Jay Peak bombshell

[thetrailboss]

Because you are obviously having trouble scrolling up:

I don't think that's the issue. With all due respect I think you jumped into the middle of a conversation without really understanding the history of what is going on.

 

[noreasterbackcountry]

You are either clueless or deceptive.

Gotta love this quote from here: http://www.eb5fullservice.com/blog/2232/
James Candido, the principal overseer of State of Vermont EB-5 projects, stated to me that he inspects Jay Peak’s financial records at least four times per year and that he has not seen any financial irregularities or problems in Jay Peak’s finances.

C'mon, you've gotta feel at least a little silly for claiming I am clueless for quoting you.

Thin gruel, if you ask me. Submitting something does not mean it was reviewed and/or acted upon.

Still more than you would get from a private regional center which was the point.

 

[VTKilarney]

How can they have been misled if the agreement they signed said the opposite of what they are now claiming? Someone who has the means to hire a competent lawyer and is now claiming they were lied to (when the agreement clearly laid out what to expect) is not a victim.

You clearly haven't read the interview that I linked. I have not disputed that Stenger could make the change, nor have I disputed that the investors should have known that the possibility was provided for in the agreement. But this is a separate issue from Stenger being a snake oil salesman, which if you looked at the interview he clearly was. I guess we value character and ethics more in Vermont than you do in Massachusetts. We will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[VTKilarney]

C'mon, you've gotta feel at least a little silly for claiming I am clueless for quoting you.

You quoted a blog posted that I linked to. That's not the same as quoting me. I have known that the records were not being provided, even though the agreement required them. That's why I pointed it out to you.

The reality is that more than one factual error in your argument has been pointed out - and you don't even seem to care about getting those facts straight. Readers here can make of that what they will.

Still more than you would get from a private regional center which was the point.

Since when was zero greater than something?

 

[noreasterbackcountry]

I guess we value character and ethics more in Vermont than you do in Massachusetts. We will just have to agree to disagree.

Aw, c'mon Kilarney. We were having a good discussion until you had to go get personal. You're better than that.

 

[VTKilarney]

It's not at all personal, but it is what it is. You are defending gamesmanship. Take to me when the balloon payments are made and I will gladly apologize.

 

[noreasterbackcountry]

I have known that the records were not being provided, even though the agreement required them. That's why I pointed it out to you.

That blog piece, which you quoted/linked in your post above, quotes James Candido as claiming he inspects Jay Peak's finances four times per year on behalf of the regional center. Are you saying that he was lying in that piece? What's your source?

If he is not lying, doesn't that mean there is some oversight.. and not zero oversight...? Imperfect is not none.

And why is it unethical to hold people to what they've agreed to in their written contracts? Or to call them out when they try to change the deal after they get what they want from it? I think you have it backwards: character is about honoring your responsibilities even after you got what you wanted out of the deal.

 

[noreasterbackcountry]

It's not at all personal, but it is what it is.

... You know.. I had some snarky response to this, but I've pulled it.

Instead I'll say this: After going back and reading the articles again- and your comments above- I'm guessing that we probably agree on a couple quick things they could implement: They should have regular independent audits of the EB-5 program (so the investors and others can't claim irregularities are being hidden), and be more proactive about correcting and/or editing Stenger's performance promises in the promotional materials.

 

[BenedictGomez]

You quoted a blog posted that I linked to. That's not the same as quoting me. I have known that the records were not being provided, even though the agreement required them. That's why I pointed it out to you.

That was the blog that I thought was fishy too, almost like a paid advertisement for Jay Peak's reputation being legit post that Rapid VISA USA bombshell, complete with, "My wife was impressed with how much stuff in our room was Made in Vermont".

Nevertheless, one other interesting nugget from that blog from over 2 years ago, based on today's info:

Bill Stenger stated during his interview that the Resort is currently in the planning stage of an audit of the Resort’s finances by an independent accounting firm. A likely completion and release date was not available at the time of our discussion.

Yeah, because now we know that that Independent Accounting audit was just "too expensive" = ROFL.

Gimme a break. I'm supposed to believe that Jay Peak is a major east coast competitor, rapidly expanding like a Goliath and acquiring competitors, yet they cant afford to bring on a couple of hourly accounting contractors from PWC or Deloitte for three weeks to run an audit?

Rigggggggghhhhhhht.

 

[machski]

Look, bottom line with EB-5 is it is a short cut to a green card. If the investment fails to make the investor money but created the jobs, the investor gets a green card. If one wants to make a $ return on investment, many better ways to do this.

 

[VTKilarney]

That blog piece, which you quoted/linked in your post above, quotes James Candido as claiming he inspects Jay Peak's finances four times per year on behalf of the regional center. Are you saying that he was lying in that piece? What's your source?

Have you not read what I have previously posted? This is getting tedious. I will quote this VTDiffer article from July of this year yet again:
Moulton said Friday the center has been monitoring Jay Peak “right along.” Recently, the center put the resort “on notice,” and is now requiring the company to submit quarterly reports. Before now, the regional center did not require any formal reporting, even though MOUs with all the EB-5 projects include a clause that quarterly reports are to be submitted.

If the ACCD Secretary says that Jay Peak was not submitting reports as they had agreed to do, and if the quote in the blog post is accurate, then yes, I would say that Candido was being less than truthful. And had you read and digested what I have posted I assume you would agree.

Keep in mind that the "blog post" was the experience of an immigration attorney who went to Jay Peak to look into whether or not it would be a good place to park his clients' money. It wasn't some random fool who wrote that post.

If he is not lying, doesn't that mean there is some oversight.. and not zero oversight...? Imperfect is not none.

I've yet to see anybody demonstrate any oversight. Until that happens, "zero" is the operative number.

And why is it unethical to hold people to what they've agreed to in their written contracts? Or to call them out when they try to change the deal after they get what they want from it? I think you have it backwards: character is about honoring your responsibilities even after you got what you wanted out of the deal.

You just don't get it, do you? Look at the things Stenger was saying to court subsequent investors. Things like: As it happens, the exit strategy issue may be a moot point as regards Phase I investors. Stenger volunteered during our discussions that the revenue trends on Phase I residences are looking so good “that we are seriously considering buying out the Phase I investors ourselves.”

I'm not criticizing Stenger for invoking a clause in a contract. I'm criticizing him for misrepresentations. Big difference.

 

[VTKilarney]

Look, bottom line with EB-5 is it is a short cut to a green card. If the investment fails to make the investor money but created the jobs, the investor gets a green card. If one wants to make a $ return on investment, many better ways to do this.

So the ends justify the means no matter what, eh?

 

[noreasterbackcountry]

Have you not read what I have previously posted? This is getting tedious. I will quote this VTDiffer article from July of this year yet again:
Moulton said Friday the center has been monitoring Jay Peak “right along.” Recently, the center put the resort “on notice,” and is now requiring the company to submit quarterly reports. Before now, the regional center did not require any formal reporting, even though MOUs with all the EB-5 projects include a clause that quarterly reports are to be submitted.

If the ACCD Secretary says that Jay Peak was not submitting reports as they had agreed to do, and if the quote in the blog post is accurate, then yes, I would say that Candido was being less than truthful. And had you read and digested what I have posted I assume you would agree.

Read that paragraph again and you'll realize it says that "they did not require" reporting. It does not say, as you have presumed, that no reporting occurred.

I'll give you that the article is confusing. The reporter should have cleared that up. Why not follow-up by asking Moulton directly if they've been submitting reports. Not whether they were required to submit reports....

 

[thetrailboss]

Read that paragraph again and you'll realize it says that "they did not require" reporting. It does not say, as you have presumed, that no reporting occurred.

Please. This is getting absurd. You're now arguing that though the State did not require any reporting that Jay probably did it anyways? Stop digging.

 

[VTKilarney]

Read that paragraph again and you'll realize it says that "they did not require" reporting. It does not say, as you have presumed, that no reporting occurred.

I'll give you that the article is confusing. The reporter should have cleared that up. Why not follow-up by asking Moulton directly if they've been submitting reports. Not whether they were required to submit reports....

Please don't insult my intelligence. In the article, Moulton said that Jay Peak was "put on notice" and that the state is now requiring quarterly reports even though they had not required them before despite the fact that the MOUs required them to be submitted to the state.

So according to you everything was going along just fine and Jay Peak was "put on notice" to make sure that they kept doing a great job filing these reports. Again, please don't insult my intelligence. If you want to have a serious debate, fine - but this is not the way to go about it.

 

[VTKilarney]

Please. This is getting absurd.

Getting? We have crossed into troll land.

 

[noreasterbackcountry]

Getting? We have crossed into troll land.

I guess I'm the only one who finds it odd that the reporter is writing an article on lack of oversight, sets up the conclusion by pointing to statements by Moulton.... then hedges the language on driving that point home by failing to outright state that no reporting was done. Again, you may be right.. it may just be bad reporting/editing, or they were avoiding calling Moulton a liar... but they hedged on saying outright "no reporting was provided".

Actually I think trolling is claiming that people were falsely led into signing their agreements based on representations that were made 5+ years after those folks had signed their agreements.

 

[VTKilarney]

Again, you may be right.. it may just be bad reporting/editing, or they were avoiding calling Moulton a liar... but they hedged on saying outright "no reporting was provided".

I think they trusted the reader to make the connection. You don't get put "on notice" for doing a great job. The author no doubt assumed that the reader understood that. I guess in at least one instance that was a poor assumption.

 

[noreasterbackcountry]

I think they trusted the reader to make the connection. You don't get put "on notice" for doing a great job. The author no doubt assumed that the reader understood that. I guess in at least one instance that was a poor assumption.

The author shouldn't be leaving the main point of the article to assumption... but with that said, I came across this Argus article which supports the conclusion that no reporting has been done: http://www.argusleader.com/story/davidmontgomery/2014/08/06/eb5-vermont-state-hands/13672275/ (See the footnotes)

The official also indicates here that reporting has not been required but notes that "monitoring" is done. Nobody elaborates on exactly what that means. Does that mean they looked at the books? How closely? How often? Who knows...

I agree that this murky picture on how much oversight is provided is troubling. It should be clear. But not because I think the actors are out scamming the public. As I stated above, I think the oversight from the State is a competitive advantage over other regional centers and they should be doing everything they can to protect that advantage. Leaving the impression that there is only lax oversight doesn't help.

I would guess that the lack of stricter oversight has more to do with trying to make it easier on businesses/investors by not overburdening them with red tape, regulations and reporting than it does with some nefarious plan to embezzle or siphon funds. Talk to any business owner in VT about red tape and you'll get an earful.

With that said, the state should be erring on the side of caution to protect what is their advantage in a tighter market.

Hopefully for Burke and the other NEK projects the ship hasn't already sailed on the state's regional center image.

Aside from the quarterly reporting and annual project audits, is there anything else you guys would suggest the state should be doing to improve the regional center?

 

[BenedictGomez]

The official also indicates here that reporting has not been required but notes that "monitoring" is done. Nobody elaborates on exactly what that means. Does that mean they looked at the books? How closely? How often? Who knows...

I think it's fairly clear at this point that that's not the case. And frankly? Even if they did it wouldn't matter, because from the 35 second LinkedIN review I did on Brent Raymond and a few of the other principal players at State of Vermont, I can assure you they dont have the background to conduct that work. Raymond in particular looks like he probably got his job from Military points and/or his political connections, and this is the guy in charge. He worked as a Financial Advisor until a few years ago (I'm not kidding, look it up). That work qualifies you to put grandma's money into mutual funds (usually the ones that pay the FA the highest fee) and how to roll over into a ROTH IRA, not the serious forensic accounting that is now sorely needed in this case.

I agree that this murky picture on how much oversight is provided is troubling. It should be clear. But not because I think the actors are out scamming the public.

At this point, with what we know, I would say that it's highly unlikely SOME fraud and abuse has not occurred at some point. This is a LONG thread, and I was open-minded in the beginning, but not anymore. I can tell you that when there are hundreds of thousands of dollars touching many people with no oversight, impropriety is common. It's more common with millions because it's easier. It's common with tens-of-millions too, even easier. Hundreds of millions with zero oversight? Couldn't tell ya, I've never personally seen something like this before, but I'd be shocked if skimming wasn't occurring somewhere in the pipeline. Either directly or indirectly.

I think the oversight from the State is a competitive advantage over other regional centers and they should be doing everything they can to protect that advantage.

There. Is. No. Oversight. Beyond that, the only place I've read where it being State run is somehow an advantage, is in the State's EB-5 Center's own marketing jargon claiming so. It makes little sense to me. So other than parroting them saying it being "State run" is an advantage, why do you think it's an advantage? Do you think people have an inherent trust of government? I sure dont believe that's the case. Do you think the Chinese investors they're specifically targeting have an inherent trust of government. I sure KNOW that's not the case.