Kushner cleared over 2 billion in post presidency deal while ivanka made 640 million.
If The Trump family is saving the country this is a pretty backwards way of going about it.
How is this not corruption in the trump presidency and laundering money through his family in basically the same way the biden crime family did?
Edit: Strange that is such an outrage over a legitimate topic. Almost as when twitter bots unanimously attack a target. Id say we're over target with this one.
You have to look near the bottom of this thread for any legitimate posts. Buried by childish rage, willfully ignorant posters, and a conceited, self righteous, egomaniac mod whos attacking his own community.
Kushner's family are open zionists. Trump pardoned kushners father. Trump's daughter is married to a zionist, globalist, jew. Who just recieved a 2 billion dollar investment through his fathers presidential connections. The crime family just changed faces. If people can curb their man crush on trump and consider what is really happening here for a second.
People seem to be under this impression that this is unusual. It's not. Their entire business revolves around commercial real estate. Kushner (The company, not Jared) typically invests in a mixture of mid and high tier markets (Everything from Rural Mississippi to Manhattan). The higher end buildings are VERY expensive. Those are the type of investments where you typically can't get a single loan to cover all of your costs.
This is where "alternative funding" comes into play. And EVERYONE in this business does it. It's REALLY common for sovereign wealth funds, insurance companies, private equity funds, etc. to allocate large amounts of money to commercial real estate developers in place of conventional mortgage companies. At that point it's less of a leveraged investment and more a commercial syndication, but I'm getting technical now.
Basically, CRE developers use these types of investors instead of taking out a half a dozen large mortgages from various lenders, because they're the only ones that can throw around that level of cash and be happy with a lower return. They're typically not looking for massive returns, they're looking for low-mid sized returns that are SUPER stable and reliable. And real estate, specifically commercial real estate in American population centers, is one of the safest, and most stable cash flowing assets in the world. Even in the current economic climate, Office, the currently most distressed CRE asset class, is still at roughly 80% occupancy and growing as people are forced back to the office by their employers. (Anyone telling you office is dead is fooling themselves, but that's an entirely different conversation).
So this isn't unusual, it's just more media hype to make it look like Trump and his family are doing something evil and unethical by following the industry norms.
Every city in America, and I mean all of them, especially the supposed most prosperous, have thousands upon thousands of empty 10,000 sq ft + office spaces. These buildings are all empty from the second floor up. It's all a money laundering scheme. There are tons of videos on this, but you don't even need that because you can look at it yourself. New York city, Los Angeles, Seattle, Dallas, Chicago. Abandoned buildings everywhere with just the first or second floor occupied. We have unlimited real estate. We can house everyone and offer businesses dirt cheap rent, but that's not allowed. Real Estate is a complete ponzi scheme. If we stopped printing money, this would get revealed and it would crash to reality and become a depreciating asset, as it should be because they need to all be maintained and refurbished every few decades.
Forgive the late reply but I DO have to sleep at some point. First of all, 10K square foot is VERY small for an office building, so it may only be 2 stories, 3 or 4 max if it's a more narrow building. Second of all, yes there ARE abandoned building in every major city. They're called distressed assets, and the reason they stay that way is because more often than not, it's not economical to renovate them for a variety of reasons (Too old and need a lot of updating, bad area of the city, structural damage, hazardous materials like black mold, etc. etc.) without some form of subsidization. Hence, developers need an incentive to take on those uneconomic projects in order for it to make sense. Remember, this is a BUSINESS for most people, not a charity.
Second of all, we don't have unlimited real estate. That's literally the reason it's valuable. There's a limited amount available and a limited growth potential because God isn't making more land any time soon. Third, no we can't house everyone and offer dirt cheap rent. Contrary to what some seem to think, real estate isn't a charity. It's a business. No one is going to build or renovate a building for millions of dollars, especially with a mortgage, and then turn around charge $50-200 a month for rent. That's not enough to cover utilities, repairs, the mortgage, etc. etc. You'd go bankrupt in a year or less. It's actually ALLOWED, contrary to what you seem to believe, but no one in their right mind will do it without incentives (This is why section 8 housing and Low Income Housing Tax Credit properties exist. But there's a limited amount of government funding for such programs).
Going further there are also OTHER problems with this suggestion. It's not like companies haven't explored Office to Multifamily conversions before. Unlike hotels, it's not economical in 99% of cases. First of all, there's zoning. If it's not zoned right you're legally not allowed to do so. Then there's the cost. Office buildings are BUILT different to Multifamily buildings. The ceiling heights are different, the plumbing is OBVIOUSLY different given most have an open or semi open floor plan (This is often the biggest factor in killing possible conversions), and of course there's also fire codes. Office buildings have different fire codes, and as such would have to be completely gutted and renovated from the ground up around existing infrastructure (which wasn't designed for this purpose) in order to incorporate new plumbing for the housing units, lowered ceiling for heating/cooling efficiency (No one wants a $400 heating/cooling bill) and a completely different fire suppression system than it was designed for. Things like this is why Office to Multifamily conversions are so rare. By the time you do it, there's no money to be made and you've probably lost several 10s of millions in the process.
Finally, I'll address your odd claim that real estate would suddenly stop appreciating after the federal reserve is done away with and we stop printing money at the drop of a hat. This is completely false. Real estate is both an appreciating AND depreciating asset, and has been for all of history. The BUILDINGS depreciate since they need maintenance, occasional renovation, updating, etc. etc. as you pointed out. The LAND on the other hand is an appreciating asset. As I said earlier, God isn't making any more land any time soon, and there's a limited amount. Once you build something on it, that land can no longer be used for something else. When you're talking about places with a high population density (NYC for example) that land is even more valuable since there's an absurdly high demand, but essentially no supply.
This is why most nations have a system that allow real estate to simultaneously Appreciate and Depreciate at the same time. It's really two assets used in tandem. Japan, for example, has a rather unique system where they require real estate investors to separate the value of their properties into land and building and they depreciate the value of the building for tax purposes. Obviously this is easier said than done and really complicated due to the speculation involved, hence why they're essentially the only nation that uses this system.
So no, pretty much everything you said was wrong in some way, and if I'm honest, sounded like a mild troll given you're basically copying what those landlord hate subreddits parrot to each other. I won't claim that's what's going on, since you might just be legitimately ignorant on the topic (Not like everyone is well versed in the details of the international commercial real estate industry), but you're basically wrong on every point you made.
I was going to cite the hundreds of YouTube videos that show this, but really, you don't even need to do that. You people have a major disconnection with urban populations. You can drive through any city in America and you can randomly walk by any building over 6 stories and it is guaranteed to have half of its interiors unoccupied. Hell, even the new one world tower that replaced the world trade center is less than 50% occupied. This isn't even debatable. It's right in front of our eyes. Yes, a small percentage of commercial real estate can be and is distressed, but it can still be rented out as storage, yet much of it is still on the market. And you can't cite lawsuits because they are clearly looking for tenants but asking for too much and would sit on it for decades if they have to and they have! You're clearly a shill upvoting your own post. This thread isn't stickied or on the front page in the past 24 hours yet you've gotten all of those upvotes out of nowhere. I and others here will be watching you carefully. By no means is your post dangerous but you're clearly trying to push a narrative that simply doesn't exist. We have plenty of land and plenty out housing, how else do you think Florida, with half the population density of California, has far cheaper real estate? Supply and demand and laws which govern the peoples ability to build. Not scarcity of land.
Uh huh, well I'll be honest I've been confused about why I keep getting upvotes on this post after a literal day of it being on here. I kind of assumed it has to do with OP mentioning this in another post he made today as "Part 1" and people looking his history and coming to this thread. Though it was stickied for several hours as you can see from the literal second top comment of the Mod Catsfive. So that partially answers why you're wrong about that.
But that's besides the point. I can see you're stuck in your own little world, I won't call you a shill since as far as I can tell you don't have any "shillish" behavior or history, but since you essentially are telling me I'm lying while also ignoring the biggest problem in your argument (Zoning, incompatible building design, and fire codes) I can see nothing I say will change your mind.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2021/09/10/larry-silverstein-durst-oculus-20-years-and-20-billion-after-911-the-world-trade-center-is-still-a-work-in-progress/?sh=13e0da0361d2
There's an article (Granted it's an MSM article but still proves my point) that proves that pre plandemic, the specific building you're referring to, the One World Trade Center, was 90% leased. That's not ideal for a $20 Billion project, but still a extremely far cry from the picture you're painting. A 40% difference in fact. The same is true for most office buildings. They generally hover around 90-95% occupancy unless they're a single tenant property in which case it's obviously 100%. Even after the plandemic, office is still hovering around 80-85% nationally, meaning it's essentially been recovered. Companies aren't going to give up on office space, it's a tax write off, and a BIG one at that. So they're far more likely to force a hybrid work model and keep their offices at a bare minimum.
The next point I'll address. You claim you can rent out distressed properties for storage space. So I'm assuming you're fine with having all of your worldly possessions stored in a shady run down building that looks like a crack den where you may or may not be mugged or stabbed while checking on whatever you collect and store there? Seems to be what you're suggesting. I don't know about you, btut that's not exactly an prime business model unless you want to be the self storage equivalent of a slum lord and pay stupidly big insurance premiums because of all the crimes and assaults that happen on your property. That's also ignoring some buildings may just be straight up condemned due to things like black mold or structural degradation making them unsafe for ANY use.
Now onto your claim about land and housing. No, no we don't. There's a limited amount of land that we can allocate to urbanization. There's a reason city limits exist. NYC is limited to the NYC city limits, otherwise they'd just keep constantly expanding across the state of New York. There's a reason for this. The biggest one is farm/ranch land and nature preserves. The food we eat has to come from somewhere. If you take over every single bit of land for urbanization, then eventually you lose all of your agricultural capacity as a nation. The second reason, is the existence of suburbs. A city can only grow so far out before it hits the suburbs that have developed around it. At that point the only way to continue growing the city outwards is to seize the private property of citizens against their will "for the greater good". And if you're going to say you support that (which I hope you don't) then you're no better than the literal communist leftists we're fighting.
Florida vs. California actually is an interesting comparison, especially considering Miami is now, as of 2022, the official most unlivable city in the nation because of the cost of living and population density being higher than any other city in the United states sans NYC. That's because, despite only actually having roughly 450K people give or take, Miami is a VERY physically small city. Only 56 square miles if you want a number. LA on the other hand has a little over 3.8 Million people, but they're spread out over 560 square miles because LA is a physically larger city. All of these factors combined actually result in Miami and LA having near identical housing and rental statistics (Prices, percentage of renters, rent rates, etc.) because they have a very similar population density, housing demand, and land scarcity in the cities proper. This also disproves your "Florida housing is cheaper" argument. You have to compare apples to apples. Comparing a nicer house in Tallahassee or Pensacola to San Fran or LA is apples to oranges because the statistics don't compare at all. Compare LA and San Fran to Miami and Orlando/Tampa, and it's a much better comparison and paints a different picture from what you're claiming.
As for your last accusation, by all means, stalk my posts. Not like I care or have anything to hide. I'm pretty blunt and direct in just about everything I say or do on here. I couldn't care less about you living a delusional world where I'm a shill, and every skyscraper in north america is empty because the greedy fat cats don't want to bankrupt themselves by spending the GDP of Japan and Germany combined to convert them all into apartment buildings.
I think its more of a legal international money laundering operation, and our big time developers love it. Where else can you get money where the investor of laundered funds only wishes that their be a return at the end of the day. The investors alternative choice is to keep the money in country and risk having it all confiscated. Lots of Asian money building "see through building" in all major cities, and they do not care.
See my reply to u/Mandigo as to why they were downvoted and are wrong on essentially every point. As for the homeless people, they're not exactly the most "reliable" sources of information given most of them have some form of mental disorder, drug addiction, etc. etc. They'll say basically anything if they think it'll get them something. Obviously that's not true of EVERY homeless person, but there's a reason California cities have the highest homeless population. They literally travel there because California essentially pays them exist and enables their drugs habits and mental disorders.
Trump Adviser Kushner’s Undisclosed Partners Include Goldman and Soros
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-adviser-jared-kushner-didnt-disclose-startup-stake-1493717405
I'm surprised by this as well. Must be Chinese bots on this site or something. Jokes on them, we can see everything because there just aren't that many posters on here.
I'll give the benefit of doubt but my whoever smelt it dealt it sense is ringing off the hook.
This has been the only legitimate, non snowflake, critical thinking response so far. Thank you for that.
The problem i have is that this is EXACTLY the hunter biden situation. Trump's son-in-law receives a 2 billion dollar investment deal through his fathers saudi connections with little to no investment experience?
And they say only crooks get rich in politics.
You're welcome, I don't like getting into my personal life on here for obvious reasons, but this is a topic I'm rather knowledgeable about for a variety of reasons. Though I will build on this given you keep pointing out the comparison to hunter biden.
I can see how one would come to that conclusion with no background information, so let met give a little bit. Trump and his family, including Jared, have looked to middle eastern and Nordic sovereign wealth funds as a means of funding their larger projects for more than a decade before he ever ran for president. If I remember correctly, Trump actually used his connections with the Qatar sovereign wealth fund to functionally buy a majority stake that he controlled in the Empire State Building at one point, before selling it off after the people who held the rest of the building stake refused to sell the rest to him.
Likewise, Kushner (The company, not Jared) has had ties to the Qatar and if I remember correctly, Emirate (UAE) sovereign wealth funds as well as the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund for decades now. Those three funds, along with investment visas, have been the favored method of funding their various projects since at least the late 90s. It basically allows them to assume a minimal amount of actual debt, by acting as a commercial syndication company.
Without letting my finance nerdery get ahead of me, it basically means they get paid a fee for managing the projects (hence why they have Westminster Property Management as a subsidiary since they can't legally subcontract it out to say, Greystar or CBRE) and if they put any of their own money in the project then they get a cut of the profits as well.
That's how Kushner (the company) controls nearly 8 billion dollars in assets, but all of the family members have a collective net worth of roughly 1.7 billion dollars with little to no debt between all of them. Private equity real estate is complicated and hard to explain because its a VERY niche and specialized sub market with special rules and regulations, but that's a VERY basic explanation of how all of this works.
So with all of that being said, it's not really accurate to compare this to hunter biden being paid off by Burisma when he had little to no experience. While Jared himself may not be super experienced in this specific niche, the family company IS experienced and has the qualified staff to manage it properly. CRE fund managers rarely involve themselves in the day to day stuff. They typically just pick a market to invest in, and allocate funds as needed according to the goals of the funds investors while letting their various underlings handle all the paperwork and actual development.
I may have ventured off into my finance nerdery in a few places, but I hope that clears up a few things about the situation and why it's not exactly abnormal (especially given decades old associations) and why it's not really comparable to the hunter biden case.
Anons teaching a rookie. Fascinating and good work Anon. I also enjoyed the geeky dig in. It served your point well! :) :)
i know ..that was awesome
I love all real estate nerd shit! Thank you!
Are you talking about the financial and investment stuff? Cause if so it's not exactly some closely held industry secret. The basic info is all over the internet. I tend to refer people to investopedia.com if they want to learn more about financial literacy and specific terms. It's basically an investing encyclopedia. If you're wanting more info on private equity real estate specifically, that's a bit harder to find given it's such a niche industry. Investopedia has several articles related to it, and there's also certain youtube channels that will sometimes explain bits of it (Bigger Pockets for example), but overall you won't find much detailed info because it's not an industry focused on large customer bases.
Most funds have maybe 5-10 client investors at most. And most of the time these aren't individuals, they're "Whales" (large institutional investors like Insurance Companies, Sovereign Wealth Funds, Hedge Funds, Family Offices, etc. etc.) So they aren't required to publish publicly available reports. They only have to put out the bare minimum required by the SEC.
Now having said all of that, if you're wanting to learn more about financial literacy and real estate specifically, I'd have to recommend starting with lower expectations since you're probably never going to get into this level of market, at least not without years of work or connections.
I'd recommend watching some youtube videos by Graham Stephen, Ben Mallah, and Manny Khoshbin (his real estate videos, though the car videos are cool too). They're all low-mid tier real estate and Commercial Real Estate investors who generally explain things in a really blunt direct manner as compared to a charlatan like, for example, Grant Cardone.
I will say this though, one of the biggest mistakes most people make when they get into commercial real estate is they think people will get a 30 year mortgage and sit back on ALL properties. That's very rare, most developers will get a 5 year mortgage, amortized over 30 years or at interest only. Spend 3 or 4 years collecting rent, and then sell the appreciated building in year 4 or 5, pay off their debt and use the proceeds in what's called a 1031 exchange to legally defer taxes so long as you invest all profits in another property within 6 months of the selling date.
The problem with books is that often they're written with a motive of making money off the book itself, or selling a course, etc. etc. So I tend to recommend people just look for others (Like the three youtube channels I mentioned) as an example since they know what they're doing, and just do the whole "teaching" thing on the side for fun.
That is definitely an interesting take that i will have to dig into a little further. But the whole things seems very off putting. Considering the current events and what we believe to be happening.
Many here believed that kushner was in gitmo and pictures of ivanka with no ring on surfaced. But here they are getting filthy rich off their fathers connections.
Are we still to believe that kushner is a good guy in the bigger picture?
Personally, I never really bought into the whole Kushner's in Gitmo thing. Honestly? I don't even think any of Trumps kids (or in law in Kushner's case) are in on the plan. I think they MIGHT have been shown a sneak peak of what laid behind the curtain to wake them up and have them cut off certain ties and business relationships (soros and the clintons for example). But I really don't think any of them are privy to anything high tier. They're probably just a single rung higher than us on the ladder in what they know and have been allowed to see.
Wrong. Kushner didn't gain it's wealth off Trump. Do dig a bit.
Who here believed that?
I've seen several of your posts today and in many of you are very assumption driven and know or at least exhibit little to no actual knowledge about the things your speaking of. Coupled with seemingly little to no knowledge about this community itself. Just regurgitated talking points from MSM.
LOL nice one OP 🤣😂 (not that I’ve seen)
You don't have a very solid understanding of the Hunter Biden situation, at all, if you think Kushner and Ivanka getting paid for a business deal is "the exact same" as what Hunter was doing with our US tax dollars being laundered to him, and 'the big guy.'
Kushner joins Afinity, (burisma), a private equity firm with no experience in private equity, like hunter with energy. Both profit greatly through their father's connections.
Insert "these two images are the same" meme.
Not the same. https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/2022/01/20/jared-kushners-investment-firm-hires-former-trump-staffers/?slreturn=20220312153254
Kushner has experience with big money investments from his prior job. And Affinity was not even a company until after the 2020 election, with the deal being made 6 months after Trump was out of office. You clearly do not understand what influence peddling is, and therefore cannot see that Kushners deal is in no way illegal.
However, even if you could show proof that Trump used US tax payer money to legally fund Affinity it still would not qualify as anything illegal because the deal happened after Trump was out of office. Therefore, no influence peddling, and not the same as the Hunter&Big Guy Burisma deal.
Yep a lib would try to insert them into the same meme even though they are clearly not, that is what they do...