Quote (ofthevoid @ Sep 29 2023 11:12am)
What exactly did you post that proves what I said wrong? Nothing you responded actually counters anything. Real estate valuation is not taken by bankers at face value just because someone said so. Again, the bank does it's own due diligence to come to some number.
This is something that's becoming a real issue with commercial real estate. There are hundreds of billions of dollars in properties across the US currently underwater. On paper they are worth X, in fair value, something that someone would actually pay for it could be a 30, 40, 70% discount. For example:
https://www.cato.org/blog/san-francisco-government-failure-erases-billions-dollars-commercial-real-estate-valuationsNow if that real estate owner says hey I think this building is worth 100 million, based on XYZ, quoting a way higher number, that's not necessarily fraud. If he using the real estate as collateral to secure a loan he will naturally use the figure that is the highest.
Point is, these are extremely complex things to value and some of the arguments I seen in here are pretty dumb, like not understanding the difference between assessed value and market value.
you said 'failing to do due dilligence isnt fraud because its the banks' job" which is a lie, thus my response. that directly refutes your post
Quote (ofthevoid @ Sep 29 2023 11:12am)
Now if that real estate owner says hey I think this building is worth 100 million, based on XYZ, quoting a way higher number, that's not necessarily fraud.
actually it is fraud!
https://www.hallandalelaw.com/appraisal-negligence-fraud-claims/look at you, learning things today !
this is exactly what the judge ruled
Quote
What the judge delineated, though, was a wide divergence between what the Trump Organization had been told by objective reviewers a property was worth and how the property was valued in financial documents.At times, the valuations were explicitly based on false data, the judge noted, as in the case of Trump’s apartment in Manhattan’s Trump Tower: It was presented as extending over 30,000 square feet when, in reality, the space was only about a third of that size. Applying a price-per-square-foot to that exaggerated size meant a huge, inaccurate increase in presented value.
“A discrepancy of this order of magnitude, by a real estate developer sizing up his own living space of decades,” the judge wrote, “can only be considered fraud.”
This post was edited by gnarjay on Sep 29 2023 12:20pm