abronfeld1
-
Posts
18 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by abronfeld1
-
-
On 10/7/2020 at 8:30 AM, CeceliaBedelia said:
I only caught the end of this how. It didn't look like there was reconfiguration. How did she spend three quarters of a million dollar? I know she blamed Donovan for botching the budget but then said it was due to taxes and assessments, but any buyer knows what taxes and assessments are up front. I think Donovan is shady but honestly, she looks stupid with the whole I was blindsided thing. Did he write out the checks to himself from her company's account? Someone had to authorize it? Are there no financial checks? Just a big bucket of money anyone can dip into without being challenged? Our family does small flips as a side business. We meet weekly to go over budgets and progress by project. Every penny is accounted for. And, were we're talking small potatoes compared to these projects. But money is money.
I also have invested in real estate in Chicago and none of this makes any sense. According to both Donovan and Allison, there are investors involved in funding these projects. What is their cut of the phantom profits? Why would anyone continue to invest with them, given their performance. This building is 46 years old and I doubt anything in the building has ever sold for the square foot asking on this unit. As the building ages the assessments(and special assessments) that are coming will only make the building less desirable over time.
-
4
-
-
3 hours ago, TheLastKidPicked said:
That explains a lot!
And thank you for posting that. I sometimes forget how many smart people we have posting here.
Actually the EB-5 regulation specifically excludes investment in a personal residence. I'm not saying that some characters will not try to obfuscate their investment in a residence as a commercial enterprise, but it is clearly against the written rules. https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/permanent-workers/employment-based-immigration-fifth-preference-eb-5/about-eb-5-visa-classification
-
8
-
1
-
2
-
-
On 11/18/2019 at 4:42 AM, Rainsodden said:
As someone who knows way too much about horse racing, I have to say they got names and places right -- but there was a pretty significant blunder in the visuals. When they're at the training facility allegedly at Claiborne, it was clearly a British-style gallop with horses wearing British-style tack. There's quite a difference in the way racehorses are trained on either side of the Atlantic, and if you know anything about it, you can pick it out right away. It seemed to me they'd done some book research but hadn't had anyone to review the episode who actually knew racing, which was the same feeling I got from the last episode to feature racing.
Also, I assume they're drawing from an actual trip the Queen did, but, boy, is 1967 a bit of an unfortunate year to review revamping training and breeding, because at this time, the first foals of the stallion who would come to dominate bloodlines internationally, Northern Dancer, are still yearlings in Canada (and it's few years before his son Nijinsky won the English Triple Crown), and it's also still a few years before Claiborne Farm became the home of Secretariat. Just a little bit too early for all sorts of milestones.
(Yes, I'm sure I'm the only one who cares.)You are not alone. I was involved in some partnerships that owned and raced thoroughbreds. I am sure budget considerations prevented them from adopting your suggestions.
-
2
-
-
On 8/12/2019 at 7:58 AM, Rickster said:
A little late to this conversation, but a Chairman can’t fire board members unless the company has some very odd governance provisions. Maybe if he owns more than 50% of the stock, he could effectively act as if they are fired.
We know that Waystar is a publicly held stock. Voting against the Chairman can not get you "fired". All the Board members would have terms of service, usually staggered, and would be subject to a vote of the Shareholders at the end of their terms. If Logan owned more that 50% of the voting stock he could vote them out at that time. The "firings" make good TV, but not even close to reality.
-
1
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, PepSinger said:
I have an iPhone. I assume Beth has some sort of smartphone. 99% of the time if I ask someone for a charger, someone has one. It’s not a logic leap or something that’s absurd to think someone else would have, especially if you have a common phone.
Also, I don’t see what being a wife and a mother has to do with having a charged phone. Shit happens sometimes.
Looked like an android household to me. We live in a divided country😄
-
9
-
3
-
-
39 minutes ago, rhys said:
The geographic conundrum is in one of CJ Box's books based on true stuff.
the kid/dad stuff broke my heart as did Anna's many monologes. My house got dusty. What is wrong with America lately?
Here is an article detailing the actual legal issue.
-
3
-
-
Just awful. I smirked once.
-
Even if they go through a bankruptcy, and the court finds that that their behavior was willful and malicious in misallocating funds due to creditors, they may never be able to discharge their debts. We don't have enough information from the edited program, but using purchase order financing, and then spending the funds originally promised to a specific PO creditor for other purposes, is skating on the line of intentional deception.
-
1
-
3
-
-
On 1/23/2019 at 3:05 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:
I wonder what effect the huge amount of water in the basement will have on resale, after they showed it last night?
Full disclosure would necessitate reporting the previous water issues regardless of the TV show. However, this can't help but shrink their potential market. Any competent buyer's broker would bring it up to support a low-ball offer.
-
Even with the obvious bias of the documentary, I saw enough to lead me to believe that Michael probably killed his wife. Having said that, I am always shocked by the lengths that law enforcement will sometimes take to slant a case in their favor. Rudolf was right in saying that innocent men are convicted much more often than expected as a result of these kinds of abuses. I think that the jury probably got it right, but for some of the wrong reasons. As a juror, missing the Deaver evidence, I would have had a tough time bringing back a guilty verdict. Too much reasonable doubt. All in all, a great documentary, even with the heavy- handed emotional slant toward Michael Peterson.
-
12
-
-
1 minute ago, TexasGal said:
When he was making the first lunch pasta, I thought he'd scoop some out before adding the shrimp so that there would be a vegan/kosher platter and then add shrimp to the rest for the rest of the guests. But, uh, nope. He then remade the same thing without shrimp for the vegan guest and something else entirely for the kosher one. He really doesn't think first.
Without understanding the underlying rules of kosher preparation, I would expect most chefs to be clueless about the efficient way of accommodating multiple kosher and non-kosher requests at the same meal. Although Adam claimed to have had experience in this area before, I am highly skeptical that he understood what he was doing. When someone asks for Glatt Kosher(higher standard of purity) as opposed to simply Kosher , one would expect a greater amount of research by the chef to prepare him for meal accommodation.
-
2
-
-
Really, 2.599 vs 2.6 million. That is a power play by a buyer? A $1000 must be very empowering in San Francisco these days.
-
2
-
-
It was a bit simplistic for Marcus to discuss raising prices and noting the attendant revenue increase, without discussing the very real possibility that customer counts would decline due to the very same price increase. While the buffet prices listed did seem low by my big city standards, I would have at least asked what other restaurants in the area were charging for their respective buffets.
-
2
-
-
Sadly, what Marcus was exposed to is very common in small businesses. Owners routinely conflate personal and business expenses and are usually only concerned about avoiding the IRS wrath and not that of other current or future partners. Sal knew exactly what he was doing, and his protestations about being confused or not wanting Marcus to walk away don't pass the smell test.
-
2
-
S04.E10: With Open Eyes
in Succession
It's a story old as time- from Cain and Abel through to King Lear. Sibling rivalry and jealousy prevented the three Roy offspring from accepting any one of them from besting the other two. Better to sell out the family business and identity than to have any one of the three lead it. They could fake being adults with the rest of the world, but would quickly revert to their childhood identities when they were together. Once you got past all the unpredictable twists and turns, you realize that the end result was preordained in their DNA.