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 (148461)	7/17/2002 1:29:26 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578562

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. You clearly have not done real estate deals. If you had, you would know there is liability beyond any debt. The total operations of the partnership and the real estate transaction[s] it covers are the responsibility of the general partner. He/she is liable if any aspect of his/her responsibility fails to function properly. A failure to meet debt payments is just one part of that liability.

To: i-node who wrote (148461)	7/17/2002 1:43:26 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578562

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. Bubba, you tell me one more time I don't know what I am talking about when it comes to real estate and I will $&#@&^%$%&#%*!!!!! Use your imagination! Furthermore, there is liability whether there is debt or not. Frankly, it would appear I have forgotten more real estate deals than you have done. Until then, you're simply blowing smoke. Deals like this don't occur without consideration. He gave up something. Clearly, you do not know the deal points and therefore, anything you say is idle speculation. Until you know the specific deal points, your comments are nothing more than simply blowing smoke. 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. How many deals have you done exactly? Two or three? Unfortunately, you bring a whole new meaning to the phrase "a little goes a long way!" Once again, not knowing the deal points only limits this conversation. 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. Well, lets see how far you get in a court of law with your duck analogy.