Quote from: MPOE-PR on November 06, 2012, 03:22:23 PM

Quote from: JoelKatz on November 06, 2012, 03:11:48 PM

What information did Patrick have that others didn't have that would have changed the conclusion they drew?

That's immaterial. What proof do you have the lender had exactly the same information as the borrower did?

I never said they had exactly the same information, I said they had substantially the same information. I even explained what information they both had.

Quote

Quote from: JoelKatz on November 06, 2012, 03:11:48 PM

The problem is that the contract doesn't cover the case where the loans have correlated risk.

Yes, it does. That's exactly why the negotiations start with "do you have correlated risk X". Had the scammer answered "yes" or even "maybe" the contract would never have happened. He did neither, he answered "no". Living up to that "no" is upon him.

Part of my argument is that Patrick in fact made that mistake. To respond by saying Patrick made that mistake doesn't make sense. I agree that both sides believed that Patrick's loan portfolio had no, or minimal, Pirate exposure and for substantially the same reasons.

Quote

Quote from: JoelKatz on November 06, 2012, 03:11:48 PM

Right, but the agreement was predicated on a mutual understanding that the loans didn't have significant correlated risk.

Nothing of the kind. The agreement was predicated on a mutual understanding that the lender lends and the borrower repays with interest.

So the agreement still would have happened even if Patrick said "Yes, I have significant Pirate exposure"? Bullshit.

Quote

The quote from "another thread" has the relevance of pointing out that we were both the first and for a long time the only to clearly state that Pirate is a scam. As such, proposing this theory whereby "nobody knew" that Pirate might have been a scam is ridiculous. The entire point of that agreement is squarely against this.

Somehow we must have some kind of a disconnect somewhere. Of course both knew Pirate was at least very likely to be a scam. That's the whole reason this agreement was constructed the way it was -- to protect against Pirate exposure. The common mistake was the belief that Patrick's loan portfolio didn't have significant Pirate exposure when it actually did.

Both parties willfully ignored the obvious gaping holes in Patrick's business model, despite being repeatedly told what they were. Honestly, I'm somewhat disgusted at the righteous indignation of the usurious lenders who refuse to accept any responsibility for their significant role in this fiasco.