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 (148467)	7/17/2002 2:23:25 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578590

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. 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. I've handled the accounting and tax work for enough real estate deals to be able to see there is no logical explanation in this deal for McAuliffe's huge cut. Period. Unless there was debt that McAuliffe took personal liability for, which there apparently wasn't (or it would have to be taken into accounting in his settlement at the later date). How many deals have you done exactly? Two or three? As a CPA I specialized in real estate accounting & tax for 12 years. I've seen a few.