Exclusive: Donald Trump’s brand is taking a hit-by Rick Newman

In Chicago, some embarrassed residents of the tony Trump Tower give their street address or say they “live by the river” instead of naming the building they live in to avoid association with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. In New York, media commentator Keith Olbermann declared, “I can’t stand to live in a Trump building anymore,” and said he’s moving out after “nine happy years.” And online, thousands of Trump protesters have called on retailers such as Starbucks (SBUX), Nike (NKE) and Gucci to move out of Trump buildings.

Trump revels in such controversy, of course, and often finds ways to turn it to his advantage. But there’s new evidence that Trump’s combative demeanor as a presidential candidate, combined with inflammatory statements about Muslims, Mexicans and other groups, may be financially harming the brand Trump has spent more than 30 years carefully crafting.

Redfin, the national real-estate brokerage, conducted an analysis of Trump condominium prices for Yahoo Finance and found that the value of Trump properties has suffered as Trump’s fame and notoriety has spread. A separate analysis by StreetEasy, an online real-estate search service, shows Trump properties are holding their own in the developer’s home market of New York. But Yahoo Finance also examined nightly rates at Trump hotels across the country and found modest discounts there too, compared with other luxury brands. On the whole, it appears Trump’s rambunctious presidential campaign isn’t helping his brand at all—and is hurting it in some areas.

Before Trump became a candidate, Trump properties bearing his name had a significant pricing advantage over other properties offering the same range of amenities—the “Trump premium,” as some in the industry referred to it. But that pricing advantage has disappeared this year. “We found that Trump units would fetch more than the competition in 2015,” Redfin analyst Taylor Marr told Yahoo Finance. “We can no longer attribute any pricing differential to Trump’s name being associated with the properties we studied.”

Redfin compared the value of condos in Trump buildings, which are typically at or near the peak of the luxury market, with similar buildings no more than half a mile away in nine different markets: three suburban communities north of New York City, Jersey City, N.J., Hollywood Beach, Fla., Sunny Isles Beach, Fla. Chicago, Las Vegas and Honolulu (Waikiki). The analysis controlled for size, number of bedrooms and bathrooms and other factors. (The full methodology is here.) Overall, the analysis covered sales of 161 Trump units and 920 comparable properties.

Here’s a summary of the Redfin findings. The Trump premium is the amount Trump properties sell for, above comparable units:

Source: Redfin

Redfin considers the 2016 Trump premium numbers to be statistically insignificant, which means if Trump properties have any pricing advantage, it’s very unlikely it’s due to the Trump brand. That means there is essentially no Trump premium anymore in the nine markets Redfin studied. The Trump name, as famous as it may be, no longer boosts property values.

In prior years, before Trump became a politician, Trump’s name could boost values by as much as 70%, according to court filings and other documents reviewed by Yahoo Finance. In court depositions, Trump himself attributed that premium largely to the fame he gained as star of the reality TV show, “The Apprentice.” The rising value of his name as a brand allowed Trump to license his name to projects run by others for millions of dollars and move away from the riskier work of constructing, financing and marketing buildings. These days, the majority of “Trump” buildings are owned by someone else.

Here are a couple examples of the comparisons Redfin made as part of its analysis. In March of 2015, a two-bedroom condo on the 53^rd floor of Chicago’s Trump Tower—which Trump does own—sold for $1.675 million, or $1,046 per square foot. Two months later, a similar luxury condo on the 39^th floor of 600 N. Fairbanks, about eight blocks away, sold for $1.4 million, or $822 per square foot. The 2015 Trump premium: $224 per square foot.

Culled from Yahoo finance.

Lawyer challenges proposed immunity, life pension for lawmakers On July 19, 20163:51 pmIn NewsComments Lagos – A Federal High Court, Lagos, has been urged to restrain the National Assembly from passing into law, any bill seeking to grant immunity and life pension to officers of the assembly. A rights activist, Mr Kabir Akingbolu, made the call in a suit he filed at the court on Tuesday. Joined as respondents in the suit were Senate President, Bukola Saraki; Speaker, House of Representatives, Yakubu Dogara; and the Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami. Akingbolu, in his originating summons, said the move by the federal lawmakers was not only detrimental to the well-being of every citizen, but amounts to gross violation of constitutional provisions. He argued that the move by the National Assembly to propose life pension for its leaders at a critical economic period was crude. Relying on sections 15 (5), 16 (1) (b), (2) (a) (b) and 17 (1) of the Constitution, Akingbolu argued that the proposed life pension and immunity laws by the lawmakers, was a total departure from the provisions of the constitution. He contended that such proposal would not only further impoverish the citizens as resources meant for their common good would be concentrated in the hands of a few, but also encourage corrupt practices. In a supporting affidavit, the lawyer averred that the lawmakers failed to take into consideration the constitutional provision bordering on maximum welfare, freedom and happiness of every citizen, before proposing such laws. He averred that what was required of the National Assembly at the moment were laws that would foster maximum welfare, freedom and happiness of every citizen. According to him, for decades, no officer of the National Assembly has been granted immunity and there is no harassment of the holders of the said offices. “The move to obtain immunity for officers of the National Assembly for offences while in office, is anti-people and unconstitutional. “All over the world, there is nowhere members of the legislature are granted immunity against offences; therefore any grant of same is a crude attempt to place lawmakers above the law.’’ No date has been fixed for hearing of the suit.

Read more at: http://www.vanguardngr.com/2016/07/lawyer-challenges-proposed-immunity-life-pension-lawmakers/