Space Tourism a con job?
Pat Flannery
"Today, a number of con men are selling tickets for spaceflights to
innocent people who are fairly rich and longing for adventure. Even
reputable newspapers do not question the basis on which these offers and
investments in facilities are made.
The space tourism vendors are selling impossible dreams of space flights
for $20,000 or even $200,000 a ticket.
Let us be clear: These tickets concern flights into Earth orbit � not
20-minute jumps to high altitude, which is something else, and not, as
some claim, a precursor to orbital spaceflight.
It is disheartening to see NASA, which knows better, participating in
these games."
This is about my take on it also.
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
> http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/091116-space-tourism-hoax.html
>
> "Today, a number of con men are selling tickets for spaceflights to
> innocent people who are fairly rich and longing for adventure. Even
> reputable newspapers do not question the basis on which these offers and
> investments in facilities are made.
> The space tourism vendors are selling impossible dreams of space flights
> for $20,000 or even $200,000 a ticket.
> 20-minute jumps to high altitude, which is something else, and not, as
> some claim, a precursor to orbital spaceflight.
> It is disheartening to see NASA, which knows better, participating in
> these games."
>
> This is about my take on it also.
Suborbital = joy ride
Orbital = A trip to see the globe
Interplanetary by chemical propulsion = whole body irradiation
Interplanetary by nuclear propulsion = a trip to see another globe
Interplanetary robotic mission = photos of a trip to see another globe
Jonathan
<trigonom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fbefcb78-fa1d-466c...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Suborbital = joy ride
> Orbital = A trip to see the globe
> Interplanetary by chemical propulsion = whole body irradiation
> Interplanetary by nuclear propulsion = a trip to see another globe
> Interplanetary robotic mission = photos of a trip to see another globe
There's a trend that makes financing the early orbital tourism flights
a problem I think. The early flights will be the most expensive.
Meaning the early flights will be chock full of the ....rich and famous
during the early /more dangerous/ flights.
The Titanic rises!
Imagine the headlines....Madonna and Spielberg!...Gates and Clinton!
all burned alive upon reentry! Whoopi and Oprah too! What kind
of effect will that scenario have on potential investors?
Only an idiot would invest in such a company until the
technology was proven. Say after twenty or fifty successful
flights.
Sylvia Else
He may be overstating the case against SSTOs, but even Reaction Engines,
who are pushing their Skylon craft, estimate $40 million per launch with
around a 10 tonne payload. Could we cram in 200 people, to get the
ticket price down to $200,000? No, probably not, unless we forgo trivia
such as life support.
So his numbers certainly seem to stack up for the foreseeable future.
Still, if foolish rich people get separated from some of their money,
I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
Sylvia.
BradGuth
> Pat Flannery wrote:
> >http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/091116-space-tourism-hoax.html
>
> > "Today, a number of con men are selling tickets for spaceflights to
> > innocent people who are fairly rich and longing for adventure. Even
> > reputable newspapers do not question the basis on which these offers and
> > investments in facilities are made.
> > The space tourism vendors are selling impossible dreams of space flights
> > for $20,000 or even $200,000 a ticket.
> > 20-minute jumps to high altitude, which is something else, and not, as
> > some claim, a precursor to orbital spaceflight.
> > It is disheartening to see NASA, which knows better, participating in
> > these games."
>
> > This is about my take on it also.
>
> He may be overstating the case against SSTOs, but even Reaction Engines,
> who are pushing their Skylon craft, estimate $40 million per launch with
> around a 10 tonne payload. Could we cram in 200 people, to get the
> ticket price down to $200,000? No, probably not, unless we forgo trivia
> such as life support.
>
> So his numbers certainly seem to stack up for the foreseeable future.
>
> Still, if foolish rich people get separated from some of their money,
> I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
>
> Sylvia.
Most of that private loot wasn't earned, so it's actually our public
loot that's getting wasted in order to entertain these rich and
powerful folks that are more tax exempt than the Pope.
~ BG
William Mook
> Pat Flannery wrote:
> >http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/091116-space-tourism-hoax.html
>
> > "Today, a number of con men are selling tickets for spaceflights to
> > innocent people who are fairly rich and longing for adventure. Even
> > reputable newspapers do not question the basis on which these offers and
> > investments in facilities are made.
> > The space tourism vendors are selling impossible dreams of space flights
> > for $20,000 or even $200,000 a ticket.
> > 20-minute jumps to high altitude, which is something else, and not, as
> > some claim, a precursor to orbital spaceflight.
> > It is disheartening to see NASA, which knows better, participating in
> > these games."
>
> > This is about my take on it also.
>
> He may be overstating the case against SSTOs, but even Reaction Engines,
> who are pushing their Skylon craft, estimate $40 million per launch with
> around a 10 tonne payload. Could we cram in 200 people, to get the
> ticket price down to $200,000? No, probably not, unless we forgo trivia
> such as life support.
>
> So his numbers certainly seem to stack up for the foreseeable future.
>
> Still, if foolish rich people get separated from some of their money,
> I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
>
> Sylvia.
There is a list of space tourists. So, space tourism is certainly NOT
a con-job. Its a reality
List of flown space tourists
Dennis Tito American 2001 9 days (Apr 28 –
May 6)
Mark Shuttleworth South African / British 2002 11 days (Apr 25 –
May 5)
Gregory Olsen American 2005 11 days (Oct 1 – Oct
11)
Anousheh Ansari Iranian / American 2006 12 days (Sept 18 – Sept
29)
Charles Simonyi Hungarian / American 2007 15 days (Apr 7 – Apr 21)
2009 14 days (Mar 26 – Apr 8)
Richard Garriott American / British 2008 12 days (Oct 12 – Oct
23)
Guy Laliberté Canadian 2009 12 days (Sept 30 –
Oct 11)
There are 10 million millionaires in the world, and over 40,000 people
worth over $30 million. Collectively they control over $40 trillion
in liquid assets. This represents a huge potential market. Also, the
ultra-rich invest their money in 'passion investments' which include
'experential travel' which includes space flight.
That's why I intend to develop a MEMs based lunar launcher to deliver
moon trips to high net worth individuals;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhZb7XDaYts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NlZmUUWvJw
Even though I'm not yet included on this list;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies
The point is, people spending tens of millions of dollars are not
dummies financially, and so don't need a helluva lot of government
protection. Do we really need laws to protect the 40,000 ultra-high-
net-worth individuals in the world? Why is it an issue? It isn't.
Not really.
They way my plan works is that an individual places $85 million in
escrow, $15 million is non-refundable. When training is delivered and
the first flight articles are completed, another $40 million is non-
refundable, and finally the last $20 million when the moon flight is
ready to take place, then 30 days after delivery of the flight, the
funds are released from escrow. Individuals have use of their money,
and earnings from their money, while they await the flight.
Since costs scale with mass of stage being built, we start with the
smaller upper stages and work our way down. So, even ONE customer is
sufficient to begin the program I have in mind. It follows the same
approach proposed by another rocket pioneer;
Sylvia Else
> On Nov 22, 12:45 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>> Pat Flannery wrote:
>>> http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/091116-space-tourism-hoax.html
>>> "Today, a number of con men are selling tickets for spaceflights to
>>> innocent people who are fairly rich and longing for adventure. Even
>>> reputable newspapers do not question the basis on which these offers and
>>> investments in facilities are made.
>>> The space tourism vendors are selling impossible dreams of space flights
>>> for $20,000 or even $200,000 a ticket.
>>> 20-minute jumps to high altitude, which is something else, and not, as
>>> some claim, a precursor to orbital spaceflight.
>>> It is disheartening to see NASA, which knows better, participating in
>>> these games."
>>> This is about my take on it also.
>> He may be overstating the case against SSTOs, but even Reaction Engines,
>> who are pushing their Skylon craft, estimate $40 million per launch with
>> around a 10 tonne payload. Could we cram in 200 people, to get the
>> ticket price down to $200,000? No, probably not, unless we forgo trivia
>> such as life support.
>>
>> So his numbers certainly seem to stack up for the foreseeable future.
>>
>> Still, if foolish rich people get separated from some of their money,
>> I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> There is a list of space tourists. So, space tourism is certainly NOT
> a con-job. Its a reality
>
> List of flown space tourists
>
> May 6)
> Mark Shuttleworth South African / British 2002 11 days (Apr 25 �
> May 5)
> Gregory Olsen American 2005 11 days (Oct 1 � Oct
> 11)
> Anousheh Ansari Iranian / American 2006 12 days (Sept 18 � Sept
> 29)
> Charles Simonyi Hungarian / American 2007 15 days (Apr 7 � Apr 21)
>
> 2009 14 days (Mar 26 � Apr 8)
> Richard Garriott American / British 2008 12 days (Oct 12 � Oct
> 23)
> Guy Lalibert� Canadian 2009 12 days (Sept 30 �
> Oct 11)
>
> There are 10 million millionaires in the world, and over 40,000 people
> worth over $30 million. Collectively they control over $40 trillion
> in liquid assets. This represents a huge potential market. Also, the
> ultra-rich invest their money in 'passion investments' which include
> 'experential travel' which includes space flight.
>
> That's why I intend to develop a MEMs based lunar launcher to deliver
> moon trips to high net worth individuals;
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhZb7XDaYts
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NlZmUUWvJw
>
> Even though I'm not yet included on this list;
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies
>
> The point is, people spending tens of millions of dollars are not
> dummies financially,
And they weren't the focus of the article either. Did you read it?
> and so don't need a helluva lot of government
> protection. Do we really need laws to protect the 40,000 ultra-high-
> net-worth individuals in the world? Why is it an issue? It isn't.
> Not really.
>
> They way my plan works is that an individual places $85 million in
> escrow, $15 million is non-refundable. When training is delivered and
> the first flight articles are completed, another $40 million is non-
> refundable, and finally the last $20 million when the moon flight is
> ready to take place, then 30 days after delivery of the flight, the
> funds are released from escrow. Individuals have use of their money,
> and earnings from their money, while they await the flight.
>
> Since costs scale with mass of stage being built, we start with the
> smaller upper stages and work our way down. So, even ONE customer is
> sufficient to begin the program I have in mind. It follows the same
> approach proposed by another rocket pioneer;
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBi69V8oNuw
>
How does any of that address the fact that those currently selling
tickets for $200,000 are not going to be able to deliver in the
foreseeable future?
Sylvia.
William Mook
> William Mook wrote:
> > On Nov 22, 12:45 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> >> Pat Flannery wrote:
> >>>http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/091116-space-tourism-hoax.html
> >>> "Today, a number of con men are selling tickets for spaceflights to
> >>> innocent people who are fairly rich and longing for adventure. Even
> >>> reputable newspapers do not question the basis on which these offers and
> >>> investments in facilities are made.
> >>> The space tourism vendors are selling impossible dreams of space flights
> >>> for $20,000 or even $200,000 a ticket.
> >>> 20-minute jumps to high altitude, which is something else, and not, as
> >>> some claim, a precursor to orbital spaceflight.
> >>> It is disheartening to see NASA, which knows better, participating in
> >>> these games."
> >>> This is about my take on it also.
> >> He may be overstating the case against SSTOs, but even Reaction Engines,
> >> who are pushing their Skylon craft, estimate $40 million per launch with
> >> around a 10 tonne payload. Could we cram in 200 people, to get the
> >> ticket price down to $200,000? No, probably not, unless we forgo trivia
> >> such as life support.
>
> >> So his numbers certainly seem to stack up for the foreseeable future.
>
> >> Still, if foolish rich people get separated from some of their money,
> >> I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
>
> >> Sylvia.
>
> > There is a list of space tourists. So, space tourism is certainly NOT
> > a con-job. Its a reality
>
> > List of flown space tourists
>
> > Dennis Tito American 2001 9 days (Apr 28
> > Mark Shuttleworth South African / British 2002 11 days (Apr 25
> > Gregory Olsen American 2005 11 days (Oct 1 Oct
> > 11)
> > Anousheh Ansari Iranian / American 2006 12 days (Sept 18 Sept
> > 29)
> > Charles Simonyi Hungarian / American 2007 15 days (Apr 7 Apr 21)
>
> > 2009 14 days (Mar 26 Apr 8)
> > Richard Garriott American / British 2008 12 days (Oct 12 Oct
> > 23)
> > Guy Lalibert Canadian 2009 12 days (Sept 30
Well, the SEC and Congress recognizes that certain individuals are
financially sophisticated. The $200,000 price point seems to be
picked with that idea in mind.
Here is what the SEC and Congress has to say;
The definitions accredit some investors based on their income, net
worth, and assets. Natural persons qualify as accredited investors if
they meet certain income or net worth tests. Accredited investors, for
instance, include natural persons with individual incomes in excess of
$200,000 (or joint spousal incomes of $300,000) for the two most
recent years, if they reasonably expect to earn at least the same
amount in the current year. Natural persons with individual (or joint,
with a spouse) net worths over $1 million also are considered to be
accredited investors.
Other investors are accredited if they have more than $5 million of
assets. These generally include state or ERISA employee benefit plans,
charitable organizations or business entities if they were not formed
for the specific purpose of investing in the securities offered, and
trusts if they were not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring
the securities offered and their purchase is directed by a
sophisticated person.
The current accredited investor definition also includes investors
that are financially sophisticated by their nature. These include
various institutional investors and employee benefit plans where
sophisticated fiduciaries make investment decisions. Directors,
executive officers, and general partners of securities issuers also
are accredited, due to their relationship with the issuer, and any
entity where all of its equity owners are accredited investors.
I prefer to use a price point where I sell fewer tickets to ultra-high-
net-worth individuals. The five who will enable a return to the moon
along the commercial lines I've described are definitely accredited
and sophisticated by any measure.
William Mook
> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :They way my plan works is that an individual places $85 million in
> :escrow, $15 million is non-refundable.
>
> So what you're really after is people with money who are stupid enough
> to give you $15 million each for nothing at all.
>
> Good luck with that, but I'm not holding my breath...
>
> --
> You are
> What you do
> When it counts.
A promise to do things with milestones is more than nothing. A non-
refundable deposit becomes refundable for cause. Obviously, I will in
good faith carry out the plans I have described in great detail. Far
more than nothing.
William Mook
> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> :
> :> :They way my plan works is that an individual places $85 million in
> :> :escrow, $15 million is non-refundable.
> :> :
> :>
> :> So what you're really after is people with money who are stupid enough
> :> to give you $15 million each for nothing at all.
> :>
> :> Good luck with that, but I'm not holding my breath...
> :
> :A promise to do things with milestones is more than nothing.
> :
>
> But the first $15 million happens before any of these 'milestones'.
No it doesn't. That's why how the escrow contract is written is very
important. Money is placed in escrow. The owner of the money still
has access to it for investment purposes. So, any money it earns
still flows to the buyer of the tickets. This is an important
detail. Another detail, is that $15 million becomes irrevocably
available to the seller when the contracted for services are
delivered. Irrevocability means that the seller can borrow a portion
of the available funds. With cash on deposit at a Swiss bank, that
portion can be rather large. Now irrevocability is an interesting
concept. It means that the funds will flow to the seller once
milestones are met. It also means that they won't for cause. Another
interesting aspect is that once banks are involved, they have
fiduciary oversight, which is beneficial to both parties. This same
situation applies in any large project. The ticket buyer has entered
into what amounts to an off-take contract for the services offered.
They have presented a plan to the buyer, and the buyer has put money
up and given terms under which it will be available. With these
commitments, investment banks are interested in giving the seller of
the services loans to realize those services. Once service is rendered
funds are released, and the investment bank participates in the
profits with the seller. If no services are rendered, but an honest
effort to deliver the services was made, irrevocable amounts are
released based on performance, with the banks taking any other losses,
and very likely ownership of all works in process flowing to the banks
who then liquidate them to recover those losses. If no services were
rendered and no honest efforts were made, it is very likely that the
bank would detect that after the first tranche, (about 5% of the total
project amount) and halt the project and enter legal action against
the seller to recover any unspent funds and assets purchased illegally
with funds.
Of course, we'll make an honest effort, and very likely succeed in our
efforts given the vendors we have organized and the approach we're
using.
> :
> :A non-refundable deposit becomes refundable for cause.
> :
>
> Then it's not non-refundable, is it?
No, it is. Think irrevocable letters of credit stuff like that.
Look, me wanting to build a shopping center is one thing. Me wanting
to build a shopping center on a specific parcel of land for which I
have traffic volumes and competitive positions with other malls is
another. Me having detailed architectural drawings of a shopping mall
on the previously mentioned parcel of land is another. Me having
detailed architectural drawings approved by local council for
construction is another. Me having qualified vendors quoting detailed
price and delivery for building a specific shopping mall on a specific
piece of land for which I have all the approvals in place is another
level. Then, having all of this and a major store, like WalMart, sign
a twenty-year rental agreement is another. And having all of this
with WalMart putting twenty-years of rents in escrow irrevocably
commited as milestones are met, released irrevocably each mont the
building is open - is yet another.
Obviously the last step is what they call 'bankable' in the trade.
Anyone with $85 million to spend on experential travle understands
this, and will readily work with a seller who understands how to get
the project financed as well.
> :
> :Obviously, I will in
> :good faith carry out the plans I have described in great detail. Far
> :more than nothing.
> :
>
> 'Obviously'?
Yes. Obviously.
> I don't find that 'obvious' at all
That's because you are an unsophisticated fool when it comes to money.
> and I think you're
> going to have a great deal of trouble finding folks who have that much
> money who are silly enough to give it to you.
Not at all - since I'm not asking anyone to give me anything. I am
only asking for those who want the service to enter into an
appropriate off-take contract that allows me to arrange financing for
the project.
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
That includes you bosco.
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
- = -
Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus, BioStrategist
http://www.panix.com/~vjp2/vasos.htm http://www.facebook.com/vasjpan2
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Phooey on GUI: Windows for subprime Bimbos]
William Mook
> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> :On Dec 6, 5:39 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> :> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :> :
> :> :> :They way my plan works is that an individual places $85 million in
> :> :> :escrow, $15 million is non-refundable.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> So what you're really after is people with money who are stupid enough
> :> :> to give you $15 million each for nothing at all.
> :> :>
> :> :> Good luck with that, but I'm not holding my breath...
> :> :>
> :> :
> :> :A promise to do things with milestones is more than nothing.
> :> :
> :>
> :> But the first $15 million happens before any of these 'milestones'.
> :
> :No it doesn't. That's why how the escrow contract is written is very
> :important. Money is placed in escrow.
>
> Go back and read what you wrote. There is a $15 million
> non-refundable part, which is the part being talked about.
Right, and you are misreading what I wrote. The $85 million is placed
in escrow, and $15 million of it is irrevocable in the context of any
off-take contract. This makes a contract bankable. None of the money
is transferred to the seller until the services are rendered. The
money is irrevocably committed though at certain milestones.
> :
> :The owner of the money still
> :has access to it for investment purposes.
> :
>
> So what do you think 'non-refundable' means again?
Irrevocable letter of credit.
> And you can't
> 'invest' money that is in escrow.
Yes you can, people do it all the time.
> That's what escrow means - the
> money is held.
Can you earn interest on money in an escrow account? How do you think
banks do that? By using the money in a variety of ways. You really
should educate yourself about these matters before commenting on them.
> :
> :So, any money it earns
> :still flows to the buyer of the tickets. This is an important
> :detail. Another detail, is that $15 million becomes irrevocably
> :available to the seller when the contracted for services are
> :delivered. Irrevocability means that the seller can borrow a portion
> :of the available funds.
> :
>
> So you're using 'creative financing' then?
No, I am using project financing.
> Money is held in escrow
> and can be invested by one party and borrowed by the other party?
Yes.
>
> <snip silliness>
Nothing silly about what I've said. What you have said is very
stupid.
> :
> :> :
> :> :A non-refundable deposit becomes refundable for cause.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Then it's not non-refundable, is it?
> :
> :No, it is. Think irrevocable letters of credit stuff like that.
> :
>
> I can't invest the funds behind such letters.
Depends on how the trust is set up. It is done all the time when
large amounts are at stake.
>
> <irrelevancies elided>
>
> :
> :> :
> :> :Obviously, I will in
> :> :good faith carry out the plans I have described in great detail. Far
> :> :more than nothing.
> :> :
> :>
> :> 'Obviously'?
> :
> :Yes. Obviously.
> :
>
> Not so obviously.
Yes it is obvious.
> So far all that seems obvious is that you've got
> $15 million that you've 'borrowed' against, the other fellow has
> invested, all while it's being held in escrow.
Again, imagine I am building a shopping mall. There is a difference
between a plan for a shopping mall, and a plan for a shopping mall
with Walmart taking half the floor space agreeing to a certain $
figure each month for 30 years. Now, if Walmart places 30 years of
payments in an account at a bank and sets up a trust for its release,
based on performance, (building the mall and making it available to
move in on a certain date) an investment bank would find this a very
interesting project indeed.
> :> I don't find that 'obvious' at all
> :
> :That's because you are an unsophisticated fool when it comes to money.
> :
>
> I'm 'sophisticated' enough to know what 'escrow' and 'non-refundable'
> mean.
No, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You have
snipped away without reading important examples calling them silly and
irrelevant because they don't fit with your narrow preconcieved notion
of how you *think* things work.
You have no idea how a trust is set up to fund a project like building
a shopping mall, or how it can be adapted to build a rocket ship to
deliver a trip to the moon.
> You, on the other hand, appear to be thinking you can engage in
> creative finance that would make Ken Lay blush with shame.
Ken Lay set up a network of companies and arranged loans between those
companies to fool regulators and the public into thinking Enron was
more profitable than it really was. I am speaking about how an off-
take contract for travel services is structured so that the provider
of the services may arrange investment bank financing. Only an
unsophisticated asshole would compare the two.
> Hint: Once funds are placed in escrow, NEITHER side may touch them
The bank touches funds all the time - how do you think they EARN
INTEREST? lol. With large sums, banks routinely allow depositors to
to manage them to maximize return, rather than pay a set interest.
> until the contract either completes or cancels. That's what 'escrow'
> means.
You really need to consider how off-take contracts are structured in a
wide range of business settings before running off at the mouth about
what escrow means.
> Hint: If a contract cancels and part of the funds in escrow are
> 'non-refundable', those funds are delivered to the seller. That's
> what 'non-refundable' means.
Look up irrevocable letter of credit. That's how a lot of stuff gets
transacted overseas. You are Walmart and you order a million dollars
worth of sneakers from China. The Chinese doesn't trust Walmart to
pay them. They place the money in an irrevocable letter of credit
that gets released when the shoes arrive IN GOOD ORDER. The money
flows back to Walmart if the shoes don't pass muster. The money flows
to Chinese manufacturer if they do. There may even be a split and
even arbitration if there's an argument. Very complex stuff.
Insurers get involved if there's a loss at sea. Banks get involved if
the manufacturer has to borrow to buy raw materials or make
payrolls.
The same level of sophistication that allows Walmart to buy sneakers
from China over several years can be adapted to allow a company to
offer a sophisticated buyer a trip to the moon.
> :> and I think you're
> :> going to have a great deal of trouble finding folks who have that much
> :> money who are silly enough to give it to you.
> :
> :Not at all - since I'm not asking anyone to give me anything. I am
> :only asking for those who want the service to enter into an
> :appropriate off-take contract that allows me to arrange financing for
> :the project.
> :
>
> Good luck with that. I don't think you're going to find anyone with
> actual money who is that ignorant about the meanings of 'escrow' and
> 'non-refundable'.
Someone with $85 million to spend on experiential travel will not only
understand, but has actually suggested this structure based on their
actual experience with these sorts of trusts.
>
> :> --
> :> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> :> territory."
> :> --G. Behn
> :
> :That includes you bosco.
> :
>
> Hint: Commenting on a .sig is about the most clueless thing you can
> do on Usenet, 'bosco'.
Not as clueless as you however.
> --
> "I would not want to put him in charge of snake control in Ireland."
> -- Eugene McCarthy
<shrug>
William Mook
> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> :On Dec 7, 2:11 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> :> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :> :On Dec 6, 5:39 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> :> :> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :> :They way my plan works is that an individual places $85 million in
> :> :> :> :escrow, $15 million is non-refundable.
> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> So what you're really after is people with money who are stupid enough
> :> :> :> to give you $15 million each for nothing at all.
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> Good luck with that, but I'm not holding my breath...
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :
> :> :> :A promise to do things with milestones is more than nothing.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> But the first $15 million happens before any of these 'milestones'.
> :> :
> :> :No it doesn't. That's why how the escrow contract is written is very
> :> :important. Money is placed in escrow.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Go back and read what you wrote. There is a $15 million
> :> non-refundable part, which is the part being talked about.
> :
> :Right, and you are misreading what I wrote.
>
> Only because you are miswriting what you wrote.
No I'm not. I've been consistent throughout. Buyers make an
irrevocable commitment to purchase, place money at risk, and then earn
interest on the money that is placed in an account for it.
>
> :
> :The $85 million is placed in escrow, ...
> :
>
> Which eliminates your claim that the owner can still invest it.
>
> :
> :... and $15 million of it is irrevocable in the context of any
> :off-take contract.
> :
>
> The word you used was "non-refundable". Your current phrasing makes
> no sense at all.
Don't argue with me, argue with people who arrange financing for
hundred million dollar projects. Its really dumb to think that the
terminology that you might use when buying a used Chevy truck is
directly applicable when you're buying something like a shopping mall
or thirty million dollars worth of tee-shirts.
> :
> :>
> :> So what do you think 'non-refundable' means again?
> :>
> :
> :Irrevocable letter of credit.
> :
>
> Not the same thing at all.
That's the point Freddie. What makes you think putting a bid in on a
lazy-boy recliner on e-bay is going to have precisely the same
structure as arranging to purchase a Boeing BBJ for $65 million in
2012?
> :> And you can't
> :> 'invest' money that is in escrow.
> :
> :Yes you can, people do it all the time.
> :
>
> Bullshit.
Not at all.
> Money in escrow must be DEPOSITED.
As yourself this question Freddie. Where is it deposited? In a lock
box under your bed? No, its deposited in an account at a bank
somewhere. Now, there's a huge difference if its a $50 ding against a
credit card number and $50,000,000 in cash (or equivalent i.e.
publicly traded stock, notes, etc.)
> You can't do anything
> with it when it's in escrow.
No one would be able to secure financing against any large purchase if
that were true. Obviously an interest bearing bank account earns
money for someone, and that's the depositor Freddie. How do you
think the bank is able to pay interest on $50 million? That's right,
they use it while it is being held.
> It is HELD in escrow. Do you not know
> what 'escrow' means?
I do, its obvious you do not. haha - Escrow funds are routinely held
in bank accounts that bear interest. When funds exceed $100 million
or so, those who deposit the funds routinely have rights to elect how
the funds will be invested to earn interest rather than let the bank
do it.
> :> That's what escrow means - the
> :> money is held.
> :
> :Can you earn interest on money in an escrow account? How do you think
> :banks do that? By using the money in a variety of ways. You really
> :should educate yourself about these matters before commenting on them.
> :
>
> You're not a bank.
That's true.
> Neither is your customer.
That's true too.
So, neither of us will hold funds. Those funds will be held by -
guess - a bank. Those funds, especially if they're big funds, like
$50 million $100 million or more - will bear interest. That value is
created by using the funds in the account for purposes banks routinely
use deposited funds for.
Have you ever deposited $100,000 or more in the bank? Have you ever
received the disclaimer banks give about availability of funds? Why
do you think they do that? That's right, because they tie the funds
up to make money with them so they can afford to pay you interest on
them.
> Banks may pay interest
> on escrow funds, but they don't do it by investing the funds in
> escrow.
You are an idiot Freddie. HOW do you think banks EARN the interest
they pay you?
> They do it by investing OTHER funds.
They would pay the owners of that other money.
> Money is fungible
YES! Exactly right! And a large deal is structured to take
advantage of that fact. Sheez.
> and
> banks have federal insurance.
Only up to $100,000 - in the USA. We're talking about an $85 million
commitment times five. This is more money than some banks have and it
will likely not be transacted in the USA - likely Switzerland or
Singapore.
> You really should educate yourself about these matters before
> commenting on them.
I know more about it than you do apparently.
> Or before making claims about them, for that
> matter.
<shrug> You're the one making all the mistakes Freddie. I'm just
trying to educate you. Something you seem bound and determined to
resist. That marks you off as not only being ignorant, but arrogant
and stupid.
> :> :
> :> :So, any money it earns
> :> :still flows to the buyer of the tickets. This is an important
> :> :detail. Another detail, is that $15 million becomes irrevocably
> :> :available to the seller when the contracted for services are
> :> :delivered. Irrevocability means that the seller can borrow a portion
> :> :of the available funds.
> :> :
> :>
> :> So you're using 'creative financing' then?
> :
> :No, I am using project financing.
> :
>
> Like Ken Lay used project financing.
No, Ken Lay misused project financing arrangements between wholly
owned companies to arrange a network of debts to hide losses and
create artificial profits. In this way Ken Lay was able to steal
about $100 billion from people by fooling them about what he was
doing.
According to the American Petroleum Institute the Petroleum Industry
spend $480 billion a year developing oil projects. Over the 8 years
since Enron's collapse nearly $4 TRILLION in project financing in the
energy sector alone has been spent, to produce $30 trillion worth of
crude oil for the world's energy markets. Similar amounts have been
spent in construction, power generation, you name it.
Project financing is our friend, despite the fact that some very
clever crooks have misused aspects of it to fool people (and
eventually got found out and prosecuted)
Project financing is used routinely around the world to finance
projects of $10 million or more. I am proposing a project of nearly
half a billion dollars by selling tickets to five folks who are
capable of paying $85 million for the trip. They understand precisely
what's needed, unlike you.
> :
> :> Money is held in escrow
> :> and can be invested by one party and borrowed by the other party?
> :
> :Yes.
> :
>
> No.
Dude, banks pay interest on funds that are deposited by using the
deposited funds to arrange loans to borrowers. You said it yourself,
money is fungible. Do you even know what that means? Obviously not.
> :
> :>
> :> <snip silliness>
> :
> :Nothing silly about what I've said. What you have said is very
> :stupid.
> :
>
> And what you have said is contrary to our present reality on Planet
> Earth.
Not at all.
> :> :
> :> :> :
> :> :> :A non-refundable deposit becomes refundable for cause.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> Then it's not non-refundable, is it?
> :> :
> :> :No, it is. Think irrevocable letters of credit stuff like that.
> :> :
> :>
> :> I can't invest the funds behind such letters.
> :
> :Depends on how the trust is set up. It is done all the time when
> :large amounts are at stake.
> :
>
> Make up your mind.
About what Freddie?
> Are funds in escrow,
yes.
> in trust,
Yes
> or magically
> producing copies of themselves so that both parties can use the same
> money?
Yes.
>
> :
> :>
> :> <irrelevancies elided>
> :>
> :> :
> :> :> :
> :> :> :Obviously, I will in
> :> :> :good faith carry out the plans I have described in great detail. Far
> :> :> :more than nothing.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> 'Obviously'?
> :> :
> :> :Yes. Obviously.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Not so obviously.
> :
> :Yes it is obvious.
> :
>
> No, it is not obvious.
Yes it is.
> You can't even keep the terms of what you
> claim to be doing the same from article to article.
No, you refuse to grok what I'm saying and foolishly assume that since
you don't know what the hell you're talking about I must be wrong!
lol.
> :
> :> So far all that seems obvious is that you've got
> :> $15 million that you've 'borrowed' against, the other fellow has
> :> invested, all while it's being held in escrow.
> :
> :Again, imagine I am building a shopping mall. There is a difference
> :between a plan for a shopping mall, and a plan for a shopping mall
> :with Walmart taking half the floor space agreeing to a certain $
> :figure each month for 30 years. Now, if Walmart places 30 years of
> :payments in an account at a bank and sets up a trust for its release,
> :based on performance, (building the mall and making it available to
> :move in on a certain date) an investment bank would find this a very
> :interesting project indeed.
> :
>
> A trust and an escrow are not the same thing.
Dude, escrow is DEFINED as a trust account held in a borrower's name
to pay for stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escrow
Now, in the amounts we're talking the TERMS OF TRUST are written as
part of the contract for services. Major projects get financed like
this all the time. GET A FREAKING CLUE! HAHAHA!
> :
> :> :> I don't find that 'obvious' at all
> :> :
> :> :That's because you are an unsophisticated fool when it comes to money.
> :> :
> :>
> :> I'm 'sophisticated' enough to know what 'escrow' and 'non-refundable'
> :> mean.
> :
> :No, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You have
> :snipped away without reading important examples calling them silly and
> :irrelevant because they don't fit with your narrow preconcieved notion
> :of how you *think* things work.
> :
>
> Perhaps if YOU could decide just what is going on and then talk about
> it consistently,
I have.
> someone would be able to make heads or tails of it.
Someone who actually knows how to read presumably. Someone different
than you Freddie boy.
> :
> :You have no idea how a trust is set up to fund a project like building
> :a shopping mall, or how it can be adapted to build a rocket ship to
> :deliver a trip to the moon.
> :
>
> Of course I do,
Based on what you've said here, you do not.
> but that's not what you've been talking about.
Yes I have.
> That
> thundering noise you hear is the goalposts RUNNING to new positions.
Not at all.
> :
> :> You, on the other hand, appear to be thinking you can engage in
> :> creative finance that would make Ken Lay blush with shame.
> :
> :Ken Lay set up a network of companies and arranged loans between those
> :companies to fool regulators and the public into thinking Enron was
> :more profitable than it really was. I am speaking about how an off-
> :take contract for travel services is structured so that the provider
> :of the services may arrange investment bank financing. Only an
> :unsophisticated asshole would compare the two.
> :
>
> Well, no, you aren't.
I am talking about someone buying services in a way that allows me to
finance the creation of a supply chain to deliver those services.
> Or at least you haven't been.
Yes I have.
> Now that you're
> changing your story,
No I'm not.
> would you like to explain just how this off-take
> contract is going to work,
I just did. Buyers contract for $85 million tickets to the moon.
Funds are placed in an escrow account. They are released under terms
of trust which defined the terms of escrow. The use of funds, and
interest and so forth, are spelled out here. The terms are such that
$15 million is available to the service provider after the first buyer
signs up - as already described. By the time a second buyer signs up
another $40 million from the first becomes available to the provider,
along with $55 million from the second buyer. As already stated, this
is enough to get significant work done.
> since I don't think I've ever heard of
> anyone willing to roll the dice on something like that when
> significant R&D is required.
API reports that $480 billion worth of oil exploration is done each
year with an only 20% chance of success on each project.
> For an off-take contract to work, there
> has to be a fairly certain flow of good.
Depends on what is expected of the project. In this case its
experential travel. People routinely fund expeditions that may not
work out for one reason or another. The attempt is an adventure in
itself. Especially when one considers that suborbital and orbital
training and cislunar training flights are available before the lunar
landing flights.
> So what you're really looking for isn't a customer; it's a sponsor.
No, I'm looking for a customer as already stated.
> :> Hint: Once funds are placed in escrow, NEITHER side may touch them
> :
> :The bank touches funds all the time - how do you think they EARN
> :INTEREST? lol. With large sums, banks routinely allow depositors to
> :to manage them to maximize return, rather than pay a set interest.
> :
>
> You're not a bank. Neither is your customer.
So? Money is deposited in a bank. Or are you suggesting keeping it
in a metal box?
> The bank has lots of
> funds to cover things, in addition to insurance.
Not $85 million they don't. Obviously you've never dealt with these
large sums.
> Your claim was that
> the CUSTOMER could continue to invest funds in escrow.
Yeah right! haha.
>They can't.
Dude, escrow funds in amounts of $85 million and more are ALWAYS held
by major investment banks. Sheez.
> They receive a simple fixed rate of return.
Again, you've never had a billion dollars on deposit have you? Banks
will set you up with your own 'family group' to manage things for you
and charge a fee. Why? Because your funds are so large, a simple
fixed rate of return would kill the bank if the bank made a mistake.
> :> until the contract either completes or cancels. That's what 'escrow'
> :> means.
> :
> :You really need to consider how off-take contracts are structured in a
> :wide range of business settings before running off at the mouth about
> :what escrow means.
> :
>
> You really need to learn the difference between an off-take contract
> and escrow.
http://www.lloydstsbcorporatemarkets.com/glossary/pfi.asp
Money is routinely held in escrow to secure an off-take contract for
projects.
> You really need to consider how off-take contracts are
> structured in a wide range of business settings before you postulate
> getting that sort of setup when the bulk of your costs are R&D.
You are spouting nonsense.
Off-take contracts are routinely entered into when there is
substantial risk of non-performance. Even in the area of experential
travel people routinely enter into agreements to organize expeditions
to places where weather, or other factors may pose a substantial risk
of non-performance.
> You
> really need to consider the difference between escrow, off-take
> contracts
Why? Since off-take contracts are routinely secured by escrowed
funds?
> (which are based on your CUSTOMER'S credit),
That's the whole idea behind project financing. Project sponsors can
organize a project based on the credit-worthiness of the buyers of the
services rather than their own credit-worthiness. Since the buyers of
the services are the ultimate beneficiaries, why shouldn't they use
their credit to organize resources?
> letters of
> credit, and non-refundable payments before you start throwing words
> around and then every time someone points out you're not making sense
> just changing vocabularies.
You're the one who is clueless Freddie. Repeat the last paragraph -
but look in the mirror as you do so.
>
> :> Hint: If a contract cancels and part of the funds in escrow are
> :> 'non-refundable', those funds are delivered to the seller. That's
> :> what 'non-refundable' means.
> :
> :Look up irrevocable letter of credit.
> :
>
> Try saying what you mean.
I am.
> An ILOC and funds placed in escrow are not
> the same thing at all.
So? That doesn't change the fact that funds placed in escrow
routinely support an irrevocable letter of credit.
> An ILOC only pays on delivery at milestones,
That is true.
> so there is no "non-refundable $15 million", as you claimed earlier.
Yes there is, once the milestones are met. The milestone is delivery
of the service.
>
> <snip silliness where space R&D is equated to sneakers>
You have snipped an example that clearly details what I'm doing - why
is that Freddie? I never said R&D is the same as sneakers. Between
the time $100 million worth of sneakers are ordered and delivered to
30,000 stores around the world, a lot COULD GO WRONG! There is an
execution risk - just like organizing an $85 million moon trip. R&D
has nothing to do with it. R&D is a risk factor nothing more. People
routinely organize resources on this scale to get things done that
take time, encounter risk, and these are perfectly suitable ways to
organize resources here.
> :> :> and I think you're
> :> :> going to have a great deal of trouble finding folks who have that much
> :> :> money who are silly enough to give it to you.
> :> :
> :> :Not at all - since I'm not asking anyone to give me anything. I am
> :> :only asking for those who want the service to enter into an
> :> :appropriate off-take contract that allows me to arrange financing for
> :> :the project.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Good luck with that. I don't think you're going to find anyone with
> :> actual money who is that ignorant about the meanings of 'escrow' and
> :> 'non-refundable'.
> :
> :Someone with $85 million to spend on experiential travel will not only
> :understand, but has actually suggested this structure based on their
> :actual experience with these sorts of trusts.
> :
>
> So your claim now is that you've found a sucker, is it?
Not at all.
> :>
> :> :> --
> :> :> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> :> :> territory."
> :> :> --G. Behn
> :> :
> :> :That includes you bosco.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Hint: Commenting on a .sig is about the most clueless thing you can
> :> do on Usenet, 'bosco'.
> : ...
>
> read more »
William Mook
> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> :On Dec 7, 10:12 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> :> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :> :On Dec 7, 2:11 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> :> :> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :On Dec 6, 5:39 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> :> :> :> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :> :> :They way my plan works is that an individual places $85 million in
> :> :> :> :> :escrow, $15 million is non-refundable.
> :> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :> So what you're really after is people with money who are stupid enough
> :> :> :> :> to give you $15 million each for nothing at all.
> :> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :> Good luck with that, but I'm not holding my breath...
> :> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :> :A promise to do things with milestones is more than nothing.
> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> But the first $15 million happens before any of these 'milestones'.
> :> :> :
> :> :> :No it doesn't. That's why how the escrow contract is written is very
> :> :> :important. Money is placed in escrow.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> Go back and read what you wrote. There is a $15 million
> :> :> non-refundable part, which is the part being talked about.
> :> :
> :> :Right, and you are misreading what I wrote.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Only because you are miswriting what you wrote.
> :
> :
> :No I'm not. I've been consistent throughout. Buyers make an
> :irrevocable commitment to purchase, place money at risk, and then earn
> :interest on the money that is placed in an account for it.
> :
>
No its not
> :
> :>
> :> :
> :> :The $85 million is placed in escrow, ...
> :> :
> :>
> :> Which eliminates your claim that the owner can still invest it.
> :>
> :> :
> :> :... and $15 million of it is irrevocable in the context of any
> :> :off-take contract.
> :> :
> :>
> :> The word you used was "non-refundable". Your current phrasing makes
> :> no sense at all.
> :
> :Don't argue with me, argue with people who arrange financing for
> :hundred million dollar projects.
> :
>
> I'm arguing with you because you're the one saying stupid shit.
No I'm not. You are.
> :
> :Its really dumb to think that the
> :terminology that you might use when buying a used Chevy truck is
> :directly applicable when you're buying something like a shopping mall
> :or thirty million dollars worth of tee-shirts.
> :
>
> It's really dumb to think that words change meaning just because you
> want them to.
They don't change meaning. They only seem to change meaning for you
because you didn't understand what the words meant in the first place.
> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> So what do you think 'non-refundable' means again?
> :> :>
> :> :
> :> :Irrevocable letter of credit.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Not the same thing at all.
> :
> :That's the point Freddie. What makes you think putting a bid in on a
> :lazy-boy recliner on e-bay is going to have precisely the same
> :structure as arranging to purchase a Boeing BBJ for $65 million in
> :2012?
> :
>
> Nothing at all, Mookie.
Yes, this is the point.
> The point, Willie, is that words mean what
> words mean.
Yes, and if you knew what you were talking about we wouldn't be having
this conversation. The point is, you don't know what the hell you're
talking about, so we keep going around and around and around - while
you craftily erase all pointers I give to detailed explanations from
legal sites - haha -
> You keep changing the story on your FINANCIAL STRUCTURE,
No I don't.
> so just how seriously do you expect anyone is going to take your
> system architecture for lunar flight?
The point is, you seriously desire to wrongly paint a picture I don't
know what I'm talking about because you think it hides the fact you
don't know what you're talking about. haha
> :> :> And you can't
> :> :> 'invest' money that is in escrow.
> :> :
> :> :Yes you can, people do it all the time.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Bullshit.
> :
> :Not at all.
> :
>
> Yes, at all.
Nope. Money deposited in accounts wouldn't be able to earn interest
if what you said was true. Money deposited in accounts earn interest
BECAUSE the money can be invested in a variety of ways.
> :> Money in escrow must be DEPOSITED.
> :
> :As yourself this question Freddie. Where is it deposited? In a lock
> :box under your bed? No, its deposited in an account at a bank
> :somewhere. Now, there's a huge difference if its a $50 ding against a
> :credit card number and $50,000,000 in cash (or equivalent i.e.
> :publicly traded stock, notes, etc.)
> :
>
> Yes, and once your money is deposited *YOU CANNOT INVEST WITH IT*.
Demand deposits earn interest all the time. So too do certificates of
deposit. These are with truly piddling amounts ($100,000 or less)
When you start depositing $10 million or more you have the ability to
organize how the deposits are to be managed - and this is retained by
the buyers during the time when the travel is being organized.
> :> You can't do anything
> :> with it when it's in escrow.
> :
> :No one would be able to secure financing against any large purchase if
> :that were true. Obviously an interest bearing bank account earns
> :money for someone, and that's the depositor Freddie. How do you
> :think the bank is able to pay interest on $50 million? That's right,
> :they use it while it is being held.
> :
>
> Nope. You don't know how this works, do you?
You don't Freddie.
> What they do is count
> the escrow against their fractional reserve requirement, which lets
> them invest OTHER money.
If you know how it works Freddie why do you insist it cannot work?
You just want to say I'm wrong when in fact you know I have been right
from the first.
> :> It is HELD in escrow. Do you not know
> :> what 'escrow' means?
> :
> :I do, its obvious you do not. haha - Escrow funds are routinely held
> :in bank accounts that bear interest. When funds exceed $100 million
> :or so, those who deposit the funds routinely have rights to elect how
> :the funds will be invested to earn interest rather than let the bank
> :do it.
> :
>
> Cite? What you're describing is no longer 'escrow'.
Yes it is.
> :> :> That's what escrow means - the
> :> :> money is held.
> :> :
> :> :Can you earn interest on money in an escrow account? How do you think
> :> :banks do that? By using the money in a variety of ways. You really
> :> :should educate yourself about these matters before commenting on them.
> :> :
> :>
> :> You're not a bank.
> :
> :That's true.
> :
> :> Neither is your customer.
> :
> :That's true too.
> :
> :So, neither of us will hold funds.
> :
>
> And neither of you will be investing with or borrowing against escrow
> funds.
You just described about funds offsetting other funds. This is one
way demand deposits are used to earn interest - based on the usage of
those demand deposits. When money is less liquid other methods are
used as well. Since you know how funds offset one another presumably
you also know the whole story. So why are you insisting I'm somehow
wrong in what I've said when obviously I am not?
> :
> :Those funds will be held by -
> :guess - a bank. Those funds, especially if they're big funds, like
> :$50 million $100 million or more - will bear interest. That value is
> :created by using the funds in the account for purposes banks routinely
> :use deposited funds for.
> :
> :Have you ever deposited $100,000 or more in the bank?
> :
>
> Yes.
Then why the hell did you say funds were insured when it only applies
to deposits of less than $100,000?? lol. You are either lying now or
you were lying before. If, you know we shouldn't be having this
conversation. But we are. We are because you are being dishonest
somewhere.
> :
> :Have you ever
> :received the disclaimer banks give about availability of funds?
> :
>
> Yes.
So, you know that demand deposits have restrictions on them for you to
earn interest with them - despite the fact you are free to use them in
certain ways.
Obviously then a depositor can set up a trust as a buyer of a service
to benefit the seller of a service in a way that allows the seller to
arrange financing while the buyer receives interest on their funds.
This is what I have described - and what you are wrongly arguing
about.
> :
> :Why
> :do you think they do that? That's right, because they tie the funds
> :up to make money with them so they can afford to pay you interest on
> :them.
> :
>
> But those funds aren't in escrow.
Yes they are. A trust that benefits a third party creates an escrow
account. The terms of the trust can be anything.
> That's different from a regular
> account,
You mean a demand deposit account.
> you see, since escrow funds MUST BE AVAILABLE.
According to the terms of the trust, yes.
> They aren't
> allowed to tell you that they're not going to pay out the escrow
> because they have it invested and need to get it back first. They
> send bankers to jail for that sort of thing.
No they don't.
> :> Banks may pay interest
> :> on escrow funds, but they don't do it by investing the funds in
> :> escrow.
> :
> :You are an idiot Freddie. HOW do you think banks EARN the interest
> :they pay you?
> :
>
> You're an absolute fuckwit
No I'm not.
> who is unable to support his positions with
> anything other than name calling, Mookie.
You're the one who keeps erasing URLs I provide to support my
position. You have yet to supply even one URL to support yours - or
even maintain a consistent cogent argument.
> I can tell you where they
> do NOT get the interest they pay me. They don't get it by lending out
> funds that are in escrow, since there's a legal requirement that those
> funds must be held and available.
Depends on the terms of the trust that created the escrowed money in
the first place.
> :> They do it by investing OTHER funds.
> :
> :They would pay the owners of that other money.
> :
>
> See below. Go look up 'fungible'. Then learn something about
> fractional reserve banking.
I know all about this, and apparently so do you. So why do you insist
in pretending you don't understand how it works? Either you
understand and see how a $400 million program can be funded by five
travellers without taking undue risk, or you don't understand - in
either case your objections are clueless.
> :> Money is fungible
> :
> :YES! Exactly right! And a large deal is structured to take
> :advantage of that fact. Sheez.
> :
>
> And it's not done via escrow, which is a specific legal vehicle.
Dude, the terms of escrow is written by the parties involved and what
needs to be done - and these terms cover the sorts of contingencies
I've been talking about.
> :> and
> :> banks have federal insurance.
> :
> :Only up to $100,000 - in the USA. We're talking about an $85 million
> :commitment times five. This is more money than some banks have and it
> :will likely not be transacted in the USA - likely Switzerland or
> :Singapore.
> :
>
> Or anywhere where the banking laws are loose enough for you to play
> your Ken Lay games.
Now who's calling people names? Ken Lay used US law to defraud people
who were not sophisticated enough to see how they were defrauded. The
average loss in Enron was less than $100,000 and involved millions of
people. I'm selling five tickets of $85 million each. Obviously, the
folks who are buying my services are highly sophisticated and won't be
fooled by me or anyone.
> :> You really should educate yourself about these matters before
> :> commenting on them.
> :
> :I know more about it than you do apparently.
> :
>
> Apparent only to you,
No, you either don't know what you're talking about, or lying to us
about what you do know. In any event, its clear that individuals can
contract for services in a way that secures their interests and allows
the seller of those services to organize debt sufficient to deliver
those services - even if there is a substantial R&D component to
developing the means to deliver those services.
> but then you're a fuckwit
Who's calling names again? You are Freddie.
> so nobody is going to
> be surprised at that.
What's surprising is you are engaging in the very activity you are
charging me with. You are lying to everyone here, you are clueless
about the details of what you're discussing and you're calling me
names while providing no citations whatever, all while erasing
explanations and citations I have provided.
> :> Or before making claims about them, for that
> :> matter.
> :
> :<shrug> You're the one making all the mistakes Freddie. I'm just
> :trying to educate you. Something you seem bound and determined to
> :resist. That marks you off as not only being ignorant, but arrogant
> :and stupid.
> :
>
> I let the university educate me when I got that economics degree,
> Mookie.
You are either lying now, or have lied previously. In any case, you
have proven yourself to be a liar.
> You're an ignorant fuckwit
No I'm not.
> who couldn't educate anyone.
Again, you're calling names over and over again rather than construct
a clear consistent argument with citations. I have provided
citations, and clear easily understood examples to describe how it is
possible for a seller of services to organize a transaction with a
sophisticated buyer to minimize risk of buying those services.
> :> :> :
> :> :> :So, any money it earns
> :> :> :still flows to the buyer of the tickets. This is an important
> :> :> :detail. Another detail, is that $15 million becomes irrevocably
> :> :> :available to the seller when the contracted for services are
> :> :> :delivered. Irrevocability means that the seller can borrow a portion
> :> :> :of the available funds.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> So you're using 'creative financing' then?
> :> :
> :> :No, I am using project financing.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Like Ken Lay used project financing.
> :
> :No, Ken Lay misused project financing arrangements between wholly
> :owned companies to arrange a network of debts to hide losses and
> :create artificial profits. In this way Ken Lay was able to steal
> :about $100 billion from people by fooling them about what he was
> :doing.
> :
>
> Which is precisely what your first description of how you were going
> to finance all this did.
No it isn't.
> Bored now.
Of course, you only want to call me names and spout off in a way that
makes people *feel* a certain way, without really getting to the root
of the matter - since I core I'm right and you are wrong - and a liar.
> Not reading any more of your idiocy.
Of course not - you don't want anyone to read the URL that describes
how trusts are used by buyers to organize escrows to benefit a seller
while securing the assets of a buyer until the goods or services are
delivered.
> Good luck with
> finding people that rich
There are 10 million millionaires in the world who own $40 trillion in
liquid assets. The entire world has $58 trillion in liquid assets.
So, the rich are where to find the money we need to organize any sort
of enterprise.
> who are that stupid.
People who are rich are not stupid - which is why they are free to
engage in economic transactions and conversations that those who are
not rich are not free to engage in.
> I don't think you'll be
> successful.
Since when does what you think have anything to do with reality? You
are obviously a clueless lying asshole when it comes to these matters.
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
Whatever.
William Mook
> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
No its not!
On December 6 I wrote
"They way my plan works is that an individual places $85 million in
escrow, $15 million is non-refundable. When training is delivered and
the first flight articles are completed, another $40 million is non-
refundable, and finally the last $20 million when the moon flight is
ready to take place, then 30 days after delivery of the flight, the
funds are released from escrow. Individuals have use of their money,
and earnings from their money, while they await the flight. "
On December 13 I wrote
"I've been consistent throughout. Buyers make an irrevocable
commitment to purchase, place money at risk, and then earn interest on
the money that is placed in an account for it."
Both statements say the same thing. A buyer of a trip to the moon
makes a commitment and backs it up with money which allows the seller
to fund development of the supply chain to deliver the trip while the
buyer earns interest on the money he places at risk.
You are the one Freddie saying 'stupid shit' like an escrow account
can't be part of a trust and funds placed at risk cannot earn interest
and stuff like gross negligence can't release funds placed at risk.
haha..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escrow
> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> :
> :> :> :The $85 million is placed in escrow, ...
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> Which eliminates your claim that the owner can still invest it.
> :> :>
> :> :> :
> :> :> :... and $15 million of it is irrevocable in the context of any
> :> :> :off-take contract.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> The word you used was "non-refundable". Your current phrasing makes
> :> :> no sense at all.
> :> :
> :> :Don't argue with me, argue with people who arrange financing for
> :> :hundred million dollar projects.
> :> :
> :>
> :> I'm arguing with you because you're the one saying stupid shit.
> :
> :
> :No I'm not. You are.
> :
>
> No I'm not. You are.
On December 6 Freddie you said all sorts of stupid shit trying to
convince folks that escrow funds cannot be attached to a trust (escrow
funds are the basis of a trust) and that interest cannot be earned
with funds at risk, and funds placed irrevocably at risk could not be
released for cause (i.e. gross negligence) - that's really stupid shit
Freddie, and you said it.
> :> :
> :> :Its really dumb to think that the
> :> :terminology that you might use when buying a used Chevy truck is
> :> :directly applicable when you're buying something like a shopping mall
> :> :or thirty million dollars worth of tee-shirts.
> :> :
> :>
> :> It's really dumb to think that words change meaning just because you
> :> want them to.
> :
> :They don't change meaning. They only seem to change meaning for you
> :because you didn't understand what the words meant in the first place.
> :
>
> Try again, fuckwit.
Try what Freddie? Point to the definition of escrow funds and trust?
Okay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escrow
> You're coming in broken and stupid.
No, you are.
> :> :> :
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> So what do you think 'non-refundable' means again?
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :
> :> :> :Irrevocable letter of credit.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> Not the same thing at all.
> :> :
> :> :That's the point Freddie. What makes you think putting a bid in on a
> :> :lazy-boy recliner on e-bay is going to have precisely the same
> :> :structure as arranging to purchase a Boeing BBJ for $65 million in
> :> :2012?
> :> :
> :>
> :> Nothing at all, Mookie.
> :
> :Yes, this is the point.
> :
>
> Yes, it is. You've made up an argument and now you're acting as if I
> said it or agreed with it.
No, Freddie, I'm talking about irrevocable and nonrefundable and under
what conditions they mean the same thing. You have maintained
throughout that they are totally different and have said rather rudely
that since I say they're the same thing in the way I'm structuring my
buyer's commitment I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. I
reply that you are an ass to say something so totally wrong since non-
refundable and irrevocable mean pretty much the same thing when an
agreement is made between a buyer and seller of services when the
funds placed in trust are used to secure financing to develop the
means to provide the services the buyer is seeking to obtain.
Here's a few definitions from online investment dictionaries;
Non-refundable is legally a condition in an indenture which prohibits
or restricts the ability of the issuer to retire the indenture -
obtain a refund.
An irrevocable trust is one which cannot be changed or canceled once
it is set up without the consent of the beneficiary. Contributions
cannot be taken out of the trust by the grantor.
An irrevocable letter of credit is a letter of credit that can't be
canceled. This guarantees that a buyer's payment to a seller will be
received on time and for the correct amount once the terms of the sale
are met.
Now, these all pretty much say the same thing - namely - that the
buyer MUST pay out funds under terms agreed to by the buyer at the
time the agreement is made.
Now, it is also important that 1) if there is going to be a long time
between the agreement is made and the time the services are delivered
and 2) if the amounts are large, then the disposal of interest and
method of generating interest is also agreed to at the time the buyer
and seller make their initial agreement. In fact, most states have a
REQUIREMENT that funds held in escrow for two years or more pay
interest to the benefit of the parties paying funds into escrow.
> :> The point, Willie, is that words mean what
> :> words mean.
> :
> :Yes, and if you knew what you were talking about we wouldn't be having
> :this conversation. The point is, you don't know what the hell you're
> :talking about, so we keep going around and around and around -
> :
>
> Yes, and if you knew what you were talking about we wouldn't be having
> this conversation.
Now now Freddie - I know what I'm talking about. We're having a
conversation about things you clearly have no idea about. You claim
Freddie that irrevocable and non-refundable are two totally different
things - where in the context of the agreement for lunar travel they
mean the same thing. You claim Freddie that non-refundable deposits
cannot be returned due to gross negligence, where such deposits are
routinely returned for this cause and other just causes. You claim
Freddie that escrow accounts and trusts are totally different - where
escrow accounts are routinely created by trust agreements. You claim
Freddie that escrowed funds cannot earn interest where many states
REQUIRE interest to be paid on such funds.
Clearly, I know precisely what I'm talking about, you on the other
hand Freddie, don't know butkas about what you're talking about.
> The point is, you don't know what the hell you're
> talking about and keep shifting what you're saying, so we keep going
> around and around and around
Not at all.
> :
> :... while
> :you craftily erase all pointers I give to detailed explanations from
> :legal sites - haha -
> :
>
> <yawn>
Well, I can easily add them in
> Typical lie of someone who can't support his position.
I added the URL you erased twice above - so, you're the one lying
Freddie about me not supporting my position.
> "You're
> selectively editing my stuff. WAAAAAAAAA!!!!"
No, you're erasing pointers to URLs and then claiming I can't support
my position. That's the kind of scoundrel you are.
> :> You keep changing the story on your FINANCIAL STRUCTURE,
> :
> :No I don't.
> :
>
> Yes you do.
No I don't! Please re-read what I've written and read carefully the
definitions and pointers I've provided - you will see that you are
wrong and I am right.
> :> so just how seriously do you expect anyone is going to take your
> :> system architecture for lunar flight?
> :
> :The point is, you seriously desire to wrongly paint a picture I don't
> :know what I'm talking about because you think it hides the fact you
> :don't know what you're talking about. haha
> :
>
> And off you go, to the happy home, where life is beautiful all the
> time and you'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean
> white coats and they're coming to take you away, haha!
You have a lot of experience with those sorts of situations Freddie?
I knew you did. lol.
> :> :> :> And you can't
> :> :> :> 'invest' money that is in escrow.
> :> :> :
> :> :> :Yes you can, people do it all the time.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> Bullshit.
> :> :
> :> :Not at all.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Yes, at all.
> :
> :Nope. Money deposited in accounts wouldn't be able to earn interest
> :if what you said was true. Money deposited in accounts earn interest
> :BECAUSE the money can be invested in a variety of ways.
> :
>
> Money deposited in accounts is not under the same rules as funds held
> in escrow.
Depends on how the terms of trust are written Freddie.
> :> :> Money in escrow must be DEPOSITED.
> :> :
> :> :As yourself this question Freddie. Where is it deposited? In a lock
> :> :box under your bed? No, its deposited in an account at a bank
> :> :somewhere. Now, there's a huge difference if its a $50 ding against a
> :> :credit card number and $50,000,000 in cash (or equivalent i.e.
> :> :publicly traded stock, notes, etc.)
> :> :
> :>
> :> Yes, and once your money is deposited *YOU CANNOT INVEST WITH IT*.
> :
> :Demand deposits earn interest all the time. So too do certificates of
> :deposit. These are with truly piddling amounts ($100,000 or less)
> :When you start depositing $10 million or more you have the ability to
> :organize how the deposits are to be managed - and this is retained by
> :the buyers during the time when the travel is being organized.
> :
>
> And NONE of that is 'escrow', you ignorant twit.
Here we go again! Escrow accounts are created by terms of trust -
those terms are anything the buyer and seller agree to.
> :> :> You can't do anything
> :> :> with it when it's in escrow.
> :> :
> :> :No one would be able to secure financing against any large purchase if
> :> :that were true. Obviously an interest bearing bank account earns
> :> :money for someone, and that's the depositor Freddie. How do you
> :> :think the bank is able to pay interest on $50 million? That's right,
> :> :they use it while it is being held.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Nope. You don't know how this works, do you?
> :
> :You don't Freddie.
> :
>
> Try again, Mookie. I'll tell you what. You sign documents making you
> an escrow agent (LEGALLY - escrow is a legally defined term).
Yes, I gave you definitions above.
> Then
> you go invest the money in something else.
??? What do you imagine this means Freddie ???
> Now see what happens to
> you when you have to pay it out and don't have it because you invested
> it.
hahaha - you ARE an IDIOT Freddie! HOW DO YOU THINK INTEREST IS
EARNED ON THESE ACCOUNTS? Consider please that most states REQUIRE
that interest paid on escrowed funds held over two years.
Sheez
> :
> :>
> :> What they do is count
> :> the escrow against their fractional reserve requirement, which lets
> :> them invest OTHER money.
> :
> :If you know how it works Freddie why do you insist it cannot work?
> :
>
> Because what you're saying is WRONG, Mookie.
No I'm not.
> The escrow agent can do
> things. The depositor or the payee cannot.
Depends on the terms of trust that created the escrow fund in the
first place Freddie.
> Someone may be willing to
> loan you money based on funds you're supposed to be paid from escrow,
Yes.
> but the person who is depositing those funds can't do squat with them.
Depends on the terms of trust.
> :
> :You just want to say I'm wrong when in fact you know I have been right
> :from the first.
> :
>
> You're insane.
No I'm not.
> And you've been wrong from the first.
No I haven't.
> Now you want to
> switch from escrow to an ILC (which is not the same thing).
Depends on how the terms of Trust are Written Freddie!
> An ILC
> relies on the creditworthiness of the person issuing the letter.
It can in most instances, depends on the terms.
> What
> they can do with the funds behind it is pretty limited.
True, it depends on the terms.
> :> :> It is HELD in escrow. Do you not know
> :> :> what 'escrow' means?
> :> :
> :> :I do, its obvious you do not. haha - Escrow funds are routinely held
> :> :in bank accounts that bear interest. When funds exceed $100 million
> :> :or so, those who deposit the funds routinely have rights to elect how
> :> :the funds will be invested to earn interest rather than let the bank
> :> :do it.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Cite? What you're describing is no longer 'escrow'.
> :
> :Yes it is.
> :
>
> No it isn't.
Yes it is.
> Failure to cite noted.
I've cited far more stuff than you have Freddie.
[snip]
Now, are you gonna cry because I snipped you torturous drivel? Sheez.
Bottom line Freddie, despite your attempts to paint what I said
originally as being wrong - you pretty much agree that a sophisticated
buyer can enter into an arrangement with a service provider to pay $85
million into an account in such a way so that the provider can borrow
the money he needs to deliver the service whereupon the funds are
released to the seller. I've omitted all the words you seem have
trouble with, so that the POINT of my original statement is clear.
With one buyer the program commences. Since the structural mass of
the stage determines its cost - we start with the smallest stages
first... as described here;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBi69V8oNuw
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymook#p/u/3/-NlZmUUWvJw
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymook#p/u/2/jhZb7XDaYts
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20053585/Mokaerospace-Overview
With the publicity generated at each step, additional buyers emerge
from the population of 100,000 buyers capable of purchasing the trip
world-wide, others may invest in a ticket with the idea of selling it
at a premium as the flight day draws near;
http://www.us.capgemini.com/worldwealthreport08/
So,;
PHASE I
Buyer 1: $85,000,000
Seller: Borrows $15,000,000 - builds lunar lander stage, space
suits, life support, MEMS rockets
first flight
hardware, space suit delivered, training delivered
PHASE II
Buyer 2: $85,000,000
Seller: Borrows $115,000,000 - builds middle stage, launch
center, two stage flights
second round of
training commences, buyers fly into space
PHASE III
Buyer 3 through 5: $255,000,000
Seller: Borrows: $195,000,000 - builds first stage, three stage
flights, cislunar flights, fleet build out
third round of
training commences, flights around moon
DELIVERY
Lunar Travel Delivered: $425,000,000 released
$325,000,000 repaid + interest
POST-TRAVEL
TICKER TAPE PARADE, ENTRY INTO THE HISTORY BOOKS, WORLD TOUR
RECURRING INCOME
A fleet of five reusable vehicles capable of sending 10 people to the
moon (five passengers and five operators) at a RECURRING COST of
approximately $5 million per person - offered at $25 million per
person. From the 200,000 people able to afford such a flight, 5 per
month - 60 per year - with a $20 million profit per person - $1.2
billion EBITDA producing a $25 billion NPV, assuming 200 flight
cycles per vehicles and an 18 year life span.
EXPANSION
Leveraging the income stream and the technical capabilities, the
supply chain is expanded to larger vehicles capable of expanding space
based assets and infrastructure; including;
(1) 20 tons to LEO at low cost
(2) global hotspot
(3) 500 tons to LEO, lunar hotel, mars travel
(4) solar powersat
(5) lunar industry, Mars hotel
(6) asteroid capture, orbital industry, mars industry
(7) sun orbiting powersat
(8) laser light sail
which I detail here;
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymook#p/u/18/I81ogcX3ONY
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymook#p/u/17/QvE-bkc0Uxo
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymook#p/u/16/iWiXDu64c0g
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymook#p/u/15/FMefZhA7ifI
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymook#p/u/14/dP5DX2NSl7c
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymook#p/u/13/XxV2FCUESh0
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymook#p/u/12/nzG4PEureFg
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymook#p/u/11/IcbXSONtBdY
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymook#p/u/10/3E2586kx_Uc
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymook#p/u/9/istE1bpoDPg
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymook#p/u/8/mzXwctPXT4c
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymook#p/u/7/jWuL4sZ3ppY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QAUkt2VPHI
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymook#p/u/28/xCJl-ZbHOYc
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymook#p/u/29/ZYuK0iJqpNA
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymook#p/u/30/dbWNnVsBhOg
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymook#p/u/33/B1MCq8bekRo
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymook#p/u/35/DuzFqFK9gW4
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymook#p/u/1/GOpCMnLoM1c
Sylvia Else
> You are the one Freddie saying 'stupid shit' like an escrow account
> can't be part of a trust and funds placed at risk cannot earn interest
> and stuff like gross negligence can't release funds placed at risk.
> haha..
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escrow
>
Yet clearly, there are a couple of things that can't be done with fund
in escrow:
a) They can't be spent.
b) They can't be pledged against a future liability
since either of these would mean it was impossible for the funds to be
returned to the depositor in the event of a default.
For a person developing a service, they are useful as a guarantee that
the service will be paid for if it is delivered. But the funds are not
available to support development.
Sylvia.
William Mook
> William Mook wrote:
> > You are the one Freddie saying 'stupid shit' like an escrow account
> > can't be part of a trust and funds placed at risk cannot earn interest
> > and stuff like gross negligence can't release funds placed at risk.
> > haha..
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escrow
>
> Yet clearly, there are a couple of things that can't be done with fund
> in escrow:
>
> a) They can't be spent.
>
> b) They can't be pledged against a future liability
>
> since either of these would mean it was impossible for the funds to be
> returned to the depositor in the event of a default.
Depends on the details Sylvia spelled out in the terms creating the
financial arrangement.
> For a person developing a service, they are useful as a guarantee that
> the service will be paid for if it is delivered. But the funds are not
> available to support development.
Again, it depends on the terms creating the financial arrangement.
We're talking about financing a project where delivery of the result
desired by the buyer and seller may through no fault of their own be
less than both had hoped for.
Are these sorts of projects impossible to finance? Especially if the
amounts placed at risk are large to support the project?
The answer is no, such projects get financed routinely. There is a
whole area of finance called PROJECT FINANCE
Last year the American Petroleum Institute estimated that over $480
billion was spent building projects that intended to produce oil.
Only 20% of them achieved their goals. 80% of them did not.
Nevertheless, more money was raised THAT YEAR than has been spent over
the ENTIRE HISTORY of NASA!
So, project financing is something to look at.
Project finance is a method of non-recourse or limited recourse
financing in which the project lenders look principally to the cash
flow of a single project as security for their loan.
Project finance transactions typically involve large, complex projects
with many participants and a relatively long construction period and
operating life.
Unlike most non-recourse financings, in a project financing, the loan
amount usually exceeds the value of the project's hard assets.
As a result, project cash flows are the key source of loan repayment.
Because of the limited recourse nature of project finance loans, the
size and complexity of the projects involved and the lenders' reliance
on cash flows over a long payment period, project financings require a
complex scheme of risk allocation that is reflected in many long,
complicated documents.
Many concepts underlying project finance are familiar to real estate
lawyers who have handled traditional commercial real estate loans.
In fact, the basic project finance structure looks much like a real
estate loan in which the borrower finances the development of a
building on the strength of a long-term net lease of the entire
building to a single credit tenant.
In a typical project financing, instead of a lease, there will be an
"off-take" contract, such as a power sales agreement, under which the
project owner sells all of the output of a facility on a long-term
basis to a creditworthy local utility or industry.
This off-take contract serves as the basis for the financing.
Nevertheless, there are significant differences between project
finance and traditional real estate lending.
In project finance, the same lender or group of lenders typically
provides both the construction and long-term financing.
In addition, the project loans are usually non-recourse or of limited
recourse both during construction and after the loan converts to term
status.
Project financing is almost always used for very large projects.
Project financings are unusual for loans of less than $25 million and
are common for loans over $1 billion.
Companies use project financing for power plants, pipelines and other
energy facilities, industrial and chemical processing plants, mines,
toll roads and other large facilities with reasonably complicated
construction features, a long operating life and significant operating
risks.
These large, single purpose projects are in many ways the antithesis
of an office building with fungible space leased to a host of
prospective tenants.
> Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
> On Dec 15, 3:57 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>> William Mook wrote:
>>> You are the one Freddie saying 'stupid shit' like an escrow account
>>> can't be part of a trust and funds placed at risk cannot earn interest
>>> and stuff like gross negligence can't release funds placed at risk.
>>> haha..
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escrow
>> Yet clearly, there are a couple of things that can't be done with fund
>> in escrow:
>>
>> a) They can't be spent.
>>
>> b) They can't be pledged against a future liability
>>
>> since either of these would mean it was impossible for the funds to be
>> returned to the depositor in the event of a default.
>
> Depends on the details Sylvia spelled out in the terms creating the
> financial arrangement.
No it doesn't. All sorts of financial arrangements can be entered into,
but if the above don't apply, this it's not an escrow.
Sylvia.
William Mook
Not all escrow agreements impose the duties of a legal trustee on the
escrow agent, and in many such agreements, escrow agents are held to a
mere gross negligence standard and benefit from indemnity and hold
harmless provisions
Sylvia Else
What has that to do with it?
Sylvia.
William Mook
Plenty -
William Mook
BradGuth
That would be nice if the private Federal Reserve played by the rules,
and their kosher approved SEC didn't continue with their pro-Ponzi
policy of letting the rest of us get screwed.
~ BG
BradGuth
Correct, escrow = escrow (as in can't be touched or utilized for
leverage)
On the other hand, a pledge or even a promissory note can be anything
you like.
Perhaps a federal excise tax of 10% would make Mook happy, but only if
100% of that tax went into his R&D (with no strings attatched).
I've offered a 50% matching fund, whereas the 50/50 public investment
also gets to own 50% of whatever's accomplished (good or bad).
~ BG