If I remember correctly, the borrower in question is employed in the financial services business. I can see why negative opinions about his financial acumen and his ethical conduct might cut into his employment.
If I remember correctly, the borrower in question is employed in the financial services business. I can see why negative opinions about his financial acumen and his ethical conduct might cut into his employment.
If I remember correctly, the borrower in question is employed in the financial services business. I can see why negative opinions about his financial acumen and his ethical conduct might cut into his employment.
If I remember correctly, the borrower in question is employed in the financial services business. I can see why negative opinions about his financial acumen and his ethical conduct might cut into his employment.
If I remember correctly, the borrower in question is employed in the financial services business. I can see why negative opinions about his financial acumen and his ethical conduct might cut into his employment.
It is not clear to me if OCRenter published the name or a reader could infer it from his own research. If OCR didn't publish the name, I think he is on pretty strong ground. If he did, that was probably not a good idea. His story would be equally interesting if he just said "Joe Smith " (or even F*D Borrower!) without revealing buyer's identity.
It is not clear to me if OCRenter published the name or a reader could infer it from his own research. If OCR didn't publish the name, I think he is on pretty strong ground. If he did, that was probably not a good idea. His story would be equally interesting if he just said "Joe Smith " (or even F*D Borrower!) without revealing buyer's identity.
It is not clear to me if OCRenter published the name or a reader could infer it from his own research. If OCR didn't publish the name, I think he is on pretty strong ground. If he did, that was probably not a good idea. His story would be equally interesting if he just said "Joe Smith " (or even F*D Borrower!) without revealing buyer's identity.
It is not clear to me if OCRenter published the name or a reader could infer it from his own research. If OCR didn't publish the name, I think he is on pretty strong ground. If he did, that was probably not a good idea. His story would be equally interesting if he just said "Joe Smith " (or even F*D Borrower!) without revealing buyer's identity.
It is not clear to me if OCRenter published the name or a reader could infer it from his own research. If OCR didn't publish the name, I think he is on pretty strong ground. If he did, that was probably not a good idea. His story would be equally interesting if he just said "Joe Smith " (or even F*D Borrower!) without revealing buyer's identity.
Pretty sure he mentioned the name. I agree, it probably would have been wiser to not name the person, but I don’t what the legal ramifications are as a result if any.
Pretty sure he mentioned the name. I agree, it probably would have been wiser to not name the person, but I don’t what the legal ramifications are as a result if any.
Pretty sure he mentioned the name. I agree, it probably would have been wiser to not name the person, but I don’t what the legal ramifications are as a result if any.
Pretty sure he mentioned the name. I agree, it probably would have been wiser to not name the person, but I don’t what the legal ramifications are as a result if any.
