"John Anderton" wrote in message
news:gi9gu35dsa4nmh23ccc6897feogq2sud71@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:20:49 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Well you can say nothing has changed, but it is fraudlent for the bank
>>to describe it as an unsecured loan.
>
> No it isn't. An unsecured loan is merely one that is not secured
> against a specific asset. It is *not* a loan that the customer can
> refuse to repay without having to worry about the bank being able to
> seize their (the customers) assets.
Listen that's put it politley is a heap of bullshit.
It is if it is unsecured it is unsecured.
A definition that an unsecured load is one hich is secured on the
customer assets is the hight of bullshitting fraud.
>
> From the customers point of view it's actually fairly dumb to take out
> an unsecured loan if they have assets that can be used to secure it
> since they could get a better rate by securing it and their assets are
> at risk either way,
And from a customers point of view for a bank to describe a loan
which is secured on his assets as uusecured if infact fraudulent.
It is only enforcable in a corruption ridden society.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
|