[Vision2020] Trump's Conflict of Interest: He Owes $100 million to Foreign Banks

Nicholas Gier ngier006 at gmail.com
Sat Jun 4 12:50:28 PDT 2016

Nation of Change, 6/3/16

In his most recent financial disclosure statement
Donald Trump notes he has billions of dollars in assets. But the
presumptive GOP nominee also has a tremendous load of debt that includes
five loans each over $50 million. (The disclosure form, which presidential
candidates must submit, does not compel candidates to reveal the specific
amount of any loans that exceed $50 million, and Trump has chosen not to
provide details.) Two of those megaloans are held by Deutsche Bank, which
is based in Germany but has US subsidiaries. And this prompts a question
that no other major American presidential candidate has had to face: What
are the implications of the chief executive of the US government being in
hock for $100 million (or more) to a foreign entity that has tried to evade
laws aimed at curtailing risky financial shenanigans, that was recently
caught manipulating markets around the world and that attempts to influence
the US government?

Trump’s disclosure form lists 16 loans from 11 different lenders, totaling
at least $335 million, and the aggregate amount is likely much more.
Deutsche Bank is clearly his favorite lender,
and Trump’s financial empire has become largely dependent on his
relationship with this major player on Wall Street and the global markets.
The German bank has lent him at least $295 million for two of his signature
projects. In 2012, Deutsche provided Trump with $125 million to help him
buy Trump National Doral golf course. Last year, it handed Trump a $170
million line of credit for his new hotel project on Pennsylvania Avenue in
Washington, DC.

Should Trump move into the White House, four blocks away from his
under-construction hotel, he would be its first inhabitant to owe so much
to any bank. And in recent years, Deutsche Bank has repeatedly clashed with
US regulators. So might it be awkward — if not pose a conflict of interest
— for Trump to have to deal with policy matters that could affect this
financial behemoth?

Richard Painter, an attorney who teaches at the University of Minnesota and
who was the chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush from 2005 to
2007, says a situation in which a sitting president owes hundreds of
millions of dollars to any entity, especially a bank that jousts with
regulators, is disturbing. There have been wealthy presidents and vice
presidents, Painter notes, pointing to John Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt and
Nelson Rockefeller, but none were as heavily leveraged as Trump. “They had
large assets and usually diversified assets. They weren’t in a situation
where someone could put pressure on them to do what they want,” Painter
remarks. “Whereas having a president who owes a lot of money to banks,
particularly when it’s on negotiable terms — it puts them at the mercy of
the banks and the banks are at the mercy of regulators.” Painter adds: “In
real estate, the prevailing business model is to own a lot but also owe a
lot, and that is a potentially very troublesome business model for someone
in public office.”

Members of a Trump Cabinet would have to recuse themselves from any
government business that would have a direct impact on their personal
financial interests. If a Treasury secretary held this sort of loan, he or
she could not participate in policy deliberations and actions that might
have an impact on Deutsche Bank — and that would likely be many. But the
president and vice president are excluded from this requirement. As
president, Trump would have no obligation to divest his vast business
holdings, though recent presidents and presidential candidates have taken
steps to avoid any concern. President Barack Obama has even put off
his Chicago home to save money because it would mean establishing a
financial relationship with a bank, and that could prompt questions.  In
2011, Mitt Romney promised to use a blind trust
for his substantial personal business interests, though there were concerns
regarding how “blind” the trust was.

Trump’s relationship with Deutsche Bank means he is in league with a
financial giant that has been at odds with US government regulators and has
attempted to skirt reforms designed to prevent Wall Street firms from
wrecking the US economy once again. Last year, around the same time Trump
secured the $170 million for the Washington project, Deutsche Bank agreed
to pay a $2.5 billion fine
to regulators here and abroad for its role in rigging interest rates. This
included $600 million to the New York State Department of Financial
Services, $800 million to the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, and
$775 million to the Department of Justice. As Reuters reported
“Slamming Germany’s largest lender for ‘cultural failings,’ regulators
squarely blamed senior staff for misleading them, failing to be open and
cooperative, and prolonging the investigation.” From roughly 2003 to 2010,
as the news service put it, the bank ran a scam to “fix rates…used to price
hundreds of trillions of dollars of loans and contracts worldwide.” The
bank also recently reached settlements
in lawsuits alleging it had manipulated prices for precious metals and
their derivatives.

Like most big banks, Deutsche Bank has been at odds with regulators over
the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform measure. But it went to unusual
lengths to dodge some of the law’s requirements. For years, the bank
operated in the United States through two subsidiaries that were legally
considered to be American entities. Yet in 2012 — after Dodd-Frank was
enacted — the bank tried to rewrite its own corporate structure to make it
less American. Under the new law, a foreign-based bank’s subsidiaries were
required to maintain certain minimum levels of capital — as much as $20
billion worth of reserves in Deutsche Bank’s case — so that the bank could
weather another financial catastrophe like the one that occurred in 2008.
The consequence of the rule also restricted how freely an American
subsidiary of a foreign bank could invest and how much risk it could
assume. This was the point of the law: to prevent gargantuan financial
firms from behaving recklessly, collapsing, and, once more, requiring a
taxpayer-funded bailout.

Rather than accept these limitations, Deutsche Bank reorganized itself
moving its commercial banking subsidiary out of the holding company for its
American operations, which also contained its investment arm. Deutsche Bank
then claimed this banking subsidiary was not subject to the new Dodd-Frank
regulations. The Federal Reserve didn’t fall for this stunt.
The bank eventually was forced to comply with Dodd-Frank requirements.

That was only the beginning of Deutsche Bank’s problems with Dodd-Frank.
Last September, in its first enforcement action
<http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr7255-15> on new Dodd-Frank
provisions, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission fined Deutsche Bank
$2.5 million for failing to report properly on its trading of swaps, which
are complex financial derivatives.

And like most big banks, Deutsche Bank lobbies heavily in Washington. Last
year it spent $600,000 on a stable of lobbyists. In 2010, the year
Dodd-Frank was enacted, the bank spent nearly $2.6 million
<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000021959&year=2010> on
influence-peddlers in the nation’s capital.

So how might Trump, should he become president, handle the conflict of
interest posed by his relationship with Deutsche Bank?

The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment, but previously
Trump has said (without mentioning Deutsche Bank specifically) that he
would avoid any conflicts of interest by installing his children at the top
of the Trump business empire.

“There would be enormous tax consequences from just giving it all to the
children,” Painter says. “But just merely letting his [children] run the
business doesn’t solve the problem. You really have got to figure out a way
to sell your interest in the business and sell off the risk.” Other wealthy
presidents have tended to own assets that could easily be unwound or sold
off. But for Trump, disposing of his real estate holdings would be a
special challenge. “I think what you need to do is wind down or sell off
the real estate portfolio, and that probably takes time,” Painter says.
“It’s not like liquid securities that are easy to sell. Or he’d need to
start to focus on paying off this debt.”

Selling the parts of the businesses that he has mortgaged might be
particularly difficult, because some of the debt may be tied to him
personally. In the past that has led to problems, even with Deutsche Bank.
In 2005, Trump borrowed $640 million from Deutsche Bank and several other
lenders for the construction of a Chicago hotel tower. When he failed to
pay back the money on time in 2008, the banks, including Deutsche
Bank, demanded
pay up the $40 million he had personally guaranteed. In response, Trump
sued Deutsche Bank for $3 billion, saying the project’s financial troubles
were the fault of the economic recession
essentially an act of God, and accusing
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/business/05norris.html> the bank of
undermining the project and his reputation.

Trump and Deutsche Bank patched things up, and hundreds of millions of
dollars in credit subsequently flowed from the German behemoth to Trump.
But with all his debt to Deutsche Bank coming due before the end of what
would be Trump’s second term as president, there’s more to this
relationship than what’s on the financial ledger. The American public, too,
has much at stake when it’s possible that the next president will be deeply
in debt to a global financial player that has been caught trying to use its
influence to rig the financial system.


A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they
shall never sit in.

-Greek proverb

“Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity.
Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without guidance
from another. This immaturity is self- imposed when its cause lies not in
lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without
guidance from another. Sapere Aude! ‘Have courage to use your own
understand-ing!—that is the motto of enlightenment.

--Immanuel Kant
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20160604/bc670339/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list