Because more people were sick of the Clinton shit...it goes both ways as any Bush would lose as well. Shitty people picked on both sides = a win for a non political ass.
People hate their imagined enemies more than they like doing well.
He is successful at running organizations though, in general, even if that means using the law to the fullest extent possible (see: business bankruptcies). But pushing the law to the limit is not necessarily a bad thing. FDR issued more executive orders than any President in history, almost 1 per day, a lot of people believe he was a great President who got stuff done.
This particular organization? I think the jury is or should be out. Definitely too much dwelling on the press, and to be perfectly honest the only thing I have liked from what I saw was his 2nd amendment position paper which was released 2 weeks ago. I'm not sure if it even made the news or any headlines.
He is successful at running organizations though, in general, even if that means using the law to the fullest extent possible (see: business bankruptcies). But pushing the law to the limit is not necessarily a bad thing. FDR issued more executive orders than any President in history, almost 1 per day, a lot of people believe he was a great President who got stuff done.
Because more people were sick of the Clinton shit...it goes both ways as any Bush would lose as well. Shitty people picked on both sides = a win for a non political ass.
What 'Clinton shit', specifically?
All the made up shit that people bought into that lead to nothing after countless investigations and endless scrutiny. Aka right wing propaganda.
I find it mildly amusing that the only real excuse people could come up with for voting Trump was that Hillary was "corrupt".
Now we are seeing Trump sell out government positions for cash and signing orders he doesnt even understand.
I wonder how hardcore Trumpers will rationalize this.
I guess I don't see him getting somewhere around market level returns for a business he inherited as being much evidence for ability to run a successful organization. Mike Bloomberg, even if you don't like him, knows how to run a successful business. Trump? His past record is murky at best and his current actions seem to indicate he's in over his head.
I bet that in the past the Trump Organization operated basically like a regular large real estate development corporation. He failed at that catastrophically, even if you count clever use of bankruptcy.
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. Maybe he improves after a little more practice but at this point he's pretty clearly the most inept chief executive this country has seen in the modern era.
His real estate holdings are estimated by Forbes at 3.2b.
What do you think is inherited? His father was worth $300m at most at the time of his death. Where is the catastrophic failure?
He pointed to two factors that made Trump’s success unusual: He made his fortune in a time of high real estate rates, and just a handful of his properties had positive cash flow.
What made the whole jerry-rigged machine work, Minsky argued, was that Trump’s properties were located in the New York and New Jersey submarkets, where land prices were growing rapidly over the period compared to other parts of the U.S.
“The efficiency with which Trump managed these properties was more or less irrelevant,” Minsky said. As long as property prices increased faster than the interest rates on the money Trump was borrowing, he could use new loans to make payments on his old loans.
The maneuver is reminiscent of what Minsky elsewhere referred to “Ponzi financing,” according to Capehart. It also brings to mind the behavior of borrowers during the mid-2000s housing bubble, who refinanced their properties multiple times as values rose, pocketing the cash.
Trump’s bankruptcies and near-bankruptcies, then, were no accidents, Minsky argued. The system was bound to blow up eventually, when price increases slowed down.
Service / Software entrepreneurs do have extraordinarily wealth though, like Bloomberg, Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos.
His real estate holdings are estimated by Forbes at 3.2b. What do you think is inherited? His father was worth $300m at most at the time of his death. Where is the catastrophic failure?
Service / Software entrepreneurs do have extraordinarily wealth though, like Bloomberg, Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos.
That doesn't mean Trump is worth $3.2 billion. A lot of that is leveraged, in fact there was a story about Trump's $300 million loan from Deutsche Bank as a major conflict of interest, and that's just one bank. Trump's net worth is famously elusive, and there are estimates all over the place.
Let's forget wealth for a moment, not least because Trump's is so ambiguous. With individuals like the ones you mentioned, you can point to several brilliant things that they did, Harvard Business School cases that are written about their leadership, management, or business brilliance. None of that exists for Trump. So what does it matter if he turns out to be rich or poor, if whatever success he's had is attributable to being in the New York real estate market at the right time and his abilities as a showman?
I really can't emphasize enough just how badly Minsky's evaluation of his real estate findings in the 90's condemns Trump's supposed skill as a businessman. He was financing his buildings in a way that was guaranteed to fail sooner or later, just like how a Ponzi scheme must eventually blow up. Either he didn't realize that's what he was doing, which makes him unbelievably incompetent, or he did realize what he was doing and that's basically fraud.
I really can't emphasize enough just how badly Minsky's evaluation of his real estate findings in the 90's condemns Trump's supposed skill as a businessman. He was financing his buildings in a way that was guaranteed to fail sooner or later, just like how a Ponzi scheme must eventually blow up. Either he didn't realize that's what he was doing, which makes him unbelievably incompetent, or he did realize what he was doing and that's basically fraud.
My impression of the way he was financing, was to get the real estate sooner rather than later, as once a skyscraper in Manhattan is sold, it's gone, and then have a plan to deal with the implications of the debt once it became an issue.
That's basically the definition of finance, it's an exchange of one set of cash flows for another. fskimospy's point was that broad gains in the NY/NJ real estate market were able to cover up a lot of bad management.
Imagine I take out a loan to buy a Subway franchise. I run it extremely poorly, I'm losing more money than I make, I have health code violations, and I'm about to run out of money. But because the Subway is located in NYC, the value of the land and the building have doubled since I bought it. So I borrow more money against the increased value of the property, and I use it to remodel the restaurant, and make it nice and fancy. Then I bring in a business partner and show him the pretty new building, and convince him to take a stake. Because the business is so poorly run, eventually it collapses, and the investor loses everything, but I'm able to keep the money that the investor paid me for the stake.
fskimospy is basically saying that either Trump had no idea what he was doing and was fortunate, or he knew exactly what he was doing and defrauded the investor. Neither scenario suggests he has good executive abilities.
It basically is saying he pulled one over on the banks
Minsky and the "Brazil in Drag" actually completely ignores how the real estate was run or operated, it merely talks about the phenomena of property values rising higher than his interest rates, and staying over water despite negative cash flows by leveraging the rise in appraisal. It basically is saying he pulled one over on the banks that he even came out with any wealth at all. Instead he emerges with a $3b+ real estate holdings of which his father's fortune had little impact.
Minsky takes the argument more that the banks should have known better, which I guess makes it a condemnation of Trump? You can take whatever you want from the report.
How does it completely ignore how it was run or operated at all? He's saying that the buildings were run poorly/unsustainably because they had negative cash flows. As property values aren't going to rise faster than interest rates forever this was either a spectacularly bad business decision on his part or fraud. Also, I'm not sure why you would say that his father's fortune had little impact. He would never have been in a position to make any of these deals without his father's organization/fortune/connections.
Basically, yes. He was running something that was effectively a real estate based Ponzi scheme where the entire enterprise was doomed to collapse by the way it was structured. If you want to say that getting insufficiently skeptical banks to lend his Ponzi scheme money is an indicator of effective organizational management that's your business but to me it sure sounds like he's good at scamming people.
Let's be clear: "pulling one over on the banks" is a crime if done deliberately.
Here is the excerpt, it is not in a text format so I clipped and pictured it. link available here. http://digitalcommons.bard.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1093&context=hm_archive
He says "efficiency with which Trump managed these properties was more or less irrelevant."
Also. I'm not sure how this is fraud. That is like saying, you have a bad job, you want to buy a car, you get a cut-rate loan, then later get a better job, or some other situation changes, and you refinance it, and somehow you defrauded the cut-rate loaner because you never intended to take the loan to full term? From just a simple perusing of what was done, I am more inclined to believe that he acted quickly to get his hands on the properties, with the best available financing he was able to procure, and then later refinanced it or restructured his stake. I do not see that as fraud.
Fraud would be if people lost principal, I am not aware of anybody losing principal, real estate is secured by the property itself, and is very difficult to lose principal unless the underlying appraisal is off, he isn't the one doing the appraising for the banks so he has no way of defrauding them.
I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. For starters, fraud is not the same as a loss of principal. An investor can lose principal without being defrauded, and it's possible to defraud someone without them losing anything.
An example is the investors that were defrauded by Martin Shkreli. They made money off their investment with him, but he still defrauded them to pay back other investors.
Here is the excerpt, it is not in a text format so I clipped and pictured it. link available here. http://digitalcommons.bard.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1093&context=hm_archive
He says "efficiency with which Trump managed these properties was more or less irrelevant."
Also. I'm not sure how this is fraud. That is like saying, you have a bad job, you want to buy a car, you get a cut-rate loan, then later get a better job, or some other situation changes, and you refinance it, and somehow you defrauded the cut-rate loaner because you never intended to take the loan to full term? From just a simple perusing of what was done, I am more inclined to believe that he acted quickly to get his hands on the properties, with the best available financing he was able to procure, and then later refinanced it or restructured his stake. I do not see that as fraud.
Fraud would be if people lost principal, I am not aware of anybody losing principal, real estate is secured by the property itself, and is very difficult to lose principal unless the underlying appraisal is off, he isn't the one doing the appraising for the banks so he has no way of defrauding them.
Right, I'm working off the same piece. He's not saying that he ignored their management, he's saying that Trump's "profit" model didn't depend on running them well.
If Trump misrepresented his business plan/goals/whatever to the banks then that is absolutely fraud. Fraud is simply misrepresenting yourself to others for personal gain, whether or not they lose principal is irrelevant. I sincerely doubt he said to them 'my plan is to unsustainably finance the purchase of these money losing buildings based on the idea that Manhattan real estate will continue to appreciate at a rate higher than my interest rates indefinitely.' This is very similar to how a Ponzi scheme operates, hence the term 'Ponzi financing'.
Shkreli ran a ponzi scheme. He defrauded new investors to pay back previous investors. The last person holding the bag, lost their principal because they invested in something that had fraudulent underlying financials.
Donald Trump did not lie on his financials as far as I know. It is widely known that his properties had negative cash flow, and that he leveraged increased appraisal values to keep the organization going. Where is the fraud? Please tell us.