|
| Hey Arny, David, and Eugene. Didn’t realize you guys missed me so much that I couldn’t enjoy church and family time without you guys wanting to hear what I have to say. Hope your church service was as delightful as mine.
As far as response to David’s question. I submitted the court summary which explains the answer to opening questions in great detail. But I now realize that you guys have no inclination on reading the most accurate response to the question, so I will try to put it in to you in a different matter.
The individual guilty of fraud inflated assets and thus received over 180 million in decreased interest payments expenditures due to his loans being rated as a more worthy credit risk. As for whom this harmed, obviously any shareholder in the banks that loaned money failed to receive proper return on investment. It also harmed competitors to this individual since the playing field was not level, much like the previous poster in this thread who complained that Boerson farms, through fraudulent activity, was able to pay more to rent land away from his son. As for the specific names please refer to the court summary.
As for me personally I have not put anything on a signed financial statement that can be considered different than the banks own assigned value. For my house loan I did not falsify and triple the size of my home. I accurately reported the size of my home and had the bankers appraiser assign value. As for land loan, bank does not even want to know what I think it’s worth. Equipment values are figured out at the bank using my correct purchase price and they assign a straight line depreciation onto equipment value.
Can two people come up with different appraisals? Absolutely. But when the individual argues to a property tax board that the valuation of his business should be worth 18 million and turns around and claims the same business property should be worth 1.5 billion as an asset valuation, seems to me GAAP are not being followed and should be subject to fraud.
Make any argument you want, the case in New York is financial fraud found guilty through a court of law. This can only be reversed through a successful appeal and it looks like the man with inflated assets mounting in multiple billions, cannot come up with the money to have an appeal.
Should the banks be looked into for improper handling of determination of credit worthiness? Absolutely. It seems like most banks turn a blind eye to what is represented by super large accounts since they want to cater to big accounts.
| |
|
Boersen is not alone
