As Judicial Watch noted in its complaint, Northern Trust has supported Barack Obama’s political campaigns for elected office since 1990. Moreover, Northern Trust Vice President John O’Connell essentially admitted the company provided Obama preferential loan terms because of his position in the U.S. Senate. (Obama was a senator at the time.) “‘A person’s occupation and salary are two factors; I would expect those are two things we would take into consideration,’ O’Connell told The Washington Post [emphasis added]. “This was a business proposition for us.”

So a Joe-the_Plumber type, because of his occupation, would have to pay a higher rate because of what he does?

Or have to wait to buy a home because he can’t afford the high rates because of favoritism?

Where are the whiners complaining about predatory lenders that force the unconnected to pay higher rates or who only qualify for subprime loans?

Good ol Urkel. Looking out for the little guy.

On February 19th, 2009 at 5:13 pm, Ulthwithian said:

Uh…yeah…what you said.

On February 19th, 2009 at 4:30 pm, WarEagle82 said:

Only a lawyer could claim a client that never paid his bills could be his “best client.”

Never? Or hadn’t paid, yet? Sometimes it makes sense to give a customer some extra leeway.

It seems as if it was being handled correctly. The partner managing the relationship should continue to advocate for the client while communicating the pressure to discontinue work.

This way, the client doesn’t feel dumped or threatened yet also feels pressure to pay.

How did it turn out? Did you ever collect? Were there future billings that were collected?

The REAL question is why any firm would need software to reveal that they hadn’t been paid over $1m in fees?

Ah well. What I can say about this is that almost all professional codes of ethics require not only lack of unethical behavior but also the lack of _appearance_ of such.

Therefore, President Obama should take more steps than the average citizen if he wishes to avoid calls of unethical treatment.

As people have shown here, knowing the average rate doesn’t help so much as the variability of that rate. It’s quite easy, if the SD is known, to construct the confidence interval for this. In fact, I can backtrack from this.

If you assume that interest rates on loans are normally distributed (which is being gracious to President Obama), then to find out whether or not there is an outlier at a 95% confidence level would be…

x-bar – x = 1.645s (one-tailed test)

0.305/1.645 = s

s = 0.185

Therefore, if the standard deviation of the distribution is less than 0.185, there is an issue, statistically speaking. (Note: This assumes that the SD can be known. SEM can be used to approximate SD.)

Now, if the data is skewed right, you could use a Beta distribution to model the distribution, but this increases the critical SD.

On February 19th, 2009 at 4:17 pm, chapoutier said:
WarEagle, there is a difference between uncharitable and cheap.

Heck – if you get a below market rate loan from a family member, much less a bank – the IRS wants you to report it as income.

This is stealing from other taxpayers, essentially. It’s why the IRS goes after people who don’t report income.

Another example of the two-tiered system in the US. There’s the very rich bankers who play for the pull for favorable rules and decisions from politicians, and the politicians who play that game on the other side.

This doesn’t pass the fairness check in any way shape or form.