Comments on: Whodunnit?

By: Luffy

Luffy — Thu, 03 May 2007 08:08:04 +0000

Sounds like a pure business to me. Radstock buying a worthless credit while at the same time assuming all the risk of collections for a possibility of profiting thereby. Whether they can realize the profit out of it depends on whether they can pull through all the legal maneuvers attached to collection. It’s a high-risk investment indeed, but high-profit as well.

That the deal is prejudicial to the government is not an issue for Radstock. Naturally, protecting its investment and its 10000% prospective profits are its only concerns. Nothing more.

Up to this point, it’s just business. Clean.

But, if any crime is committed along the way, it is the government that should do its work. To this, the process of the recognition of the debt, and the subsequent compromise settlement, are the suspects.

It’s not easy to point fingers. But I just hope the big gentleman and little mamita has no hands in all these maneuvering process. Else, it’s pigs doing monkey business.. again?!.

By: UPn student

UPn student — Wed, 02 May 2007 12:50:47 +0000

manuelB: I could not see from the Carandang nor Inquirer entries where CDCP (nor PNCC) had asked a Philippine court to relieve them from the debt obligation via “statute-of-limitations” rule. No one did; the face-value of the debt had some weight. [In fact, the court rulings I'd seen were towards making payments.]
Corporation bookeepers (in this case Marubeni bookkeepers) will carry the debt on the books because they don’t have signature authority to remove it. The ones with signature-authority inside Marubeni knew the debt was practically worthless, which is why the Radstock purchase of CDCP-debt-to-Marubeni penny-on-the-dollar makes sense.
Then someone inside the PNCC boardroom actually presented a case to pay (which is okay because it clears the books) but he used as basis the face-value-CDCP-debt-to-Marubeni with inflation as opposed giving Radstock ten-to-1 or even fifteen-to-one return on their P100M-transaction. Never underestimate the foolishness of fools. Maybe he was an oversexed fool who liked Brit girls that Radstock provided, or maybe Radstock uncovered some dirty secrets and did some arm-twisting. But the PNCC board agreed to a lutong-makaw, which is insane!!!
Was it Radstock? Was it a PNCC-board-of-director? Was it the PNCC chair? Was it some Magician working his magic and every one else were puppets?
Odorous… but I have no idea who broke what law when.

By: Uniffors- Life in Gloria’s Enchanted Kingdom » PNCC and Radstock

Uniffors- Life in Gloria’s Enchanted Kingdom » PNCC and Radstock — Wed, 02 May 2007 09:29:23 +0000

[...] Manuel L Quezon III summarizes a curious deal that ANC reporter Ricky Carandang discusses at length in his blog READ HERE. [...]

By: manuelbuencamino

manuelbuencamino — Wed, 02 May 2007 06:30:48 +0000

Upn,

Wa;a na ngang utang. Nabuhay lang ulit ang utang kasi binuhay nung 2000-2001.

Tanong mo sa sarili mo – Kung meron tinitindigan ang marubeni ibebenta ba nila yun ng ganun ka mura? Ano sila tanga?

Yun exmple mo sa tax case mo mali.

By: UPn student

UPn student — Wed, 02 May 2007 05:40:47 +0000

cvj and ManuelB… you give me the impression that you don’t pay attention or you don’t have the appreciation for financial and other details. I did say, but you seem to overlook it, so I’ll say again:
Fault can be put on the doorstep of that somebody in PNCC who, instead of paying 5-cents on the dollar, argued (and won!!!!) before the PNCC board to pay 100-cents on the dollar ( with inflation escalation, on the debt CDCP-to-Marubeni now held by Radstock).

By: cvj

cvj — Wed, 02 May 2007 05:38:50 +0000

Nowadays, that always seems to be the question.

By: UPn student

UPn student — Wed, 02 May 2007 05:09:09 +0000

cvj and manuelB… I backed into this type of deal against the US IRS. I had a purchase contract on a house in Virginia for $30K below assessed, which the owners agreed to. [Damn ugly house, flea-ridden, big lot.] Then we discovered that the owner can’t transfer the asset because there was an IRS tax-lien which was $85K over and above their equity in the house and the owner (unemployed woman — husband left her, plus the tax lien) was in no position to pay. My settlement attorney said that if I bought the house, then the IRS can go after me as the new owner.
And then… and then he also said that in 90% of the cases that he had seen, that the IRS clears out the tax lien when the new owner makes the request. So I did a Marubeni… I bought the asset, then asked my lawyer to file the paperwork so I can take the full value out of the house.
No bribes, no nothing, not even a phone call to any IRS-dude, and my settlement attorney was just a professional with technical experience doing his job. As for the seller.. she had no equity, so she took out zero. But her tax-lien got cleared. Now I unlocked value from a dead asset, and I had a few thou in the bank as just reward.
I hope you understood what I just told you. If you don’t understand, you don’t understand.

By: UPn student

UPn student — Wed, 02 May 2007 03:49:03 +0000

cvj… The Ricky Carandang blogstory does not true up 100% to the Inquirer columns, which does not help.

PNCC chair Arthur N. Aguilar and Radstock director Carlos G. Dominguez can provide a lot of answers, but the question is can they be compelled to.

By: cvj

cvj — Wed, 02 May 2007 03:46:42 +0000

UPn Student, so the following example you gave in Abe Margallo’s blog does not apply?

“An example of rent-seeking is when a company lobbies the government for loan subsidies, grants or tariff protection. These activities don’t create any benefit for society, they just redistribute resources from the taxpayers to the special-interest group.” [UPN at April 26, 2007 8:33 AM ]

Anyway, your interpretation gives profit-seeking behavior a bad name. Businesses are embedded in the society in which they operate so they should not be given a free-pass just because they consider themselves ‘profit-seeking’ entities. We do not have to put up with such behavior from these corporations.

By: manuelbuencamino

manuelbuencamino — Wed, 02 May 2007 03:40:33 +0000

UPn stude,

Of course there is bribery abd kickbacks in the Radstock deal. The leadership of PNCC are Gloria appointees from the military. Those who run PNCC don’t own it. (PNCC was the old CDCP of Roberto Cuenca. The government took over and changed the company’s name after Edsa.) The company directors are not paying Radstock with money out of their own wallets.

The debt was renounced so the original creditor Marubeni sold the debt paper for less than 1% of its value to a speculator and all of a sudden PNCC decides to pay up. And you are considering the possibility there is no bribery or kickbacks involved?

CDCP – Wala kaming utang sa inyo

Marubeni – oh shit

Radstock – bilhin ko na lang sa inyo yun worthless paper

Marubeni – okay

Radstock – PNCC paano naman itong utang ng CDCP sa amin?

PNCC – magkano ba?

Radstock – eh lumaki na dahil sa interest, bilyon bilyon na ngayon

PNCC – Ha? billions?

Radstock – Oo

PNCC – O sigue babayaran namin