Jay Peak bombshell

[Masskier]

Re: $500 million raised

We were talking about that tonight is that it seems obvious that they DON'T have $500 mill in the bank. If they did, ALL the projects would be well underway. They are not. I think they've got a lot of investors lined up but not $500 mill.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

I don't know, but that is what they are reporting. Here's the link,

http://vtdigger.org/2014/10/22/sense-betrayal-eb-5-investors-go-public/

And here's the quote

"The number of investors in Jay Peak has grown to 1,089 immigrants who have put up $544.5 million toward a series of projects Stenger and Quiros hope to develop."

And that would explain why most of the projects are well underway.

 

[thetrailboss]

I don't know, but that is what they are reporting. Here's the link,

http://vtdigger.org/2014/10/22/sense-betrayal-eb-5-investors-go-public/

And here's the quote

"The number of investors in Jay Peak has grown to 1,089 immigrants who have put up $544.5 million toward a series of projects Stenger and Quiros hope to develop."

And that would explain why most of the projects are well underway.

See BG's post


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

 

[BenedictGomez]

"The number of investors in Jay Peak has grown to 1,089 immigrants who have put up $544.5 million toward a series of projects Stenger and Quiros hope to develop."

And that would explain why most of the projects are well underway.

I don't believe what's bolded is the case. I think the figure north of $300M is what's spent so far, and I guess the figure you posted above is indeed the most recent figure in terms of what they've collected (it seems that way from the way VTDigger wrote it). But there's a difference between collecting and spending money and just because they have it "put up" doesnt mean the projects are underway. But what it does mean if VTDigger is correct is that they raised a LOT of money before this recent blow-up became public. It's a ****load of money.

Honestly, who really knows? I don't know what to believe or what's accurate or not at this point. I wish VTDigger would better pin down specifics in terms of "how much has been collected", "how much has been spent", and "how much more EB-5 money" do they additionally seek. Start/Complete estimates would be nice, too. Pretty basic and important facts. All of which, by the way, should be public information and very easy for us to ascertain.........except they're not. Jay Peak isnt telling, and the all-knowing State of Vermont government watchdog that makes Vermont the "Safest" EB-5 place to invest your money - doesnt have a clue either.

 

[noreasterbackcountry]

Really? Pray tell, who is doing this oversight? Before this Kurfuffle, nobody really. We've only spent twenty pages going over and over that point.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

1. USCIS: They do a review of the project after three years which involves the investors submitting the project's financials and proof of where the money went, including receipts, invoices, AND BANK RECORDS (among other things).

2. State of Vermont: The Regional Center has ongoing oversight over the project. The VT Digger article acknowledges 400 pages of communication between the Center and Jay. It acknowledges the presence of "reports"- which implies "reporting". Plus audited reports have been submitted for the last two years... so it didn't just start "after this mess" as you claim.

3. The Press: The press has access to the records submitted to USCIS and the Center by way of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the similar state version of the act. They've already reviewed the records from the Center. It isn't clear if they've reviewed the USCIS records.

4. The investors: The financial information submitted to USCIS with the second filing is also reviewed by the attorneys who represent the investors.

We can argue all day about the quality of these different levels of review, and how effective they are, but that doesn't mean they don't exist or that they have "zero" impact. Just because something isn't perfect... or doesn't meet your standard of what you think should be done.. doesn't mean it fails to exist. We've gone over this for 20 pages because you (and others) present an over simplified view of what is going on in order to support some ridiculous fraud allegation against Stenger.

And as for the seeming incongruity between the investors on board and the amount of money- it likely has to do with the structure of the investment deals and USCIS approval of the first stage of the case. I imagine all of the deals are conditioned on USCIS approvals of the initial petition, and right now there is a 14 month backlog for approvals of those petitions. So there are likely a good number of folks who are in the pipeline but the money hasn't been committed.

 

[thetrailboss]

1. USCIS: They do a review of the project after three years which involves the investors submitting the project's financials and proof of where the money went, including receipts, invoices, AND BANK RECORDS (among other things).

2. State of Vermont: The Regional Center has ongoing oversight over the project. The VT Digger article acknowledges 400 pages of communication between the Center and Jay. It acknowledges the presence of "reports"- which implies "reporting". Plus audited reports have been submitted for the last two years... so it didn't just start "after this mess" as you claim.

3. The Press: The press has access to the records submitted to USCIS and the Center by way of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the similar state version of the act. They've already reviewed the records from the Center. It isn't clear if they've reviewed the USCIS records.

4. The investors: The financial information submitted to USCIS with the second filing is also reviewed by the attorneys who represent the investors.

We can argue all day about the quality of these different levels of review, and how effective they are, but that doesn't mean they don't exist or that they have "zero" impact. Just because something isn't perfect... or doesn't meet your standard of what you think should be done.. doesn't mean it fails to exist. We've gone over this for 20 pages because you (and others) present an over simplified view of what is going on in order to support some ridiculous fraud allegation against Stenger.

And as for the seeming incongruity between the investors on board and the amount of money- it likely has to do with the structure of the investment deals and USCIS approval of the first stage of the case. I imagine all of the deals are conditioned on USCIS approvals of the initial petition, and right now there is a 14 month backlog for approvals of those petitions. So there are likely a good number of folks who are in the pipeline but the money hasn't been committed.

If being direct and to the point is "an oversimplification" then I am guilty as charged I guess.

Though I'm tempted to respond to each point, it's clear that you still don't understand what is going on here or what the article says. There's no point in going round and round.

VTDigger is using this recent issue as a means of investigating what is happening at Jay and how the EB-5 program is being run in Vermont. As you point out, yes this is an "oversight" of sorts.

As to the first point, there is a question as to what Jay is doing with the money it is receiving from the investors and how it is managing the investments. This is not an issue of "how many jobs are being created" but an issue of internal operations. Is the LP operating as it should? Is it creating revenue adequate enough to repay the investors? Is the money being funneled away to pay other investors? As others have said, short of a lawsuit by the limited partners against the general partners, we may not get a real answer there.

The second issue is the one that VTDigger has been going after as well and they have made a pretty clear case that the Vermont Regional Center is only a PR machine and nothing more. VTDigger cites the 400 pages of Emails to show that there is not much oversight but instead discussion about damage control and image issues. Because this involved (presumably) a private placement then I don't think that Vermont's Financial Services/Insurance Regulators will get involved. So that leaves the question as to who is watching over what is being done. VTDigger makes the case that it appears to be nobody really.

And yes the USCIS is "supposed" to provide oversight, but that again is limited to ensuring that the program creates the jobs, that the demographic area allows for the investor to be in the $500,000 category, and that the paperwork is completed before issuing the Green Card. There's been a lot of scrutiny over USCIS lately and it is evident that they don't have the resources to review things as adequately as they should...hence the backlog.

 

[noreasterbackcountry]

VTDigger cites the 400 pages of Emails to show that there is not much oversight but instead discussion about damage control and image issues.

I went back and read that article to be sure I didn't have the wrong impression, but as far as I can tell they cite two emails out of 400 to support their case that the Center only does cheerleading and no oversight. That's hardly clear and convincing evidence.

Even assuming that the Center took on some role of promoting the projects, USCIS instructional materials on the centers make it clear that the cheerleading role is entirely appropriate- and one of the main functions of a regional center. This doesn't mean that they don't also perform oversight. When you consider that the Center has an interest in making sure the programs that they approve succeed--- as well as attract future investment (and thus protect their oversight image), these functions are compatible. Throw in there at the reputation of the state is at stake- there's even more incentive to do the oversight.

And yes the USCIS is "supposed" to provide oversight, but that again is limited to ensuring that the program creates the jobs, that the demographic area allows for the investor to be in the $500,000 category, and that the paperwork is completed before issuing the Green Card.

This isn't true. The investors' second submission to USCIS involves ample evidence of where the money is spent. Again, they are required to provide receipts, invoices and bank records to show the ongoing business and HOW it created the claimed number of jobs--- not just whether those jobs were created.

You're right that USCIS has limited resources to do their investigations, which is why it takes so long for the approval of the second filing. But this is because USCIS (and the officers who do those investigations) have an interest in preventing fraud and/or Ponzi schemes like the one in Chicago and therefore aren't just rubberstamping those approvals.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Though I'm tempted to respond to each point, it's clear that you still don't understand what is going on here or what the article says. There's no point in going round and round.

Precisely why I didn't bother replying.

You can lead a horse to water, but if the horse doesn't understand (or willfully refuses to understand) what a lake is, there's really no point.

 

[VTKilarney]

Add me to the camp of people who no longer feel there is any point in replying.

 

[deadheadskier]

You both just did reply.

If you don't feel like discussing something with someone, just don't talk. No need to get all dramatic and announce that you're taking your ball and going home. :lol:

 

[MadMadWorld]

You both just did reply.

If you don't feel like discussing something with someone, just don't talk. No need to get all dramatic and announce that you're taking your ball and going home. :lol:

This is some heavy shit. Do I smell a mod ski off?

 

[noreasterbackcountry]

God forbid anybody ask for an explanation beyond "VT Digger says it is so" with you three. It's not that I don't understand what the VT Digger articles have said, its that I question their conclusions.

You claim "There's zero oversight!" In response I lay out four layers of oversight. You counter with "we've covered this already". Really? Did we?

You point out "VT Digger says they were cheerleaders", I respond that it appears this is based on two emails. And you counter with "You obviously don't get it." And you're right, I don't. If the Center is only acting as a cheerleader, how is it that they could only come up with two emails to support that conclusion? What about the other 300+? Were they talking about skiing? (Kinda like the inverse of this thread)

You claim, "The investors were duped", I respond by pointing out that everything Jay did was spelled out in the contract to which you accuse me of being a Ma-hole.

You claim there must be some undiscovered fraud because of the amount of money at stake and the fact they haven't moved forward with all projects on their original schedule. I point out USCIS reviews the financial information for each and every investor three years into the project- including bank records. Something none of you have mentioned. I point out that in addition to invoices and receipts the company provides bank records AND all that information gets reviewed by the attorneys for the investors. I also point out that all of the projects as of two years ago are audited. You respond by saying invoices and receipts could be forged. Yeah, okay... but how about the bank records? Please explain how those are forged. And how about the ongoing audits? How could money from the newer projects be "ponzi'd" over to the older ones? Your response is to completely ignore these facts and again say that I just don't get it.

That's not going in circles. That's going down a bunch of dead end streets.

 

[AdironRider]

Hey at least you aren't posting up thinly veiled promotions for your own website anymore. Baby steps.

 

[fbrissette]

Hey at least you aren't posting up thinly veiled promotions for your own website anymore. Baby steps.

Tough crowd...

 

[Smellytele]

Tough crowd...

Sometimes the truth hurts

 

[thetrailboss]

God forbid anybody ask for an explanation beyond "VT Digger says it is so" with you three. It's not that I don't understand what the VT Digger articles have said, its that I question their conclusions.

You claim "There's zero oversight!" In response I lay out four layers of oversight. You counter with "we've covered this already". Really? Did we?

You point out "VT Digger says they were cheerleaders", I respond that it appears this is based on two emails. And you counter with "You obviously don't get it." And you're right, I don't. If the Center is only acting as a cheerleader, how is it that they could only come up with two emails to support that conclusion? What about the other 300+? Were they talking about skiing? (Kinda like the inverse of this thread)

You claim, "The investors were duped", I respond by pointing out that everything Jay did was spelled out in the contract to which you accuse me of being a Ma-hole.

You claim there must be some undiscovered fraud because of the amount of money at stake and the fact they haven't moved forward with all projects on their original schedule. I point out USCIS reviews the financial information for each and every investor three years into the project- including bank records. Something none of you have mentioned. I point out that in addition to invoices and receipts the company provides bank records AND all that information gets reviewed by the attorneys for the investors. I also point out that all of the projects as of two years ago are audited. You respond by saying invoices and receipts could be forged. Yeah, okay... but how about the bank records? Please explain how those are forged. And how about the ongoing audits? How could money from the newer projects be "ponzi'd" over to the older ones? Your response is to completely ignore these facts and again say that I just don't get it.

That's not going in circles. That's going down a bunch of dead end streets.

 

[VTKilarney]

The issue isn't believing VT Digger. I am as skeptical of everything and anything.

The issue is one's ability to engage in critical thought. It's safe to say that our belief as to what constitutes critical thought differs greatly - and I don't see that changing.

 

[fbrissette]

The issue isn't to believing VT Digger. I am as skeptical of everything and anything.

The issue is one's ability to engage in critical thought. It's safe to say that our opinions as to what constitutes critical thought differ greatly - and I don't see that changing.

I have no horse in this fight. I get the points your are both making.

Please attack the message and not the messenger.

 

[VTKilarney]

Believe me, I hope that he is right. I just realized that we have different methodology and that we will always be talking past each other. But if I had to pick one of us to be correct it would be him. If I had to bet money on it, well... let's just say my bet and my hope would be different.

 

[fbrissette]

My bet is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but likely closer to your viewpoint.

 

[BenedictGomez]

The issue is one's ability to engage in critical thought. It's safe to say that our belief as to what constitutes critical thought differs greatly - and I don't see that changing.

Disagree.

It's definitely not that he doesn't understand people's comments.

It's that he willfully and repeatedly, intentionally, fails to "understand" them. But it's not trolling, it's something else; very odd. Like maybe there's a familial dog in the fight somewhere or something.