Scammer tag: PatrickHarnett

[Namworld]

The Kraken Fund was about 50% invested in PPT (Patrick Harnett's own passthrough he was insuring and apparently bought himself out of with Kraken Fund).

When he defaulted, he paid 50% of balances. I'll assume it's for the debt he bought himself out with the fund (and took back on default) and that other assets are the one he defaulted on:


He did break a few promises, including that he would cover any loss and misrepresenting where the funds would go. For those asking why would someone borrow to invest and offer 100% coverage on loss? Offering to cover losses to borrow would imply he does not have the liquid funds to operate but that he has assets he can liquidate should the need arise. It allows operation with borrowed capital without the immediate need to depart with other assets such as precious metals, house, stocks, etc. He did not cover the losses.

[MPOE-PR]

The Kraken Fund was about 50% invested in PPT (Patrick Harnett's own passthrough he was insuring and apparently bought himself out of with Kraken Fund).

When he defaulted, he paid 50% of balances. I'll assume it's for the debt he bought himself out with the fund (and took back on default) and that other assets are the one he defaulted on:


He did break a few promises, including that he would cover any loss and misrepresenting where the funds would go. For those asking why would someone borrow to invest and offer 100% coverage on loss? Offering to cover losses to borrow would imply he does not have the liquid funds to operate but that he has assets he can liquidate should the need arise. It allows operation with borrowed capital without the immediate need to depart with other assets such as precious metals, house, stocks, etc. He did not cover the losses.

I don't readily comprehend this graph. For one, shouldn't it add to 100% or something?

[Namworld]

Yes it should. But his graph don't add up to 100%. Feel free to interpret it however you want.

[MPOE-PR]

Yes it should. But his graph don't add up to 100%. Feel free to interpret it however you want.

Ok, so then the 11+12+17 = 40% is the 50%? I'm confused.

[Namworld]

I don't have the slightest idea either.

[augustocroppo]

Yes it should. But his graph don't add up to 100%. Feel free to interpret it however you want.

Where did you obtained the graph?

[Namworld]

The PDF newsletters he sends.

[MPOE-PR]

Now wait just one cotton pickin' minute here.

Even with absurdly generous terms (like repaying 40% of premiums, with no past or future interest, over three years) I don't think Patrick and his wife will make the lifestyle sacrifices they would need to in order to pay back debts that are likely not enforceable in any court of law.

If he isn't even on track and committed to paying back 40% in 3 years, which is ridiculously little in a very long time, I'd say he clearly deserves to be branded a scammer.

A 50% refund would certainly be one equitable resolution of the mistake. It's not the only one.

Roughly speaking, if he's on track for 50% within a year, that'd be reasonable in my view.

Testing the waters with some bs offer of 40% on the 6th, then moving to 50%, then trying again the 40% line on the 8th....

How to ruin a reputation for dummies. Ask Joel Katz.

Where do you get your talking points you scammy fuck you?

For shame.

[augustocroppo]

The PDF newsletters he sends.

Would you please share this PDF newsletter? Judging by that graph I can only conclude that Patrick is completely clueless to produce pie charts or he is producing misleading data. It is important to verify the data which comes along with the newsletter to define what exactly that graph means.

[Namworld]

http://www.4shared.com/zip/9Lj1yWKB/krakenreports.html

Archive containing all PDF reports received.

[augustocroppo]

From the Kraken fund newsletter:

30 September 2012



5 October 2012



14 October 2012

[greyhawk]

I give this graph an AAA+ rating.

[MPOE-PR]

I give this graph an AAA+ rating.

I think this graph shows our common mistake in thinking PatrickHarnett has even basic math training. How the fuck do they do high finance in New Zealand, some sort of icon-clad cash register a la Idiocracy?

[JoelKatz]

If Patrick made this blatant promise for his potential customers, and then later he provided evidence contradicting his initial promises, than a scammer tag should be issued. The investors should open a thread in this section and present the necessary evidence to prove the intention of fraud.

The Kraken fund may be a slam dunk case of fraud. The Kraken fund began operations after it was quite clear that Pirate was in massive default and very unlikely to ever pay back another penny. Yet the Kraken fund bought Pirate debt, and Patrick was clear about it being guaranteed by him personally. (All of this was known to the investors too, but the fault in this case is not equal. In this case, the investors mistake really was to rely on Patrick's promise. There was nothing Patrick didn't know at the time.)

You don't see how this totally undermines your argument in the MP/PH situation?

No, I don't.

One of the foundations of your argument is that neither PH/MP knew PH was exposed to pirate.  Doesn't his behaviour with Kraken suggest that MAYBE he DID know he was exposed to pirate but chose to lie about it to raise more funds?

Kraken came much later. This loan was August 10. Kraken was September 30. In between those two dates, Pirate defaulted.

The rest of your post simply repeats the claims you've made elsewhere -- that Patrick's at fault for failing to do the impossible and somehow making a fundamentally unsound business model work.

[BCB]

JoelKatz

MOE-PR is obviously not a smart guy.  What do you keep arguing with him. 

This thread is exhausting.

It's kind of like a train wreck or a traffic accident.  You really don't want to watch but you somehow can't turn away.

[MPOE-PR]

JoelKatz

MOE-PR is obviously not a smart guy.  What do you keep arguing with him. 

This thread is exhausting.

It's kind of like a train wreck or a traffic accident.  You really don't want to watch but you somehow can't turn away.

You have to be really fucking retarded to have missed the simple fact that once caught, the shill quietly moved on to pestering Deprived.

He's not going to argue with me ever again, given that he's never going to have a good response to the 40% and 50% "coincidence".

Not that it makes any difference, both of them, Katz and Harnett, are ruined for anything in BTC worth the mention.

Might as well start making new accounts.

[CharlieContent]

The rest of your post simply repeats the claims you've made elsewhere -- that Patrick's at fault for failing to do the impossible and make a fundamentally unsound business model work.

It's bizarre that you are claiming that the fact he attempted to do the impossible somehow absolves him of some responsibility, or that the responsibility is shared.

It's his fault for trying to do the impossible, after all - he devised the whole ill-fated scheme!

The people who gave him money weren't doing so as part of a joint venture with him. That was not the deal. The deal was "Give me money and I will give you a fixed interest, and you can withdraw your principal at any time." and not "Invest with me and we will share risk and profit equally."

He broke the deal. It may have been unavoidable, but that doesn't matter. He was running a business. His depositors were his customers. He made an assurance to them and he broke it. The deal was never structured as a joint venture, it was never described as a joint venture, and it shouldn't be regarded now as a joint venture.

[JoelKatz]

He's not going to argue with me ever again, given that he's never going to have a good response to the 40% and 50% "coincidence".

I made it quite clear that 40% over three years was something I felt people could agree was a *minimum*. And I said that 50% if the default position when a harm appears to be equally caused by both sides. And I also argued that the 50% default position could be adjusted if one side expected to get a greater share of the profits because it's reasonable to make it bear a greater share of the harm.

But you're clearly much more interested in turning this into an insulting match or questioning my integrity than in ever facing the possibility that maybe, just maybe, some of this is your fault.

[JoelKatz]

It's bizarre that you are claiming that the fact he attempted to do the impossible somehow absolves him of some responsibility, or that the responsibility is shared.

It's common sense. You can't fault a party for failing to do something impossible.

It's his fault for trying to do the impossible, after all - he devised the whole ill-fated scheme!

And others equally failed to realize that it was impossible. I agree that he bears fault for that, that's why it's a common mistake.

The people who gave him money weren't doing so as part of a joint venture with him. That was not the deal. The deal was "Give me money and I will give you a fixed interest, and you can withdraw your principal at any time." and not "Invest with me and we will share risk and profit equally."

I agree that was the deal. The question is what shared beliefs was the deal premised on because those are part of the deal. (Unless the deal specifically addresses them.)

He broke the deal. It may have been unavoidable, but that doesn't matter. He was running a business. His depositors were his customers. He made an assurance to them and he broke it. The deal was never structured as a joint venture, it was never described as a joint venture, and it shouldn't be regarded now as a joint venture.

The deal was premised on the shared mistaken belief that the business model was fundamentally sound and that the loans were free from significant correlated risk. Read the transcript. An agreement predicated on a shared mistaken belief is actually no agreement at all if it turns out that shared mistaken belief is false.

In this case, there was a shared mistaken belief on which the agreement was based, without which neither party would have entered into the agreement. The question is how to allocate the harm that flows from that shared mistaken belief.

[CharlieContent]

It's bizarre that you are claiming that the fact he attempted to do the impossible somehow absolves him of some responsibility, or that the responsibility is shared.

It's common sense. You can't fault a party for failing to do something impossible.

No, but you can fault a party for making an impossible claim. If I lie to you, are you equally at fault if you believe it? Maybe you do believe that, but I don't. I think the liar bears the moral responsibility for lying. Maybe Harnett didn't deliberately set out to deceive anyone, but he made various untrue statements. He made the statements. He bears the responsibility for making them.

In this case, there was a shared mistaken belief on which the agreement was based, without which neither party would have entered into the agreement.

You speak as if this shared mistaken belief came out of nowhere. It came out of Harnett's mouth. Yes, it was a shared belief, but if Harnett didn't make the proposal then the deal wouldn't have been made. Harnett made various assurances. He assured the impossible. We can't blame him for not making good on his impossible claim, but we can fault him for making it in the first place surely?