I agree on most points, and it’s a great discussion, but not on all. I do not think a lot hinges on anyone’s reputation, I think money is money, and you look at terms.
I note that there is no prepayment penalty. If NWBO prepaid the loan, before TLD, it appears that Fife would have no right to conversion.
That is a very favorable term given the circumstances, especially given that we will likely see GMP certification before the end of the year. The lender also needs to convert, so if they had a deal or anything that gave them cash to prepay him, that would not be so favorable to the lender.
What I read here is a lot of trust that they won’t do that and I doubt Linda would screw over a helpful financier like that just to save a little bit, it is not her style, from what I have seen. I think past dealing shows that to be the case and that is why one treats key financiers fairly always.
But these are reasonable and easy terms. Therefore, what people say about the source of the dollars is really irrelevant. Dollars are fungible, meaning a dollar from any source is exactly the same. In this case the defining issue would be were the terms “toxic”? On the contrary, the terms seem not just reasonable but given and received with a reasonably trusting level of diligence.
The reality of all the criticism of these hard money lenders is that they ask for tough terms usually. In finance, most lenders have other people’s money with which they have been entrusted, and they need to maximally protect that money, ensure a gain and in many cases the terms for parties with high risk and no cash flow are therefore often tough (hard money) and what people on bulletin boards will frequently criticize, but if they were in the same position they’d either walk, and not lend, if it were their money, or ask for similar or harsher terms. That’s the reality. A lot of the terms people say are toxic are fairly standard for these hard money lenders. No one is going to usually be a lot easier. But for NWBO, I have noticed that a lot of these deals are not that bad, and are quite reasonable, IMHO.
I have been in a position in my lifetime of dealing with terms of this nature, on the monied side, not with small bios, not this risky, but with top companies in industries that have had a high degree of risk. These are good terms, no doubt, but reasonable for this amount of risk and even good for both parties. I see trust and positives.
All above is IMHO.
