"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
news:as4Gj.28242$XI.21938@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
>
>> It doesn't matter what terms the banking industry uses it is what
>> the dictionary definition is and if it is unsecured it must not be
>> secured.
>>
>> If the bank for example defined the term 'loss' as 'annual profit', that
>> might
>> be acceptable to people like you but nobody in their right mind would
>> accept that.
>>
>> If however it defines 'unsecured' as 'secured' in it's contract then it
>> might get away with it. However it would require a legal and political
>> system rotten to the core to get away with it.
>> So I guess they can count themselves luucky in that respect.
>
> You clearly don't know what "secured" means. Since you've just mentioned
> "dictionary definition", may I suggest you go and find a dictionary and
> read up on the subject. Try .
>
> If you lend me money and I don't pay it back as agreed, then you can come
> and sue me for it, and if you obtain judgement against me and I still
> don't/can't pay, you can have me declared bankrupt and get your money
> that way. The official receiver will seize all my assets, sell them,
> and distribute the proceeds between himself (for his fees and expenses),
> yourself, any other of my creditors, and myself (if there's anything
> left).
> Of course if my debts (plus bankruptcy costs) exceed my assets then you,
> and all my other creditors, will get back less than you are owed, and I
> will get nothing (but my slate will be clean).
>
> What I have just described is an unsecured loan. It is general law
> which provides for this mechanism for recovery of debts. But:
>
> If you lend me money and I pledge an asset as security (also known as
> collateral) for the loan, and if I don't repay this secured loan as
> agreed, then you do not need to sue me or have me declared bankrupt.
> You can simply take the pledged asset, sell it yourself, and give me
> back the excess of the proceeds over what you're owed. If the asset
> isn't worth enough to clear the debt, you can *still* sue me for the
> rest by going after my other unpledged assets.
>
> Now, what a charging order of the variety we've been hearing about does,
> in connection with an unsecured loan, is to act as a less drastic
> alternative to the bankruptcy procedure. Instead of forcing repayment
> of the loan as soon as default has occurred, it offers the soft option
> of *converting* the unsecured to a secured debt, in recognition of
> the fact that I do have assets, but that their forced sale would not be
> in everybody's best interests.
>
Ah so basically all loans are secure on your assets.
|