The ALP. A ship of useless fools

Originally posted by Infose: ↑

"if your house is worth $500k and you owe $100k, you do not own your house, the bank does. you are in credit $400k at the current value. the banks can use that credit as collateral on their books as a hedge against other investments. therefore, if the bank falls over they have turned you into an unsecured creditor. goodbye house."

As a property owner with a mortgage, a person gets the right of possession, control, exclusion, enjoyment and disposal. If the banks were the owners, then you and everybody else with a mortgage would be tenants.

The banks only take possession of your title, because when getting the loan, you have promised them to give the property as a collateral, a promise that they can enforce you to honor, if you default.

When you default, then the banks can, under the terms of the loan contract, demand immediate payment in full, which in the overwhelming majority of the cases triggers a force sale to be either organized by the bank or the owner himself.

Banks that fail can only pass the contracts in their loan books to others, which maybe their creditors or outside investors willing to buy them. The terms of the contracts do not change, except in what concerns the entity to whom the loan payments have to be effectuate.

To say that a debtor can be an unsecure creditor is an oxymoron.

Loans secured by mortgages are just financial instruments that can change hands multiple times during the life the loan. They originate in what is called the primary mortgage market and may end by being traded in the secondary market through a process in which the borrower has no participation.

.

.

Expand

Nice lay person justification on how secure your mortgage is. thx.
Imo secure? No.
When a bank goes into liquidation the secured creditor, (largest share holder or holders in the bank) have the option to take control of the assets or liquidate it.
Your mortgage contract is between you and that bank, not the secured creditor. It is an asset or liability.
Worst case is they liquidate and call in all loans and seize all deposits. This is up to the secured creditor, not your non exsistant bank. Minor share holders in the bank also lose out as unsecured creditors.
Why do you think the govmnt $250K guarantee came in? If motgages were safe under a contract there would have been no need.
Banks use your deposits and home equity as assets. Once an asset is digitised it is then considered a token, tokens are then combined and converted into financial instruments.
Banks borrow against or trade these digital tokens to chase higher returns.
Property prices crash 40% and those leveraged assets are now negative, a run on the bank and it goes under.
Yes there is an Australian financial regulator that would try and prevent this but the bank is now under the control of the secured creditor who would apply under our law to take control. With our banks in OZ, control would be in the US as there banks are the majority share holders. Each one of there top 4 has a 10-15% stake in our big 4.
If you look into who owns the 4 top banks in the US, you will find that they own one another.
If you think our govmnt would come to the rescue with there ties to the elite you need to do more study. They would talk the talk and end up with "in our best interest", "It will be a partnership".
Don't get me started on central bank clearing houses.
I cant see it starting with the banks going under but none of your super has a govmnt guarantee. just have to hope the trust that holds your hard earned doesn't go under. If you read the fine print on the "Cash" investment option you will find that it is not cash but just another financial instrument that can also turn negative.
SMSF with gold in your basement as the major asset would be my choice.

The Creature from Jekyll Island
A Second Look at the Federal Reserve
By: G. Edward Griffin

https://thegreattaking.com/read-online-or-download