Why would any corporation allow this and not instantly fire the CEO?
“Hey board, I just tied up a huge chunk of cash, with no possible return on investment, did I do good?”
this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2024
369 points (97.9% liked)
politics
19089 readers
4506 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Given the company is worth over $100b I don't even think something this value would be mentioned to the board, let alone concern them when they just bought a potential president for cheap
People would be shocked at how often insurance agencies are the backers/owners of personal loans. It's a bread and butter investment for them.
This is a loan in name only
Yeah, talk about an extreme possible return on investment - pocket change for a POTUS.
91 Million is a write-off for them. Not a tax write off (they don’t pay taxes already, obvs), an accounting write-off. Like at the end of the year they just go, “looks like we lost 91 million somehow. Oh well, subtract it from 100 billion and continue laughing
Trump is dirty, maybe this guy is dirty too - like, has some power (blackmail?) over the board members?
like I said in a different post... they should probably be investigated.
They are a Trump appointee... I bet the correlation there between those who, upon being investigated, end up proven dirty, will be astonishingly high.
What don’t we all have a golden shower and Epstein video, we want to burry?
Uh... no? It seems the price of admission to be Putin's lapdog though - he will help you, if you help him, but he also wants dirt on you first. He even provided all the necessary materials - the hotel room, prostitutes, camera, and videographer, he's so helpful that way!:-D
Probably when trump appointed him he made the company a ton of money. And maybe they are hoping did that again.
Ah, yes, the company probably doesn't even pay a good chunk of their employees a living wage. But they have no problem spending money on stupid shit like this. Classic.
These kind of favors are never about paying something back, it's always a perverse version of paying it forward; this bond is only posted because there's an expected future return on investment.
If Trump wins, we are going to see either vp Evan or evan appointed head of the ftc.
He's getting some sort of high level cabinet position for sure.
Five will get you ten, they ask for a government bailout when Trump fails to repay them.
Do you happen to take... These?
I only accept Monopoly, Payday, or higher quality...
And only if the Payday isn’t stale
The Venn diagram of people who would buy this and people who would be dumb enough to think it is cash is a perfect circle.
I thought it was meme shit but then I read actual stories about people trying to spend it. Like, how much lead poisoning did you actually get?
The only nutrition they’ve ever gotten has been in the form of kool-aid.
No way, i would have bought them if i had money to invest in a scam when they came out. Trumpersa would buy anything, i could sell them at a mark up and make bank off the idiots.
I would buy one for a dollar, up to $10, for the novelty.
lol, they're pee colored
Only when I need to wipe.
they even got his skin tone right! impressive!
I doubt they are good firestarters.
ten will get you five million they'll get it, too
They might as well write it off as a loss now.
I'm sure they plan on reaping a big payoff if he gets back into office.
So Trump pulled a Chubb out of his pocket . . .
deleted by creator
I feel like some people may be mentally damaged or simply lack critical thinking skills. Business is business and this entity obviously already has no qualms doing business with dumpy.
You get a bond like this contingent on other assets existing plus a fee. He owns real estate. This arrangement lets you leverage the equity in that real estate for a fee while someone else's cash on hand is used. Let's be realistic too, there's next to no way he's going to pay the full damages because most sane people wouldn't think any amount of defamation is worth $83m+
Let's pretend worse case scenario happens for dumpy and the 83m judgment is sustained and he exhausts all appeals and has to pay all parties for all damages based on all current lawsuits against him... unless he declares bankruptcy and truly loses it all - a thing that seems to have no hope of ever happening given none of the suits are for more money than he controls in assets... it's all but guaranteed a signed contract will be enforceable should dumpy choose to not pay.
Ultimately it's a secured debt. We'll never know what the terms were from chubb corp.
No, the whole argument of the damages amount was that it needed to be high enough to actually matter to this particular individual. Are you at all familiar with the case? The court agreed it needed to be high enough to be punitive.
I agree other than
most sane people wouldn't think any amount of defamation is worth $83m+
Maybe not on its own, but remember that the initial award was far less. Then he did it again. The numbers skyrocketed because of punitive damages: basically, what's an appropriate amount that would stop him (and him specifically) from doing it a third time? If a court were to make me pay, say, everything I have in my savings account I'd think twice about what I do. But my net worth is far less than his is purported to be. With that higher net worth comes higher punitive damages to prevent another occurrence.
First, the court decided the damages after Trump repeatedly disparaged Ms Carroll, even after having been found guilty of doing so previously. If there is a consensus among legal scholars that the amount will be reduced, I have not seen it. This wasn’t some jury awarding an arbitrary high amount to a sympathetic plaintiff.
Second, the other offense that Trump has also been found guilty of is inflating the valuation of his real estate holdings, which again is a behavior he has engaged in repeatedly and has even boasted about. When questioned about his net worth, he stated in court that he declares his worth based on his assessment of his brand as Trump, rather than actual real estate values. He’s on the hook for half a billion dollars for that one.
If the Chubb decision to back this was related to the person’s personal friendship or financial relationship to Trump, then he may be liable to a suit as well, but realistically he’s not putting up his own money. This is a personal friend and confidant of Trump backing Trump’s play. If he accepted the Trump valuation of a property to secure the bond amount, then he’s definitely made himself vulnerable. If it’s based on a realistic valuation, then Chubb is probably off the hook for that.
Trump’s valuations are just straight up bananas, and he has been found guilty of doing exactly that. I’m looking forward to finding out more about this deal.
He put up a pair of Limited Edition gold colour shoes as collateral for the bond.
We'll see how this plays out when the stock market reopens Monday. I'm not optimistic they will feel any pain from this.
Chubb insurance is for the wealthy, you cant even talk to them unless you're in the top percentage of people. Its clear from the fraud trial in new york and his lack of ability to pay anyone that trump is no longer wealthy, if he ever was. This is such a lose lose situation.
I don't typically consider myself wealthy, but I'll be canceling the policy that I have with them tomorrow. This just seems like really poor judgment, and I don't trust that they're managing their finances well enough to honor their policies.
I used to work a bunch with chubb and other insurance companies when i managed restoration jobs. Never had any issues about covering anything, no fighting either, they always took the bill asked 3 questions then approved it. The only other insurance companies that i never saw adjustors trying to skimp was usaa and travelers. This has been six years so things couldve changed.
Heh. Chubb.
Dollars to donuts Epstein gave Trump some naughty videos of the Chubby CEO for leverage.