Jay Peak bombshell - Page 142

AlpineZone

Page 142 of 142 FirstFirst ... 4292132140141142
Results 1,411 to 1,420 of 1420
  1. #1411
    thetrailboss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    NEK by Birth; Alta/Snowbird by Choice
    Posts
    27,463
    Quote Originally Posted by cdskier View Post
    Don't know where you pulled that correlation from out of what I said. Maybe other people have said that in the past, but I certainly didn't in my post here. I agree 110% that losing the money to fraudsters is not ok and should be investigated/prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That has absolutely no relevance to the fact that the primary reason they "invested" in the first place is to get a green card. I fully agree that taking advantage of them because "well they just wanted a green card" is entirely wrong and should not be acceptable under any circumstances.

    Typically a "high risk" investment would also offer a potentially high ROI if it succeeds. In the case of many EB5 projects, it is the exact opposite. They are "high risk" with exceptionally low ROIs even in cases where the projects are fully successful. So again, don't kid yourself into thinking the investors did it for any reason other than the fact that they could basically "buy" a green card by loaning money that they would most likely get back with maybe a tiny bit of interest. That has nothing to do with the fraud issue though and is just a general description of EB5. The fraud issue is fraud and people should be held accountable.
    The arguments you and others raise are: (a) they are foreign investors who were not interested in making a ROI and the fact that they got swindled is tough shit; and/or (b) these investors SHOULD have expected to lose their money because these are high-risk investments and the investor's primary goal was the green card. Here, that completely fails because the reason why the projects have failed was that they were fraudulent to begin with. Fraud is not an assumed risk in investments!

    Here it is important to note that a fair number of these foreign investors lost their money AND the projects did not qualify for the permanent immigration status. The Receiver is trying to make some of these successful so that the investors AT LEAST get the green cards.

    Again, a project is not a risky investment because of fraud. Fraud is not an assumed risk. I keep saying that and folks seem deaf to that point.
    Last edited by thetrailboss; Oct 12, 2019 at 3:41 PM.
    Live, Ski, or Die!


  2. #1412
    Quote Originally Posted by thetrailboss View Post
    The arguments you and others raise are: (a) they are foreign investors who were not interested in making a ROI and the fact that they got swindled is tough shit; and/or (b) these investors SHOULD have expected to lose their money because these are high-risk investments and the investor's primary goal was the green card. Here, that completely fails because the reason why the projects have failed was that they were fraudulent to begin with. Fraud is not an assumed risk in investments!
    Please show me where in my last posts I said any of those things. I'm fairly certainly I explicitly said it is NOT OK that they got swindled. Again, the primary reason for the investors investing with the goal of getting a green card is COMPLETELY SEPARATE from the issue that there was fraud in the Jay peak case. You're trying to put words in people's mouths and combine two unrelated things.

  3. #1413
    thetrailboss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    NEK by Birth; Alta/Snowbird by Choice
    Posts
    27,463
    Quote Originally Posted by cdskier View Post
    Please show me where in my last posts I said any of those things. I'm fairly certainly I explicitly said it is NOT OK that they got swindled. Again, the primary reason for the investors investing with the goal of getting a green card is COMPLETELY SEPARATE from the issue that there was fraud in the Jay peak case. You're trying to put words in people's mouths and combine two unrelated things.
    This is what you said:

    Let's not try to put lipstick on a pig. The ROI on the vast majority of these projects is insanely low. The primary reason a foreign investor makes these investments at all is to cut to the front of the green card line. End of story. They're not doing it for some altruistic reason because they want to help create jobs or help struggling areas.
    Nowhere did I say that the EB-5 program was some altruistic thing. You say that the motive of these investors was to get a green card and the implication is that they don't give a shit about their $500,000 or $1 million as long as they get a green card. That's not true and certainly is not really at all material to the subject of this thread.

    I guess you quibble with how I described the program. Here is the Wikipedia article summarizing the program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EB-5_visa

    The program is in fact an immigration program based on a foreign investor investing in a project that is designed to increase employment in areas where employment is low and poverty is high. Generally, that is a lot of Vermont. So investors can get the benefit by opting to contribute the lower amount--which was $500,000--in exchange for a temporary green card that will become permanent if the project creates 10 jobs per investor. That's how it works.
    Live, Ski, or Die!


  4. #1414
    Quote Originally Posted by thetrailboss View Post
    This is what you said:



    Nowhere did I say that the EB-5 program was some altruistic thing. You say that the motive of these investors was to get a green card and the implication is that they don't give a shit about their $500,000 or $1 million as long as they get a green card. That's not true and certainly is not really at all material to the subject of this thread.

    I guess you quibble with how I described the program. Here is the Wikipedia article summarizing the program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EB-5_visa

    The program is in fact an immigration program based on a foreign investor investing in a project that is designed to increase employment in areas where employment is low and poverty is high. Generally, that is a lot of Vermont. So investors can get the benefit by opting to contribute the lower amount--which was $500,000--in exchange for a temporary green card that will become permanent if the project creates 10 jobs per investor. That's how it works.
    <sigh>Still nowhere in that comment of mine that you quoted did I say fraud was ok because the investor's goal was to get a green card. You're still making assumptions and trying to draw conclusions that don't exist (at least in my posts...can't speak for others).

    You can believe that the reason the foreign investors chose to "invest" in an EB5 program is because they saw it as an easy way to get a green card. AND you can ALSO believe that any EB5 projects involving fraud are wrong. I don't get why you seem to keep trying to say that because I said their primary goal is a green card that it is ok if they lose their money. I never said that and never implied that. You tried to make a point that the program is about so much more. While that may have been the original intent, the foreign investors honestly don't care at all whether it really helps our communities. They're not choosing to invest because they want to see jobs created in the US. They're choosing to invest because if the project succeeds they get a green card (and usually get 100% of their money back...so while it is described as a "high risk" investment it really is more of a low interest loan typically).

    Since you chose to bring that Wikipedia article in, here's some fun quotes from it that support my point:

    In February 2017 Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Grassley, a critic of EB-5, introduced a bill in February 2017 to terminate the program.[12] In a joint statement they claimed that, "The EB-5 program is inherently flawed. It says that U.S. citizenship is for sale. It is wrong to have a special pathway to citizenship for the wealthy while millions wait in line for visas."[12] Grassley and Feinstein say that "there is no reliable or verifiable way to measure how many jobs are created" and that "many of the wealthiest parts of the country have been incorrectly labeled as "high unemployment."[2]
    Here you have members of Congress admitting that they really have no way to know whether the program is doing what it was supposed to and that it has basically has become what I said it has.

    Supporters of the foreign investor visa include Senator Chuck Schumer (D-New York), along with some in the Obama administration. They say that the program "delivered billions of dollars into the American economy: $8.7 billion and 35,140 jobs since October 12".[2] According to federal auditors the numbers were "not valid and reliable".[2]
    So once again, audits show they have no idea if the program accomplished the original goal.

  5. #1415
    I think Quebec probably has as close to the right idea on the pay for citizenship program as you can get; assuming you morally accept people buying citizenship. Those wishing to immigrate have to have a minimum net worth of $2M CA and marketable employment skills. They then have to give $1.2M CA to the government for 5 years. After those 5 years they get their $1.2M back with zero interest. The Quebec government uses the earned interest for economic development programs.

    This kind of arrangement seems to have less potential for fraud compared to the US EB-5.

    Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

  6. #1416
    Quote Originally Posted by deadheadskier View Post
    I think Quebec probably has as close to the right idea on the pay for citizenship program as you can get; assuming you morally accept people buying citizenship. Those wishing to immigrate have to have a minimum net worth of $2M CA and marketable employment skills. They then have to give $1.2M CA to the government for 5 years. After those 5 years they get their $1.2M back with zero interest. The Quebec government uses the earned interest for economic development programs.

    This kind of arrangement seems to have less potential for fraud compared to the US EB-5.



    Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app
    I know a couple that immigrated last year to Nova Scotia. The paperwork took a few years he has a French/American citizenship .They had a vacation home that they made their residence. I'm pretty sure they weren't over the $2M . Is that Quebec Province specific or all of CA?
    "Make Greenland Green again"

  7. #1417
    Not sure

    http://www.immigration-quebec.gouv.q...ors/index.html


    My wife and I have kicked around the idea of moving to Quebec at times. She is of French Canadian heritage. Her grandmother moved here in her 20s, so Jess grew up with lots of French speaking in her home. So, I've looked up what it would take to move to Quebec.

    We both love it up there, but ultimately family and friends keep us here in NH. We also love it here too. NH Seacoast is a wonderful place to live.

    Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

  8. #1418
    Quote Originally Posted by thetrailboss View Post
    That still does not justify fraud.


    Who is arguing 'for' fraud?

    Fraud is not one of those risks.

    I'm sorry, it's always a risk when dealing with human nature - may not be implied, but deceit is always a wild card - caveat emptor.



    Again, you clearly are out of your element on this one. I don't know why you are saying so much about a situation that you know nothing about.

    Not able to express an opinion? I asked if tax payer $$ was involved. If it was only in the cost of oversight - well then it's limited, but it is still VT taxpayers money.

    WTF does this have to do with this situation?
    Excuse me TB. Anytime government gets involved with private business investment it bears citizens paying attention to.

    That was an example of huge waste, but heres one where it appeared to work - Hoover Dam. Finished sooner than planned and gave southwest much needed water for settlement. They are just macro views of wins and losses with citizens $$.

    Hope we can all agree we have so much information to process that everyone has a different take on a given subject - this one - something that was supposed to benefit the local communities of the NEK and the investors. It went south.

  9. #1419

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Barto, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,380
    I think the worst part about all of this is even with all the good work that the receivership has done with recouping money and operating the ski resorts, the plan in place is going to guarantee the each investor in the Phases II - VI are going to lose money (with potentially 8 of them not getting permanent residences). 529 investors in those phases are going to share the ultimate profit from the sale of Jay Peak (plus what ever funds the receiver has recouped for them). Lets say it sells for 75 million and the receivership has 50 million to add to that, that leave $236,000.00 per investor. To me, it would have seemed more fair for those investors to have sold the Jay Peak resort but keep intact the limited partnerships. Not sure why that wasn't an option. I'n my eyes, someone is going to get a really good deal on a resort with a shitload of land, real estate and infrastructure at the expense of the investors in those phases. I would guess that the case against the state will go forward and a settlement will be reached. I honestly don't see that settlement being enough to be greater (around 140 million) than the amount that the investors get from the sale of Jay Peak. Plus the potential case against the state might include investors in Phase I (paid back already and have green cards), Phase VII (made whole and ether got paid back or reallocated) and Phase VIII (still own Burke Resort). That would make the cut per investor even less.

  10. #1420
    It stinks people got defrauded, but moral hazard needs to be a thing.

    Nobody who invested in Enron or similar was made whole, I dont see the difference here, unless it is proved that the government was "in on it". That would be a difference-maker.
    President - Bicknell's Thrush Extermination Solutions (BTES), LLC



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:23 AM.