- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The $11.5 million FTX paid for that bank was only for a 10% share
Posted on 11/26/22 at 8:36 am
Posted on 11/26/22 at 8:36 am
Valuing the bank at $115 million
It’s the 26th smallest bank in the US. It serves a town of 146 people. Has only 3 employees and no ATM
The bank was worth $6 million at the time and had roughly $10 million in deposits
It only gave out small farm loans. No CC or anything
The bank’s deposits jumped from $10 million to $84 million in the third quarter of 2022. The additional money was in only 4 accounts
It was rumored that it was last reported to have 80 people on its payroll now
Yesterday I didn't see this as a huge deal. $11.5 million to buy a bank is a quick way to get past the regulatory process of starting a new bank and if this bank had any kind of revenue from loans then on paper buying 100% of it for that price didn't seem bad.
But valuing the bank at over $100 million and only acquiring 10% of it is obvious that fraud was taking place.
Someone involved in the purchase has ties to Tether+ which is another crypto fraud
It’s the 26th smallest bank in the US. It serves a town of 146 people. Has only 3 employees and no ATM
The bank was worth $6 million at the time and had roughly $10 million in deposits
It only gave out small farm loans. No CC or anything
The bank’s deposits jumped from $10 million to $84 million in the third quarter of 2022. The additional money was in only 4 accounts
It was rumored that it was last reported to have 80 people on its payroll now
Yesterday I didn't see this as a huge deal. $11.5 million to buy a bank is a quick way to get past the regulatory process of starting a new bank and if this bank had any kind of revenue from loans then on paper buying 100% of it for that price didn't seem bad.
But valuing the bank at over $100 million and only acquiring 10% of it is obvious that fraud was taking place.
Someone involved in the purchase has ties to Tether+ which is another crypto fraud
This post was edited on 11/26/22 at 8:42 am
10
Posted on 11/26/22 at 8:38 am to stout
Move along, nothing to see here.
Posted on 11/26/22 at 8:38 am to stout
What does this accomplish? I’m sure it’s for nefarious purposes, but how did they use it?
Embezzlement I’m guessing.
Embezzlement I’m guessing.
Posted on 11/26/22 at 8:39 am to stout
But cwill said that banking was the most regulated industry and there’s no way that anything underhanded was taking place. Banks are bought at 100x value all the time.
/s/
/s/
Posted on 11/26/22 at 8:40 am to stout
Bankman is like a Barry Seal 
Posted on 11/26/22 at 8:45 am to stout
Sounds like a Swiss bank, here in the USA....
A money storage facility, that's all!
This FTX deal defines where the US is today....greed, deception, and illegal activites, everywhere!
A money storage facility, that's all!
This FTX deal defines where the US is today....greed, deception, and illegal activites, everywhere!
Posted on 11/26/22 at 8:47 am to stout
quote:
But valuing the bank at over $100 million and only acquiring 10% of it is obvious that fraud was taking place.
But I don't get the fraud. Who owned the bank? That's the only party who really could have benefited from this fraud.
I think the "trying to get a charter" angle fits. Small bank off the radar. Someone with more knowledge of banking regs may be able to clarify whether such a minority share would also shield regulatory eyes. THAT could be the fraud.
The fact that they couldn't calculate value properly fits in with their inability to do many things related to finance
Posted on 11/26/22 at 8:50 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
But I don't get the fraud.
I bet it was about money laundering and movement. When you own the bank, especially one off the radar and that small, are you going to self-report your transactions or are you going to roll the dice that no governing agency is going to be suspicious if those transactions don't show up and its just normal business for a small town bank?
That bank had been around since 1923 as well. I doubt any regulatory agency was going to think anything nefarious was going on and wouldn't question if the things they reported stayed the same on paper.
Posted on 11/26/22 at 8:53 am to stout
As I said in the other thread, the bank is way too small to launder anything of note, and a bank is the last institution you want to use for money laundering after the crackdown following the 80s coke stuff.
Posted on 11/26/22 at 8:55 am to stout
quote:
It only gave out small farm loans.
Kind of what I was wondering, did not seem like a traditional consumer bank.
These types aren't subject to most federal consumer protection regulations that consumer banks have.
Posted on 11/26/22 at 8:56 am to stout
quote:
But valuing the bank at over $100 million and only acquiring 10% of it is obvious that fraud was taking place.
Not according to SloWitPro. He says all this FTX business is on the up and up.
Posted on 11/26/22 at 8:57 am to BoarEd
quote:
He says all this FTX business is on the up and up.
Uh, no. There was a ton of fraud.
But the type of fraud is the issue.
Posted on 11/26/22 at 8:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
As I said in the other thread, the bank is way too small to launder anything of note
Maybe but I think the fact that a person involved with it that is also involved with Tether+ shows this was going to be a laundering vehicle. Tether+ is a giant scam/laundering front too from what people are saying.
They may not have gotten it all figured out yet but there really is no other logical explanation and I am not ready to chalk this one up to incompetence. We keep doing that in terms of FTX when it is becoming more obvious that a lot of this was deliberate.
quote:
and a bank is the last institution you want to use for money laundering after the crackdown following the 80s coke stuff.
A small bank that is 99 years old out in the middle of nowhere that regulators aren't going to question seems perfect for it.
Posted on 11/26/22 at 9:00 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
These types aren't subject to most federal consumer protection regulations that consumer banks have.
Yes, there is that as well. No one is going to question if this type of bank loans out money on expensive farm equipment. Aka launders money.
Posted on 11/26/22 at 9:01 am to BoarEd
quote:
Not according to SloWitPro. He says all this FTX business is on the up and up
Hes just trying to fend off you "conspiracy theory" rubes.
We all know this kind of fraud never occurs. You rednecks are so dumb.
The audacity to question questionable people.
Posted on 11/26/22 at 9:03 am to stout
quote:
A small bank that is 99 years old out in the middle of nowhere that regulators aren't going to question seems perfect for it.
Only if you keep it small, which affects your ability to launder.
If they were supposedly laundering hundreds of millions/billions, then this bank is worthless. They probably couldn't launder $1M/year through that bank.
The theory they were trying to get a bank charter and picked an obviously off the radar bank to do this is clearly the most likely scenario (and does lead to putative fraud). Also, they may have paid for "10%" but really had a controlling interest (which would be fraudulent in itself).
The tweet thread in the other thread on here claimed they were using this charger to set up an online US bank.
Posted on 11/26/22 at 9:04 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Hes just trying to fend off you "conspiracy theory" rubes.
We all know this kind of fraud never occurs. You rednecks are so dumb.
Rog, I love conspiracy theories. I believe in many.
The problem is that they've been boomer-ized since Q, and once the market was created, "news" outlets feed the boomer CT monster.
CTs that make sense are awesome.
CTs that are stupid destroy the whole industry.
Posted on 11/26/22 at 9:06 am to stout
quote:
No one is going to question if this type of bank loans out money on expensive farm equipment. Aka launders money.
Its definitely plausible.
Friend of mine, her pop was a lawyer in Tuscon, evidently most professional services there are set up for laundering. He defended cartel members and drug dealers, rich as frick.
The underground economy is worth about 2.5 trillion in the USA.
Posted on 11/26/22 at 9:07 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The theory they were trying to get a bank charter and picked an obviously off the radar bank to do this is clearly the most likely scenario (and does lead to putative fraud). Also, they may have paid for "10%" but really had a controlling interest (which would be fraudulent in itself).
The tweet thread in the other thread on here claimed they were using this charger to set up an online US bank.
Why go through all of that to build and fund an online bank to only own 10% of it when you will be generating all of the revenue? You are making the other shareholders rich with your resources. Doesn't make much sense.
Posted on 11/26/22 at 9:09 am to stout
quote:
Why go through all of that to build and fund an online bank to only own 10% of it when you will be generating all of the revenue? You are making the other shareholders rich with your resources. Doesn't make much sense.
Well, like I said, THAT could be the fraud.
Avoiding FDIC/Treasury eyeballs by owning a minority share (on paper), but really controlling the whole bank.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News