Jay Peak bombshell

[AdironRider]

Correct. Much higher.

Obviously this will vary by state & vary with the price of oil, but generally speaking the government makes about 6x to 8x more than the oil company does on every gallon of gas pumped into your gas tank.

Yet how many people actually know this? I'd guess maybe 1 in 50.

This is only partially true. These numbers only take into account profit on refined gasoline, and completely ignores any profits from the extraction and sale of crude oil directly. Conveniently, Exxon makes more in profit doing that than it does making and distributing gasoline.

Oil and gas companies like Exxon are typically making about 6 cents on the dollar overall, which is similar to industries like construction, and still lower than the governments take.

 

[mbedle]

Correct. Much higher.

Obviously this will vary by state & vary with the price of oil, but generally speaking the government makes about 6x to 8x more than the oil company does on every gallon of gas pumped into your gas tank.

Yet how many people actually know this? I'd guess maybe 1 in 50.

If you had said "profit" that would have made it a lot easier to understand what point you were trying to get across.

 

[BenedictGomez]

This is only partially true. These numbers only take into account profit on refined gasoline, and completely ignores any profits from the extraction and sale of crude oil directly. Conveniently, Exxon makes more in profit doing that than it does making and distributing gasoline.

Oil and gas companies like Exxon are typically making about 6 cents on the dollar overall, which is similar to industries like construction, and still lower than the governments take.

No, it's 100% true, which you acknowledge. The rest of what you're saying while not incorrect is just strangely obfuscating my point with ancillary & disconnected details.

If I said Disney makes more on movies than Sony, one shouldn't assume Disney isnt also involved in the sale of music, attractions or 1001 other things.

If you had said "profit" that would have made it a lot easier to understand what point you were trying to get across.

I assumed that was obvious.

 

[Domeskier]

No, it's 100% true, which you acknowledge. The rest of what you're saying while not incorrect is just strangely obfuscating my point with ancillary & disconnected details.

In the broader context of whether or not the government is providing massive subsidies to the oil and gas industry, it's a valid point. The fact that the government may be making more money off a gallon of gasoline than the companies producing it is irrelevant to that broader issue if the same companies are reaping huge profits in the extraction and sale of crude oil thanks to government subsidies. I don't have an opinion on that broader issue. The articles I looked at reach their huge estimates by including indirect subsidies such as the tax benefits of LIFO accounting, accelerated depreciation schedules and master limited partnerships, which are not limited to the oil and gas industry. I think it's economically correct to view these aspects of the tax code as subsidies, but I also think that most of these articles are banking on the fact that when the general public hears about "massive subsidies for the oil and gas industry" they think of Trump writing Exxon a $10 billion check each year.

 

[AdironRider]

No, it's 100% true, which you acknowledge. The rest of what you're saying while not incorrect is just strangely obfuscating my point with ancillary & disconnected details.

If I said Disney makes more on movies than Sony, one shouldn't assume Disney isnt also involved in the sale of music, attractions or 1001 other things.



I assumed that was obvious.

You whole point was that the government is making like 6-10x as much money as Exxon is, which is laughably false. Conveniently leaving out Exxon's largest profit center is not just some "ancillary detail".

 

[BenedictGomez]

You whole point was that the government is making like 6-10x as much money as Exxon is, which is laughably false. Conveniently leaving out Exxon's largest profit center is not just some "ancillary detail".

On. Every. Gallon. Of. Gasoline.

It's 100% true.

The way you choose to view this issue by lumping in derivative profit centers is bizarre.

 

[AdironRider]

This whole conversation started about oil and gas subsidies. You leaving out the profit centers most reliant on oil and gas subsidies to obfuscate Exxon's reality is just bizarre.

 

[1dog]

You whole point was that the government is making like 6-10x as much money as Exxon is, which is laughably false. Conveniently leaving out Exxon's largest profit center is not just some "ancillary detail".

I'm not sure how this relates to the ski industry except that generally subsides handed out by the choices of a few government officals may not be the most efficient use of capital ( ok stop laughing at 'may not be')

It relates to ski industry in that most of us own shares in Exxon Mobil/Walmart/FANGS/etc. in our retirement accounts or regular brokerage accts thru mutual funds - so it benefits us when they do well - indirectly we own them. - OK, a small micro %. The richer we feel, the more we ski, buy property, spend $$ on ancillary items , etc.

Government doesn't 'earn' squat - it just taxes. And since 'we' are the government ( you know, by the people, for the people, etc.) we could end them. My guess is it ( all subsides) is a very small portion - call in an accounting error in the scheme of $4. something trillion.

Since mid- 2014 each quarter has had record income to the Federal Government - when will it be enough? Never.

Will subsidies help? In some cases it produces revenue - but its picked and chosen what industry is the flavor of the Noisies who get it - making it unfair.


I'll say it a different way - Renaldus Magnus way : If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

We ski and have access because we are so wealthy - compared to the rest of the worlds population.

Final question - Are you happy with 35-55% of your income being confiscated?
I'd say enough of us are or we'd have a Tea Party.

Maybe Jay can be the 1st Government-owned ski area? Union lifties? After all we financed it.

 

[thetrailboss]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch....this shit just keeps going.

https://vtdigger.org/2019/09/22/quiros-lawyer-troubled-by-missing-state-documents/

“This case has been mixed up in the politics of the state and the players have a personal stake in the outcome,” Levine said.

Shumlin and Leahy both wrote letters of support for the AnCBio Vermont project in the fall of 2012 that were included in the offering memorandum for foreign investors. Many of the immigrants said they would not have invested in AnCBio if not for the support of the governor and the senator.

 

[1dog]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch....this shit just keeps going.

https://vtdigger.org/2019/09/22/quiros-lawyer-troubled-by-missing-state-documents/

VT Digger does good work.

When it's other peoples money, and your not in a business (government) that people have a choice to go elsewhere for services, it inevitably gets used inappropriately or wasted ( or both).

Still, wish the mountain well and that lessons will be learned. History doesn't always repeat itself but it does tend to rhyme.

 

[BenedictGomez]

I don't think I've ever agreed with a criminal defense attorney whose client is clearly guilty, but here we are.

 

[thetrailboss]

https://vtdigger.org/2019/10/01/feds-affirm-decision-to-close-vermont-eb-5-regional-center/

Some quotes:

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in a blistering decision, notified the state Tuesday that it was denying the appeal. The state had argued in its appeal filed in September that it should be allowed to wind down the operations of its EB-5 regional center, rather than abruptly close it. “Upon a close examination of the totality of the circumstances and the factors, we determine that the negative indicia here outweigh the positive,” the USCIS stated in its 10-page decision rejecting the state’s appeal.

“Accordingly,” the decision stated, “we conclude that the VRC no longer continues to promote economic growth and does not warrant the preservation of its regional center designation.”

Michael Pieciak, commissioner of the Vermont Department of Financial Regulation, said the state has 33 days from Tuesday to file for reconsideration, if it opts to do so. In the meantime, he said, since an appeal right still exists, the state plans to operate the center as it has been.

Pieciak said he wasn’t too surprised by the decision.

“It’s basically an internal to USCIS decision. It’s an administrative law judge within its own agency,” Pieciak said. “The outcome isn’t all that unexpected.”

He added, “A different venue would be more favorable to the state’s arguments.”

However, the USCIS contended in its notice of termination in the summer of 2018, and again its decision rejecting the state’s appeal, that the state dropped the ball by failing to stop a $200 million fraud in projects in headed by Jay Peak developers over nearly a decade.

USCIS reiterated many of the concerns it had raised in its earlier notice of termination. In that notice of termination, USCIS wrote that the state made “material misrepresentations” when it signed off on AnC Bio Vermont, the Newport project that has led to the criminal federal charges against the four developers.

“In addition,” the decision stated, “although (the state) has offered evidence on the efforts to promote economic growth, the record shows that most of the purported capital raised and jobs created were linked to the Jay Peak Projects, which, according to federal and state authorities, were part of a large-scale fraudulent scheme.”

Also, according to the decision, “the record shows the Appellant had learned that Mr. Quiros, Mr. Stenger, and other individuals may have engaged in wrongdoing concerning the Jay Peak Projects, but did not share such information with USCIS until 2016, after SEC initiated its action.”

The decision stated that concerns had been raised about the Jay Peak EB-5 projects as early as November 2011, and in February 2012, Douglas Hulme blew the whistle on the Ponzi scheme, informing 100 immigrant attorneys that Jay Peak’s financials were not on solid footing.

 

[mbedle]

https://vtdigger.org/2019/10/01/feds-affirm-decision-to-close-vermont-eb-5-regional-center/

Some quotes:

Well that's unfortunate news for the investors. As the appeal denial stated, the current regulations do not allow a regional center to exist for the sole purpose of winding down its operations. And as also stated, the USCIS had no choice but to terminate the center, since they no longer served the purpose of promoting economic growth.

 

[mister moose]

USCIS wrote that the state made “material misrepresentations” when it signed off on AnC Bio Vermont, the Newport project that has led to the criminal federal charges against the four developers.​

You don't read that every day in the paper. Will it have any repercussions?

 

[BenedictGomez]

You don't read that every day in the paper. Will it have any repercussions?

No. Because the government owns the rifles & the bayonets.

Were a private business to exhibit the same corruption, the government would fine it into obligation & destroy it.

 

[1dog]

A government powerful enough to give you want you want, is powerful enough to take it away. Funny how they enforce GAAP but could never abide by those accounting standards themselves - people/sheeple get the government they vote for.
CT just enacted 4 or 5 more taxes - and have under-performed the rest of the country's economies -

I guess I understood the EB-5 program when - before deregulation of financial institutions - it was near impossible to get capital to fund projects in the risky business of vacation homes/ski areas/etc. Now that financial institutions can take more risk, and charge a higher rate, they shouldn't be needed.

When and if those loans go bad, no one but the investors and intistutions should bear the burden. High risk, high return, high risk.

If we( both parties) stopped placing Wall St fellows to head the Treasury. . . . . . maybe it ( we)wouldn't be raided every time they get in trouble?

 

[tumbler]

https://www.wcax.com/content/news/EB-5-investors-win-Vt-Supreme-Court-appeal-562176921.html

 

[thetrailboss]

https://www.wcax.com/content/news/EB-5-investors-win-Vt-Supreme-Court-appeal-562176921.html

Yes. The beauty of an independent judiciary.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

 

[thetrailboss]

The VT Digger story with a link to the actual decision:

https://vtdigger.org/2019/10/04/vermont-supreme-court-reverses-dismissal-of-eb-5-investor-lawsuit/

 

[thetrailboss]

I guess I understood the EB-5 program when - before deregulation of financial institutions - it was near impossible to get capital to fund projects in the risky business of vacation homes/ski areas/etc. Now that financial institutions can take more risk, and charge a higher rate, they shouldn't be needed.

When and if those loans go bad, no one but the investors and intistutions should bear the burden. High risk, high return, high risk.

You clearly have no idea what happened here....this was fraud. That is not an "accepted risk" for investors.