• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

Page 299 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
thehog said:
Not to belabour the point and I have no idea what Armstrong did with the money from SCA. But if he invested the $7m (his costs were paid) in a regular Bank of America term deposit over the 8 years since 2006 he'd make nearly $2m.

(Anyone with 7m in cash would get 6-8% and if they wanted to go offshore could get a lot more. Investments maybe 10-15%).

That's 18m at 15%, perhaps possible from 2006 to 2009. 10% from 2009-14.

30mnzbn.jpg


Meanwhile SCA haven't had the money to do similar.

Even if Armstrong pays back $7m he may well likely still be ahead. I still believe he has set up a structured finance deal on his risk. He's already on sold it. So he's liability is probably 1-2m, which he could have already made on compound interest alone.

The only question is tax. But doubt that he has realised any of the profit to be forced to clear down tax.

Alpe73 said:
Own your neurosis.

Well considering my initial post on the matter it's clear who decided to skew its contents.

How many times did I need to say "maybe" and state "perhaps possible", account for the GFC in the figures etc.

And most importantly SCA haven't had this money to invest during this time and gain a similar benefit.

To be attacked for a routine and standard post like this is very disappointing.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
thehog said:
it's clear who decided to skew its contents.

Yup, it is clear

thehog said:
Anyone with 7m in cash would get 6-8% and if they wanted to go offshore could get a lot more. Investments maybe 10-15%

thehog said:
I
Armstrong gives back his original 7m plus 5m more but in 8 years has made profit and surfed the CPI and curreny waves.

thehog said:
You know my friend Bono? Elevation Partners turned $90m in 2009 into $1.5b in 3.5 years.
thehog said:
Elevation Partners. Well above average. Well above.

thehog said:
If someone gave me $7m in 2006 and told me to give it back in 2014 at $12m, I'd take it! That is an investment anyone would take!

thehog said:
I'd say he was getting more than 8% and offshoring it via Kristen and trusts into Hawaii.

thehog said:
You quite happily played "Bobs winning hand" and how he had some strategy with his original engagement with Armstrong to recover losses and more.
Really, it isn't about winning/losing?

thehog said:
But he's not about to get a winning hand.

SCA lost 7m. They also lost the ability to invest it and earn profit from it. Meanwhile Armstrong has had the 7m and probably has turned profit & then some compounded - ie profit on profit.

Even if SCA get back 7m they're still behind. Way behind. And Armstrong is ahead.

They have to get 12m to break even. That's not winning. That's just burning time and effort on nothing.

ie if SCA win they still lose. They need 20m to win. Which they'll never get. They'll be lucky to claim back 3m.

You made a lot of claims, backed them up with nonsense. You then try to backpedal, bait, and insult your way out of it.

Naughty, naughty.
 
The extended debate between RR and Hog over the time value of money illustrates the main reason why Courts don't award prejudgment interest on contract claims where interest is not provided for in the contract: It's too hard to figure out.

If the parties don't specify interest in the contract, how is a court ever going to figure out what interest rate (if any) the parties intended in their contract? As you can see from the Hog-RR debate, the earning power of money is always highly debatable.

But in arbitration, anything can happen.
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
MarkvW said:
The extended debate between RR and Hog over the time value of money illustrates the main reason why Courts don't award prejudgment interest on contract claims where interest is not provided for in the contract: It's too hard to figure out.

If the parties don't specify interest in the contract, how is a court ever going to figure out what interest rate (if any) the parties intended in their contract? As you can see from the Hog-RR debate, the earning power of money is always highly debatable.

But in arbitration, anything can happen.

There's no debate. One side is talking facts and reality on how money is used and what to expect, and the other side has their hands over their ears and slinging feces around their cage because it doesn't mean the worse possible spin on LA's financial situation.

That's how foxnews works. Fair and balanced, we report you decide. Report facts along with a bunch of **** and eventually people throw up their hands and cannot conclude anything, and then default to their prejudices.

This easy to understand discussion that should have been over in 1/2 a page, turns into a 'debate' that goes on with 5 pages of BS, finally boiling down to ad hominems. Typical clinic MO.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
ChrisE said:
There's no debate. One side is talking facts and reality on how money is used and what to expect, and the other side has their hands over their ears and slinging feces around their cage .

It does appear that way.

I have given multiple links, facts, and numbers that support my position that an 8-15% annual return from 2007 till today is not "Easy" but better then then vast majority of professional managers and indices could do.

Hog has responded with ofustication, insults and "Offshoring" to Hawaii
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
It does appear that way.

I have given multiple links, facts, and numbers that support my position that an 8-15% annual return from 2007 till today is not "Easy" but better then then vast majority of professional managers and indices could do.

Hog has responded with ofustication, insults and "Offshoring" to Hawaii

And I have tried to explain to you, in the most simplest terms, that it is not that simple. There are multiple investment vehicles that are utilized at various times, for various durations, and for various reasons. You cannot provide a link showing an actual % return that fits in a little box to bash hog over the head with, and neither can he/she.

I have no comment on the tit-tat with links and %'s you two are engaged in, except to say that hog is right in theory about what the original debate was about. In the end it still comes down to LA getting a $7 million no interest loan to do with what he pleased for 8 years. I'm not even sure you can even bring yourself to admit that.
 
Race Radio said:
It does appear that way.

I have given multiple links, facts, and numbers that support my position that an 8-15% annual return from 2007 till today is not "Easy" but better then then vast majority of professional managers and indices could do.

Hog has responded with ofustication, insults and "Offshoring" to Hawaii

The trick you missed was that it is equally possible that Armstrong could have lost the entirety of the $7m as he did gain from it. That's the free market system at work.

Stating a "flat -1.8%" across board is Marxist utopia but also not one a financial system anywhere in the world could sustain. Everyone cannot lose "-1.8%" at one time. There has to be gains and losses.

Those who invest wisely and whom have substantial capital to begin with ($7m for example) can diversify their investments to reduce the risk of loss but also enhance the potential for profit.

But when your given scenario was to present "Bob" as some form of monetary genius; masterminding a long term plot to undo Armstrong 10 years down the track, you lost sight of the very basics of market forces and how the money markets are structured.

You can't get away from the fact that SCA gave one of then biggest a******s $7,000,000 for 8 years on interest and repayment free terms. A deal like no other. That's a lottery win right there.

What occurred with the money is anyone's guess.

Net result?

Bob is not a mastermind. He made a bad bet and is paying dearly for it and for a long time.

and

Armstrong is still the a------ he always was but probably has benefited substantially from Bob's ineptness on the original deal.

The pending dispute is in the balance and the courts will decide if a settlement cannot be achieved.

Providing multiple links doesn't change those facts. And for the sake of the forum and readability, let it go.

Raceradio let's do everyone a favour and drop this, yes? :)
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
ChrisE said:
And I have tried to explain to you, in the most simplest terms, that it is not that simple. There are multiple investment vehicles that are utilized at various times, for various durations, and for various reasons. You cannot provide a link showing an actual % return that fits in a little box to bash hog over the head with, and neither can he/she.

I have no comment on the tit-tat with links and %'s you two are engaged in, except to say that hog is right in theory about what the original debate was about. In the end it still comes down to LA getting a $7 million no interest loan to do with what he pleased for 8 years. I'm not even sure you can even bring yourself to admit that.

I suggest you read what was actually written.

It is pretty simple, Hog claimed 8-15% annual returns are easy, he would take deals like that all day long. I showed clearly that for the period of time we are discussing there were not easy, normal, or to be expected. Even Hog's example, the one he claims performed "Well above average" did 9% in that time period.

Twisting what I have written about Bob, baiting, and insulting, only makes it worse.

I made it clear that the original deal Bob made was done with lack of knowledge about the sport, It was silly to risk that amount of money......but since it became clear that he was going to have to pay Lance he has played his cards well and is slowly turning a bad hand into a good one.
 
Race Radio said:
I suggest you read what was actually written.

It is pretty simple, Hog claimed 8-15% annual returns are easy, he would take deals like that all day long. I showed clearly that for the period of time we are discussing there were not easy, normal, or to be expected. Even Hog's example, the one he claims performed "Well above average" did 9% in that time period.

Twisting what I have written about Bob, baiting, and insulting, only makes it worse.

I made it clear that the original deal Bob made was done with lack of knowledge about the sport, It was silly to risk that amount of money......but since it became clear that he was going to have to pay Lance he has played his cards well and is slowly turning a bad hand into a good one.

Thanks.

The other part you're missing and to be considered is as follows;

Bob loses an additional (potential) earnings of 8%+ on his money that he gave 'free of interest & repayment' to Armstrong back in '07. 7 or so years ago.

So even if Bob cleans up in the courts, he is still down or breaking even (thereabouts) on his original investment.

How Armstrong benefited we may never know. Well Tom Wiesel might :rolleyes: but with a freebe starting capital at $7m I'm sure he did fairly well :) even 1% compounded on $7m is free money.

It was risk free money to begin with. Not often one gets an offer like that. The ability to make free money from free money.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
People arguing that a guy who spent $300,000.00 one year watering his lawn think he made a smart investment on his SCA money are living Planet Armstrong!
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
I suggest you read what was actually written.

It is pretty simple, Hog claimed 8-15% annual returns are easy, he would take deals like that all day long. I showed clearly that for the period of time we are discussing there were not easy, normal, or to be expected. Even Hog's example, the one he claims performed "Well above average" did 9% in that time period.

Twisting what I have written about Bob, baiting, and insulting, only makes it worse.

I made it clear that the original deal Bob made was done with lack of knowledge about the sport, It was silly to risk that amount of money......but since it became clear that he was going to have to pay Lance he has played his cards well and is slowly turning a bad hand into a good one.

Sheesh.

So, assuming a 9% annual return even give more than the 12.5 I calculated using the 8% over that same period. So what? I also wrote that $ is not used that way eg all of it in one basket over a period of time with no manipulation to different vehicles.

I wrote these pedantic arguments about exact % returns is irrelevant to the discussion. I have told you I don't care about this petty % BS. The fact you insist on pursuing them with me is comical and somewhat confusing to me since I told you I will not engage, because it is irrelevant to the issue.

Can you even admit the $7 million was basically an interest free loan for LA to do with as he wished?

Yes or no?

And nobody is twisting your words. In the last paragraph you grudgingly admit what we have been telling you all along. And, you still give him too much credit....if LA would not have come back and if he would have just paid FL, then all of this savvy work to recoup from his bad investment would be non-existent.

He is your hero because he happens to be going against LA, so in your mind he is Jack Welch, a John Grisham courtroom hero, and spider man all wrapped into one. It all boils down to his luck that he is in any position to regain the $. Nothing more to it than that.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
Smart move, I am embarrassed i got sucked into his nonsense.

Hog claims making 8% annually is easy, 15% if want to put it "Off Shore" in places like "Hawaii". When shown that it is actually not easy, that most investment professionals don't come close to that, that even his example of a "Well above average" fund did not come close to the 15% Hog promises....Hog whips out the rattle can filled with crazy and sprays the forum with pages of nonsense.

That's strong.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
ChrisE said:
Sheesh.

So, assuming a 9% annual return .....


Can you even admit the $7 million was basically an interest free loan for LA to do with as he wished?

.

You are welcome to assume anything you want, but even a casual investor can see that a 9% annual return from 2007 till today is not normal, not average, not indicative of the performance of most managers during that period. You are welcome to pretend that 9% is a normal return, but it isn't. Even Hog knows this. The example he gave of a fund that performed "Well above average" only returned 9%, before fees.

Yup, the $7 million was a loan......that Armstrong will soon pay back, along with millions in legal fees, interest, and penalties. That might be your idea of a good deal but it isn't mine

You folks need to stop pretending 8-15% is normal, it isn't. You also need to stop with the idea Lance had $7,000,000 to "invest" "Off Shore" in "Hawaii". There is this little thing called taxes that takes a nice bite out of that
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
You are welcome to assume anything you want, but even a casual investor can see that a 9% annual return from 2007 till today is not normal, not average, not indicative of the performance of most managers during that period. You are welcome to pretend that 9% is a normal return, but it isn't. Even Hog knows this. The example he gave of a fund that performed "Well above average" only returned 9%, before fees.

Yup, the $7 million was a loan......that Armstrong will soon pay back, along with millions in legal fees, interest, and penalties. $14,600,000. That might be your idea of a good deal but it isn't mine

I would love to know how much Armstrong has paid in legal fees since he lawyered up. It must be huge. Idiot could be whole lot richer if he didn't get so legal.

Chewie gonna be a rich dude if he can get himself a rich sociopahic narcissist to represent....:D
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Benotti69 said:
I would love to know how much Armstrong has paid in legal fees since he lawyered up. It must be huge. Idiot could be whole lot richer if he didn't get so legal.

Chewie gonna be a rich dude if he can get himself a rich sociopahic narcissist to represent....:D

The last number I heard was $6-7 million, but that was at least a year ago. Has to be over $10 million now.
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
You are welcome to assume anything you want, but even a casual investor can see that a 9% annual return from 2007 till today is not normal, not average, not indicative of the performance of most managers during that period. You are welcome to pretend that 9% is a normal return, but it isn't. Even Hog knows this. The example he gave of a fund that performed "Well above average" only returned 9%, before fees.

Yup, the $7 million was a loan......that Armstrong will soon pay back, along with millions in legal fees, interest, and penalties. That might be your idea of a good deal but it isn't mine

You folks need to stop pretending 8-15% is normal, it isn't. You also need to stop with the idea Lance had $7,000,000 to "invest" "Off Shore" in "Hawaii". There is this little thing called taxes that takes a nice bite out of that

I am not talking about a particular "fund". I never wrote it was a good investment. It all started when you started getting glassy eyes about LA 'losing' whatever $ million.

This conversation is way beyond your comprehension, but you have gotten sucked up into it displaying the skills of a combination vortex/troll. .

New forum word. Trolltex = the babbling by RR when a particular situation or take on anything LA takes place that doesn't paint him in the worst possible light.

And with that, I am sure you will post again on this subject just to get the last word. That's fine with me, I'm not the one with a validation complex. Take care.
 
You're a bit silly. And taking this way too seriously. I mentioned tax in my original mail and that's why I brought up Hawaii along with the fact Armstrong has spent considerable time there. See below for trusts in Hawaii which are tax free.

Good grief this is hard work (but fun).

My off the cuff the statement which I'd just assume you'd understand; was to throw $2m into EP and imagine if you got in just before they bought their 1.3% stake in Facebook.

See $2m? That's not $7m. That's know as diversification. Not throwing your whole bundle into one asset class. You break a bit off and spread it around. Reduce risk, maximise profits.

I keep talking about timing into the market and that was getting at a time just prior to Facebook and certainly not when EP went at Palm.

You're hung up that an investment portfolio is one stock or fund and and holds for the entire period. Investors are constantly moving money and position to increase NAV for their clients.

See here's my original quote: - note how I said $2m and not $7m and note the "timing" element of 2009? I just assumed you'd understand this. Clearly not.

You know my friend Bono? Elevation Partners turned $90m in 2009 into $1.5b in 3.5 years. That's just a tiny bit more than 8%

And for Hawaii. You're hung up on it and I actually thought you were just trolling. But I can see you don't understand the use of a "conjunction" in the English language.

Quick lesson in grammar for you.

The "and" between "offershoring it via Kristen" AND "trusts into Hawaii" - They are two separate actions. They are not ONE action. One action is "off shoring" via his ex. The other action is "setting up trusts in Hawaii".

See here's my original statement:

I'd say he was getting more than 8% and offshoring it via Kristen and trusts into Hawaii.

Trusts are mainly used for the kiddies and can be tax free. The offshore element was to have the asset in his ex wife's name and herd the money out to Cayman or somewhere similar. Again I thought you'd understand this.

Trusts are a good method to avoid tax. Especially in Hawaii! :)

http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutua...ate-interm/hawaiian-tax-free-trust-fund/hulax

Summary
The investment seeks as high a level of current income exempt from Hawaiian state and regular Federal income taxes as is consistent with preservation of capital. Under normal circumstances, at least 80% of the Trust's assets will be invested in municipal obligations that pay interest exempt, in the opinion of bond counsel, from Hawaii state and regular Federal income taxes. These obligations can be of any maturity, but the Trust's average portfolio maturity has traditionally been between 8 and 12 years. The fund is non-diversified.



Race Radio said:
You are welcome to assume anything you want, but even a casual investor can see that a 9% annual return from 2007 till today is not normal, not average, not indicative of the performance of most managers during that period. You are welcome to pretend that 9% is a normal return, but it isn't. Even Hog knows this. The example he gave of a fund that performed "Well above average" only returned 9%, before fees. Yup, the $7 million was a loan......that Armstrong will soon pay back, along with millions in legal fees, interest, and penalties. That might be your idea of a good deal but it isn't mineYou folks need to stop pretending 8-15% is normal, it isn't. You also need to stop with the idea Lance had $7,000,000 to "invest" "Off Shore" in "Hawaii". There is this little thing called taxes that takes a nice bite out of that[
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
thehog said:
You're a bit silly.

Glad you are entertain.

We get it, posting nonsense on the internet is fun for you. Given the dozens of rambling, incoherent, posts you have sprayed this place with over the last couple days perhaps it is time you give it a rest? You are not fooling anyone.

I have to say, the Hawaiian tax free Muni bond fund was a good one. Good trollcraft, Chewie would be proud......but anyone who knows even a little about investing knows plenty of states offer tax free muni's.....in fact the one you recommended is ranked 50th out of 68 funds....Hog financial knows how to pick them
 
Race Radio said:
Glad you are entertain.

We get it, posting nonsense on the internet is fun for you. Given the dozens of rambling, incoherent, posts you have sprayed this place with over the last couple days perhaps it is time you give it a rest? You are not fooling anyone.

To be honest, you've been found out. You clearly make a lot of stuff up and google like a teenager to try and pretend you actually know what you're talking about. It's so obvious. You just find a word and throw it in.

Alas RR, my friend, enough. You're boring everyone trying to win. There's nothing to win.

This stuff is year 9 economics at school. It's so straight forward. I cannot understand why the basic principles of the market and economics appear so foreign for you.

I'm really not sure what you're missing. Not being funny but you appear a little disoriented.

You've actually not bothered to read Chris's or my posts. You've just repeated the same statements over and over again and not taken the time to consider the two positions between SCA and Armstrong.

Like I said. It's embarrassing. Let the forum breath for a while. Take a break. You need it otherwise you'll go blind! :)