.
I just noticed
another article about LMP's financial woes, containing these nasty bits. . .
LISA MARIE PRESLEY Sues Ex-Manager
HE BLEW $24 MIL OF MY ELVIS DOUGH!!!
Here are some wacky parts and gratuitous commentary:
LOL, you abdicate all responsibility for your own money, hand it to someone else to make the decisions---then if any investment doesn't pay off, you blame them for it. Hey, LMP, moar clay on the word "investment".
This is not unlikely. It's hard to imagine a top money managers not covering their ass with at least having the client sign docs that have DISCLAIMERS and DISCLOSURES about the risk factors. If she hired a money manager that didn't even know enough to do that, well, then she blew it by not finding a money manager that at least had the minimal bells and whistles of legitimacy. How many f*cking lawyers does LMP have, that they wouldn't have vetted or commented on her choice of money managers.
And if the money manager did make such risk disclosures (having client sign a waiver), then what is there to complain about?
That's no different than suing your money manager if the stock market goes down. Or suing your real estate broker if you bought a house that later was sold for less than you paid for it.
Wait! WAIT!!!! A mere dozen years ago she liquidated a portion of her portfolio and realized $100M in cash? And she lost it? And it's somebody else's fault? LOL
Holy Hell! All of that cash ($100M) was invested in one of the most unpredictably speculative mega-high-risk investments in the history of mankind---entertainment? How insane is that? I would love to see what docs the investment advisor had her sign to shield himself from liability. If he didn't, he's as reckless and crazy as she is with money.
That wasn't "investing", that was gambling. Maybe a tiny percentage of the net proceeds from the sale of Graceland equity could have been placed in speculative high-risk, leveraged instruments like an entertainment venture. But $100M? If the managers failed to have her sign off on the risk factors (with full disclosures, per regulatory requirements) he will lose his ass in the litigation. It is hard to imagine that he didn't have her sign a zillion documents to safeguard against being sued in the event of a negative outcome. And it is unimaginable that she was not represented by counsel during all those transactions. You mean we are supposed to believe that she just handed some guy $100M without having an attorney even review the contracts? LOL. Ludicrous, that never happened. If she signed off on the risks/disclosures AND was represented by counsel, how does she prevail in court?
On the other hand, if the money manager did not dot all the "i"s and cross all the "t"s with risk disclosures, he is as blindly self-destructive as she is.
How utterly shocking?! Who could have ever even suspected that an entertainment venture could not succeed? LOL
REALITY CHECK: LMP could have asked 10,000 people randomly what would be a good way to manage her $100M cash windfall. 99.9% of them (even semi-literate high-school kids) would have told her to invest in in "something safe" so she "doesn't lose it".
Probably 98% of those NON-PROFESSIONALS surveyed would have suggested putting the money "in the bank" (e.g. certificates of deposit, savings account, collateralized instruments) or "in real estate" so she could collect the rental income and maybe even see appreciation in the value of the properties.
Sorry, but WHO THE F*CK puts $100M into an entertainment venture that screams "SUCKER!!!??" Why would she even be looking to gamble the $100M? For what? To hopefully double it into $200M? LOL. What difference would that make? Any sane person would know that $100M is enough money for any human being to do ANYTHING they want to do if they just put it into a safe, low-yield instrument. Why would any sane person feel the compulsion to gamble it for a much bigger number? Crazzzzzzzzzzzzy.
Again, it will come down to the disclosures and notices that the money manager DID or DID NOT make, by producing executed documents that he either DOES or DOES NOT have.
But, just for kicks, consider the theory that someone ELSE is at fault for not telling you that you are spending too much money? LOL. LMP never learned to use a calculator? She doesn't know how to pick up the phone and hire a dozen independent financial advisors within 5 minutes to tell her if her what her assets are? To inform her how much she has to spend each month and whether she is spending more than that? Five minutes on the phone and she tells any lawyer in the world to hire some accountants and have the law firm do a little checking on her behalf.
This is like renting out your mansion, handing the keys to a rap group, and later being surprised they trashed the place with parties, drugs and shootings, so the entire house was taped off as a crime scene.
That sounds like what probably happened. Otherwise, why did he liquidate that portion of her holdings in Graceland for $100M?
It'll be a very interesting litigation, very likely turning on the single point of what she DID OR DID NOT SIGN OFF on his financial management contracts and whether she was represented by counsel in those document executions.
If a person is fully and legally informed and they make bad decisions, a court might not reward them. Unless it's a California court, that is. LOL.
Just for fun, imagine that Scientology was not shielded as a "religion". LMP would be suing their ass for $100M too. And she'd win that one easily on fraudulent representations alone.
. That is on you. It's your money, you need to keep some tabs on it. No good blaming everyone else after it's all gone. Too late then. The biggest risk is your own ignorance.
