Off topic:
I want to extend a warm welcome to those who are
new to this forum, and came here because of the
Pinnacle discussion.
This entire board is a great place to hang out, learn
from others, answer questions about our great
industry, and try to help each other out.
I hope that you who are new here and have posted
for the first time, will mosey on over to the introductions
thread and tell us a bit about yourself and what your
hopes and dreams are in real estate investing.
Again...welcome...we're glad you're here! :lol:
Moneypoint, you are right, disgorgement may apply here, that is if the investors were not in on the scam. Although I hope not, some may have been. How do we know? Regardless, the net winners NOW KNOW that a crime has been committed.
I am not a knuckle-dragging caveman (no offense to the Geico guy), and I do understand the legality of it. I am speaking of the integrity part of it. I am not comparing apples to oranges. It is found money from ill-gotten gains.
I want to get this straight, because investors who believed the ads, believed Gene O'Neal and his co-horts, thought they were investing in real estate, and made thousands, even though many people were fraudulently swindled, it is okay to keep the money? According to the SEC, Pinnacle didn't even have the proper filings. Something most of us didn't know until after the SEC seized the bank accounts. The government stepped in when they realized that a crime was being committed.
I am a woman by the way. The money I invested was extra money, so I am not in the desperate situation that many find themselves in. But I still want it back. For some it was their life savings. For some, they went into debt to make a better life for their families. People were swindled. Real people.
When the net winners are using the money they "earned," I hope they think of the tears, sweat, frustration, sadness and hopelessness of the people who lost their money. I hope they think of the hard work, saving and self-denial, for many, that went into earning that money...THINK...FEEL.
The laws of man are on the side of the net winners. I get it. But the law of the universe is you reap what you sow, karma, what goes around comes around. The net winners will somehow be swindled, they will lose what they gained three-fold, I have nothing to do with it. I am just reminding them. Religious or not, the net winners know what they must do.
And I change nothing in mine. Thank you sir or ma'am.
Again, if current investors have to deduct their returns from their current investments, why would net winners be allowed to keep their returns?
Doesn't anybody here see the contradiction?
I disagree with most of you in regards to the question of "net winners"
and here is the reasons why:
Basic ways that the world goes round.
And here is a specific example to help you understand:
I have a business that sells products to retailers. If I sell K-mart products and they file bankruptcy on Nov 24th, the claim amount is simply the amount I am owed as of Nov 24th. There is no analysis done as to if I made money off their account or not. How is that fair to a supplier that supplied them for 10 years and made money, and a supplier that just sold them for the first time ? Of course it is not fair - but that is the way it works. And yes, there have been many companies that filed bankruptcy due to illegal actions that caused them to become insolvent. But that doesn't change anything. Your claim is the amount owed that day. As a businessperson you re-evaluate your risk constantly and decide if you want to give credit, same thing as an investor here. If you invested a year ago and then in July felt that you did not trust Pinnacle, then you would get your money out, that is not anyone's fault. That is your decision as an investor to get in or get out of your investment at the time of your choosing. Your claim amount is and should be the amount owed at the time the court issues a judgement, filing, or in this case the day the SEC stepped in and froze assets.
I bellieve even Mr. Hayes is improperly addressing the claims, and a court would probably agree with me. The claim amount should not be asking about what your net gain is, nor should your returns have any relevance. What our claim amount should be is "how much we are owed on the official date ." If you rolled over your profits - that was your money to do so, and it should be reflected in your claim amount.
Claim amount is what is owed to you on a certain day. Has nothing to do with if you rolled over profits, if you were paid out, not paid out, etc.
Think about it. This is basic business 101. If you don't agree, sorry to say, but you should not be an investor in anything.
The point made on enron earlier is also a good example.
Life isn't always fair - but you must go by the rules.
I think the contradiction can be explained best if one assumes that there were no true earnings from the company. With that assumption, we need to make just one more..... that as an individual investor, you did not know that Pinnacle was involved in illegal activities. Now, with these two assumptions, if you had the money paid out at the end of your contract term, you triggered the threshhold for a "gain" on your contract, and that gain becomes your income and must be reported as such. However, if you simply "rolled over" your "gain" which really was just a paper entry on Pinnacle's books, there is no real gain because you never had control of the funds and Pinnacle never really produced a "gain". Only if the money was paid to you, does a real "gain" take place if the underlying company is running a Ponzi scheme. This does not mean that exceptions won't be found, or that the "gains" returned to some investors won't be recharacterized as a partnership "overpayment of capital" and be sucked back. But as I said once before, this Country is about laws and their application, not fairness.
Remeber, the "net winners" did nothing wrong except have great timing. That is their entire "crime". The last time I checked, there wasn't a penalty for that. It's kind of like the TV show "Deal or No Deal", sometimes your winnings are impacted from when you stop playing the game.
As far as karma is concerned, I also believe " that what goes around comes around" but that doesn't mean the "net winners" will be swindled as they didn't swindle this time around. They were merely lucky. That "swindle" karma comment will only apply to O'Neal and Company as they are the perpetrators of this fiasco.
In closing, I would appeal to the "net winners" to seek the advice of an attorney regarding the status of their funds if the Receiver asks for a recission of your payout. Do not simply rollover and send a check; exercise your rights and learn about your options. (Of course, you can send a check if you want, as that is within your rights as well.)
One last thing: I hope everyone has a Happy Thanksgiving and can be thankful for something this year. If not wealth than hopefully your health or family. Life is about the glass being half full; not half empty.
Obviously, some of you are not getting my point ladies and/or gentlemen...I don't believe that the net winners committed a crime. But looking at this, when you are losing your gains threefold, remember, you had the chance to return the money.
Lucky or not. Fair or not. Universe 101 beats out Business 101 every time.
And the fact that there have been so many postings against the way I have presented the way the universe works, is, I'm guessing...is that there are a few guilty hearts out there.
And getting personal Robster, shows me that you are insecure. Why would that be?...possibly because you are a net winner?
Scumball got caught. Again, Atlanta is a destination for this type of crime.
Reply to MMC:
I don't understand your email at all.
"insecure" what are you talking about.
actually I am more than secure, because unlike some foolish people, I only invested funds that I was willing to lose. so why would I be insecure ?
you make no sense. What did I say that was personal ?? I only made general comments and gave specific examples of how it works in the real world.
MMC - No ma'am, I am not insecure in any fashion when it comes to real estate, finance or any other business principles. I owned and sold my own regional accounting firm in the early 90s and I am currently a principal in a very successful real estate investment firm. As far as investing in Pinnacle, we never placed a dime in that program. As mentioned in one of my previous posts, we were exploring the opportunity, as we do with many across the country, and I ran across this forum via Google.
My entire purpose in being part of this forum is simply to learn a little from you guys and to educate the forum reader in regards to the parameters that Mr. Hays is likely to follow. (after I saw some of the wild *** ideas and theories that people have been proposing.) In fact, there have been some pages almost entirely devoted to a "lynch mob" mentality. I believe cooler heads will prevail in this fiasco, and that is why Mr. Hays will untangle this mess. I don't think anybody is likely to be happy with their percentage of their return, the timing of that return or the progress of the case against O'Neal & Co., but that's another story. And that it is not a condemnation of Hays Consulting, it is a part of government, the legal system and the red tape used to protect one's own *** in this litigious society.
Direct quote..."Think about it. This is basic business 101. If you don't agree, sorry to say, but you should not be an investor in anything."
Since I have been the one posting the most on the topics of net winners, it's not rocket science that you were referencing me. If not, then I apologize.
You must have skimmed over the part in my email where I said that I had invested extra money, therefore, was not in the dire straits that others were. I just want it back. Others need it back. So condescendly saying that others were foolish is rude. The "net winners" were foolish too then...and lucky, but no more or less foolish. Part of investing is precedence. Not jumping at the first whiff of a possibility but waiting to see if it was legit. So, lucky (and possibly tipped off) may describe the "net winners" but not more savvy or more wise.
As for the real world...Integrity is #1 in business. Maybe there are those out there that don't run themselves that way, but I have faith that there are some out there that still have it. As I said Universe 101 beats out Business 101 every time.
I have to ask, what if the crime was different? What if the crime was running brothels with kidnapped, underage girls (someone you knew) or modern day slave trading (again someone you knew) or paying off of Iraqi freedom fighters (who killed someone you knew)? Would you still want to keep the money, knowing how many lives had been ruined? At what level of crime does it change where the money is cleanly earned?
And at the end of the day, what assets did Enron have? I am not aware that they had very little to give back and they had thousands of investors over many years that would have been impossible to track, it would have cost more to find them, than the money they would produce. Pinnacle was less than a year, with a limited number of investors, with assets.
Apples and oranges.
Moneypoint, I accidently originally put you in the post but realized I meant Robster and quickly revised. My apologies.
I also understand that some of the net winners had very small returns, however, when I talked to the girl at Pinnacle when I was in line to receive my one and only disbursement check, in which I re-invested. She told me that some of the checks she was cutting were over $300,000. That's a lot of "return" that could go back to helping people out.
MMC:
when I posted my comments - it was a general posting, it was not specific to you.
Of course there is line between what crimes were committed. You can't compare the examples you gave to what pinnacle did.
But Enron is a good example - because you had a scam of billions of dollars. Enron was an "A" rated company that many had stock in, regulated by the SEC and wall street, etc. And holders of stock did not get back one single penny. But people that made money on the stock before the scam was exposed were not asked to return it.
I personally did not make much on the pinnacle investment, I broke even, but I don't think my principal should not be paid till others with losses are paid. I believe that I am owed my principal just as much as anyone else is owed their balance.
I was skeptical and not greedy - so instead of rolling over any payments, I made sure I got my payments. So why should I be less entitled to my principal. For being cautious? For feeling that the return was too good to be true ? The balance everyone owed is the balance they are owed, you cannot say that because someone was cautious and did not roll over their profits - that they should not get payed their principal or balance owed with the same priority as everyone else.
None of my comments are meant to be rude or insulting. I simply think that as in a bankruptcy - on the date that the SEC froze assets and filed a lawsuit, that is the date that your claim amount is valid, regardless of how your balance is calculated, as long as it is your actual balance owed.
To say - that you are a "net winner" therefore are not entitled to file a claim for the money owed is not valid or fair. In a bankruptcy, which are often also caused by fraud, legally you cannot say : well, since you made profit already in the past - therefore your claim amount is not valid because other people lost money. It just does not work that way in the world.
anyway - all this will be decided by the courts, so no need to debate it.
Robster,
Where did I say anything about anyone not getting their principle back? That's a word twist if I have ever heard one. Unless of course all of your principle re-invested was from the previous returns. Original principle yes, but not the gains. I don't expect any return any gain that I made at all, but I hope to regain my original principle as much in tact as possible.
I am not comparing the crimes, I am simply asking the question, how vile does the crime have to be before the net winners feel that the money that they earned from human suffering is okay? Just a question.
Enron was too far spread to track everyone down, I mean some people bought and sold on line, daily. Pinnacle was small, short-lived and contained. I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT WE SHOULD GO "AFTER" THE NET WINNERS! I can't believe how many times I have had to say that. I am saying simply that the net winners know what they should do.
The law of man is on the side of the net winners, the law of the universe is not.
I am trying very hard to get a handle on that above statement. I can understand that people should give back the money if they were involved in perpetrating the scam, but I do not understand why people who were just fortunate (or lucky) to get the funds back at their appointed time should be held accountable under the "laws of the universe" scenario.
Does that mean that people who got into life rafts from the Titanic should have turned around and got back on to the ship once they saw it sinking?
Should escapees from POW camps return voluntarily if some people are caught?
Does that mean that with any activity there cannot be winners and losers, because it would be unfair to the losers?
Does that mean I cannot buy a "preforeclosure" property from an owner, even though I didn't cause their demise?
These questions are not meant to be argumentive, I just don't understand the application in the Pinnacle situation. I think I have a prettty good moral and ethical compass but I don't understand the "obligation" of the net winners to comply with a return of funds.
I would appreciate other examples that you feel are close in reality to the Pinnacle scenario to understand if this is true "law of the universe" situation to you or if it is just selective application because you are a "net loser" and you are just trying to lessen your pain. (Which by the way, is fair from your point of view, but probably not valid in an aggregate sense.)
In closing, I hope these questions are read in the spirit in which they are written; and I hope answers are returned in that same spirit.
Moneypoint, I am with you. I agree 100%. Net winners are just that, net winners. If I was one, I wouldn't give back a dime. It is sad but a true reality that for someone to win, some one has to loose.
I am one of those in the 100K club. I lost a lot of money but It is not the fault of the net winners. It was my own fault along with the insiders of this scam.
Moneypoint, I will give an example, the same one I have been giving.
You researched a new way to get to work, and on that walk to work say you found a bag of money. Then, the next day, you found out that a bank had been robbed, or nuns, or orphans, or a business man or your grandmother right around from where you were walking. And then decided, "hey, I found it fair and square, I didn't do anything wrong. The money is mine." The unlucky soul that lost it, did nothing more than be in the same vicinity. Keeping the money, gained from a crime, would be tainted. Any crime.
Most POW's, if possible, would have eventually went back to help their fellow soldiers, not turned tail and ran, never to return. Bad example by the way, since some of the net winners were not trying to survive but had HUGE gains. Having prisoners of war, by the way, is legal, as long as the rules are followed. I assume you speak of pre-Geneva convention, therefore, I know the rules were not followed.
A better example was the Titanic, but it was never an illegal venture, a risk yes, but not illegal. A haughty, irresponsible mess, but not illegal. An accident, not a planned crime. They were told it was indestructible, but it was during a time when that was one of the few transatlantic modes of travel. The builders really did believe it was indestructible. Gene O'Neal bought his own real estate repeatedly and knowingly defrauded (allegedly) people. What about the people who stayed on the Titanic? They gave up their lives (or gains as you are insinuating) for the good of the many. That is what I am saying the large gaining net winners should do. Or at least in part. Something.
A buying a preforeclosure is not illegal. And both parties benefit.
Survival does not equal greed. POW's would be surviving. The people fleeing the Titanic would be surviving. You buying a pre-foreclosure would be helping out both parties.
Good enough?
Bigman,
Fault is not the point. Integrity is.
You don't have to be on my side, or any side. It is how it is. A crime was committed and some benefitted from that crime. Crime is not business, so the "Business 101" lecture is lost here.
I am also not saying that the net winners committed a crime. I am saying now that the net winners know that a crime has been committed, then they should find it in their hearts to return ill-gotten gains. The gains were made from people who were defrauded.
Laws of the Universe are stronger than any other. If I had been a net winner, I too would have a hard time giving it back, but I would have.
I am one of those in the 100K club. I lost a lot of money but It is not the fault of the net winners. It was my own fault along with the insiders of this scam.
Bigman, I have allot of respect for you for making this post. I am a new member of this forum but have been following this issue for awhile as well as Pinnacle as they are just a few blocks away from where I live. It is just sad how blinded people become when greed sets in. People chose not to listen to their own good sense or the warnings of others. This company had scam written all over it from day one. I would say it was almost common knowledge here among real estate personnel that this was just a derivative of a pyramid scheme. Until seeing this board, I had no idea as to the number of people who had actually invested money.
I support those who continue to pursue the company to recoup their losses as there is obvious fraud in this case. I think it is sad that any one would eve suggest going after the net winners as they were in no way responsible for anyone else loosing their money. This is just an example of the same greed rearing it's head again and personally I don't feel people like this have a place in the real estate community.
Fault is not the point. Integrity is.
You don't have to be on my side, or any side. It is how it is. A crime was committed and some benefitted from that crime. Crime is not business, so the "Business 101" lecture is lost here.
I am also not saying that the net winners committed a crime. I am saying now that the net winners know that a crime has been committed, then they should find it in their hearts to return ill-gotten gains. The gains were made from people who were defrauded.
Laws of the Universe are stronger than any other. If I had been a net winner, I too would have a hard time giving it back, but I would have.
Wow...I find it unbelievable you are questioning the integrity of others who you do not even know or try to guilt them into giving money back in order to help yourself and then try and paint a picture that you are on some moral high ground. This was a extremely speculative investment. I think anyone involved towards the end had it in the back of their minds that something was amiss but because the returns kept coming in they chose to ignore that just like you did. Where was your integrity then? Did you honestly feel your gains were not coming at the expense of others either legally or illegally? Focus your efforts and energy on the people who committed the fraud. The Enron debacle is a very good example. After things started going down hill, many investors knew something was amiss and decided to cut their losses. Still, some others, against their better judgment, staid in or even increased their positions cause they couldn't stomach the initial losses. One of my best friends was one such person and he wound up loosing a ton. Never in a million years would he have even dreamed of suggesting the people who acted wisely and got out early give back money. He realizes it was his mistake and his alone and made the choice to learn from it. Whether their is fraud or not, investing is all about risk. A educated investor would have realized the gains Pinnacle were promising likely came with a significant risk. Some win and some lose and that is the way of the universe. Your attempts to try and make the winners seem "unethical" make me sick as it is you who are tying to help yourself at the expense of others due to your own stupidity. I really think you need to re-examine your stance on this and really figure out who has the ethics problem.
For those of you that lost money in this scam, I am extremely impressed by the way most of your are handling this(like Bigman) and I can tell by your attitudes that you will be successful in the future and make this back in no time. I sympathize for you loss and wish you the best in the future.
I don't want to dwell on this point, but there is a world of difference in your bag of money example and the Pinnacle situation. First, we don't live in a country where the rule of law is "finder keepers, loser weepers". The found bag of money was lost property from a theft. The money belongs to the owner. (However, we do have a process in which the money could have been turned in to the authorities and it would become legal property of the finder after X days if no one claims it.)
Anyway, my points are simply that "the laws of the Universe" apply when you are involved in the "crime", not when you are an unwitting participant. Their gains are not "ill gotten" if they played by the rules. A better premise for your "laws of the Universe" process would be for the employees of Pinnacle to return their pay if it can be proven they knew what was going on.
Anyway, I don't want to beat a dead horse and the postings on this subject are acedemic at best. The law will prescribe the solution that needs to be followed. It is now just a matter of waiting for Mr. Hays/SEC/Courts to move forward on their timeline.
atlantainvestor
Are you saying it is ok to cheat honest people of their money, and still be a winner? What are you trying to say? If you new of wrong doing why did you not say anything earlier? To me it seems you would see a crime and not say anything to keep your hands clean.
If you want to post such an insignificant post to this forum, please understand it is only for the investors of PDP, which I see you are not. We are trying to work it out and settle this in a friendly atmosphere.
Real estate is about investing in a solid foundation for future growth. Once you sell your investment to the next investor you do it in an ethical manner. Why would you say all of the investors should not invest in real estate if we were all misled? Supposedly we were all investing in a solid foundation. What has happened here is that there are people whom are very unethical out there such O’Neal. If you are a net winner and believe you are doing nothing wrong it is ok to say you have seen no crime. I have respect for everyone in this forum and do not want to accuse anyone of a crime. What I am asking is let’s work together with the receiver a put this behind us.
If I would stay as an investor I would precede only with the leadership and advice from the receiver. It is very hard to trust anyone else for future investments.
Respectfully, and very happy healthy holidays
Once again, I reiterate - please remain civil. Failure to do so will result in users being banned. There is no reason people need to be nasty to one another.
Thank you.