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: tejek who wrote (148449)	7/17/2002 12:38:00 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578479

because you think its illegal does not make it so. Unless your talking about Bush right? Tim

To: tejek who wrote (148449)	7/17/2002 12:57:03 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578479

What does debt have to do with it? Can't you read? In any real estate deal, there is liability whether there is debt or not......you should know that if you done so many deals, shooter! Once again, your total ignorance of the subject is showing. Debt has EVERYTHING to do with it. If there is no debt, there is no difference between the liability assumed by the general and the limited partner. Further, in that situation, the $100 GP would actually be in a more powerful position than the pension fund that put up $39M cash, as the general has more control. Debt and liabilities are the same thing, at least in this context. In a real estate deal there is no liability if there is no debt. Honestly, you come across as not having a clue what you're talking about. Until then, you're simply blowing smoke. Deals like this don't occur without consideration. He gave up something. Pension funds don't put up the financing and give up control of a project for no reason. Something was received in exchange. Again, as a neophyte you may not understand this, but there is no other logical explanation for a deal this lopsided. Typical liberal elitest criminal behavior -- we just don't know what the crime is yet. What I said was that there is no concrete evidence dug up by the Nat. Review that says it was illegal. Again, why are you having trouble reading what I post? It walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck. It's a freaking duck. I agree there isn't enough there to charge the guy, but I'm confident we'll see an investigation.