Furthermore, there is liability whether there is debt or not. Frankly, it would appear I have forgotten more real estate deals
Frankly, you're right -- you have forgotten more than you know.
I think you're confusing "liability exposure" with "liability". Two different things. "Liabilities" are debts. If you owe me $100,000 for the purchase of real estate, the $100,000 is a "liability" to you. Again, I think you're a little out of your area of expertise here.
Because we disagree on the definition of liability, I am out of my "area of expertise"? I don't thiiinnk sooooooo.
You are wrong in your interpretation, and you really need to accept it instead of trying to put the fault on me.
Look, I once worked for one of the largest syndicators in the country. McAuliffe's deal would have been chump change for them. As presented in the Nat. Review article, there does not appear to be anything irregular re this deal. However, there may be facts that were omitted. If so and when those facts come to the surface, let me know. Then we can talk about whether McAuliffe is a crook or not. Otherwise, its just supposition and idle speculation. |
