well there's the rub. it's possible (common, in fact) to pattern match to someone who actuarially resembles a bad bet but would actually be a good one. false negatives are a problem in systems like this.
k, here's one from the brick and mortar comic store. shop founded in 2005, operated under original owner until 2009. rough patch happens, three consecutive loss months, store would go under without a loan to covering operating costs until recovery...
-
-
original owner can't get loan. instead, find's a buyer, sells the whole business. new owner comes in and takes over, makes a few cosmetic changes but mostly runs the shop as is. 2 months later rough patch ends, store becomes profitable again.
-
a relatively small loan would have kept the original owner in place. the sale to new owner was at a distressed price (for obvious reasons) and original owner would have been better off with a loan if it had been available.
-
under normal circumstances he might have been able to get a loan. this all went down in 2009 when the credit market was dry and tight so for reasons having nothing much to do with the business itself he kinda got a raw deal.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.