Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
ucodegen
Participant@Sarah G
Ucodegen then, in his last sentence makes me understand where he is coming from, “I used to work at a defense contractor until I was laid off.” Maybe there is a reason why he was laid off? He was an employee for a contractor, and now a laid off employee.
Sweet.. personal attacks to prove your point. The fact that you resorted to this several times with different people on the board wrt this post indicates that your logic is weak and you have to resort to personal attacks to press your point. It is also interesting that you created your account about 4 days and 20 hours before making this post.
So, there is recourse. Does anyone here know what they are talking about? Read, Read, Read!!!
JustLurking chimes in with his/her expert opinion. Expert at what?
As Shakespeare says, and I paraphrase; Oh, what fools these posters be!
—
Ucodegen talks like an attorney, but he’s not! He is totally wrong.
As for wrong.. lets go to your major point.. the ‘personal guarantee’. Do you know what ‘DBA‘ stands for? It means ‘Doing Business As’. Therefore Investment accepted as a personal loan to Steve Bartko dba Starfire Technology actually reads Investment accepted as a personal loan to Steve Bartko doing business as Starfire Technology. This one sentence does two things;
1) Indicates that wherever the name ‘Steve Bartko’ is in the document, it is to be read as the entity ‘Starfire Technology’. This shortens the sentence above to ‘Investment accepted as a personal loan to Starfire Technology.‘
2) It also indicates that ‘Steve Bartko’ represents the corporate entity ‘Starfire Technology’.
The sentence that you take as meaning that ‘Steve Bartko’ is personally responsible literally states that there is a corporate veil between ‘Steve Bartko’ and ‘Starfire Technology’, and your business dealings are with ‘Starfire Technology’.Every business is different. What one business does and finds advantageous, another finds disadvantageous.
True but there are some basic things that will guide companies, particularly those that deal with the government.
1) They will not throw away a 24% risk free rate of return. If it was truly 0 risk, then contractors would even create a sub-division with the sole purpose of lending money to ‘Starfire Technology’ to get that 24% risk free return.
2) There are CMMI level 3 and ISO 9000 certification requirements for government sub-contractors, dictated through the contract vehicle/document. Saw no such cert either way I looked at them (their website or cert agencies).All the companies that I have worked for, have purchasing departments whose responsibility is to locate products and getting the best price. They do this for several reasons.. including quality control. If a supplier/manufacturer has a history poor delivery, delivery of non-working product, sub-par or non-compliant product.. the purchasing department will black-list that supplier/manufacturer. In addition, a company like Raytheon, Northrup Grumman, BAE, L-3 will have much more leverage over a supplier than some small middleman.
So far, my items 1-6 have not been refuted.. or even a real attempt to refute.
As for;
This might be an awesome investment, and then again, it might not be. If it is as presented, it is awsome! The only way you’ll find out if the investment is as awesome as is presented is to make an investment in it.
I agree with UCGal and I am quite surprised that a CFA with 30 years experience would say something like that.
Participant@Sarah G
Ucodegen then, in his last sentence makes me understand where he is coming from, “I used to work at a defense contractor until I was laid off.” Maybe there is a reason why he was laid off? He was an employee for a contractor, and now a laid off employee.
Sweet.. personal attacks to prove your point. The fact that you resorted to this several times with different people on the board wrt this post indicates that your logic is weak and you have to resort to personal attacks to press your point. It is also interesting that you created your account about 4 days and 20 hours before making this post.
So, there is recourse. Does anyone here know what they are talking about? Read, Read, Read!!!
JustLurking chimes in with his/her expert opinion. Expert at what?
As Shakespeare says, and I paraphrase; Oh, what fools these posters be!
—
Ucodegen talks like an attorney, but he’s not! He is totally wrong.
As for wrong.. lets go to your major point.. the ‘personal guarantee’. Do you know what ‘DBA‘ stands for? It means ‘Doing Business As’. Therefore Investment accepted as a personal loan to Steve Bartko dba Starfire Technology actually reads Investment accepted as a personal loan to Steve Bartko doing business as Starfire Technology. This one sentence does two things;
1) Indicates that wherever the name ‘Steve Bartko’ is in the document, it is to be read as the entity ‘Starfire Technology’. This shortens the sentence above to ‘Investment accepted as a personal loan to Starfire Technology.‘
2) It also indicates that ‘Steve Bartko’ represents the corporate entity ‘Starfire Technology’.
The sentence that you take as meaning that ‘Steve Bartko’ is personally responsible literally states that there is a corporate veil between ‘Steve Bartko’ and ‘Starfire Technology’, and your business dealings are with ‘Starfire Technology’.Every business is different. What one business does and finds advantageous, another finds disadvantageous.
True but there are some basic things that will guide companies, particularly those that deal with the government.
1) They will not throw away a 24% risk free rate of return. If it was truly 0 risk, then contractors would even create a sub-division with the sole purpose of lending money to ‘Starfire Technology’ to get that 24% risk free return.
2) There are CMMI level 3 and ISO 9000 certification requirements for government sub-contractors, dictated through the contract vehicle/document. Saw no such cert either way I looked at them (their website or cert agencies).All the companies that I have worked for, have purchasing departments whose responsibility is to locate products and getting the best price. They do this for several reasons.. including quality control. If a supplier/manufacturer has a history poor delivery, delivery of non-working product, sub-par or non-compliant product.. the purchasing department will black-list that supplier/manufacturer. In addition, a company like Raytheon, Northrup Grumman, BAE, L-3 will have much more leverage over a supplier than some small middleman.
So far, my items 1-6 have not been refuted.. or even a real attempt to refute.
As for;
This might be an awesome investment, and then again, it might not be. If it is as presented, it is awsome! The only way you’ll find out if the investment is as awesome as is presented is to make an investment in it.
I agree with UCGal and I am quite surprised that a CFA with 30 years experience would say something like that.
ParticipantBut patb’s experience is typical: most banks see through the aims of the entity and make the owners (partners, members, shareholders, etc) sign personal guarantees to make sure they get their money if things go south.
I wouldn’t say ‘see through’.. I would say that banks try to circumvent the protection allowed by a corporate entity by trying to get the company principals to pledge assets/guarantees against the loan (ie. act as co-signers). Depending upon size of entity, net asset value of corp and historical earnings, you can tell them to pound sand when they do this and threaten to walk. Banks want to get their fingers on as many assets as possible should things go bad and try to charge as much interest on any loan that the can. They also have to lend money to make money.. They don’t lend, they don’t make money.
ParticipantBut patb’s experience is typical: most banks see through the aims of the entity and make the owners (partners, members, shareholders, etc) sign personal guarantees to make sure they get their money if things go south.
I wouldn’t say ‘see through’.. I would say that banks try to circumvent the protection allowed by a corporate entity by trying to get the company principals to pledge assets/guarantees against the loan (ie. act as co-signers). Depending upon size of entity, net asset value of corp and historical earnings, you can tell them to pound sand when they do this and threaten to walk. Banks want to get their fingers on as many assets as possible should things go bad and try to charge as much interest on any loan that the can. They also have to lend money to make money.. They don’t lend, they don’t make money.
ParticipantBut patb’s experience is typical: most banks see through the aims of the entity and make the owners (partners, members, shareholders, etc) sign personal guarantees to make sure they get their money if things go south.
I wouldn’t say ‘see through’.. I would say that banks try to circumvent the protection allowed by a corporate entity by trying to get the company principals to pledge assets/guarantees against the loan (ie. act as co-signers). Depending upon size of entity, net asset value of corp and historical earnings, you can tell them to pound sand when they do this and threaten to walk. Banks want to get their fingers on as many assets as possible should things go bad and try to charge as much interest on any loan that the can. They also have to lend money to make money.. They don’t lend, they don’t make money.
ParticipantBut patb’s experience is typical: most banks see through the aims of the entity and make the owners (partners, members, shareholders, etc) sign personal guarantees to make sure they get their money if things go south.
I wouldn’t say ‘see through’.. I would say that banks try to circumvent the protection allowed by a corporate entity by trying to get the company principals to pledge assets/guarantees against the loan (ie. act as co-signers). Depending upon size of entity, net asset value of corp and historical earnings, you can tell them to pound sand when they do this and threaten to walk. Banks want to get their fingers on as many assets as possible should things go bad and try to charge as much interest on any loan that the can. They also have to lend money to make money.. They don’t lend, they don’t make money.
ParticipantBut patb’s experience is typical: most banks see through the aims of the entity and make the owners (partners, members, shareholders, etc) sign personal guarantees to make sure they get their money if things go south.
I wouldn’t say ‘see through’.. I would say that banks try to circumvent the protection allowed by a corporate entity by trying to get the company principals to pledge assets/guarantees against the loan (ie. act as co-signers). Depending upon size of entity, net asset value of corp and historical earnings, you can tell them to pound sand when they do this and threaten to walk. Banks want to get their fingers on as many assets as possible should things go bad and try to charge as much interest on any loan that the can. They also have to lend money to make money.. They don’t lend, they don’t make money.
Participantthe feds are discussing expanding teh 7(a) loans for small business.
This is very dangerous, because throwing credit to drowning men is
attractive but as the owner, you are personally liable for this,Not correct. A small business can be incorporated. By doing this, it limits the losses to the value of the business. It is actually a good idea for a small business to incorporate, and many do. It limits any losses, particularly when starting up a business. It also limits the amount of damages that may occur against the owner in a lawsuit (ie slip-and-fall)
Participantthe feds are discussing expanding teh 7(a) loans for small business.
This is very dangerous, because throwing credit to drowning men is
attractive but as the owner, you are personally liable for this,Not correct. A small business can be incorporated. By doing this, it limits the losses to the value of the business. It is actually a good idea for a small business to incorporate, and many do. It limits any losses, particularly when starting up a business. It also limits the amount of damages that may occur against the owner in a lawsuit (ie slip-and-fall)
Participantthe feds are discussing expanding teh 7(a) loans for small business.
This is very dangerous, because throwing credit to drowning men is
attractive but as the owner, you are personally liable for this,Not correct. A small business can be incorporated. By doing this, it limits the losses to the value of the business. It is actually a good idea for a small business to incorporate, and many do. It limits any losses, particularly when starting up a business. It also limits the amount of damages that may occur against the owner in a lawsuit (ie slip-and-fall)
Participantthe feds are discussing expanding teh 7(a) loans for small business.
This is very dangerous, because throwing credit to drowning men is
attractive but as the owner, you are personally liable for this,Not correct. A small business can be incorporated. By doing this, it limits the losses to the value of the business. It is actually a good idea for a small business to incorporate, and many do. It limits any losses, particularly when starting up a business. It also limits the amount of damages that may occur against the owner in a lawsuit (ie slip-and-fall)
Participantthe feds are discussing expanding teh 7(a) loans for small business.
This is very dangerous, because throwing credit to drowning men is
attractive but as the owner, you are personally liable for this,Not correct. A small business can be incorporated. By doing this, it limits the losses to the value of the business. It is actually a good idea for a small business to incorporate, and many do. It limits any losses, particularly when starting up a business. It also limits the amount of damages that may occur against the owner in a lawsuit (ie slip-and-fall)
Participant3. Major banks can borrow money from the Fed at 0% or use TARP money to cover these warrants.
The TARP money does not cost 0%. Last quarter, BofA paid over $400Mil on interest alone (per quarter) on the TARP money they borrowed. Its in their 10Q. ($400M * 4Q)/$45B = 3.555% interest. Banks don’t want to risk it because of the risk of default. It is not money-good.
Participant3. Major banks can borrow money from the Fed at 0% or use TARP money to cover these warrants.
The TARP money does not cost 0%. Last quarter, BofA paid over $400Mil on interest alone (per quarter) on the TARP money they borrowed. Its in their 10Q. ($400M * 4Q)/$45B = 3.555% interest. Banks don’t want to risk it because of the risk of default. It is not money-good.
-
AuthorPosts
