“I definitely had not entered into any loan agreements if this was known to me,” writes Sandal in an email to BT.
The two NHH professors explains the strict covenants that it was high risks related to the project.
Significant downside
“The conditions were not high on inter alia take into consideration that I pay tax for gain, but get no deduction for losses. The downside was therefore substantial! “Writes sandal.
Professor Schjelderup have made a calculation that he believes shows that interest rates were not particularly high for the three million he lent.
” Went wrong was taped £ 3 million. Got loan repaid, the gain after tax £ 438,000. Losses and gains must be weighed against each other with the probability of default. For my investment at all should give a positive expected return after tax, had the probability of losing the entire loan will be less than 13%, “writes Schjelderup in an e-mail. ‘
He also points out that many borrowers did not repaid their loans.
– Comfortable
Sandal say about three-week loan that he had previously been told that Berger had sold properties, and that settlement should occur within three weeks.
“Penalty placed in the loan agreement to put pressure on the borrower to make up,” writes Sandal in the email to BT.
NHH professor says he subsequently understood that the risk was very high.
“I feel that I am a potential victim. The risk has clearly increased over time and Bergers desperate monetary needs and dispositions are instrumental “writes sandal.
– What do you think though that you NHH professor lent money in the unregulated market?
“I’m comfortable with conducting lawful management of its own fortune. “
Guttorm Schjelderup is of the same opinion. The loan to Marmaros was the first and only time Schjelderup has lent money in the unregulated market.
No comments:
Post a Comment