own research into the value of his collateral, that is his worth, and so placing blame on the banks rather than Trump. This made sense to me as well.

But apparently, THEY DID.

A different haircut would be applied by Deutsche Bank depending on the kind of asset. For instance, the haircut on cash was very small, since cash doesn't really depreciate, Haigh testified Wednesday.

But the haircut on Trump's golf resorts? That was 50%, he testified.

And in 2011, Deutsche Bank gave Trump a 75% haircut on what he said his Seven Springs estate in upstate New York was worth – because that valuation included the development of nine yet-unbuilt luxury "mansions."

www.businessinsider.com...

then you realize there is no case here at all right?

He could say anything he wanted, it was up to the banks to do their due diligence. They did, therefore, no fraud. He didn't default, although that wouldn't have mattered for the point you made so well. Great post!

The low and slow IQs never seem to stop sticking their feet in their mouths.
This story should invalidate their entire lie.

There is no case, never has been and never will be.
It’s a Leftist con job to attempt to keep him from being president.

a reply to: network dude

I suppose, I know it does with my place. I wonder if the IRS had a report from the lenders as well as Trump's own statements. This may also be something we will need to wait on.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Mahogany

Yet it also states in the article that all of this has been taken into account by the defense which mean that the banks were not victim here at all. Does this hold true for the taxes owed? I don' t ,know. I wonder if that is standard banking practice or even standard practice for Trump, why inflate his worth in the first place. Why lie. Cuz he wanted to climb the Forbe's richest list?

if you inflate the worth of something, wouldn't that also increase the tax liability if the income or valuation was involved?

Another fact that the slowbots don’t understand.

I think the TDS is giving you a bad haircut day. Do you not see the grasping of straws here with this post?
To quote your inspirational headache in charge JB. 'COME ON MAN!'...

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: network dude

I suppose, I know it does with my place. I wonder if the IRS had a report from the lenders as well as Trump's own statements. This may also be something we will need to wait on.

It's looking like a fun one to watch. Seeing the whole thing disintegrate like this is sweet!

I look forward to the prosecution explaining this, and where the fraud is. Good lord, if they ask how big his pecker is, they can be sure and nab him, and most men.

a reply to: RazorV66

I hope this thread gets some traction. I look forward to the legal eagles explaining why this isn't what it sounds and looks like.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: RazorV66

I hope this thread gets some traction. I look forward to the legal eagles explaining why this isn't what it sounds and looks like.

No doubt they will try to explain it away.
They are up to their eyebrows in Liberal BS now, they have no choice but to continue it.

Backtracking now will make them look even dumber.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Mahogany

Yet it also states in the article that all of this has been taken into account by the defense which mean that the banks were not victim here at all. Does this hold true for the taxes owed? I don' t ,know. I wonder if that is standard banking practice or even standard practice for Trump, why inflate his worth in the first place. Why lie. Cuz he wanted to climb the Forbe's richest list?

if you inflate the worth of something, wouldn't that also increase the tax liability if the income or valuation was involved?

Unless you then deflate it for tax reporting purposes, which Trump supposedly did also. You can't simultaneously inflate an asset and deflate it without lying in one of the cases.

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Mahogany

Yet it also states in the article that all of this has been taken into account by the defense which mean that the banks were not victim here at all. Does this hold true for the taxes owed? I don' t ,know. I wonder if that is standard banking practice or even standard practice for Trump, why inflate his worth in the first place. Why lie. Cuz he wanted to climb the Forbe's richest list?

if you inflate the worth of something, wouldn't that also increase the tax liability if the income or valuation was involved?

Unless you then deflate it for tax reporting purposes, which Trump supposedly did also. You can't simultaneously inflate an asset and deflate it without lying in one of the cases.

yes, and the same question to you, what is the fudge factor in all this?

eta:
wait, is this a federal tax case?

Did any of these banks ever lose a dime by loaning money to Trump? I honestly don't know, but I would assume the loans were paid back with the interest that the banks required.

While we're on the subject, how many banks were charged with fraud in 2008? I don't recall a lot of bankers being hauled into court when billions of dollars worth of assets were devalued.