[stansd]

I will say that for her, she posted what I wrote:

“Anonymous said…
Hi Kathy,

I find your post to be at best distasteful, and at worst, encouragement for fraud.

The entire premise behind your recommendation is that people should take out a new loan before information becomes available that would make the lender reject that loan.

There are rules against these kinds of shenanigans in nearly every other sphere. A corporation cannot issue a bond and fail to disclose a material loss it knows it is about to experience. A divorce settlement would not be binding if one of the parties was holding back a huge windfall he/she was about to receive.

If you were lending the money, would you view the fact that the borrower was about to default as material? How would you feel if the headline on the union Tribune read, “Kathy Neilsen obtains loan by hiding material facts from lender”. Would you think it appropriate for someone to get their real estate license 1 day before being convicted on felony money laundering charges?

You are not stupid, but you should be ashamed. You are at best encouraging irresponsibility, and at worst outright fraud.

You may want to consider whether this kind of marketing will inflame your more honest and upright clients and potential clients. I hope it does.”

[stansd]

I will say that for her, she posted what I wrote:

“Anonymous said…
Hi Kathy,

I find your post to be at best distasteful, and at worst, encouragement for fraud.

The entire premise behind your recommendation is that people should take out a new loan before information becomes available that would make the lender reject that loan.

There are rules against these kinds of shenanigans in nearly every other sphere. A corporation cannot issue a bond and fail to disclose a material loss it knows it is about to experience. A divorce settlement would not be binding if one of the parties was holding back a huge windfall he/she was about to receive.

If you were lending the money, would you view the fact that the borrower was about to default as material? How would you feel if the headline on the union Tribune read, “Kathy Neilsen obtains loan by hiding material facts from lender”. Would you think it appropriate for someone to get their real estate license 1 day before being convicted on felony money laundering charges?

You are not stupid, but you should be ashamed. You are at best encouraging irresponsibility, and at worst outright fraud.

You may want to consider whether this kind of marketing will inflame your more honest and upright clients and potential clients. I hope it does.”

[stansd]

I will say that for her, she posted what I wrote:

“Anonymous said…
Hi Kathy,

I find your post to be at best distasteful, and at worst, encouragement for fraud.

The entire premise behind your recommendation is that people should take out a new loan before information becomes available that would make the lender reject that loan.

There are rules against these kinds of shenanigans in nearly every other sphere. A corporation cannot issue a bond and fail to disclose a material loss it knows it is about to experience. A divorce settlement would not be binding if one of the parties was holding back a huge windfall he/she was about to receive.

If you were lending the money, would you view the fact that the borrower was about to default as material? How would you feel if the headline on the union Tribune read, “Kathy Neilsen obtains loan by hiding material facts from lender”. Would you think it appropriate for someone to get their real estate license 1 day before being convicted on felony money laundering charges?

You are not stupid, but you should be ashamed. You are at best encouraging irresponsibility, and at worst outright fraud.

You may want to consider whether this kind of marketing will inflame your more honest and upright clients and potential clients. I hope it does.”

[stansd]

I will say that for her, she posted what I wrote:

“Anonymous said…
Hi Kathy,

I find your post to be at best distasteful, and at worst, encouragement for fraud.

The entire premise behind your recommendation is that people should take out a new loan before information becomes available that would make the lender reject that loan.

There are rules against these kinds of shenanigans in nearly every other sphere. A corporation cannot issue a bond and fail to disclose a material loss it knows it is about to experience. A divorce settlement would not be binding if one of the parties was holding back a huge windfall he/she was about to receive.

If you were lending the money, would you view the fact that the borrower was about to default as material? How would you feel if the headline on the union Tribune read, “Kathy Neilsen obtains loan by hiding material facts from lender”. Would you think it appropriate for someone to get their real estate license 1 day before being convicted on felony money laundering charges?

You are not stupid, but you should be ashamed. You are at best encouraging irresponsibility, and at worst outright fraud.

You may want to consider whether this kind of marketing will inflame your more honest and upright clients and potential clients. I hope it does.”

[stansd]

I will say that for her, she posted what I wrote:

“Anonymous said…
Hi Kathy,

I find your post to be at best distasteful, and at worst, encouragement for fraud.

The entire premise behind your recommendation is that people should take out a new loan before information becomes available that would make the lender reject that loan.

There are rules against these kinds of shenanigans in nearly every other sphere. A corporation cannot issue a bond and fail to disclose a material loss it knows it is about to experience. A divorce settlement would not be binding if one of the parties was holding back a huge windfall he/she was about to receive.

If you were lending the money, would you view the fact that the borrower was about to default as material? How would you feel if the headline on the union Tribune read, “Kathy Neilsen obtains loan by hiding material facts from lender”. Would you think it appropriate for someone to get their real estate license 1 day before being convicted on felony money laundering charges?

You are not stupid, but you should be ashamed. You are at best encouraging irresponsibility, and at worst outright fraud.

You may want to consider whether this kind of marketing will inflame your more honest and upright clients and potential clients. I hope it does.”

[stansd]

I posted a comment (didn’t copy to clipboard before closing window). Was completely respectful, but also very direct. She says all comments are welcome…lets see if she posts:)

[stansd]

I posted a comment (didn’t copy to clipboard before closing window). Was completely respectful, but also very direct. She says all comments are welcome…lets see if she posts:)

[stansd]

I posted a comment (didn’t copy to clipboard before closing window). Was completely respectful, but also very direct. She says all comments are welcome…lets see if she posts:)

[stansd]

I posted a comment (didn’t copy to clipboard before closing window). Was completely respectful, but also very direct. She says all comments are welcome…lets see if she posts:)

[stansd]

I posted a comment (didn’t copy to clipboard before closing window). Was completely respectful, but also very direct. She says all comments are welcome…lets see if she posts:)

[stansd]

A 15K tax credit is the most ridiculous suggestion I’ve heard in some time. Talk about corporate welfare. The only effect that will have is to increase the price of every REO, by, you guessed it, 15K…no one will profit but the bank.

Stan

[stansd]

A 15K tax credit is the most ridiculous suggestion I’ve heard in some time. Talk about corporate welfare. The only effect that will have is to increase the price of every REO, by, you guessed it, 15K…no one will profit but the bank.

Stan

[stansd]

A 15K tax credit is the most ridiculous suggestion I’ve heard in some time. Talk about corporate welfare. The only effect that will have is to increase the price of every REO, by, you guessed it, 15K…no one will profit but the bank.

Stan

[stansd]

A 15K tax credit is the most ridiculous suggestion I’ve heard in some time. Talk about corporate welfare. The only effect that will have is to increase the price of every REO, by, you guessed it, 15K…no one will profit but the bank.

Stan

[stansd]

A 15K tax credit is the most ridiculous suggestion I’ve heard in some time. Talk about corporate welfare. The only effect that will have is to increase the price of every REO, by, you guessed it, 15K…no one will profit but the bank.

Stan

[Author]

Posts