United Development Funding IV fka UDFI

[ofirm]

I think your analysis looks at facts presented and not really challanged (lack of
proper opportunity?).
1. early funds is relevant to less than 10% of the loans (IV was the largest fund by
far), so using 10% to make claims about 100% is a problem. my understanding is
that 13% was the going rate with IV.
2. Buffington was trying to get the amount he owed reduced while not giving away
the colleteral (is it because there was no value in the equity?).
3. Centaurion - one would have to claim that the ENTIRE collateral pool is not
worth the debt - due to the loans linked together (you can not pay one without
paying others). looking at the values of debt per lot - those do not look like they
are upside down.

Why would the borrowers want to cast a picture in which the loans are upside down?
maybe because this way they think they can get some debt reduction.