In message , Ronald
Raygun writes
>Mike_B wrote:
>
>> In message <4%9Fj.27084$XI.333@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Ronald Raygun
>> writes
>>>Graham Murray wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Maybe someone needs to remind the banks of the old adage "you cannot
>>>> have your cake and eat it". Either the banks should charge higher
>>>> interest rates, as they do on credit cards, for unsecured loans and
>>>> accept the accompanying risks. Or they should make the loans secured and
>>>> charge lower interest rates commensurate with the lower risk. They
>>>> should not be allowed to have it both ways.
>>>
>>>They will presumably charge a lower rate once the loan becomes secured.
>>>The higher rate is still justified before this step is taken.
>>
>> I'm not sure why you presume that. They have no such obligation.
>
>I'm not sure why you think that.
>
I think they have no such obligation, because they have no such
obligation.
>Secured lending represents a lower risk than unsecured lending, and
>it is therefore the norm for secured interest rates to be lower than
>unsecured interest rates.
>
Yes...
>Where a creditor asks the court to grant an order to turn a hitherto
>unsecured debt into a secured debt, I would have thought the court
>would require the creditor to apply future interest at a rate more
>appropriate to secured lending.
Why would you think that? They generally do not.
--
Mike_B |