Dakota Co-op Board Is Accused of Bias

Also, I need to correct something. Fletcher, who filed in state court, did invoke state and city discrimination laws, but made no federal claim. Sorry about that.

For all their sakes (if not our entertainment), I hope the parties will settle soon. I don't see how anybody at the Dakota is helped by airing the dirty laundry, and if Al Fletcher has enough money to sue them, he has enough money to buy his neighbor's apartment.

Thanks, CC, I didn't catch that.

Race card plain and simple. No one told BUDDY he couldn't buy this because of his race. He's extrapolating bullshit about Melanie Griffith or the Jewish Mafia for lawsuit and P.R. purposes. A guy like BUDDY doesn't want to acknowledge that maybe some people don't like him for his own sake, or maybe his financials are inadequate this time, or maybe random shit happens.

Stick around, kantwon. We could use an all-knowing, all-around-expert about everything, at least when NYCMatt is on vacation.

"Maybe his financials are inadequate this time." Fletcher is on a recent Forbes list for wealthiest black Americans, but his financials don't cut it? Sounds fishy.

Sorry -- Forbes list "of" wealthiest black Americans.

we already know his position, it is outlined in his complaint, which is linked to the times article. all the alleged racist incidents are there, in their full barren glory. he has a right to be angry, his board seriously screwed him. frankly, imho, the entire co op system is an elaborate folie à deux, i would never live in a co op. but he does, he has led the board, he knows how it works. the examples cited in his complaint are supposed to support his allegation of systematic racism in the building's unspoken protocol. the proof just isn't there! i see bullies. i see, as kyle called it, board shenanigans, which are very common. i maybe even see individual racists, but believe it or not, that's not against the law. i don't see a history if systematic racism.

wtf makes a $50MM pledge over XX amount of years?

..maybe someone who who discounts mezzanine debt in calculating 'net worth'?

only rich people announce PLANNED pledges...

wealthy people contribute quietly with no press announcement..

stick to finances.. tail wag dog, nahh

LucilleHasReachedAVerdict

hi columbiacounty. how are you today? anything new?

Maly, you seen unfriendly. Something I said? Or my race?

"Stick around, kantwon. We could use an all-knowing, all-around-expert about everything, at least when NYCMatt is on vacation."

maly, to be fair, there are many backups for this position on this site already.

Why are you so uncomfortable with confrontation?

The Dakota co-op board strongly denied Fletcher's claims.

"His outrageous accusations of discrimination are untrue and at odds with the facts that the board has previously approved his purchase of several apartments, he has been repeatedly elected to the board, and his mother currently serves on the board," the board said in a statement."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/03/us-housing-newyork-idUSTRE7129IR20110203

LucilleIsDesperatelyLookingForSupportForHerClearlyUntenablePosition

'My parents always said we should always strive to be better than the best,'' said Mr. Fletcher, who lives with his partner of more than 10 years, Hobart V. Folkes Jr., on the Upper West Side.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B00E7DA153FF93BA25756C0A9629C8B63

"He has also been a serious contender for statewide public office in the United States state of New York."
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/the-money-manager-who-is-suing-the-dakota/

"Mr. Fletcher is married to Ellen Pao, a partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a leading venture capital firm"
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/the-money-manager-who-is-suing-the-dakota/

OhDamnLucilleIsTryingWayTooHardAndLookingVeryFoolish

columbiacounty
about 6 months ago
stop ignoring this person
report abuse What is a Troll?
An Internet troll is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually "he") tries to start arguments and upset people. It's ALL about "Getting Attention", and negative attention is as good as positive attention to a troll.

Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't get that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish.

Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility while hiding behind the anonymity of a keyboard and monitor.

Perhaps this sounds inconceivable. You may think, Surely there is something I can write that will change them. But a true troll can not be changed by mere words.
Top

LucilleTriesTheOldTheBestDefenseIsAGoodOffenseButItFallsShort

correct link for the public office bit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Fletcher

LucilleCitesWikipediaInAnAttemptToMakeAPoint

I think I made cc feel a bit guilty one time.

lucille, you virtually accused a well-respected figure of filing a frivolous lawsuit. now you are posting shit that, taken together, makes no sense.

i don't really have an opinion as to the merits of the case. it's called discovery, dickhead (I'm assuming you'll get the reference, although slightly different).

really? that narrative doesn't make sense to you? read it again.

one more thing
http://www.fletcherphilanthropy.org/

LucilleHasAnOpenMindNot

Lucille, you're not a jury, and this isn't a case that's been heard. you're spewing is entirely supposition. it may be correct, but in that it is entirely too early to know so your comments seem very agenda driven.

LucilleKnowsOneWhenSheDamnWellSeesOne

"you're spewing is entirely supposition"

sometimes also referred to as "expressing an opinion" on a public matter

"your comments seem very agenda driven."

you got me. i am roberta flack's leaky bathtub.

yes, you are expressing an opinion. one that is not backed by much, if any, facts.

and an opinion about racism that is based merely on sentiment is often not so great.

Lucille,

Just so you know, it IS illegal for the board to take racist actions. When you say you see individual racists on the board, that goes a long way toward supporting Mr. Fletcher's claims. If the board members are racist, is it such a stretch to suggest that they are engaging in racist activity? Housing discrimination is not only illegal in this country, it is barred by the federal constitution.

It's illegal for the board to take racist actions?

Which law is this?

And what defines a "racist action"?

Racism is not illegal. It may be wrong. Buring the flag is wrong as far as I'm concerned. But it isn't illegal.

But before I make a conclusion, is this guy pro or against Wal-Mart?

"opinion about racism that is based merely on sentiment is often not so great"

thank you, wise one. your words have penetrated the very depths of my heart and their immaculate truth will forever echo in my soul.

not to be a pest, but how many times does 50K go into 50mil? i can't count so good, but it's like a bunch of times, right?

aboutready >yes, you are expressing an opinion. one that is not backed by much, if any, facts.
>and an opinion about racism that is based merely on sentiment is often not so great.

Basically you mean an opinion about an opinion about racism. Alphonse's opinion is that there is racism. At this stage, nothing more.

happyrenter
12 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse Lucille,

Just so you know, it IS illegal for the board to take racist actions(WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?). When you say you see individual racists on the board, that goes a long way toward supporting Mr. Fletcher's claims (THAT IS JUST RETARDED). If the board members are racist, is it such a stretch to suggest that they are engaging in racist activity (YOU LOST ME AGAIN)? Housing discrimination is not only illegal in this country, it is barred by the federal constitution.(THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO EDUCATE THE IGNORANT)

>Housing discrimination is not only illegal in this country, it is barred by the federal constitution

Which section of the federal constitution?

Oh, and how has Al been denied housing? He just wants bigger housing. There is no federal right to bigger housing. As the people of New London.

is it illegal to suggest that in a few years, when everyone has forgotten the pesky details, mr. F's struggle against racism will be a prominent feature of his campaing rhetoric?

Lucille, we all know this guy is full of shit. Racism exists, just as bias against the short, the fat, the smelly, any person who cuts you off on the LIE, anyone who bumps into you at Dunkin in the morning, the guy across the hall in your rental building who you never met but who blasts his tv too loud and leaves their winter boots in the hallway too long, your dad who didn't pay for you college, your mom who had the nerve to call you a whore but who was 20 when she had you, your cousin who slighted you when you had your first kid, the asshole at the DMV who didn't like your social security paperwork, the mailman who folded the mail, the clerk at Strawberry who acted annoyed at your discount coupon.

Hunter S -- As I have said before, you are indeed a piss poor lawyer. He is alleging a violation of state and city discrimination laws which, if the facts alleged are true, would likely be a good basis for relief. Of course, the question is whether the facts are in fact true (or, more accurately, whether they pass muster with a judge and jury). Only time will tell. As for the rest of your drivel, it is either a sad commentary on you or a lame attempt at humor or both.

>Hunter S -- As I have said before, you are indeed a piss poor lawyer.

Why thank you. Coming from a non-lawyer, your comment makes sense.

>As for the rest of your drivel, it is either a sad commentary on you or a lame attempt at humor or both.

Why thank you. Coming from a non-comedian, your comment makes sense.

you think it is "retarded" to believe that the evidence that board members are themselves racist plays a part in mr. fletcher's action? you are "los"t by the suggestion that racist people are likely to undertake actions motivated by that racism?

lucille, you are apparently a person who stretches as far as possible in the direction of denying the existence of racism, and then, when forced to admit that it might exist, to deny its pernicious effects. i don't know whether mr. fletcher will be successful in his suit, and i don't know whether the board of the dakota has a had a pattern of discriminating against blacks or others. but is it not broadly known that racism is rife on coop boards in new york city? from the reaction most of you have had to this you would think that his accusations came from out of the blue.

the dakota has only two black shareholders; both of them, apparently, feel that there is a pattern of discrimination in the building.

>lucille, you are apparently a person who stretches as far as possible in the direction of denying the existence of racism,

Lucille you ignorant slut!

>and i don't know whether the board of the dakota has a had a pattern of discriminating against blacks or others.

Fletcher was the board president.

>the dakota has only two black shareholders; both of them, apparently, feel that there is a pattern of discrimination in the building.

How do you know what they feel? Isn't this just an attempt by Fletcher to use any means at his disposal to get his way?

happyrenter
i generally don't like to engage the developmentally challenged in any serious way. not out of any moral squeamishness, mind you, it's just kind of boring. so please direct yourself to the links from last night (those would be the BLUE letters), click on them, and try really really hard to understand the words you are reading. this may take you a while, so i won't check back until later tonight. good luck. you can do it!

huntersrburg: that would be the 13th amendment and the 14th amendment (see shelley v. kraemer, barrows v. jackson, jones v. mayer, trafficante v. metropolitan life insurance, gladstone realtors v. village of bellwood).

lucille: ad hominem attacks are definitely the sign of a strong argument.

signing off now.

why didn't this douche speak up when the Board was 'racist' while he was sitting on the Board??

i hope those Black men/women come after this guy as a racist for not defending them, while he was a Board member..

13th Amendment? I think Fletcher would be surprised to know he was previously enslaved by his co-op.

14th Amendment? You are like the lawyer equivalent of financeguy.

This guy hasn't showed at all how the behavior of the co-op towards him is any different from the behavior of a co-op toward others. They are by their own nature irrational. Hell, he used to be the board president.

I love that people think that because people vote for (or date or marry or are friends with or work with) someone of a different race that de facto they CANNOT POSSIBLY BE RACIST!!! You do realize that poll after poll showed that a not insignificant percent of the people who voted for Obama held deeply racist views, but voted for him anyway? Or that many inter-racial couples still involve racism on one or both sides (my own mother said and did awfully racist things to my dad and visa versa).

Think Strom Thurmond having an illiterate half-black daughter.

Just because this guy was on the board does not mean that the board did not do or say the things he accuses them of. i know from years of first hand experience as well as from reading Pew, Gallup, and other polls on racial attitudes.

And as a minority, one does not start a fight every time some white person (or non-white person) says something racially insensitive. If we did that, we would all be Al Sharpton. There is not enough time in the day.

"We spoke with Bruce Barnes, the current president of the Dakota co-op board, about the lawsuit. He told us that he believed Fletcher Jr. was upset that they were not letting him buy another apartment, and was hoping the publicity from the lawsuit (and his accusations of racism) would pressure them to cave."

"board bent their own rules to allow him to buy a different apartment in the building for his mother. To make sure he didn't use it for himself, they imposed certain restrictions, which Fletcher Jr. then used as part of his argument as to how they were discriminating against him. At the end of the day though, Barnes said the co-op board turned down his request for another, adjacent apartment (the one which the lawsuit hinges on) to his own, which is within the rules, because of his "financial situation."

"We do not think it appropriate to discuss in the press the financial materials submitted by him"

stupid polite rich people and their standards

http://gothamist.com/2011/02/03/dakota_board_responds_to_lawsuit_du.php

jason......do you own a mirror? or any other reflective surface?

"We do not think it appropriate to discuss in the press the financial materials submitted by him..."

...because we prefer to brandish the threat of releasing those materials in case he persists in airing dirty laundry.

Oh jason, we truly admire you.

calling his neighbors of 20 years racists because they won't CONTINUE bending the rules for him = airing dirty laundry? intersting perspective

People generally play the cards they've been dealt in trying to get what they want. Why should Fletcher be noble and self-effacing by not playing one of his? If it works, good for him.

Kind of awkward for his mother, what with her being on the board, but what family doesn't have its little ups and downs?

wait...fletcher's mother is on currently on the board??

if so, this is a new, important dimension

>People generally play the cards they've been dealt in trying to get what they want.

Fair game then for him to be criticized.

Mommy. Flmaozz.

I too believe I will Fletcher my yacht club. It has come to my attention I may have been passed over on a slip. Some on the board have begun to tell me 'our slip situation is fked for all the members.'. It's almost as if my minority status makes them nervous. I will Fletcher them fkers.

Fletcher them before they Fletcher you.

Fletcher = a verb, to turn back upon the very institutions/organizations which a minority aspires to join and succeeds at.

Eg. w67 will Fletcher his yacht club. W67 will Fletcher is I-bank. W67 will Fletcher the bentley dealership. W67 will Fletcher swan boatbuilders. W67 will fletcher Verizon iPhone.

Don't make me open a can of Fletcher whoopazz.

Why should Fletchering be limited to minorities? Shouldn't Fletchering be equal opportunity?

Clitburger. That would just make it a lawsuit.

Clitburger?

ok e68thavenue

Yes, she's now on the board, or so the board said in its statement.

would "to fletcher" include "to switch teams"

??

Oh look Wbottom making a W Bottom joke.

ok that's about another few hundred posts hburg---youve earned a reply: when you occasionally get some distance, and you consider how pathetic your life as a troll is, how do you deal with that??

now get back to work--ill toss you anuther reply after a nuther few hundred, if i feel like it

great life, loser!

Yes, you are such a distinguished contributor.

Here's the complaint, in case it wasn't posted earlier: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20110202-dakota/DakotaStamped.pdf

For what it's worth, I highly doubt that Banderas & Griffith were trying to buy a ground floor apartment (if not because they are less desirable then because they are less secure), so they are probably not the couple in question.

NWT: hmmph, I speed-read that baby finally.

I promised there'd be more here to feed on. Apologies for the cut/paste, but it's a subscriber article:

MANAGEMENT JULY 7, 2011 Highflier Tells Clients to Wait
Withdrawal Delays Shine Light on Hedge Fund Boasting Long 'Win' Streak—and Unorthodox Methods

By STEVE EDER And JOSH BARBANEL
The offer was eye-catching: an investment assured of returning 12% a year. It was pitched to three public pension boards in Louisiana.

Behind the offer stood Alphonse Fletcher Jr., a New York hedge-fund manager who made a splash on Wall Street in the 1990s, reporting 300%-a-year returns at his firm. Later, the flagship fund of his Fletcher Asset Management told of going 11 years without a single losing month.

Though the 12% proposition offered them in 2008 struck one Louisiana pension-board official as possibly too good to be true, the boards were assured they could bank on a set return for a simple reason: Any shortfall would be made up by other investors.

Hedge-fund manager Alphonse Fletcher Jr., of Fletcher Asset Management, attending the 2010 Aspen Ideas Festival in Aspen, Colo.
Hedge-fund lawyers who analyzed the deal's documents at The Wall Street Journal's request said they had never seen such an arrangement. All three Louisiana pension boards accepted, however, investing $100 million of money held for firefighters and other public employees.

Last month, after two of the pension boards sought to withdraw some of their cash, Fletcher instead sent them promissory notes "in satisfaction of this redemption request" that pledged payment within two years.

Fletcher Asset Management's arrangement with the pension funds isn't the only unorthodox practice at the hedge-fund firm.

Fletcher reports it has more than $500 million of assets under management.

But it appears to arrive at this figure by counting some assets more than once, according to the Journal's reporting, which involved examining more than 1,000 pages of investor communications and other documents obtained through public-records requests. A more orthodox way of measuring assets under management would produce a figure of about $200 million for one recent year.

The winning streak of Fletcher's flagship fund, which is called the Income Arbitrage Fund Ltd., also appears less impressive under the microscope.

Although the flagship fund never had a losing month in more than 11 years—during which the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell in 61 of 137 months—the fund didn't invest directly in the markets.

Instead, it held shares in a separate Fletcher vehicle that did make investments, chiefly by putting money in smaller public companies for stock and warrants. Then, thanks to holding "preferred shares" in that investment vehicle, the flagship fund got an extra-big helping of whatever market gains the firm achieved.

In 2008, common shares in the investment vehicle plunged 42.8%. The Income Arbitrage Fund, holding mostly preferred shares, earned 12.6% on them.

In an interview, Mr. Fletcher said the Income Arbitrage Fund was designed to deliver "consistent above-average results." Its underlying investments represented a "well-hedged and consistent portfolio," he said, and the preferred-share structure brought "even more protection" from volatility.

Mr. Fletcher acknowledged the "complexities" of his business, saying they are "an important benefit and are well disclosed." Still, he said, he has recently sought to make things less complex. He dropped the preferred-shares arrangement for the Income Arbitrage Fund at the end of 2008. Its returns then became much less steady.

Other elements of complexity remain. The firm has about 17 funds. "Feeder funds," some tiny, invest in the primary investment vehicle. The smaller funds also invest in one another. They can lend to one another or to the master fund.

Fletcher reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission a 2009 year-end total for assets under management of $558 million. Yet its primary investment vehicle held just $187.8 million of securities, according to the firm's financial reports. And these made up 95% of the firm's market investments, according to a Fletcher consultant's report filed in a New York state court.

This would translate to a 2009 year-end total for the firm's market investments of about $198 million, more than half of it the Louisiana pension funds' money.

The SEC is less than crystal clear about how managers should calculate assets under management. It says to "include the securities portfolios for which you provide continuous and regular supervisory or management services."

A lawyer who supervises Fletcher's SEC filings said it "should be appropriate" to include the value of each feeder fund in the asset total. That is because each fund is actively managed and can invest in outside securities, said the lawyer, Rick Prins of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

Mr. Fletcher gave an example: If investors put $2 in one Fletcher fund, and this fund borrowed $1, and then put the money in a second Fletcher fund, that would make $5 the firm managed, he said.

Mr. Fletcher said his firm is "meticulous" in reporting assets under management, complying with regulatory guidelines, and that its marketing materials explicitly disclose how it calculates. Asked for such disclosures, the firm didn't supply any documents.

Securities lawyers who were asked for an opinion said the approach described by Messrs. Fletcher and Prins, while not unheard of, differs from common industry practice.

Some potential investors and consultants said they saw the firm's complexity as a red flag and felt they couldn't get a clear picture of what it does.

Mr. Fletcher, 45 years old and known as "Buddy," opened his firm in 1991 after rising as a stock trader at Kidder Peabody, a now-defunct firm from which he won $1.3 million in an arbitration over the size of his bonus. He lost a second arbitration in which he claimed racial bias.

Questions about his finances have arisen in a suit he filed against the famed Dakota cooperative apartment complex at New York's Central Park, where he owns several apartments.

Mr. Fletcher accused the co-op board of unfairly rejecting his request to buy an additional apartment and alleged racial discrimination. The board's response in New York state court said documents provided by Mr. Fletcher showed his business lost money in two recent years. Mr. Fletcher said the documents didn't adequately reflect his income.

In Louisiana, the pension boards were told there were other investors in the particular fund pitched to them, investors who had put in money and agreed to leave it there a long time. Their money could be drawn upon, if necessary, to make sure the pension boards got at least a 12% return. The other investors would be entitled to any fund returns above 18%.

In a March 2008 email to one pension executive, Denis Kiely, a former Fletcher deputy chief executive, called the 12% arrangement a "preferred return guarantee." Asked about that, Mr. Kiely said his use of the term "guarantee" was "colloquial" and not meant within "the legal definition."

Mr. Fletcher said it would be "incorrect to say" Fletcher offered a guarantee because the pension boards still faced some risk, just as bondholders do.

Financial statements show the Louisianans were credited with their 1%-a-month returns in 2008—even as other classes of shareholders had losses ranging from 30% to 38%.

Starting last year, the pension boards grew concerned that they hadn't gotten a 2009 audit for their fund. Mr. Fletcher blamed the delay on a restatement of earlier years' results and said a new auditor is working to complete the audit.

In March, two of the pension boards, which still haven't received the 2009 audit, asked for $32 million of their money back. When the Fletcher firm instead sent them promissory notes, it said it was permitted by the terms of the fund offering to pay redemptions either in cash or "in kind."

Charlie Fredieu, chairman of one pension fund, the Firefighters' Retirement System of Louisiana, said he was "concerned" about this. The Municipal Employees' Retirement System of Louisiana, which also got a promissory note, didn't respond to a request for comment on the redemption. Meanwhile, the third pension fund, the New Orleans Firefighters' Pension and Relief Fund, said last week it had decided to seek a withdrawal, as well.

<>

Wow. That's ....awesome.

==Mr. Fletcher gave an example: If investors put $2 in one Fletcher fund, and this fund borrowed $1, and then put the money in a second Fletcher fund, that would make $5 the firm managed, he said.==

Ooops. I was referring to this statement.

http://youtu.be/rLprXHbn19I

another beauty:

"Other elements of complexity remain. The firm has about 17 funds. "Feeder funds," some tiny, invest in the primary investment vehicle. The smaller funds also invest in one another. They can lend to one another or to the master fund."

at this point i see little chance buddy's "funds" will turn out to be other than an expensive fraud.

but, hey, he's a "dear friend" of alison, our resident key-sherpa--that oughta count for somrthing.

hhmm! *turns up nose, struts out victorious*

people who make attention grabbing charity pledges and never honor them are bad, mmmkay?

bitches eveyone of u better come back to this and the other dqakota thread and eat ur humble pie. the guy is a total trainwreck crook! was of course clear from the start to any person who is not a self important asshole that can't think.

I humbly stand corrected wbttm, although reading back on my post, that w67 makes no Fking sense.

No matter, it only helps my $500psf call for the Dakota. And my observation, ALL borker's #1 criteria for 'friends' and 'family' is $$$$ and/or pretense of wealth.

Oh, and borkers own self delusion that they ARE just friendly ppl, and not self serving 'how yaz doing' kinda guy/gal.

appology accepted

Re post from 5 months ago: "I feel like I talked to everyone in my class (including Buddy, who has been a friend for 25 years) yesterday."

How long did Bernie's friends stand by their man after his scheme went all ponzi? And perhaps the Louisiana pensioners will feel better knowing they were ripped off by a fine Harvard man.

If true, this sounds undoubtedly terrible, And amazing that he would risk even more publicity with his lawsuit. He may end up in jail.

Wbottom... articles like those warm my heart...

this guy was a tool from day 1.. seriously who PUBLICLY announces a PLEDGE (lol) to charity..

BIG money give to charity quietly.

so who's dumber buddy, public pension managers incapable of BASIC due diligence too stupid to believe him, or the SEC who's too stupid to know what it all means??

i'll take the latter 2, since they're both propped up by actual public money.

the winner will be the middle group (public pensions).. when shit hits the fan instead of claiming a loss, they'll claim the pension "underfunded" and will have an excuse to raise taxes to get their 12% bc that's what buddy said so in the contract..

..now if i can only do that with berkowitz everytime my retirement dips.

So when Fletcher, the ex-president of the Dakota board was turned down for the second apartment, I suppose he didn't know that the two pension boards were going to ask for money. I guess if he knew that was coming, he would not have played the "race card"? So, how does that help those who are truly discrimated against? Everyone loses here and years from now we will see old postings news articles about the "racist board at the Dakota". The board said no because they got wind of something long before everyone else.

Did he also accuse DSK of something?

with so much racism and legit unfairness out there, it is sad when a person of color plays the race card where not appropriate, for personal gain--compromises the potential for justice for those who are worthy

and when a guy like buddy plays it, it is reprehensible--buddy's a guy who has clearly benefitted from privilege and, likely, affirmative action; yet he sees fit to compromise chances that other, ethical, deserving people of color may have similar opportunities

bad buddy

hol4: Highly-publicized philanthropy isn't the worst thing in the world. Matching grants have to be publicized, by their nature. Challenge grants are often used to call attention to a program's goals, and to its successes. More generally, while announcing a large gift may be self-serving, it also provides free publicity to the relevant cause and adds whatever brand/star appeal the donor may bring to the table.
The problem isn't the announcement. It's the alleged reneging.

So we try people in The Wall Street Journal now?

Buddy's assertion in the original suit is actually "retaliation" -- that he had angered some other members of the board by being consistently non-racist, very specifically calling board members out about offensive things they said about some candidates, and in another case forcing a vote on the Milsteins. I hear Kantwon when he/she says that's the "race card," but it might also have been what happened.

By claiming it, Buddy has clearly opened the door to a magnifying-glass-level examination of his business. That basically leads us to two cases: one is that he's honest and thinks his business will survive this type of scrutiny, and the other is that he's dishonest and was simply too dumb to think about how this would play out.

I've known him for a long, long time, and I don't think he's stupid, so I doubt the latter.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

"So we try people in The Wall Street Journal now?"

Depends what you mean by "try". He won't go to prison for anything the WSJ prints. His reputation will just take a nasty hit. If he's clean, he can hire a good PR firm to rehabilitate his image.

The structure of the investment seems to be an extreme example of basic principles. Investors in a senior instrument sacrifice yield to get safety. Others sacrifice safety to get yield. The problem, I think, is promising a risk-free return that is much higher than the market return for truly riskless investments. Either the risk is actually greater than represented, or the yield is unsustainable. It can take a long time for the support structure below the top tranche to collapse, so the bankers and investors can look really smart for quite a while, even as the foundation is crumbling. That's life in the grey area between structured finance and outright Ponzi schemes.

buddy plays the race card, where of value to him--and not based on merit, at least as decided by our justice system--his claim that he was underpaid by kidder peabody based on race was rejected--his claim that he was discriminated against, based on race, by a coop board to which he and his mother had been elected, he as president, seems absurd to me--we'll see if this recent play of the race card is also a fail

whatever the case, it's safe to say his hubris has gotten the better of him, because it is pretty clear his business is a sham; and that's the very reason cited by the dakota board for not wanting to be additionally exposed financially to him.

if you look at his wiki page and his website, it's clear buddy is a guy who is pathologically high on himself, if not deluded--the absurdity of his presentation of himself doesn't speeak of a very smart, harvard guy

but then, alison, he's a "dear friend" and "Harvard classmate" of yours, who you've known "for a long, long time", so maybe you know better. btw since you two are so close, have you any money invested with him?

i find philanthropy of all forms to be a good thing, tho it is often an act of self-promotion--if the motive is not so great, but the act gets money to imoprtant causes, so be it

unfortunately thieves often try to dress/clean themselves up via philanthropy

Bottoms, a bit self-righteous this morning, aren't we?

she's such a loser, whines all heartfelt about being trolled....

here we go again