Space Tourism a con job?

No it isn't because it is funding future infrastructure.



- = -
Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus, BioStrategist
http://www.panix.com/~vjp2/vasos.htm http://www.facebook.com/vasjpan2
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Phooey on GUI: Windows for subprime Bimbos]

On Dec 7, 10:12*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

:On Dec 7, 2:11*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: William Mook wrote:
:
: :On Dec 6, 5:39 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : William Mook wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :They way my plan works is that an individual places $85 million in
: : :escrow, $15 million is non-refundable.
: : :
: :
: : So what you're really after is people with money who are stupid enough
: : to give you $15 million each for nothing at all.
: :
: : Good luck with that, but I'm not holding my breath...
: :
: :
: :A promise to do things with milestones is more than nothing. *
: :
:
: But the first $15 million happens before any of these 'milestones'.
:
:No it doesn't. *That's why how the escrow contract is written is very
:important. *Money is placed in escrow. *
:

Go back and read what you wrote. *There is a $15 million
non-refundable part, which is the part being talked about. *

Right, and you are misreading what I wrote. The $85 million is placed
in escrow, and $15 million of it is irrevocable in the context of any
off-take contract. This makes a contract bankable. None of the money
is transferred to the seller until the services are rendered. The
money is irrevocably committed though at certain milestones.

:
:The owner of the money still
:has access to it for investment purposes. *
:

So what do you think 'non-refundable' means again?

Irrevocable letter of credit.

*And you can't
'invest' money that is in escrow. *

Yes you can, people do it all the time.

That's what escrow means - the
money is held.

Can you earn interest on money in an escrow account? How do you think
banks do that? By using the money in a variety of ways. You really
should educate yourself about these matters before commenting on them.

:
:So, any money it earns
:still flows to the buyer of the tickets. *This is an important
:detail. *Another detail, is that $15 million becomes irrevocably
:available to the seller when the contracted for services are
:delivered. *Irrevocability means that the seller can borrow a portion
f the available funds. *
:

So you're using 'creative financing' then?

No, I am using project financing.

*Money is held in escrow
and can be invested by one party and borrowed by the other party?

Yes.
*

snip silliness

Nothing silly about what I've said. What you have said is very
stupid.

:
: :
: :A non-refundable deposit becomes refundable for cause. *
: :
:
: Then it's not non-refundable, is it?
:
:No, it is. *Think irrevocable letters of credit stuff like that.
:

I can't invest the funds behind such letters. *

Depends on how the trust is set up. It is done all the time when
large amounts are at stake.


irrelevancies elided

:
: :
: :Obviously, I will in
: :good faith carry out the plans I have described in great detail. *Far
: :more than nothing.
: :
:
: 'Obviously'?
:
:Yes. *Obviously.
:

Not so obviously. *

Yes it is obvious.

So far all that seems obvious is that you've got
$15 million that you've 'borrowed' against, the other fellow has
invested, all while it's being held in escrow.

Again, imagine I am building a shopping mall. There is a difference
between a plan for a shopping mall, and a plan for a shopping mall
with Walmart taking half the floor space agreeing to a certain $
figure each month for 30 years. Now, if Walmart places 30 years of
payments in an account at a bank and sets up a trust for its release,
based on performance, (building the mall and making it available to
move in on a certain date) an investment bank would find this a very
interesting project indeed.


:*I don't find that 'obvious' at all
:
:That's because you are an unsophisticated fool when it comes to money.
:

I'm 'sophisticated' enough to know what 'escrow' and 'non-refundable'
mean. *

No, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You have
snipped away without reading important examples calling them silly and
irrelevant because they don't fit with your narrow preconcieved notion
of how you *think* things work.

You have no idea how a trust is set up to fund a project like building
a shopping mall, or how it can be adapted to build a rocket ship to
deliver a trip to the moon.

You, on the other hand, appear to be thinking you can engage in
creative finance that would make Ken Lay blush with shame. *

Ken Lay set up a network of companies and arranged loans between those
companies to fool regulators and the public into thinking Enron was
more profitable than it really was. I am speaking about how an off-
take contract for travel services is structured so that the provider
of the services may arrange investment bank financing. Only an
unsophisticated asshole would compare the two.

Hint: *Once funds are placed in escrow, NEITHER side may touch them

The bank touches funds all the time - how do you think they EARN
INTEREST? lol. With large sums, banks routinely allow depositors to
to manage them to maximize return, rather than pay a set interest.

until the contract either completes or cancels. *That's what 'escrow'
means.

You really need to consider how off-take contracts are structured in a
wide range of business settings before running off at the mouth about
what escrow means.

Hint: *If a contract cancels and part of the funds in escrow are
'non-refundable', those funds are delivered to the seller. *That's
what 'non-refundable' means.

Look up irrevocable letter of credit. That's how a lot of stuff gets
transacted overseas. You are Walmart and you order a million dollars
worth of sneakers from China. The Chinese doesn't trust Walmart to
pay them. They place the money in an irrevocable letter of credit
that gets released when the shoes arrive IN GOOD ORDER. The money
flows back to Walmart if the shoes don't pass muster. The money flows
to Chinese manufacturer if they do. There may even be a split and
even arbitration if there's an argument. Very complex stuff.
Insurers get involved if there's a loss at sea. Banks get involved if
the manufacturer has to borrow to buy raw materials or make
payrolls.

The same level of sophistication that allows Walmart to buy sneakers
from China over several years can be adapted to allow a company to
offer a sophisticated buyer a trip to the moon.

: and I think you're
: going to have a great deal of trouble finding folks who have that much
: money who are silly enough to give it to you.
:
:Not at all - since I'm not asking anyone to give me anything. *I am
nly asking for those who want the service to enter into an
:appropriate off-take contract that allows me to arrange financing for
:the project.
:

Good luck with that. *I don't think you're going to find anyone with
actual money who is that ignorant about the meanings of 'escrow' and
'non-refundable'.

Someone with $85 million to spend on experiential travel will not only
understand, but has actually suggested this structure based on their
actual experience with these sorts of trusts.


: --
: "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
: *territory."
: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn
:
:That includes you bosco.
:

Hint: *Commenting on a .sig is about the most clueless thing you can
do on Usenet, 'bosco'.

Not as clueless as you however.

--
"I would not want to put him in charge of snake control in Ireland."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Eugene McCarthy

shrug

On Dec 13, 5:56*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

:On Dec 9, 9:43*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: William Mook wrote:
:
: :On Dec 9, 10:05*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : William Mook wrote:
: :
: : :On Dec 7, 10:12 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : William Mook wrote:
: : :
: : : :On Dec 7, 2:11 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : : William Mook wrote:
: : : :
: : : : :On Dec 6, 5:39 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : : : William Mook wrote:
: : : : :
: : : : : :
: : : : : :They way my plan works is that an individual places $85 million in
: : : : : :escrow, $15 million is non-refundable.
: : : : : :
: : : : :
: : : : : So what you're really after is people with money who are stupid enough
: : : : : to give you $15 million each for nothing at all.
: : : : :
: : : : : Good luck with that, but I'm not holding my breath...
: : : : :
: : : : :
: : : : :A promise to do things with milestones is more than nothing.
: : : : :
: : : :
: : : : But the first $15 million happens before any of these 'milestones'.
: : : :
: : : :No it doesn't. That's why how the escrow contract is written is very
: : : :important. Money is placed in escrow.
: : : :
: : :
: : : Go back and read what you wrote. There is a $15 million
: : : non-refundable part, which is the part being talked about.
: : :
: : :Right, and you are misreading what I wrote. *
: : :
: :
: : Only because you are miswriting what you wrote.
: :
: :
: :No I'm not. *I've been consistent throughout. *Buyers make an
: :irrevocable commitment to purchase, place money at risk, and then earn
: :interest on the money that is placed in an account for it.
: :
:
: Which is pretty far from your original statement.
:
:No its not
:

Yes its too.

No its not!

On December 6 I wrote

"They way my plan works is that an individual places $85 million in
escrow, $15 million is non-refundable. When training is delivered and
the first flight articles are completed, another $40 million is non-
refundable, and finally the last $20 million when the moon flight is
ready to take place, then 30 days after delivery of the flight, the
funds are released from escrow. Individuals have use of their money,
and earnings from their money, while they await the flight. "

On December 13 I wrote

"I've been consistent throughout. Buyers make an irrevocable
commitment to purchase, place money at risk, and then earn interest on
the money that is placed in an account for it."

Both statements say the same thing. A buyer of a trip to the moon
makes a commitment and backs it up with money which allows the seller
to fund development of the supply chain to deliver the trip while the
buyer earns interest on the money he places at risk.

You are the one Freddie saying 'stupid ****' like an escrow account
can't be part of a trust and funds placed at risk cannot earn interest
and stuff like gross negligence can't release funds placed at risk.
haha..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escrow



: :
: :
: : :
: : :The $85 million is placed in escrow, ...
: : :
: :
: : Which eliminates your claim that the owner can still invest it. *
: :
: : :
: : :... and $15 million of it is irrevocable in the context of any
: : ff-take contract. *
: : :
: :
: : The word you used was "non-refundable". *Your current phrasing makes
: : no sense at all. *
: :
: on't argue with me, argue with people who arrange financing for
: :hundred million dollar projects. *
: :
:
: I'm arguing with you because you're the one saying stupid ****.
:
:
:No I'm not. *You are.
:

No I'm not. *You are.

On December 6 Freddie you said all sorts of stupid **** trying to
convince folks that escrow funds cannot be attached to a trust (escrow
funds are the basis of a trust) and that interest cannot be earned
with funds at risk, and funds placed irrevocably at risk could not be
released for cause (i.e. gross negligence) - that's really stupid ****
Freddie, and you said it.

: :
: :Its really dumb to think that the
: :terminology that you might use when buying a used Chevy truck is
: :directly applicable when you're buying something like a shopping mall
: r thirty million dollars worth of tee-shirts.
: :
:
: It's really dumb to think that words change meaning just because you
: want them to.
:
:They don't change meaning. *They only seem to change meaning for you
:because you didn't understand what the words meant in the first place.
:

Try again, ****wit.

Try what Freddie? Point to the definition of escrow funds and trust?
Okay

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escrow

*You're coming in broken and stupid.

No, you are.

: : :
: : :
: : : So what do you think 'non-refundable' means again?
: : :
: : :
: : :Irrevocable letter of credit.
: : :
: :
: : Not the same thing at all.
: :
: :That's the point Freddie. *What makes you think putting a bid in on a
: :lazy-boy recliner on e-bay is going to have precisely the same
: :structure as arranging to purchase a Boeing BBJ for $65 million in
: :2012?
: :
:
: Nothing at all, Mookie. *
:
:Yes, this is the point.
:

Yes, it is. *You've made up an argument and now you're acting as if I
said it or agreed with it.

No, Freddie, I'm talking about irrevocable and nonrefundable and under
what conditions they mean the same thing. You have maintained
throughout that they are totally different and have said rather rudely
that since I say they're the same thing in the way I'm structuring my
buyer's commitment I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. I
reply that you are an ass to say something so totally wrong since non-
refundable and irrevocable mean pretty much the same thing when an
agreement is made between a buyer and seller of services when the
funds placed in trust are used to secure financing to develop the
means to provide the services the buyer is seeking to obtain.

Here's a few definitions from online investment dictionaries;

Non-refundable is legally a condition in an indenture which prohibits
or restricts the ability of the issuer to retire the indenture -
obtain a refund.

An irrevocable trust is one which cannot be changed or canceled once
it is set up without the consent of the beneficiary. Contributions
cannot be taken out of the trust by the grantor.

An irrevocable letter of credit is a letter of credit that can't be
canceled. This guarantees that a buyer's payment to a seller will be
received on time and for the correct amount once the terms of the sale
are met.

Now, these all pretty much say the same thing - namely - that the
buyer MUST pay out funds under terms agreed to by the buyer at the
time the agreement is made.

Now, it is also important that 1) if there is going to be a long time
between the agreement is made and the time the services are delivered
and 2) if the amounts are large, then the disposal of interest and
method of generating interest is also agreed to at the time the buyer
and seller make their initial agreement. In fact, most states have a
REQUIREMENT that funds held in escrow for two years or more pay
interest to the benefit of the parties paying funds into escrow.


: The point, Willie, is that words mean what
: words mean.
:
:Yes, and if you knew what you were talking about we wouldn't be having
:this conversation. *The point is, you don't know what the hell you're
:talking about, so we keep going around and around and around -
:

Yes, and if you knew what you were talking about we wouldn't be having
this conversation. *

Now now Freddie - I know what I'm talking about. We're having a
conversation about things you clearly have no idea about. You claim
Freddie that irrevocable and non-refundable are two totally different
things - where in the context of the agreement for lunar travel they
mean the same thing. You claim Freddie that non-refundable deposits
cannot be returned due to gross negligence, where such deposits are
routinely returned for this cause and other just causes. You claim
Freddie that escrow accounts and trusts are totally different - where
escrow accounts are routinely created by trust agreements. You claim
Freddie that escrowed funds cannot earn interest where many states
REQUIRE interest to be paid on such funds.

Clearly, I know precisely what I'm talking about, you on the other
hand Freddie, don't know butkas about what you're talking about.

The point is, you don't know what the hell you're
talking about and keep shifting what you're saying, so we keep going
around and around and around

Not at all.

:
:... while
:you craftily erase all pointers I give to detailed explanations from
:legal sites - haha -
:

yawn

Well, I can easily add them in

Typical lie of someone who can't support his position.

I added the URL you erased twice above - so, you're the one lying
Freddie about me not supporting my position.

*"You're
selectively editing my stuff. *WAAAAAAAAA!!!!"

No, you're erasing pointers to URLs and then claiming I can't support
my position. That's the kind of scoundrel you are.

:*You keep changing the story on your FINANCIAL STRUCTURE,
:
:No I don't.
:

Yes you do.

No I don't! Please re-read what I've written and read carefully the
definitions and pointers I've provided - you will see that you are
wrong and I am right.

: so just how seriously do you expect anyone is going to take your
: system architecture for lunar flight?
:
:The point is, you seriously desire to wrongly paint a picture I don't
:know what I'm talking about because you think it hides the fact you
:don't know what you're talking about. *haha
:

And off you go, to the happy home, where life is beautiful all the
time and you'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean
white coats and they're coming to take you away, haha!

You have a lot of experience with those sorts of situations Freddie?
I knew you did. lol.

: : : And you can't
: : : 'invest' money that is in escrow.
: : :
: : :Yes you can, people do it all the time.
: : :
: :
: : Bull****.
: :
: :Not at all.
: :
:
: Yes, at all.
:
:Nope. *Money deposited in accounts wouldn't be able to earn interest
:if what you said was true. *Money deposited in accounts earn interest
:BECAUSE the money can be invested in a variety of ways.
:

Money deposited in accounts is not under the same rules as funds held
in escrow.

Depends on how the terms of trust are written Freddie.

: :*Money in escrow must be DEPOSITED.
: :
: :As yourself this question Freddie. *Where is it deposited? *In a lock
: :box under your bed? *No, its deposited in an account at a bank
: :somewhere. *Now, there's a huge difference if its a $50 ding against a
: :credit card number and $50,000,000 in cash (or equivalent i.e.
: ublicly traded stock, notes, etc.)
: :
:
: Yes, and once your money is deposited *YOU CANNOT INVEST WITH IT*.
:
emand deposits earn interest all the time. *So too do certificates of
:deposit. *These are with truly piddling amounts ($100,000 or less)
:When you start depositing $10 million or more you have the ability to
rganize how the deposits are to be managed - and this is retained by
:the buyers during the time when the travel is being organized.
:

And NONE of that is 'escrow', you ignorant twit.

Here we go again! Escrow accounts are created by terms of trust -
those terms are anything the buyer and seller agree to.

: : You can't do anything
: : with it when it's in escrow.
: :
: :No one would be able to secure financing against any large purchase if
: :that were true. *Obviously an interest bearing bank account earns
: :money for someone, and that's the depositor Freddie. * How do you
: :think the bank is able to pay interest on $50 million? *That's right,
: :they use it while it is being held.
: :
:
: Nope. *You don't know how this works, do you? *
:
:You don't Freddie.
:

Try again, Mookie. *I'll tell you what. *You sign documents making you
an escrow agent (LEGALLY - escrow is a legally defined term). *

Yes, I gave you definitions above.

Then
you go invest the money in something else. *

??? What do you imagine this means Freddie ???


Now see what happens to
you when you have to pay it out and don't have it because you invested
it.

hahaha - you ARE an IDIOT Freddie! HOW DO YOU THINK INTEREST IS
EARNED ON THESE ACCOUNTS? Consider please that most states REQUIRE
that interest paid on escrowed funds held over two years.

Sheez

:
:
: What they do is count
: the escrow against their fractional reserve requirement, which lets
: them invest OTHER money.
:
:If you know how it works Freddie why do you insist it cannot work?
:

Because what you're saying is WRONG, Mookie. *

No I'm not.

The escrow agent can do
things. *The depositor or the payee cannot. *

Depends on the terms of trust that created the escrow fund in the
first place Freddie.

Someone may be willing to
loan you money based on funds you're supposed to be paid from escrow,

Yes.

but the person who is depositing those funds can't do squat with them.

Depends on the terms of trust.

:
:You just want to say I'm wrong when in fact you know I have been right
:from the first.
:

You're insane.

No I'm not.

*And you've been wrong from the first.

No I haven't.

*Now you want to
switch from escrow to an ILC (which is not the same thing). *

Depends on how the terms of Trust are Written Freddie!

An ILC
relies on the creditworthiness of the person issuing the letter.

It can in most instances, depends on the terms.

*What
they can do with the funds behind it is pretty limited.

True, it depends on the terms.

: : *It is HELD in escrow. *Do you not know
: : what 'escrow' means?
: :
: :I do, its obvious you do not. *haha - Escrow funds are routinely held
: :in bank accounts that bear interest. *When funds exceed $100 million
: r so, those who deposit the funds routinely have rights to elect how
: :the funds will be invested to earn interest rather than let the bank
: :do it.
: :
:
: Cite? *What you're describing is no longer 'escrow'.
:
:Yes it is.
:

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

Failure to cite noted.

I've cited far more stuff than you have Freddie.


[snip]

Now, are you gonna cry because I snipped you torturous drivel? Sheez.

Bottom line Freddie, despite your attempts to paint what I said
originally as being wrong - you pretty much agree that a sophisticated
buyer can enter into an arrangement with a service provider to pay $85
million into an account in such a way so that the provider can borrow
the money he needs to deliver the service whereupon the funds are
released to the seller. I've omitted all the words you seem have
trouble with, so that the POINT of my original statement is clear.

With one buyer the program commences. Since the structural mass of
the stage determines its cost - we start with the smallest stages
first... as described here;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBi69V8oNuw
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymook#p/u/3/-NlZmUUWvJw
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymook#p/u/2/jhZb7XDaYts
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20053585/M...space-Overview

With the publicity generated at each step, additional buyers emerge
from the population of 100,000 buyers capable of purchasing the trip
world-wide, others may invest in a ticket with the idea of selling it
at a premium as the flight day draws near;

http://www.us.capgemini.com/worldwealthreport08/

So,;

PHASE I

Buyer 1: $85,000,000
Seller: Borrows $15,000,000 - builds lunar lander stage, space
suits, life support, MEMS rockets
first flight
hardware, space suit delivered, training delivered

PHASE II

Buyer 2: $85,000,000
Seller: Borrows $115,000,000 - builds middle stage, launch
center, two stage flights
second round of
training commences, buyers fly into space

PHASE III

Buyer 3 through 5: $255,000,000
Seller: Borrows: $195,000,000 - builds first stage, three stage
flights, cislunar flights, fleet build out
third round of
training commences, flights around moon

DELIVERY

Lunar Travel Delivered: $425,000,000 released

$325,000,000 repaid + interest

POST-TRAVEL

TICKER TAPE PARADE, ENTRY INTO THE HISTORY BOOKS, WORLD TOUR

RECURRING INCOME

A fleet of five reusable vehicles capable of sending 10 people to the
moon (five passengers and five operators) at a RECURRING COST of
approximately $5 million per person - offered at $25 million per
person. From the 200,000 people able to afford such a flight, 5 per
month - 60 per year - with a $20 million profit per person - $1.2
billion EBITDA producing a $25 billion NPV, assuming 200 flight
cycles per vehicles and an 18 year life span.

EXPANSION

Leveraging the income stream and the technical capabilities, the
supply chain is expanded to larger vehicles capable of expanding space
based assets and infrastructure; including;

(1) 20 tons to LEO at low cost
(2) global hotspot
(3) 500 tons to LEO, lunar hotel, mars travel
(4) solar powersat
(5) lunar industry, Mars hotel
(6) asteroid capture, orbital industry, mars industry
(7) sun orbiting powersat
(8) laser light sail

which I detail here;

http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymoo...18/I81ogcX3ONY
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymoo...17/QvE-bkc0Uxo
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymoo...16/iWiXDu64c0g
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymoo...15/FMefZhA7ifI
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymoo...14/dP5DX2NSl7c
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymoo...13/XxV2FCUESh0
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymoo...12/nzG4PEureFg
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymoo...11/IcbXSONtBdY
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymoo...10/3E2586kx_Uc
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymook#p/u/9/istE1bpoDPg
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymook#p/u/8/mzXwctPXT4c
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymook#p/u/7/jWuL4sZ3ppY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QAUkt2VPHI
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymoo...28/xCJl-ZbHOYc
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymoo...29/ZYuK0iJqpNA
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymoo...30/dbWNnVsBhOg
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymoo...33/B1MCq8bekRo
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymoo...35/DuzFqFK9gW4
http://www.youtube.com/user/harrymook#p/u/1/GOpCMnLoM1c

William Mook wrote:
You are the one Freddie saying 'stupid ****' like an escrow account
can't be part of a trust and funds placed at risk cannot earn interest
and stuff like gross negligence can't release funds placed at risk.
haha..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escrow


Yet clearly, there are a couple of things that can't be done with fund
in escrow:

a) They can't be spent.

b) They can't be pledged against a future liability

since either of these would mean it was impossible for the funds to be
returned to the depositor in the event of a default.

For a person developing a service, they are useful as a guarantee that
the service will be paid for if it is delivered. But the funds are not
available to support development.

Sylvia.

On Dec 15, 3:57*am, Sylvia Else wrote:
William Mook wrote:
You are the one Freddie saying 'stupid ****' like an escrow account
can't be part of a trust and funds placed at risk cannot earn interest
and stuff like gross negligence can't release funds placed at risk.
haha..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escrow

Yet clearly, there are a couple of things that can't be done with fund
in escrow:

a) They can't be spent.

b) They can't be pledged against a future liability

since either of these would mean it was impossible for the funds to be
returned to the depositor in the event of a default.

Depends on the details Sylvia spelled out in the terms creating the
financial arrangement.

For a person developing a service, they are useful as a guarantee that
the service will be paid for if it is delivered. But the funds are not
available to support development.

Again, it depends on the terms creating the financial arrangement.
We're talking about financing a project where delivery of the result
desired by the buyer and seller may through no fault of their own be
less than both had hoped for.

Are these sorts of projects impossible to finance? Especially if the
amounts placed at risk are large to support the project?

The answer is no, such projects get financed routinely. There is a
whole area of finance called PROJECT FINANCE

Last year the American Petroleum Institute estimated that over $480
billion was spent building projects that intended to produce oil.
Only 20% of them achieved their goals. 80% of them did not.
Nevertheless, more money was raised THAT YEAR than has been spent over
the ENTIRE HISTORY of NASA!

So, project financing is something to look at.

Project finance is a method of non-recourse or limited recourse
financing in which the project lenders look principally to the cash
flow of a single project as security for their loan.

Project finance transactions typically involve large, complex projects
with many participants and a relatively long construction period and
operating life.

Unlike most non-recourse financings, in a project financing, the loan
amount usually exceeds the value of the project's hard assets.

As a result, project cash flows are the key source of loan repayment.

Because of the limited recourse nature of project finance loans, the
size and complexity of the projects involved and the lenders' reliance
on cash flows over a long payment period, project financings require a
complex scheme of risk allocation that is reflected in many long,
complicated documents.

Many concepts underlying project finance are familiar to real estate
lawyers who have handled traditional commercial real estate loans.

In fact, the basic project finance structure looks much like a real
estate loan in which the borrower finances the development of a
building on the strength of a long-term net lease of the entire
building to a single credit tenant.

In a typical project financing, instead of a lease, there will be an
"off-take" contract, such as a power sales agreement, under which the
project owner sells all of the output of a facility on a long-term
basis to a creditworthy local utility or industry.

This off-take contract serves as the basis for the financing.

Nevertheless, there are significant differences between project
finance and traditional real estate lending.

In project finance, the same lender or group of lenders typically
provides both the construction and long-term financing.

In addition, the project loans are usually non-recourse or of limited
recourse both during construction and after the loan converts to term
status.

Project financing is almost always used for very large projects.

Project financings are unusual for loans of less than $25 million and
are common for loans over $1 billion.

Companies use project financing for power plants, pipelines and other
energy facilities, industrial and chemical processing plants, mines,
toll roads and other large facilities with reasonably complicated
construction features, a long operating life and significant operating
risks.

These large, single purpose projects are in many ways the antithesis
of an office building with fungible space leased to a host of
prospective tenants.


Sylvia.

William Mook wrote:
On Dec 15, 3:57 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
William Mook wrote:
You are the one Freddie saying 'stupid ****' like an escrow account
can't be part of a trust and funds placed at risk cannot earn interest
and stuff like gross negligence can't release funds placed at risk.
haha..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escrow
Yet clearly, there are a couple of things that can't be done with fund
in escrow:

a) They can't be spent.

b) They can't be pledged against a future liability

since either of these would mean it was impossible for the funds to be
returned to the depositor in the event of a default.

Depends on the details Sylvia spelled out in the terms creating the
financial arrangement.

No it doesn't. All sorts of financial arrangements can be entered into,
but if the above don't apply, this it's not an escrow.

Sylvia.

On Dec 15, 6:16*pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Dec 15, 3:57 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
William Mook wrote:
You are the one Freddie saying 'stupid ****' like an escrow account
can't be part of a trust and funds placed at risk cannot earn interest
and stuff like gross negligence can't release funds placed at risk.
haha..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escrow
Yet clearly, there are a couple of things that can't be done with fund
in escrow:

a) They can't be spent.

b) They can't be pledged against a future liability

since either of these would mean it was impossible for the funds to be
returned to the depositor in the event of a default.

Depends on the details Sylvia spelled out in the terms creating the
financial arrangement.

No it doesn't. All sorts of financial arrangements can be entered into,
but if the above don't apply, this it's not an escrow.

Sylvia.

Not all escrow agreements impose the duties of a legal trustee on the
escrow agent, and in many such agreements, escrow agents are held to a
mere gross negligence standard and benefit from indemnity and hold
harmless provisions

William Mook wrote:
On Dec 15, 6:16 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Dec 15, 3:57 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
William Mook wrote:
You are the one Freddie saying 'stupid ****' like an escrow account
can't be part of a trust and funds placed at risk cannot earn interest
and stuff like gross negligence can't release funds placed at risk.
haha..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escrow
Yet clearly, there are a couple of things that can't be done with fund
in escrow:
a) They can't be spent.
b) They can't be pledged against a future liability
since either of these would mean it was impossible for the funds to be
returned to the depositor in the event of a default.
Depends on the details Sylvia spelled out in the terms creating the
financial arrangement.
No it doesn't. All sorts of financial arrangements can be entered into,
but if the above don't apply, this it's not an escrow.

Sylvia.

Not all escrow agreements impose the duties of a legal trustee on the
escrow agent, and in many such agreements, escrow agents are held to a
mere gross negligence standard and benefit from indemnity and hold
harmless provisions

What has that to do with it?

Sylvia.

On Dec 16, 10:37*pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Dec 15, 6:16 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Dec 15, 3:57 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
William Mook wrote:
You are the one Freddie saying 'stupid ****' like an escrow account
can't be part of a trust and funds placed at risk cannot earn interest
and stuff like gross negligence can't release funds placed at risk.
haha..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escrow
Yet clearly, there are a couple of things that can't be done with fund
in escrow:
a) They can't be spent.
b) They can't be pledged against a future liability
since either of these would mean it was impossible for the funds to be
returned to the depositor in the event of a default.
Depends on the details Sylvia spelled out in the terms creating the
financial arrangement.
No it doesn't. All sorts of financial arrangements can be entered into,
but if the above don't apply, this it's not an escrow.

Sylvia.

Not all escrow agreements impose the duties of a legal trustee on the
escrow agent, and in many such agreements, escrow agents are held to a
mere gross negligence standard and benefit from indemnity and hold
harmless provisions

What has that to do with it?

Sylvia.

Plenty -

FYI:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20053585/M...space-Overview
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24417566/Mokaerospace-4
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24390383/mokaerospace-3