Kevin O’ Leary Advocates Billionaire Anarchy

[Sparko]

Not only that, but almost immediately following the list of four crimes she mentioned in the graphic, he said:

“Everything you listed is done by every real estate developer, everywhere on earth, in every city.”

The video is here:

https://youtu.be/GImG4W8u0VU?si=SFZzF5q0eGPXafTn

Timestamp 1:23-1:47

Sparko might have been confused because I stupidly forgot to link to the interview in my OP.

Not confused. He corrected her (and apparently your) misunderstanding of what he meant by his initial comment. I bolded it in my first reply in this thread.

[whag]

The source I quoted is The New York Times, so no genetic fallacy for you.

You didn’t read the case, did you?

Notice how tolerant O’Leary is of small businesses that overvalue their assets.

[whag]

In other words, the only thing unique about Trump's case is Trump? That's the actual silent part.

Do go on.

[Mountain Man]

You might have missed that he lambasts those who overvaluate their companies on Shark Tank.

So?

[Ronson]

Do go on.

Ah, no argument. Let's celebrate

[Sparko]

So?

Apparently he should have them arrested on the spot for fraud instead.

[whag]

Apparently he should have them arrested on the spot for fraud instead.

No, just congratulated for overvaluating assets by 80% to secure a larger investment. “Standard practice” met with rebukes for being too greedy. Interesting.

[CivilDiscourse]

You didn’t read the case, did you?

Notice how tolerant O’Leary is of small businesses that overvalue their assets.

It's interesting. You point out that he looks at their numbers, sanity checks them, and performs his own basic evaluation of their valuation, and if that valuation is too high, he points it out, laughs at it, and either decides to invest or not.

Sounds perfectly consistent with what he said.

[Mountain Man]

No, just congratulated for overvaluating assets by 80% to secure a larger investment. “Standard practice” met with rebukes for being too greedy. Interesting.

It's all part of the game. The entrepreneurs will talk up the value of their businesses, and O'Leary will talk them down, both with identical goals: to get the best possible deal for themselves. O'Leary plays the role of the cut throat businessman who doesn't take any BS because the show needs to be entertaining, but it's also an intimidation tactic to get the contestants to cave and accept his offer. However, savvy contestants will be prepared for this and will quickly put O'Leary in his place.

[Sparko]

No, just congratulated for overvaluating assets by 80% to secure a larger investment. “Standard practice” met with rebukes for being too greedy. Interesting.

As he said it is up to the bank's (or shark investor in that case) to do due diligence and counter the seller/borrowers valuation. And that is what happens on Shark Tank. The company exaggerates their worth and the Shark's bring them back to earth. There is no "Fraud" - nobody gets sued, they just negotiate and come to an agreed upon investment terms or be rejected. Exactly like he described in the interview this thread is about.

[whag]

It's interesting. You point out that he looks at their numbers, sanity checks them, and performs his own basic evaluation of their valuation, and if that valuation is too high, he points it out, laughs at it, and either decides to invest or not.

Sounds perfectly consistent with what he said.

Yea, it's a game show. The point was that he sees it as a deception, but nice try.

You bought the trump defense: It's not my problem. The reality is that intentionally overvaluing your property by 80% to get bigger loans and undervaluing it to save tax expenditure is illegal. Try these things and see how that works out for you. I expect a full report on how you overvalued your property assets by 80% specifically to secure a bigger loan and undervalued the same assets for a smaller tax bill.

[Sparko]

Yea, it's a game show. The point was that he sees it as a deception, but nice try.

Not deception. Delusion mostly. Or way too much optimism in future profit (which doesn't count when valuating a company now). The point is, nobody is breaking any laws or committing any fraud. It is just negotiating and haggling.

[whag]

Not confused. He corrected her (and apparently your) misunderstanding of what he meant by his initial comment. I bolded it in my first reply in this thread.

Where's the correction? He literally doesn't answer her question:

But on the second point, wouldn’t there be many companies who would not want to do business or loan money to people like yourself or investors if they know that they can get away with fraud and there’s no recourse to protect them?

O’Leary: Excuse me. What fraud? This is not about Trump anymore. When you get a developer that builds a building and he says it’s worth $400 million, and he wants to borrow 200 million from a bank, which happens every day everywhere on Earth, including every American city, every developer is an entrepreneur. They shine the light on their building and they say it’s worth 400. The bank does its own due diligence, as was done in this case, because they’re very good at it, the banks are very good, and they say, no, it’s worth 300. We’re only going to loan you 150 million. That haggling has gone on for decades. That’s how it works

Instead, he demonstrates he doesn't know the facts of the case:

tto_release_properties_addendum_-_final.pdf (ny.gov)

Here's a random one:

Seven Springs, Westchester County, NY Mr. Trump purchased this 212-acre estate in 1995 for $7.5 million. His son, Eric Trump, took the lead on issues related to the property and even lived there for a time. The property was valued at up to $291 million in the statements from 2011 to 2021 based on the contention that the property was zoned for nine mansions and that the Trump Organization had approvals to develop seven mansions that would net a $161 million profit. However, these values were a fiction, totally unsupported by the development history of the property and contradicted by every professional valuation done on the property. The valuation of the mansions also conflicted with limits imposed by the Town of New Bedford on how the property could be developed. Furthermore, while using the supposed future mansions as part of the value, Eric Trump was simultaneously working to complete a conservation easement donation to receive a federal tax deduction for giving up certain development rights. This easement donation was a recognition that the Trump Organization would never be able to develop the property for anything close to a $161 million profit.

In 2016, the Trump Organization received an appraisal valuing the property at $56.5 million. The subsequent statement was changed to disguise what would have appeared as an 80% drop in value for Seven Springs by moving the property into an “other assets” bucket without being itemized and lumping its value together with Mr. Trump’s triplex apartment, which had significantly jumped in value.

We know O'Leary hasn't read the case because he would have used an example of 80 percent overvaluation. The estimate field isn't there to negotiate the difference between $291M and $8M.

[CivilDiscourse]

Yea, it's a game show. The point was that he sees it as a deception, but nice try.

You bought the trump defense: It's not my problem. The reality is that intentionally overvaluing your property by 80% to get bigger loans and undervaluing it to save tax expenditure is illegal. Try these things and see how that works out for you. I expect a full report on how you overvalued your property assets by 80% specifically to secure a bigger loan and undervalued the same assets for a smaller tax bill.

It's not whether I "buy" trump's defense. It was whether O'leary's behavior on the show is at odds with what he said about businesses and evaluations. I pointed out that they were consistent with each other.

[whag]

It's not whether I "buy" trump's defense. It was whether O'leary's behavior on the show is at odds with what he said about businesses and evaluations. I pointed out that they were consistent with each other.

Consistency would be lauding contestants with good business sense, not correcting them for trying to defraud him.