|Subject:||Re: [socialcredit] the reality? -- the true assets of banks|
|Date:||Tuesday, November 23, 2004 08:30:39 (-0800)|
|From:||Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
|In reply to:||Message 310 (written by Jessop Sutton)|
What you've written below pretty much describes the practice in Canada, too,
Jessop. At least so far as I'm aware. Perhaps Martin, who has a lifetime
of experience in the practice of Law, may be able to clarify the actual
legal details for us regarding 'title' and 'repossession'.
I should mention that many years ago independent 'Finance Companies' were
quite prevalent in BC. And, although they charged interest at a higher rate
than the Banks, many individuals and small limited companies, particularly
in our logging industry, preferred to finance equipment through them.
The reason being was that the Finance Company only held the 'paper' (chattel
mortgage), on the asset being financed. Not everything the logger owned.
In the event of default, they 'repossessed' only that mortgaged asset, and
resold it for whatever it would fetch. Often by public auction, though this
wasn't always the case. Private sales would often bring a higher price than
that to be expected from an auction sale, and were done too. (Equipment
prices at auction sales are tracked quite closely ~ they virtually 'know'
what a machine will sell for within very narrow limits. Also, there is some
'price manipulation' by equipment companies bidding on good equipment to buy
it back to keep the price of their wares up.)
The borrower may have been on the hook for the difference, but the Finance
Company had no other prior legal attachment on anything else he, or his
company, might have owned. To recover the difference, they would have to
seek a Court judgement confirming their debt, and then take the appropriate
steps to enforce that judgement at law. Which can be quite a cumbersome
process, particularly if the logger didn't have any clearly identifiable
attachable assets that were free and clear of debt to somebody else. Which,
generally, he didn't.. Yet, in spite of this, these Finance Companies
thrived. And their interest, in many cases, wasn't that much higher
considering the risks taken.
To do the financing through a Bank, the borrower had to provide a list of
his assets, and the Bank often held a prior lien on all of them. There are
not very many 'independent', non-Bank owned Finance Companies here anymore.
Apparently a Bank initiated change to the Bank Act allowed them to squeeze
their competitors out, and they did.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jessop Sutton" <email@example.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] the reality? -- the true assets of banks
> I must thank Joe for coming in on this and for pointing out that there is
> probably a difference [legislative?] between the practice in
> America/Australia on the one hand and Canada on the other. That factor
> make for misunderstanding between members of this discussion group.
> In South Africa the situation is the same as in Canada -- banks do
> 'reposssess' (that's the term used) houses or cars in the event of
> Our government is committed to delivering proper housing to the
> and tries to persuade banks to make loans availailable. Banks are
> (understandably) reluctant because of the history of falling behind in
> payments and, frequently, complete failure to catch up (also undestandably
> the part of people with small resources). We then often have the case of a
> bank obtaining an eviction order and the whole local community marching in
> protest against the eviction. The bank sells the repossessed house for
> enought to cancel the debt.
> The same happens with cars.
> The term 'reposssess' implies prior possession. In effect, looking at the
> broad canvas and not worrying about the bookkeeping, the bank purchases
> house or car from the seller and re-sells it to you, even though transfer
> registration is effected into your name. You fail to keep your end of the
> bargain and --zapp!! -- you lose your house or car. Worse still, if the
> bank doesn't recover the fulll amount outstanding, you continue to be
> for the balance. And, the bank has no obligation to hold out for the full
> value of the house (which usually will have appreciated over time) and to
> make the excess over to you.
The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net