Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (148422)	7/17/2002 2:15:23 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577989

In one deal, McAuliffe and the fund officials created a partnership to buy a large block of commercial real estate in Florida. McAuliffe put up $100 for the purchase, while the pension fund put up $39 million. Yet McAuliffe got a 50-percent interest in the deal; he eventually walked away with $2.45 million from his original $100 investment. In another instance, the pension fund loaned McAuliffe more than $6 million for a real-estate development, only to find that McAuliffe was unable to make payments for nearly five years. In the end, the pension fund lost some of its money, McAuliffe moved on to his next deal, and fund officials found themselves facing the Labor Department's questions. Based upon the information provided, I don't see what the crime was. The National Review noted that McAuliffe was involved in a limited partnership. In a limited partnership, there is a gen. partner and limited partners. The general partner usually puts up very little partnership capital but takes on most of the partnership risk and responsibility. The limiteds typically put up the capital but have limited risk and responsibility. This is standard in the real estate industry and is considered an equitable split. From the comments made by the Nat. Review, it is unclear to me what McAuliffe did wrong. He may well be a crook but nothing the National Review has said confirms that conclusion. The National Review certainly makes it sound sinister and its possible the officers of the pension fund violated there own rules entering into the partnerships but that's their problem, not McAuliffe. It also sounds like the deal did not go as well as expected. That's not a surprise.......real estate is a difficult business particularly with all the gov't regs. that have to be satisfied. Some of the other stuff that's mentioned about McAuliffe does sound questionable on the face of it and needs to be investigated. I don't know his rep at all so I can't comment. However, there is an important point made in the article by the DNC person......Bush is president and that's a considerably more important position than the rep. from New York. It also needs to be noted that as Chair of the DNC, he's been one of the Dems. making life unpleasant for Bush. So its not surprising, the Reps are digging for stuff to throw at a wall and make stick. And if he's guilty of wrong doing, McAuliffe can share a cell with Mr. Bush, assuming he's guilty as well. ted