United Development Funding IV fka UDFI

[ofirm]

You are mixing multiple things here:
1. Book value in 2015 could have included fees paid to brokers to lure in investors. they could have
included 100% of accrued interest for all loans (assuming that 100% of loans were money good).
2. Bass was accusing the fund of being a ponzi scheme. no such thing as ponzi like - either there is
actual economic activity to generate actual income or not. if you said 20% of portfolio of loans was
a scheme - that would be different. he painted with a wide brush all the loans. he went into lengths
to misinform investors about the loans and their collateral as well.
3. The FBI did run cover for the Bass short and he employed an ex fbi worker in the same office of the
fbi that was handling the case. they both sat in the office and sent vanishing messages to the traders
of the fund. are the fbi office people lying - yes. if they admit they ran an op for a friend that works for
Bass they would be fired.
4. Are the UDF managers crooks - yes they are. the 2008 episode of taking loans from an old fund
changing the rate to 1.75% per year once the market crashed was a theft. that should have been it
to send them packing. that was breaking of any duty (even in an lp in Delaware with no duties that
would be way too far).
5. UDF IV partnerships should be hidden value as the collateral is probably at historic costs until
land is sold in pieces.
6. money was lent at 13% plus various bonuses, but there was the Centaurion interest rate
"adjustment" to 7% from 13% on some loans - what is some loans - who knows. how much was the
write off - who knows. if you have cross collateral agreement, how do you get to this kind of
agreement? who knows. things defy logic here at times.
7. big question - does the fact that audited financials are published mean that no more inflated g&a
in order to desguise outsized legal fees? who knows.