InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 200
Posts 10576
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 11/29/2011

Re: None

Saturday, 09/23/2017 1:32:02 PM

Saturday, September 23, 2017 1:32:02 PM

Post# of 50981
IHSI and the Lemonade Stand.

Isn't IHS' lawsuit similar to a $50 loan for a lemonade stand?

The lender promises $15 upfront and a full $50 credit line.

Instead of the initial $15, IHS is given just $5 to buy lemonade supplies. They buy the supplies. Make the lemonade. Sell lemonade all day. At the end of the day, they turn a .09 cent profit (after supplies, paying the employees, renting the table, etc).

Knowing IHS can charge a little extra for higher-end items, IHS plans to add orange juice, gourmet coffee, bagels, donuts, mini-sandwiches, snow cones and other commodities to help grow their business - their goal: to make greater profits to repay the full $50 loan. But...the lender denies IHS not only the remaining seed money, they deny the full $50 credit line, making it impossible to grow their business. Matters become more interesting when the lender demands immediate payment of the $5 well before the contract end date.

Isn't this a form of loan sharking?

Isn't it impossible to buy the needed supplies to grow the business?.

Isn't it impossible to sell more items, in particular higher-end items, to make a greater profit?

Isn't it therefore impossible to make a greater profit to repay even the initial loan?

The situation TCA put themselves in defines predatory lending.
Join InvestorsHub

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.