I finally put thehog on ignore, so missed the news that he was MIA.
However, to your points above, first of all thank you. Collectively we seem much better at tearing each other to shreds.
Though the conclusion is clearly in the eye of the reader, and your interpretation is thus stronger than my arguments, I had thought that I had actually carefully and completely debunked just about every possible argument one could use to reasonably support or substantiate thehog's argument about a "pot of gold".
However, even though I tried to be as civilized and even as I could, when presented with fact after fact that showed his IRS statements were completely incorrect, and calculation after calculation that underscored 1+1=2, thehog refused to acknowledge any of it.
The last post of his I read before putting him on ignore, he repeated the irrational argument that taking the $5m knowing you had to repay $10 was a smart, low risk move.
The reality, as demonstrated, is that you would need the certainty of close to an average 20% return, or better, to justify that decision. Please allow me to re-emphasize '
certainty' and an '
average return' as opposed to occasional or rare spikes. Not even factoring in for risk, you would need to be certain that your return over a long period of time would be at or above 20%.
Frankly, that is and was crazy. And, obviously so.
Even junk bond rates haven't come close to approaching the levels that would be required to justify that decision. While junk bond yields actually did exceed 20% during this timeframe, it was only for a few days, twice, between November 2008 and March 2009. Otherwise, they have been more typically at or below 7.5% and are currently under 6%. More importantly, at the time of the Feb 2006 settlement with SCA, junk bond yields were under 8%. Who in their right mind would have expected a guaranteed greater than 20% return over nine years?
Reference:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BAMLH0A0HYM2EY
But, we don't need much in the way of actual data or proofs on this subject.
thehog was blowing smoke, unrelentingly. He was doing so purposefully. He was putting forward a flawed argument that could justify Lance's lying. That sure seems like baiting.
It was a complete waste of forum bandwidth and an ongoing insult to everyone trying to participate.
When one forwards an obviously fallacious argument, over and over, without taking heed of information and comments from fellow posters, well isn't that trolling personified?
Dave.