The Trump Organization is $315 million in debt — to Wall Street.
Donald Trump’s filing with the Federal Election Commission during his campaign showed his company owes, at minimum, $315 million to 10 companies.
A new Wall Street Journal report shows that debt had been sliced up and sold over the past five years. Now, the president-elect’s business debts are held by more than 150 separate financial institutions.
That’s only the debt owned entirely by Donald Trump. The Journal reported the Trump Organization owes in excess of $1.5 billion from loans to various partnerships in which he owns 30 percent.
SEE MORE: Actual Corruption Might’ve Helped Fund ‘The Wolf Of Wall Street’
Some of these debts have Trump’s personal guarantee behind them, meaning he would be personally liable if his company defaulted on any loans.
That’s a serious red flag as far as potential conflicts of interest. The report notes financial institutions could potentially hold undue power over Trump if he defaults.
And as president, Trump would control regulatory bodies that keep an eye on Wall Street. Wells Fargo, which made headlines last year for illegally opening and operating customer accounts, runs at least five mutual funds that have Trump Organization debt. Trump could appoint new regulators to police the bank.
Deutsche Bank has loaned the most to Trump’s real estate properties; the bank is currently under investigation by the Justice Department for dealings with wealthy Russian clients.
Trump had a press conference set for December to discuss his plan to step away from his business ties. It was postponed to Jan. 11 .
Trending stories at Newsy.com

Similarity rank: 0

Sentiment rank: -2.2

© Source: http://www.wxyz.com/newsy/why-the-trump-organization-being-315m-in-debt-is-a-big-deal-1
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

It has been a tough few years for the aviation industry and 2016 proved no different.
Carriers had to navigate the collapse in oil prices, multiple plane tragedies including EgyptAir in May, the Chapecoense crash in Colombia as well as fire-prone Samsung phones .
However, it is worth noting that last year was actually one of the safest in modern aviation history.
So what does 2017 hold in store? Here are some trends to watch out for.
Remember Concorde? It’s been more than a decade since the plane was retired from service.
But British billionaire Sir Richard Branson is looking to usher in the age of the supersonic flight once again; and make it affordable to the masses.
His company Virgin Galactic is working with US start-up Boom to develop the XB-1, which is being plugged as the world’s fastest civil aircraft ever made.
Boeing and Lockheed Martin are also developing supersonic passenger jets, but Sir Richard is hoping to beat them to the punch.
The prototype, nicknamed «Baby Boom,» will see its first test flight take place later this year though the first commercial flight of its scaled-up successor is not expected until 2023.
It has a cruising speed 10% faster than the Concorde (which flew at more than twice the speed of sound) and is nearly three times faster than a regular plane.
Boom’s airliner is designed to carry 40 passengers at a time and fly between London and New York in just three hours and 15 minutes.
The price for a flight? A mere £2,500 each way.
Oil prices are creeping back upward but airlines are set to remain profitable in 2017.
The International Air Transport Association (IATA) forecasts the global airline industry will make $29.8bn (£24bn) in 2017, its third straight year of profit. Last year the sector logged a record $35.6bn.
«These three years are the best performance in the industry’s history, irrespective of the many uncertainties we face,» says IATA director general Alexandre de Juniac.
«After many years of hard work in restructuring and re-engineering the business the industry is also more resilient».
But the profits won’t be evenly spread; the strongest performance is expected to be come from North America, which has seen a wave of airline consolidation in recent years.
Forget about comparing plane sizes, this year will be focused on route lengths and who can claim the title of world’s longest flight operator.
Emirates currently holds the crown with the 14,200km (8,820 miles) journey between Dubai and Auckland. That flight takes 16 hours and 5 minutes eastbound and 17h 25m westbound.
Its rival Qatar Airways will overtake that in February, when it also launches a non-stop flight from Doha to New Zealand’s largest city, covering 14,542km.
Air France plans to launch a new budget carrier in late 2017 serving cities in Asia, followed by routes to the US. It already operates the Hop and Transavia budget brands in Asia.
Within Europe, Ryanair and Easyjet dominate much of the market, leading many companies to look at the transatlantic route for more profits.
Iceland’s Wow Air will also be expanding its budget routes to the United States in June 2017. It plans to add four weekly flights via Reykjavik.
There used to be first class, business class and economy, but for those of us constantly relegated to cattle class there is now an extra twist — premium economy.
You’re still towards the back of the plane, but you get extra legroom, service and amenities.
Later this year, for example, on long-haul international flights on its new Airbus A350s, Delta Air Lines launches what it calls its «Delta Premium Select» option.
You get «up to 38in of pitch, up to 19in of width and up to 7in of recline», a branded blanket with pillow and an amenity kit, it promises.
The catch? The more expensive tickets are around three times the price of the standard economy fare.
In the post-war air travel boom, the centre aisle was marketed as a runway for glamorous stewardesses.
Some carriers are now looking to recapture some of that chic with newly-revamped wardrobes.
Hawaiian Airlines is changing its employees’ outfits for the first time since 2008, while Delta has worked with New York designer Zac Posen to update its uniforms.
It says its 60,000 employees will now be draped in a «wholly re-imagined» mix of colours dubbed «Passport Plum, Cruising Cardinal and Groundspeed Graphite».
Which sounds more glamorous than just calling them purple, red or grey.
Follow Leisha on Twitter: @BBCLeishaChi

Similarity rank: 0

Sentiment rank: 0

© Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38463307
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

Op-Ed: Federal Liberals renege on closing tax loophole for the wealthy — The loophole involves executives taking remuneration in stock options rather than cash. If the price of the stock is lower than the market the difference is taken as remuneration. An executive can claim a 50 percent tax deduction. when selling the stock. Ottawa — The loophole involves executives taking remuneration in stock options rather than cash. If the price of the stock is lower than the market the difference is taken as remuneration. An executive can claim a 50 percent tax deduction. when selling the stock. One of those who contacted the new Liberal government was John Manley himself a former Liberal finance minister who now heads the Business Council of Canada. In November of 2015 However, last March Morneau went even further and said that closing the loophole was completely off the table. The concern about wealthy executives profiting from the loophole is now replaced by concern that «small firms and innovators» will find their businesses hurt by blocking the loophole. When asked by why Morneau never mentioned messages from larger firms and others he replies that the Liberals are concerned to strengthen the middle class through broad consultation and notes that the department gets a large range of correspondence. NDP finance critic By the end of October this year, 16 fundraisers were reportedly held by Trudeau. The tax loophole. The decision to not plug the loophole was made after pressure on Finance Minister Bill Morneau by bigwigs from the financial elite. Liberal campaign literature from the 1915 election claimed that as many as 8,000 people were claiming an average of $400,000 a year through the loophole. In the campaign the party platform called the loophole a disproportionate benefit for the wealthy and promised to cap the benefit at $50,000. One of those who contacted the new Liberal government was John Manley himself a former Liberal finance minister who now heads the Business Council of Canada. In November of 2015 Manley wrote : “Doubling the tax rate with a retroactive impact on existing options would be unfair. Allow for a gradual phase-in of the changes.” Just a few weeks later Morneau announced that the changes would not be retroactive. However, last March Morneau went even further and said that closing the loophole was completely off the table. The concern about wealthy executives profiting from the loophole is now replaced by concern that «small firms and innovators» will find their businesses hurt by blocking the loophole. When asked by why Morneau never mentioned messages from larger firms and others he replies that the Liberals are concerned to strengthen the middle class through broad consultation and notes that the department gets a large range of correspondence. NDP finance critic Guy Caron noted: “There are many problems. I think that shows the influence Bay Street has over the Liberal Party. That’s something we knew in the past and it’s still very much like this nowadays. I think this is a perfect example of this.” The move shows a cynical attitude on the part of the government according to Caron. Dennis Howlett president of Canadians for Tax Fairness noted: “The prime minister campaigned on a promise to get rid of the stock option loophole which has put billions back into the pockets of wealthy CEOs, including bank presidents, real estate moguls, and heads of powerful multinationals. Those guys send their lobbyists to talk to the Finance Minister and – just like that – their commitment disappeared.” The group also criticized the Liberal government for having private dinners with Liberal cabinet ministers and even Prime Minister Trudeau for a high fee. A ticket can cost over $1500. At first Trudeau denied that there was any lobbying at these cash-for-access events. Just before Xmas Trudeau admitted that lobbying did take place but did not affect his decisions. By the end of October this year, 16 fundraisers were reportedly held by Trudeau. The Tyee reported on two dinners, one in Toronto and the other in Vancouver attended by about 120 people in all. Even if only 90 percent were paying guests the take from the two nights would be around $165,000. For all 16 the take could be up to $1.3 million. During the same period cabinet ministers and government officials held more tahn 70 similar fundraising dinners. The tax loophole deprives Canada of about $750 million in lost revenue each year. It is now the little guys and struggling startups that are going to be hurt by the change even though most of the benefits go to executives who are already doing well. Canada’s top CEOs earn 193 times what the average worker earns. They earn so much that they benefit greatly by taking much of their compensation as stock options which are taxed at half the rate of regular salaries. Yet Morneau justifies his refusal to act by saying: «I heard from many small firms and innovators that they use stock options as a legitimate form of compensation, so we decided not to put that in our budget. » The Liberals and Conservatives agree on promoting policies that make the rich richer while the burden of taxes is placed squarely on less wealthy taxpayers. Some industry representatives suggested different ways of closing the loopholed that would have a less drastic effect on the wealthy. The Liberal government decided that they simply would not bother even to try to close the loophole at all. Maybe Stephen Harper the former Conservative Prime Minister suggested that idea to Morneau. This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com

Similarity rank: 0

Sentiment rank: 0.8

© Source: http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/politics/op-ed-federal-liberals-renege-on-closing-tax-loophole-for-the-wealthy/article/483171
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

A barnacle removal bill is an unlikely inspiration to set up a joint bank account. Yet, for two keen sailors, opening an account together was the most efficient way to organise the costs of running their boat.
Fees for maintenance, mooring, and fuel all needed to be paid, so the yacht-owning duo stepped into their local bank branch on the south coast of England and signed up.
The manager that day was Eric Leenders, now the managing director of retail banking at the British Bankers’ Association.
«Typically joint accounts are used by couples for pooled income and expenditure, the trigger is often when they move in together and start paying the bills,» he says.
«But, on occasions, they are used to share funding for a particular project. »
It is the mundane reality of keeping heads above water financially — rather than keeping a vessel shipshape — that prompts most people to open a joint bank account.
Any couple or group of people can open an account together, generally a regular current account with some added terms and conditions. Yet, experts stress there are benefits and pitfalls to sharing a bank account with anyone — even within an intimate relationship.
Today, couples are living together and marrying later in life. Having increasingly led independent financial lives, the relevance of joint accounts may be questioned.
While the vast majority of banks and building societies offer them, they do not collect and share any data so we can only speculate that the popularity of these accounts is fading.
Fiona Cullinan, a 48-year-old digital editor, says she never had a joint bank account, even during more than two years of marriage — until last month.
«This is probably a legacy of not wanting to argue about money and also being independent, as once bills and standing orders are set up, it is hard to shift everything over — or so I thought,» she says.
«In September I lost one of my jobs and so a joint account started to make more sense to help with cash flow. It was really simple and took about 30 minutes at the bank to set up.
«Now that everything doesn’t go out from my account, it is a lot less stressful. A secondary bonus is that the burden feels more shared as my husband is now more involved in household finances — he set up a household budget spreadsheet to check things are on track each month. I now feel we are more of a team. »
Applying for a joint account is much the same as opening a current account individually. Applicants often tick a box to make the account a joint version, then fill in their individual section of the form and provide the normal proof of address and identity.
Many banks allow customers to add a second name to an existing account, following the normal checks.
Convenience is generally the main benefit, with the account used to pay household bills, although wages are often still paid into an individual’s own current account.
«Two people with two accounts often become two people with three accounts,» says Eric Leenders, of the BBA.
There is no limit on the number of people who can sign up, but primarily they are used by couples who are married, in civil partnerships or who live together, or by friends who share a home. Banks says that couples separated by work postings are also among those who are keen.
Mr Leenders says that reward or packaged current accounts can lend themselves to joint opening owing to household benefits, such as insurance, that may be included. He stressed that anyone signing up should read the terms and conditions to check the extent of this cover.
The Money Advice Service, a government-funded, independent organisation, points out there are limitations for anyone who needs longer term access to someone else’s finances.
«If, for example, you have an elderly relative who is having trouble keeping on top of their money — a joint account is not your best bet,» it says.
The key decision when setting up the account is whether one individual can withdraw money, sign cheques and make payments or whether both, or all, need to sign.
This is made official under what is known as the mandate. This should also cover the rules over who must give permission for changes in the terms of the account or close it.
Whatever the decision, all parties usually get a payment card and a cheque book, if it is available with the account.
Digitally, each person will have their own log-in details, with their own password, so this needs to be set up individually. In reality, this means each remembering another password, although mobile banking now uses encrypted password saving and fingerprint logins.
Joint accounts allow people to share the rewards and convenience, but they also share the risk.
Opening a joint account means a couple will be co-scored by credit reference agencies, so if one has a poor credit history it can affect the other.
Getting out of debt also falls to both, or all, of those signed up — as a group and individually. Typically, each account holder is responsible for paying back all the money owed, so one could become liable for repaying the other person’s debt.
A bank might take money from that person’s sole account to cover the overdraft in the joint account — but only if both accounts are with the same bank.
«Banks are not in the business of making good customers bad customers,» says Mr Leenders, pointing out that banks’ lending code requires them to treat customers sympathetically.
He stresses that people should inform their bank about a relationship breakdown, or any sign of transactions that have not been agreed, to freeze the account — otherwise it can be difficult to retrieve this money.
Cases that have gone to the financial ombudsman include:
At its worst, extravagant spending by one partner from the joint account, or sole control of a joint account can be a sign of financial abuse .
Spending jointly earned money, taking out loans in a partner’s name, demanding payment for utility bills from their own savings, or scrutinising every penny that a partner spends are all signs of such bullying, charities and the TUC say.
Worse, it can be the forerunner of even more serious emotional, or physical, abuse.
Women are often the victims, but men — particularly those with disabilities — can also be vulnerable.
Under the Serious Crime Act — implemented in 2015 — coercive and controlling behaviour between partners, which could include financial abuse, became illegal for the first time.

Similarity rank: 0

Sentiment rank: 2.9

© Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38508810
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.