[SmartestGuyInTheRoom]

What was that now?????

https://debanked.com/2020/08/the-sec...he-real-loser/

I think you're missing the crux of the SEC's case. The fundamental point they are making is that pursuant to Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, it is unlawful to obtain money by means of any untrue statement.

Par allegedly told investors that their default rate was 1% and they used it in marketing materials, in person presentations and via email according to the complaint. They also had $300M in litigation. For this to be true, mathematically, they would've needed to fund $30 billion. Given the $600M they consistently claimed they funded, 1% is only $6M in defaults. Lets say their factor rate is 1.5, 1% of $900M is only $9M in defaults. The SEC's case seems pretty rock solid.

[UrsulaHaun]

I think you're missing the crux of the SEC's case. The fundamental point they are making is that pursuant to Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, it is unlawful to obtain money by means of any untrue statement.

Par allegedly told investors that their default rate was 1% and they used it in marketing materials, in person presentations and via email according to the complaint. They also had $300M in litigation. For this to be true, mathematically, they would've needed to fund $30 billion. Given the $600M they consistently claimed they funded, 1% is only $6M in defaults. Lets say their factor rate is 1.5, 1% of $900M is only $9M in defaults. The SEC's case seems pretty rock solid.

Par's attorneys told the judge that Par's default rate on a "cash-on-cash" basis was indeed 1.2%. This is going to be one heck of a show. If the basis for the lawsuit and asset freeze was the alleged misrepresentation of the default rate and that turns out to be the actual default rate, (under that methodology anyway), then....

[SmartAdvanced]

Par's attorneys told the judge that Par's default rate on a "cash-on-cash" basis was indeed 1.2%. This is going to be one heck of a show. If the basis for the lawsuit and asset freeze was the alleged misrepresentation of the default rate and that turns out to be the actual default rate, (under that methodology anyway), then....

Then they’ll say sorry, and unfreeze the accounts.

[SmartestGuyInTheRoom]

Par's attorneys told the judge that Par's default rate on a "cash-on-cash" basis was indeed 1.2%. This is going to be one heck of a show. If the basis for the lawsuit and asset freeze was the alleged misrepresentation of the default rate and that turns out to be the actual default rate, (under that methodology anyway), then....

"And the merchant default rates are excellent. Put simply, the merchant cash over cash default exposure is 1.2%. That means that of all merchants receiving $100 in cash from CBSG, only $1.20 (1.2%) is defaulted on."

That also means that their default rate over the RTR is less than 1% since they are using the funded amount. Their math doesn't make sense. With $300M in litigation. I call bull **** and anyone that believes that is delusional.

Not to mention they only included one paragraph about their default rates and no mention whatsoever about the insurance they presumably offered.

[SCCNY]

"And the merchant default rates are excellent. Put simply, the merchant cash over cash default exposure is 1.2%. That means that of all merchants receiving $100 in cash from CBSG, only $1.20 (1.2%) is defaulted on."

That also means that their default rate over the RTR is less than 1% since they are using the funded amount. Their math doesn't make sense. With $300M in litigation. I call bull **** and anyone that believes that is delusional.

Not to mention they only included one paragraph about their default rates and no mention whatsoever about the insurance they presumably offered.

this guy gets it

[Michael I]

Par's attorneys told the judge that Par's default rate on a "cash-on-cash" basis was indeed 1.2%. This is going to be one heck of a show. If the basis for the lawsuit and asset freeze was the alleged misrepresentation of the default rate and that turns out to be the actual default rate, (under that methodology anyway), then....

does that mean that within 90 days there needs to be zero collected not even one dollar to be called a default? sort of why on deck had people paying $5 a month

[SmartestGuyInTheRoom]

does that mean that within 90 days there needs to be zero collected not even one dollar to be called a default? sort of why on deck had people paying $5 a month

According to Joseph Cole's deposition "The mechanism for default is not making good on payments as arranged under the agreement."

[SmartAdvanced]

Actually if they kept 99% of their cash, monthly, with the daily debits and renewals, why can’t this be true?
Basically it means they’re not loosing cash, which might be true no?

[SmartestGuyInTheRoom]

Actually if they kept 99% of their cash, monthly, with the daily debits and renewals, why can’t this be true?
Basically it means they’re not loosing cash, which might be true no?

So their default rate is lower than banks? Makes perfect sense. Liquidating my 401K and writing Par a check.