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

[frenchfry]

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.

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.

Your chart is missing the withdrawls column for hookers and blow.

 

[thehog]

"[A] structured finance deal on his risk?" You're suggesting that Armstrong has found an insurer that would insure him against losses resulting from his fraud? You funny man, Hog.

Insurance? Who needs insurance when you are an "investor"?!

 

[Race Radio]

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.
.

He hasn't. His liability is $12,000,000

SCA has not lost $7,000,000. The game is not over.

In the end SCA will walk with $12,000,000, plus the original $600,000 premium. Not a bad investment

 

[ChrisE]

He hasn't. His liability is $12,000,000

SCA has not lost $7,000,000. The game is not over.

In the end SCA will walk with $12,000,000, plus the original $600,000 premium. Not a bad investment

And I'm not sure why you are not following what hog is writing. Maybe a blind spot due to your past spats, or your ever present blind spot when it comes to LA that makes you flip out.

So, LA gives back the original winnings, plus some more. LA has invested and made $ off of those original winnings. That does not = LA losing $12 million.

 

[Race Radio]

And I'm not sure why you are not following what hog is writing. Maybe a blind spot due to your past spats, or your ever present blind spot when it comes to LA that makes you flip out.

So, LA gives back the original winnings, plus some more. LA has invested and made $ off of those original winnings. That does not = LA losing $12 million.

It appears you are not following what I wrote. Maybe it is due to blind spot due to a past spat or your ever present blind spot when it comes to LA that makes you flip out.

My point is clear. This is not done yet. Lance will return the $7 million, plus fees, penalties, and legal fees (Both his own and SCA's). Add in the original premium and holding on to that $7 million for 8 years will cost him $6 million +

 

[thehog]

He hasn't. His liability is $12,000,000

SCA has not lost $7,000,000. The game is not over.

In the end SCA will walk with $12,000,000, plus the original $600,000 premium. Not a bad investment

It's an interestimg topic. But you and I are talking different languages.

You're talking court room victories. I'm talking purely financial profit/loss.

Investment banking is this very scenario; the movement of money over time to maximise profit.

Giving money away is not maximiaing profit.

As a general rule money changes value over time and where and what currency you place it.

And the game never finishes. It just keeps going. There is no end point. A win in the court room may win the battle but not the war.

Even in your given scenario that SCA claim $12m they've not actually won. Yes they may win the hearing but not the financial gain.

And dependent on how Armstrong invented the $7m he wins even if he has to give back 12m. He's had the money, still has the money and has had it for 8 years.

The value of 7m in 2006 compared to 2014 is vastly different. CPI/RPI at what? 3% year on year? That's SCA's loss. Armstrong's gain.

Profit? SCA have earn't 0, yes zero on their 7m in 8 years plus the losses on CPI.

Armstrong has profited and had his money earning at CPI increased rates year on year. His win.

The 12m if you read the submission is to cover costs for now and from the original settlement. Armstrong has all his costs paid in 2006. His win.

In extrapolated form;

Insurance Company A gives Person B $7m in 2006.

As of 2006;
IC is now down $7m (loss).
Person B is now up $7m (profit).

Then you have 8 years till present day;
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
etc.

In that time IC is still down it's original $7m in addition to the "potential" and future interest and profit gains. Year on year at minimum that could be 3%. With $7m depending on the risk of your strategy you could make 10-15%.

So in investment banking and actual real life terms you're now down the $7m plus profit from the $7m, year on year.

Therefore:

IC
y = 7m capital
x = 3% (0.03 minimum potential earnings).
z = profit, (result of y * x)

Year 1:
z = y * x
Year 2:
z = z + y * x

etc.

Recovering 12m of course is good for SCA, they can then take that money and invent it and earn profit.

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

Or to put it another way; for SCA to win, Armstrong doesn't lose.

and if there's any variation on the 12m will be SCA loss and Armstrong's win, financially speaking.

 

[ChrisE]

It appears you are not following what I wrote. Maybe it is due to blind spot due to a past spat or your ever present blind spot when it comes to LA that makes you flip out.

My point is clear. This is not done yet. Lance will return the $7 million, plus fees, penalties, and legal fees (Both his own and SCA's). Add in the original premium and holding on to that $7 million for 8 years will cost him $6 million +

He will return the $7 million that was not his, but he used it to make $. So, when he returns that $7 million he is not really losing anything that is not rightfully his.

The $ he made off of that $7 million is X, so he will actually be losing the $6 million minus whatever he had accrued on the original the last 7 years.

So, he is not losing $12+ million. That is the hog's point.

What you write is typical to paint and make things look the most fiendish and in the worse shade of reality that is possible when it comes to LA. Nobody is saying it is 'not done yet', so save the diversions. The debate is over the definition of what LA is actually losing, deriving from whether or not it was smart for SCA to offer the policy.

Your reply is why I don't pay most of your ****-hurt BS much mind with your never ending supply slanted info from your like minded psychologically damaged friends. But, I felt like playing along this morning.

 

[thehog]

It appears you are not following what I wrote. Maybe it is due to blind spot due to a past spat or your ever present blind spot when it comes to LA that makes you flip out.

My point is clear. This is not done yet. Lance will return the $7 million, plus fees, penalties, and legal fees (Both his own and SCA's). Add in the original premium and holding on to that $7 million for 8 years will cost him $6 million +

Just one point here. As a rule in Texas SCA cannot claim for legal fees. Although it's at courts discretion. They may well get it but it's a stretch on a contact dispute. But this will be settled well before then.

 

[Race Radio]

It's an interestimg topic. But you and I are talking different languages.

You're talking court room victories. I'm talking purely financial profit/loss.

Investment banking is this very scenario; the movement of money over time to maximise profit.

Giving money away is not maximiaing profit.

As a general rule money changes value over time and where and what currency you place it.

And the game never finishes. It just keeps going. There is no end point. A win in the court room may win the battle but not the war.

Even in your given scenario that SCA claim $12m they've not actually won. Yes they may win the hearing but not the financial gain.

And dependent on how Armstrong invented the $7m he wins even if he has to give back 12m. He's had the money, still has the money and has had it for 8 years.

The value of 7m in 2006 compared to 2014 is vastly different. CPI/RPI at what? 3% year on year? That's SCA's loss. Armstrong's gain.

Profit? SCA have earn't 0, yes zero on their 7m in 8 years plus the losses on CPI.

Armstrong has profited and had his money earning at CPI increased rates year on year. His win.

The 12m if you read the submission is to cover costs for now and from the original settlement. Armstrong has all his costs paid in 2006. His win.

In extrapolated form;

Insurance Company A gives Person B $7m in 2006.

As of 2006;
IC is now down $7m (loss).
Person B is now up $7m (profit).

Then you have 8 years till present day;
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
etc.

In that time IC is still down it's original $7m in addition to the "potential" and future interest and profit gains. Year on year at minimum that could be 3%. With $7m depending on the risk of your strategy you could make 10-15%.

So in investment banking and actual real life terms you're now down the $7m plus profit from the $7m, year on year.

Therefore:

IC
y = 7m capital
x = 3% (0.03 minimum potential earnings).
z = profit, (result of y * x)

Year 1:
z = y * x
Year 2:
z = z + y * x

etc.

Recovering 12m of course is good for SCA, they can then take that money and invent it and earn profit.

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

Or to put it another way; for SCA to win, Armstrong doesn't lose.

and if there's any variation on the 12m will be SCA loss and Armstrong's win, financially speaking.

Cool story Bro

When Lance writes that $12,000,000 check to SCA, plus $2,000,000 in legal fees, and the original premium of $600,000 he will be happy to know the Hog does not think he is a loser.

 

[thehog]

He will return the $7 million that was not his, but he used it to make $. So, when he returns that $7 million he is not really losing anything that is not rightfully his.

The $ he made off of that $7 million is X, so he will actually be losing the $6 million minus whatever he had accrued on the original the last 7 years.

So, he is not losing $12+ million. That is the hog's point.

What you write is typical to paint and make things look the most fiendish and in the worse shade of reality that is possible when it comes to LA. Nobody is saying it is 'not done yet', so save the diversions. The debate is over the definition of what LA is actually losing, deriving from whether or not it was smart for SCA to offer the policy.

Your reply is why I don't pay most of your ****-hurt BS much mind with your never ending supply slanted info from your like minded psychologically damaged friends. But, I felt like playing along this morning.

Correct bar the last paragraph.

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!

It's basically a loan from the bank. And who knows it may turn out to be a interest free loan!

 

[thehog]

Cool story Bro

When Lance writes that $12,000,000 check to SCA, plus $2,000,000 in legal fees, and the original premium of $600,000 he will be happy to know the Hog does not think he is a loser.

This is the strangest post you've ever written

Take a deep breath and sum it out on paper. SCA basically gave Armstrong a loan at 0% interest for 8 years then performed a margin call on the amount.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Are you telling me you wouldn't take those terms? If a bank offered me 700k to buy a house in 2006, interest and capital repayment free for 8 years I'd take it! If they wanted 1.2 back in 2014 that's ok because my house is now worth 1.5! I made 300,000.

Not being funny or anything but have you taken tertiary mathematics or a business studies course? This is just 101 stuff.

 

[Race Radio]

Correct bar the last paragraph.

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!

It's basically a loan from the bank. And who knows it may turn out to be a interest free loan!

You forgot the $2,000,000 in legal fees and $600,000 for the original premium

Turning $7,000,000 into $14,6000,000 in 8 years.....are you Bernie Madoff?

 

[Race Radio]

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%).

Link? 8% annual return from a bank deposit? 15% annual return from equities?

Madoff securities is hiring! Why are you wasting your time here, you could be making millions in the market

 

[thehog]

You forgot the $2,000,000 in legal fees and $600,000 for the original premium

Turning $7,000,000 into $14,6000,000 in 8 years.....are you Bernie Madoff?

I give up. It's clear you've not worked in banking or understand investments.

One more time;

SCA paid Armstrong's fees round one. They in effect gave him 7m at 0% interest with no repayments due until 2014 where they ask for 12m.

In those 8 years Armstrong can use the 7m without the need to meet a repayment schedule (that's key).

He owes nothing. Therefore he can freely use the 7m to make more and more money from money which is not actually his.

The numbers sound daunting but if it was $7 to pay back $12 in 8 months would you take it? I would. For example purposes in 2006 I could have bought 1 Google share at $5 and in 8 months would be $19. 3 years on as I invest the dividends from my one Google share it would be now 10 shares at $85 each. My outlay? $5.

SCA or whomever gave me the original $7 only makes $5 and loses the ability to invest their original $7. But that's their business which is spread over multiple clients at $5 x many.

That's how it works. Money makes money Simples.

And no way it will be 12m.

 

[ChrisE]

Correct bar the last paragraph.

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!

It's basically a loan from the bank. And who knows it may turn out to be a interest free loan!

I ran it with one of those online investment calculators, at 8% typical stock market return for 8 years and came up with something like $12.5 million. He still has spent millions on lawyer fees, and all the headaches. I doubt he or you would say that was a good investment, taking all of that into account. In the end he will be a loser, but not as much as the one in RR's fantasies.

I give up. It's clear you've not worked in banking or understand investments

Who needs to get bogged down with that petty type of issue when you live in your own little world?

 

[Benotti69]

Whoever thinks Armstrong banked his SCA money thinking he may have to give it back really has misjudged the character of Armstrong!

Armstrong will lose money paying back SCA.

 

[Race Radio]

I give up. It's clear you've not worked in banking or understand investments.

One more time;

SCA paid Armstrong's fees round one. They in effect gave him 7m at 0% interest with no repayments due until 2014 where they ask for 12m.

In those 8 years Armstrong can use the 7m without the need to meet a repayment schedule (that's key).

He owes nothing. Therefore he can freely use the 7m to make more and more money from money which is not actually his.

The numbers sound daunting but if it was $7 to pay back $12 in 8 months would you take it? I would. For example purposes in 2006 I could have bought 1 Google share at $5 and in 8 months would be $19. 3 years on as I invest the dividends from my one Google share it would be now 10 shares at $85 each.

That's how it works. Money makes money

When are you going to share with us those banks that give 8% interest?

When SCA made its last payment in Feb 2007 the Dow was at 12,700, now it is at 16,323. Everyone should cash out their 401K's and give it to Hog Financial Services. With your guaranteed 15% annual returns you must have lots of customers.

At this point it is clear you at just playing games again, posting nonsense in hopes to bait someone into a response.

 

[thehog]

I ran it with one of those online investment calculators, at 8% typical stock market return for 8 years and came up with something like $12.5 million. He still has spent millions on lawyer fees, and all the headaches. I doubt he or you would say that was a good investment, taking all of that into account. In the end he will be a loser, but not as much as the one in RR's fantasies.

Agreed. I don't think Armstrong viewed it as in investment at the time. He could have burnt the whole lot!

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

I wonder what Demand is netting at now? And when Mobi goes public.

 

[thehog]

When are you going to share with us those banks that give 8% interest?

When SCA made its last payment in Feb 2007 the Dow was at 12,700, now it is at 16,323. Everyone should cash out their 401K's and give it to Hog Financial Services. With your guaranteed 15% annual returns you must have lots of customers.

At this point it is clear you at just playing games again, posting nonsense in hopes to bait someone into a response.

Oh dear. I give up. You're too close to it all. You're still confusing the issues.

Are you telling me SCA thought it a good strategy to give up $7m for 8 years? Right of course they did

You lost me at Dow!

Banks? If you've got 7m you don't go into your bank on the street! You're at the high rollers table now. Whole different ball game.

 

[Race Radio]

Agreed. I don't think Armstrong viewed it as in investment at the time. He could have burnt the whole lot!

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

I wonder what Demand is netting at now? And when Mobi goes public.

Demand was at $24 per share, now it is $4. They should have put all their money in Hog Financial, guaranteed 15% return

 

[Benotti69]

Oh dear. I give up. You're too close to it all. You're still confusing the issues.

Are you telling me SCA thought it a good strategy to give up $7m for 8 years? Right of course they did

You lost me at Dow!

Banks? If you've got 7m you don't go into your bank on the street! You're at the high rollers table now. Whole different ball game.

Is that the yellow rose calling?

 

[thehog]

Demand was at $24 per share, now it is $4. They should have put all their money in Hog Financial, guaranteed 15% return

They should. Lucky Armstrong sold his shares a long time ago, yes?

Good profit right there. See how it works?

Stick to bikes and insider stories my friend

 

[ChrisE]

Agreed. I don't think Armstrong viewed it as in investment at the time. He could have burnt the whole lot!

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

I wonder what Demand is netting at now? And when Mobi goes public.

Look at him now lol assuming investment strategy is blindly linear with no variation in different vehicles over time to shoot down your argument.

Have fun with this 'discussion' lol.

 

[thehog]

Look at him now lol assuming investment strategy is blindly linear with no variation in different vehicles over time to shoot down your argument.

Have fun with this 'discussion' lol.

No worries 2002

All depends who's advising you. I'd never take investment advice rom Bob & SCA that's for sure!

I still think SCA will be lucky to get 3m. That's a very poor investment.

 

[ChrisE]

No worries 2002

All depends who's advising you. I'd never take investment advice rom Bob & SCA that's for sure!

I still think SCA will be lucky to get 3m. That's a very poor investment.

What about RR investment advisors? I can see the slogan now: "Invest with RR. You can sleep well knowing we are sleeping right along with you" lol.

Not sure why you pick 2002. It was 99, July 3.